Playboyz Copyright Infringement

It doesn't have to degrade. People just have to develop some imagination. No need to cripple the tools. We just need better quality content from more creative people. But LL made their decision some time ago that they were going to target the lowest common denominator and invite the world in for free, advertising it as a $$$ making exercise. You gotta expect the trash that comes with that. New tools won't help. Restricting the tools won't help. Where SL is going, there will always be trash.

Of course, but you would have made it IN SL and not just simply copy and pasted it or uploaded it as a texture. You would have to actually work at it. Also if it was made in SL and pissed enough people off then your efforts would be futile anyway.

There is always the hackers that could get around it all I am sure but it would be a hell of a lot more obvious who you are and the resulting effects would be your demise.

As long as you can copy and paste anything into the game there is no reason for people to have imagination.

This is my first post...take it how you will and bite me while you are at it!! So all of this started because a NEWBIE exploring happened to stumble across a place that for fun and entertainment used Playboy as a model for their club?

When I was a newbie, I could barely walk or fly, let alone take pictures like you did for legal purposes. I didn't even know there was a Linden Hotline until someone told me to read your letter.

I don't think you are an innocent newbie trying to rid the world of big bad copyright infringers...I believe you are an ALT for a person that has a personal vendetta against Cal Alexander. Your alt may have exchanged 2 words with him....but I believe you have been a playmate yourself or had some dealings with Playboyz...and lost the title for whatever reason and now just want to cause trouble. You can hide behind your alt and your "copyright bullshit" but no one that knows Cal and has had fun at the mansion believes you for even a minute.

I guess I should contact all the fashion designers and owners of other places (thinks of about 15 sl institutions right off hand), that have the same issues as PLAYBOYZ and warn them that a "COPYRIGHT CONSCIOUS NEWBIE" IS ON THE LOSE, so contact your lawyers........... but, OH WAIT....nevermind..it's really not about that is it?? It's all about you getting revenge on Cal Alexander!

(oh by the way, I own a HOOTERS uniform...without the Z and I love to wear it) gonna report me??

If you not gonna address the other infringers..then this is just a personal issue, clear and simple. I think you need to get a THIRD LIFE!!

Are you personally accussing anyone in particular?

ROFL

IP is not my particular area of expertise, so with limited knowledge in that arena I kept coming back to one simple thought...

Second Life is a thriving online world and surely Linden Lab is represented by capable in-house and outside counsel as they wish to protect their investment... so why aren't the Lindens more concerned about infringement ingame? More notably, why isn't their counsel telling them to be more concerned?

The answer appears to be something known as: DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions.

"In the online world, the potentially infringing activities of individuals are stored and transmitted through the networks of third parties. Web site hosting services, Internet service providers, and search engines that link to materials on the Web are just some of the service providers that transmit materials created by others. Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) protects online service providers (OSPs) from liability for information posted or transmitted by subscribers if they quickly remove or disable access to material identified in a copyright holder's complaint.

In order to qualify for safe harbor protection, an OSP must:

-have no knowledge of, or financial benefit from, the infringing activity
-provide proper notification of its policies to its subscribers
-set up an agent to deal with copyright complaints"

So once again unless Playboy Inc's counsel sends a nasty letter to Linden Lab asking them to remove Playboyz material ingame, the Lindens are protected as they themselves receive no financial benefit (LL profits from the sale of the land on which Playboyz exists before the appearance of the supposed trademark infringing building,etc.), have their TOS clearly defined and have in-house counsel to deal with copyright/trademark complaints.

The recent supreme court ruling in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. (MGM ) v. Grokster Ltd. does not apply imho. Justice Souter wrote: "We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties." I really would like to see an argument for how SL's modus operandi is to promote wholesale copyright infringement... anyone? Bueller?

DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) addresses issues of copyright infringement and violations. The DMCA provides "safe harbors" for web hosts like LL, but does not apply to patent or trademark rights.

Trademark infringement and dilution are different and governed in the US by the Trademark Act, also known as the Lanham Act.

Failure to act to stop dilution of your trademark by use in connection with something that is not your product, even in fringe markets like SL, can result in the loss of trademark rights. That's even if you are not trying to "pass off" another product as that of the mark owner. Words like "aspirin" were once valuable trademarks but were lost because their owners were passive as folks started using them for generic equivalents. The effect is known as "genericide."

This whole thread may seem silly to some, but the dilutive use of trademarks is quite serious business to the owners of those marks.

There appears to be the usual mix-up of Trademark and Copyright occurring here. Last I recall LL basically won't do anything about Copyright infringement as I mentioned previously (see old Hotline posts on this as well; one especially posted by someone in the film industry got a response worth reading). Trademarks, on the other hand, are another matter.

