Selling mod/copy/trans content without license agreement

I have bought some content with the permissions of copy/transfer (it was specifically advertise as "full permissions" and by order of magnitute more expensive than non-copy version). To be sure I then contacted the creator when he come online and told him I have purchase content with these permissions with intend to resell at low price, so that more people can afford the items. It turn out, that he indeed put up these object to allow people resell them, but had certain expectation on how they should do it, that he did not make clear anywhere. His expectation was that people would resell it as part of some furniture. I then tell him I am fine to just undo my purchase if he thinks that is better. He himself suggested I sell normal copies in my shop, but at same price he ask in his shop. So that is what we then settle for.

Everybody would have saved much time, if there would have been clear license terms provided with the content.

But it indeed has no bearing on the argument that I was nice and got back to the seller after the purchase and did not do what would have been totally within my rights, both legally and ethically.

The rest of your post I don't think I need answer. Showing mutual respect, even if not understanding somebody's argument or philosophy, is good display of maturity. And as I hope you realize now, your emotion has even been base on the misinformation.

You know what? I came to SL because my previous online experience came to an end when UruLive went under. What I enjoyed from that experience was the community - the fact that I had the chance to meet people from all different walks of life, different countries, and have contact with them, and the great friendships I made.

I was looking for that sort of community when I came to SecondLife, and I was astonished by how generous and kind, creative and interesting the people here were. I was looking originally for a replacement for Uru, and what I found here was even more exciting - an outlet for my interest in creating things, and a much more diverse group of people and the potential for a much more interesting experience.

I was hoping that we could build something here which is BETTER than real life, less about money and more about how we can help each other, learn from each other, and yes, maybe earn SOME money along the way.

I don't want to have recourse to the Berne Convention in SL. I would prefer not to drag laws about copyright etc into it. I would like us all to respect the rights of creators to decide what to do with their creations, and I would like us to work as a community to protect each other, and each other's work.

But if someone takes us down to the wire on this sort of item...the law of the land where SL is hosted, along with SL's own rules about copyright, makes it possible to call upon legal notions of ownership and copyright, even in a virtual world.

We all know that it isn't going to be worth someone's while to spend real dollars in pursuing someone. Does that make it right? No. The only power in SL which can change those sorts of things is the power of our community, and looking out for each other.

I think that's something worth doing, which is how I came to be involved in the pose balls argument. I do buy my poses and animations, and I do sell furniture which includes them, and so to that extent you could say that I have a vested interest. But that isn't why I went after this subject and will continue to protest if I see people selling freebies, or making other people's sold works free or cheap.

It's because I believe that we all have our own chance to be the best person we can, or the worst person, RL*and* SL, and our choices will affect what sort of a world we live in.

I can't force other people to agree with me, and I wouldn't want to. But when anyone makes a choice to rip someone else off, they should be very clear that they are contributing to how the world will be in the future. And every person ripped off makes it a worse place to be.

When someone of the power and influence of Anshe cannot see that it is wrong to simply copy someone else's hard work, and sell it cheap, thus destroying the market for the item and making something that I and many other creators have paid the full price for, it is worth standing up for what you think to be right, and trying to make her understand what it is.

I don't think we're there yet.
Cali

Fact: Linden Labs and it's servers are based in the USA and as such fall under US law.

Lol...ethically? ETHICALLY?

You cannot be serious! How would it have been ethical to take the items you had bought, which HE had made, and sell them for 10 mod/copy/trans? The other creators who buy their balls, make very sure that they do not sell their furniture both copyable and transferable to avoid accidentally setting the balls free and ruining the business for the animators.

It was possible. Not ethical. Could anyone, however dim, think that a seller would want this to happen to their items?

I can't help thinking that the fact that you IMd the seller and told him what you planned to do was an indication that you didn't think that it was the right thing to do. Otherwise why IM him?

What I can't understand is why you would then decide to go public to defend what you had decided by then not to do...seems a bit bizarre to me.
Cali

True. I would be interested to hear one lawyer comment on this. My assumption is, that through using the permission system and sales transaction in SL, the seller and buyer enter into some kinda legal contract. This mean if you click "copy", "transfer" and "for sale" I assume I actually obtain the right to copy, transfer and own, without any restrictions, unless those are define in some additional license agreement.

I'm sorry but both legally and ethically you would not have been totally in your rights due to the basic notion of copyright. This is the point that you appear to be missing.

An arrangement you may have now made with an individual content creator really has no bearing on the asertions you continue to make on this thread, as you seem to be washing your hands of the need to do this in future and do it without the creator's knowledge, with impunity. It looks to me like you've been caught out in this instance and are now trying to sway public opinion that you do not have to do this in future.

