Second Life Forums Archive - Question of semantics

Jarod Godel

Utilitarian

Join date: 6 Nov 2003

Posts: 729

07-20-2005 11:08

From: 5.3 Participant Content.

NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT BY SUBMITTING YOUR CONTENT TO ANY AREA OF THE SERVICE, YOU AUTOMATICALLY GRANT (AND YOU REPRESENT AND WARRANT THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO GRANT) TO LINDEN: (A) THE ROYALTY-FREE, FULLY PAID-UP, PERPETUAL, IRREVOCABLE, NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT AND LICENSE TO USE AND REPRODUCE (AND TO AUTHORIZE THIRD PARTIES TO USE AND REPRODUCE) ANY OF YOUR CONTENT IN ANY OR ALL MEDIA FOR MARKETING AND/OR PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES IN CONNECTION WITH THE SERVICE;

I'm asking this... If Linden Lab has access and rights to "use and reproduce" as well as "authorize third parties to use and reproduce" content, and if this guy was logged in and recognized by the server as a Linden (or Linden Liason), then does he have the right to use and distribute the code he "stole" Monday? My gut instinct is to say no, but the question comes down to semantics.

Through a bug, he was authorized as and granted the priveledges of a Linden. Because of both this bug and his active account, Linden Lab allowed him to access and reprouce these scripts. Since he still has an alt account, according to Cristiano, it's apparent that Linden Lab does not see fit to fully terminate his services, and thus partially condone his actions.

So, does he have a case?

_____________________

"All designers in SL need to be aware of the fact that there are now quite simple methods of complete texture theft in SL that are impossible to stop..." - Cristiano Midnight

Ad aspera per intelligentem prohibitus.

Zero Grace

Homunculus

Join date: 13 Apr 2004

Posts: 237

07-20-2005 11:22

There isn't much cause for concern here, methinks. Note that use of the material is limited to

From: someone

MARKETING AND/OR PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES

I suppose this can be interpreted as *any* marketing or promotional purposes, but I believe in the context of the agreement it refers to marketing and promoting SL.

_____________________

Zero Grace, agent of Tony Walsh
Read Tony's Second Life weblog entries at Clickable Culture

CrystalShard Foo

1+1=10

Join date: 6 Feb 2004

Posts: 682

07-20-2005 11:41

Sorry Jarod, that does not compute.

The guy was recognised as a Linden - by reverse engineering and modifying the client without explict permission from LindenLab. This fact alone taints just about anything that derive from these actions as a serious violation.

Vestalia Hadlee

Second Life Resident

Join date: 19 Oct 2004

Posts: 296

07-20-2005 12:57

From: Jarod Godel

Through a bug, he was authorized as and granted the priveledges of a Linden. Because of both this bug and his active account, Linden Lab allowed him to access and reprouce these scripts.

So, does he have a case?

I've only barely followed the story of the exploit, but based on what you present here, I would say no by restating your concluding paragraph:

"Through a bug which by-passed Linden management's criteria for authorizing and being granted the privileges of a Linden, a computer belonging to Linden Lab allowed him to access and reproduce these scripts without authorization of Linden's management."

The grant in the TOS is given to "Linden" -- i.e. Linden Research Inc. from paragraph 1.1. The TOS agreement is with a corporation managed by people in responsible authority who offer us the service.

If anyone were to argue that proved hacking of content from an LL computer is authorization under TOS, they'd in effect be claiming that a computer has decision-making management authority -- enough to override what the LL board/management defines as a Linden authorized to speak for the company -- and was "convinced", so to speak, to allow entry by a hacker.

Might make a nice sequel to Tron, but I can't believe Phil is a "yes man" to a server with delusions of grandeur.

_____________________

"Antipathy...against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. ."-- George Washington, Farewell Address 1793

Cindy Claveau

Gignowanasanafonicon

Join date: 16 May 2005

Posts: 2,008

07-20-2005 12:59

From: CrystalShard Foo

Sorry Jarod, that does not compute.

The guy was recognised as a Linden - by reverse engineering and modifying the client without explict permission from LindenLab. This fact alone taints just about anything that derive from these actions as a serious violation.

In other words, the culprit lied.

_____________________

Merwan Marker

Booring...

Join date: 28 Jan 2004

Posts: 4,706

07-20-2005 13:15

No he/she does not.

Rights are not transferable when stolen or gained via. fraud.

