Copybot theft - followup

Ok I had a look at that link which you say explains 'fair use' copying.

"Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission."

I'd say this:

1) If someone is selling a product, then its theft is of a commercial nature, as the originator is being deprived of profit and sales.

2) The nature is irrelevant.

3) The amount and substantiality of the copy is an exact, total copy.

4) The effect of use on the potential market effectively destroys the market for that item.

There is also no acknowledgement of the source of the item because the name of the creator, and permissions, are removed. Therefore permission is not given.

(Edit having seen another response) There's a big difference between photocopying a page from a library book as part of a research project, and photocopying all 300 pages, making a new coverpage with your name on as the author, and selling that as your own work.

Before the blog went down, there were over 1400 comments in the 2 threads about this issue, mostly totally disagreeing with Linden Lab's stance on this issue, which is clearly wrong.

If you have an unlicensed weapon in your house, then whether you intend to use it or not does not matter - it is still against the law.

The only thing Linden Lab can do at this stage to even begin to restore any credibility to be taken seriously as far as protecting our content goes is to immediately terminate all support for LibSecondlife. The damage is already done unless you take steps to prevent copybot from working - so it's more of a limitation.

I must also state that, although at this stage I am not aware of anyone stealing my creations in the time between me being made aware of the problem and clearing out the content of my store, that does not mean I cannot be concerned about the potential implications of this issue.

What great crime have you committed anyway to get stuck with Linden Answers anyway?

Lewis

What people seem to miss is that examples like the one you give, of copying and reselling a library book ARE illegitimate and not considered "fair use". We agree completely. As per Cory's blog, people engaged in Unauthorized sopying of content can be removed from SL along with all their ill-gotten copies. We seem to be arguing the same point in that respect.

Many of us here ARE residents and content creators. We're not particularly thrilled by the idea of our work being made into freebies either. It's a tough situation and knowledge is power, which is why I keep posting links to the gov't page on copyrights.

"What great crime have you committed anyway to get stuck with Linden Answers anyway?"
I must've stolen a hell of a lot of IP in a previous life T_T