You may have an amazing amount of power in Second Life but I think many would agree you are not the bastion of ethics or law within our virtual world that you wish to paint yourself as. Neither do I believe you are the extreme opposite of that. The truth is likely more shady, gray and in-between from what I have seen.



With regards to this comment, I'm afraid that I am of the belief that you simply do not wish to comment on it because it highlights your hypocircy. It's all too easy to invalidate an argument by intimating that somebody is not mature, or overly emotional, rather than addressing it directly. Unfortunately you're pretending to take a moral, mature high-ground when, in fact, the quote I highlighted and your beliefs on this thread create a paradox of opinion, that seems to shift depending on whether you are losing or you are gaining. Consistent it is certainly not. Avoiding responding to it directly, you're are, because squaring that particular circle is difficult.

Anshe, I think you need to realize that not everyone in the world does things solely for profit.

I sell 99% of my goods as mod/copy/no-transfer. (Inluding modable scripts).

If someone was to clone one of them to make their own exact duplicate would that break the rules? Sure, but i'd probably be unhappy for all of 5 seconds and build something else to sell, it's simply not the important side of SL for me. My desire is to make people happy, if I get enough small profits to have SL pay for itself all the better. My prices are also so low that it would be hard to take the time to duplicate something and resell it cheaper than I am.

Let's face it, you offer nothing for free, and I posted that i'd help people with scripts for no reimbursement. Those 2 viewpoints are simply incompatible.

Stop thinking only yours is correct.

I suspected he might have made mistake and thus have decide it would be good to run my plans with him, to avoid him be unhappy.



This is not bizarre at all. I have decide to help somebody out and give up my rights to do something when I found out it would make him unhappy. This, however, doesn't change the legal/moral situation and the need for content creator to include license agreement in such case. You can not always speculate on somebody nice coming back to you and give you second chance.

I hope you realize that this also apply to some successful business people.



It would clearly break rules and be illegal. Why? Because you only gave the buyer the permission to modify/copy, but not to transfer the object. If somebody make duplicate for own use it would thus be fine, but makeing duplicates and give them away or sell would clearly be against the implicit contract that happen between you and the buyer during the purchase.



More than 350000sqm of free to use sandboxes, clubs, community areas and parks that I operate at regular loss probably count as little as various freebie content that I have give away. I know, prejudice and what you *want* to believe can be one evil beast

Most copyright laws don't aplply to 3 dimensional pixel images used for everyeday pixel use.

Within the US or not.


And remember, if SL cracks down on copyrights, whos the first to fall? One of their own close buddies- courtesy his movie avatars.

Oh Anshe come on, please give people some credit for having brain cells they can rub together. You offer those things to entice people to you and your services. They're called loss-leaders. You're off-setting those costs with your profits from elsewhere and the only reason you do it is to attact more business to you.

Please don't try to pretend you do it solely for altruistic ends. If you didn't see that it had a knock on effect for your bottom line, you certainly wouldn't be doing it.

There's nothing wrong with that at all, and is sound business sense, but please don't pretend it's anything other than it is to support some kind of hard-done by sob story about how you're just misunderstood.

I think this is a very good post.

I do not consider this topic to be black and white. The permissions system acts as an indicator of intent, but it is so oversimplified that this leads to a lot of misunderstandings and problems. I think there is probably an overall cultural mindset within SL that if an object is marked transfer, it is ok to sell it in a yard sale. There are creators, however, who do not feel that way, even if they have marked something transfer. My practical advice to them is to never turn on transfer.

I don't agree with anshe's argument that you de-facto lose all rights the minute you make something full perms. I ** DO ** agree with the point that creators should make their desires and intentions clear with a sign or notecard.

Nyterave does this well -- to buy their full-perm poses, you have to agree that you can only resell the poses if they are built into something else. Texture sellers should do the same.

it takes a little more time, but it's in creators' interests to remove the gray area as much as possible here.

Looks like I came in a little late.

Anyway, if people put Mod/Copy/Transfer on Pose/Anim balls, I take it to mean its for addition to your own product. I would NEVER sell ANYTHING that anyone other than myself made by itself, without their EXPRESS permission.

As far as I'm concerned it comes under the selling freebies thing. Its not yours, you didn't make it, don't sell it.

Just because our permissions system doesn't accomedate for such situations doesn't mean we should take advantage of it.

While a liscence agreement has been mentioned, I should think a huge volume of people won't read them and the people who know what they're doing won't care. Dispite the fact it should be the other way round, they should have to ask before selling, we shouldn't have to tell them. Its not the done thing, in my view.