_/_/

_____________________

Don't Worry, Be Happy - Meher Baba

Question of semantics
Jarod Godel Utilitarian Join date: 6 Nov 2003 Posts: 729	07-20-2005 11:08 From: 5.3 Participant Content. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT BY SUBMITTING YOUR CONTENT TO ANY AREA OF THE SERVICE, YOU AUTOMATICALLY GRANT (AND YOU REPRESENT AND WARRANT THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO GRANT) TO LINDEN: (A) THE ROYALTY-FREE, FULLY PAID-UP, PERPETUAL, IRREVOCABLE, NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT AND LICENSE TO USE AND REPRODUCE (AND TO AUTHORIZE THIRD PARTIES TO USE AND REPRODUCE) ANY OF YOUR CONTENT IN ANY OR ALL MEDIA FOR MARKETING AND/OR PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES IN CONNECTION WITH THE SERVICE; I'm asking this... If Linden Lab has access and rights to "use and reproduce" as well as "authorize third parties to use and reproduce" content, and if this guy was logged in and recognized by the server as a Linden (or Linden Liason), then does he have the right to use and distribute the code he "stole" Monday? My gut instinct is to say no, but the question comes down to semantics. Through a bug, he was authorized as and granted the priveledges of a Linden. Because of both this bug and his active account, Linden Lab allowed him to access and reprouce these scripts. Since he still has an alt account, according to Cristiano, it's apparent that Linden Lab does not see fit to fully terminate his services, and thus partially condone his actions. So, does he have a case? _____________________ "All designers in SL need to be aware of the fact that there are now quite simple methods of complete texture theft in SL that are impossible to stop..." - Cristiano Midnight Ad aspera per intelligentem prohibitus.
Zero Grace Homunculus Join date: 13 Apr 2004 Posts: 237	07-20-2005 11:22 There isn't much cause for concern here, methinks. Note that use of the material is limited to From: someone MARKETING AND/OR PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES I suppose this can be interpreted as any marketing or promotional purposes, but I believe in the context of the agreement it refers to marketing and promoting SL. _____________________ Zero Grace, agent of Tony Walsh Read Tony's Second Life weblog entries at Clickable Culture
CrystalShard Foo 1+1=10 Join date: 6 Feb 2004 Posts: 682	07-20-2005 11:41 Sorry Jarod, that does not compute. The guy was recognised as a Linden - by reverse engineering and modifying the client without explict permission from LindenLab. This fact alone taints just about anything that derive from these actions as a serious violation.
Vestalia Hadlee Second Life Resident Join date: 19 Oct 2004 Posts: 296	07-20-2005 12:57 From: Jarod Godel Through a bug, he was authorized as and granted the priveledges of a Linden. Because of both this bug and his active account, Linden Lab allowed him to access and reprouce these scripts. So, does he have a case? I've only barely followed the story of the exploit, but based on what you present here, I would say no by restating your concluding paragraph: "Through a bug which by-passed Linden management's criteria for authorizing and being granted the privileges of a Linden, a computer belonging to Linden Lab allowed him to access and reproduce these scripts without authorization of Linden's management." The grant in the TOS is given to "Linden" -- i.e. Linden Research Inc. from paragraph 1.1. The TOS agreement is with a corporation managed by people in responsible authority who offer us the service. If anyone were to argue that proved hacking of content from an LL computer is authorization under TOS, they'd in effect be claiming that a computer has decision-making management authority -- enough to override what the LL board/management defines as a Linden authorized to speak for the company -- and was "convinced", so to speak, to allow entry by a hacker. Might make a nice sequel to Tron, but I can't believe Phil is a "yes man" to a server with delusions of grandeur. _____________________ "Antipathy...against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. ."-- George Washington, Farewell Address 1793
Cindy Claveau Gignowanasanafonicon Join date: 16 May 2005 Posts: 2,008	07-20-2005 12:59 From: CrystalShard Foo Sorry Jarod, that does not compute. The guy was recognised as a Linden - by reverse engineering and modifying the client without explict permission from LindenLab. This fact alone taints just about anything that derive from these actions as a serious violation. In other words, the culprit lied. _____________________
Merwan Marker Booring... Join date: 28 Jan 2004 Posts: 4,706	07-20-2005 13:15 No he/she does not. Rights are not transferable when stolen or gained via. fraud. _/_/ _____________________ Don't Worry, Be Happy - Meher Baba

Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

Question of semantics