Its too bad we can't trust each other not to sell each others creations without permission.

It would only break the rules if I chose to enforce those rules. Chances are I would not enforce them.

It would depend far more on the attitude of the person involved than any monetary gain or damage. But then i'm an idealist and socialist, and if someone can take what I make and benefit the whole of SL in a way I could not i'll give that person a smile and a pat on the back for a job well done.

”Nyterave does this well -- to buy their full-perm poses, you have to agree that you can only resell the poses if they are built into something else. Texture sellers should do the same.” - Forseti

Yepp I saw that early and liked it!


”I don't agree with anshe's argument that you de-facto lose all rights the minute you make something full perms. I ** DO ** agree with the point that creators should make their desires and intentions clear with a sign or notecard.” - Forseti (again)

I agree on your text in this Forseti.. ”blame yourself” are stupid to fall back on... and I wonder what happened before the start of this thread???????


****

BUT we all are from different backgrounds and diff society.. there are countries in the world that dont care about any copyright laws.. in any case from music to designs to.. or human rights.. there are people that dont care at all about other people.. sad... sad..

/Tina

I knew this would come: Content baron give something away for free, it is all for better of the world and totally selfless and highly moral shining example. Land baron give something away for free, of course it is only for selfish publicity/advertisement purpose and does not count. It simply *must* be that way, because, by definition, any business person more successful than you and your friends must be greedy.

But the most funny thing is: I have never pretended when I give something away it is purely altruist. You make this assumption in your head. I simply responded to the wrong claim by somebody on the thread that I would not be giving away anything for free.

This is all so silly. What is next? Claim that Mother Teresa was one selfish person who "used the poor" to become famous and qualify for Heaven?

The is arguments on both sides, for example regardless of the Linden file system we all know it is quite possible to reverse engineer something. I did just that with a Pre Fab House (I build houses) just to see if I really could build. However I would not currently sell my more or less exact copy or knowingly give it away as the orginal is on sale for $L7,000.

I also know that without full permission textures I would be out of business and might leave Second Life. Therefore it is in our collective interest to accept the law of copywrite.

Having said all that though, this can be misused, after all what is the point in selling a Pre Fab house on the basis of no modify/no copy/no transfer. That is unfair and seems to me that the Vendor is attempting to max profits at the expense of a steady stream of new customers.

I find it interesting that you should quote my message yet, conveniently because it takes away from your rant above, leave out my last paragraph where I stated that there's nothing wrong with that and makes perfect business sense.

And, you're putting words in my mouth - I never made the distinction between "land barons" and "content barons" giving away things because, apart from on a few ocassions, the majority of free stuff is given away in an attractor, or loss-leader.

I guess I'm just going to have to play a sad, sad song on the world's smallest violin for you because, if you were to be believed, the world's against you and you're just fighting the inequities of existance one step at a time.

I never said it didn't count, I said you present it in a way that isn't exactly true.

I do not care how much money you make in Second Life, it is of no concern to me and I really don't go in for jealousy. What I don't like is people trying to persuade others that an action is ethical and legal just to suit their own ends, when at the very least the action is unethical and, more than likely, illegal. The community ethos according to Anshe is not one I subscribe to.

Yeah they would. I don't know if it's ever been tested, but if Mickey Mouse can be copyrighted, avatars can.

Dont forget Marvel... the have ”nice” layers.. with long and powerful arms.. wonder why newer have seen a Marvel character look alike ava in SL..

(I think I saw a store long time ago - a small hidden one... but it must been a very secret one.. very secret..)

/Tina

I sell several items full-rights. But I include a license, albeit a very open one.

No, but at least you'll get the honest people working with you, instead of unwittingly against you.

Just wondering Anshe, why go through so much trouble defending your actions... Have you done something wrong? Do you have a conscience bothering you? Is bad publicity hurting your bottom line?

There is an enormous amount of content on the net that is fully redistributable. Enough that it's not at all unreasonable for someone to assume that something sold with full rights and no license restrictions is equally fully redistributable. Legally, of course, there's no implied license, but there's just too much stuff out there that people have put out for distribution with no license and, when asked, say "yeh, it's public domain"... that without a license people are very likely to see your stuff that way.

Second Life isn't a little island isolated from the Internet. The only way to make people aware of the terms you're selling your stuff under is to put those terms down in black and white in an explicit license on the product itself.

I'm NOT saying that reselling Craig's anim balls was OK. I'm saying that there's too many people who honestly don't KNOW that it's not OK, so it's just foolish to sell a product without a license. It may not help selling it WITH one, as X-Flight proves, but it's just asking for trouble to leave it out.