The Playboy bunny logo is most likely protected by both Copyright and Trademark. Used without permission it violates both. LL will effectively turn a blind eye to the copyright infringement, but not the trademark infringement. Hence LL has basically requested that residents AR such infractions.

{if only I'd come here a few minutes later. see post above}

As long as you have money in game there will always be a market for unimaginative crap bought by people who are even less imaginative at making crap. Let's get rid of the Linden dollar!

Absolutely. And solely Playboy's responsibility to protect that trademark, if it is in fact trademark dilution, by seeking injunctive relief. The consequence, if successful, being a 'cease and desist' (simply removing Playboyz existence ingame). I imagine Linden Lab isn't too concerned with that tap on the wrist.

Whether it's their sole responsibility or not, LL has effectively told residents to AR trademark violations (of course, most people probably don't really know what a Trademark is, but oh well). Whether LL is or isn't "too concerned" is still a moot point. They've made their position clear; a position I believe to be based primarily on ensuring a level-playing field for SL businesses. Either way, the result is the same: trademark violations get AR'd. So rather than fight it, people should simply create content that parodies the original or is reasonably removed from it to avoid an AR.

Hardly moot given they are the OSP. Being a cynic and scum sucking soulless attorney I believe their position on abuse reporting to be primarily based on covering their own asses apparently required for Safe Harbor Protection.

Well, see. Seems to me that people have forgotten the core point to all of this. Simply to find out whether this kind of trademark usage was an infringement. I believe that the answer has been resolved as a 'Yes'.

Now, see the second part. Yes, it's totally up to a company to protect their assets. Will they in the case of violations within Second Life? Who knows, but see. That doesn't really negate the core principle on that regard.

Lemme put it to people simply, that way the mewling masses can comprehend what I'm getting at here. Picture yourself at Wal-Mart, or your favorite store of preference. They have a videogame sitting on a counter. Noone who works there is to be seen. So, since noone is there that you can see to stop you. Does that make it right, either morally or legally, to steal that game?

When people have to have such simple things enforced, instead of just doint it. Sure says alot about the moral fiber of humanity these days. But then, I still say Second Life would make a hell of a psychology essay.

So, instead of just letting this thread devolve into a petty flame war. Lets just sit back, and take it for what it is. A thread calling out what can be considered illegal or immoral behaviour. Does it matter who the group or what the product is? No. Does it matter if the original poster is a newbie or an alt? No. As far as the various other trademark violations within game. Hey, we could have a whole category here in forums to point them out. Doesn't matter to me either way.

Though I must mention, I noticed a new 'magazine' coming into SL that was thinking about taking the title of Cosmopolitan I believe it was. I could be wrong, but it was the name of a real world magazine. I spoke with the lady regarding it, and she thanked me for mentioning it, and went to work thinking up a new name. That is the great thing about laws. So many of them, that most people don't even know them all.

Ahh, Linden Labs. See what happens when Second Life gets so laggy and won't rezz well? I come to the forums and educate the chaotic masses with the Gospel of Talis. Hmm, from the looks of it I'll be in these forums alot more, inflicting a bit of a reality check here and there.

Well thought out and Extremely well said. If I had a glass, I'd raise a toast.
Here here.

In a fair world, I think that's how it would be handled... this is not a fair world, though. The lawsuit that Marvel brought against NCSoft is the only similar example I'm directly familiar with, and it is not an exact parallel (claw scrappers in City of Heroes are... well, damn it, if you have metal claws that extend with a 'snikt', then Marvel's ears are going to perk up), but I'm comfortably certain that any corporation that believes its trademarks are being infringed up on in SL is going to take the matter up with Linden Labs. For one thing, Linden Labs owns and maintains the medium in which the infringement is taking place, which would make it their responsibility to make certain that it ceases. For another, it would be far easier to take a single corporate entity to court, rather than a number (possibly a large number) of private individuals. And finally, Linden Labs (probably) would be a more lucrative target, if that were a factor for the litigant.

Corporations aren't going to care about fairness, or even who is really to blame... they're simply going to want the infringement to stop, and they really aren't going to flinch at the thought of knocking off a small video-game company to make it stop. The only way that LL is going to be able to handle it is, essentially, the way they are currently handling it, only more aggressively. Investigating reports of trademark infringement, ordering the individual(s) responsible to cease, and taking action against them if they do not. I do not believe that LL will have to eliminate all infringement... I don't think that they can, since the tools are in place for anyone to infringe at any time. Making a good-faith effort to prevent such infringement will go a long way toward allaying corporate aggression, and will provide them with a substantial defense should they have to go to court.

Right action is everyone's responsibility, even if they choose to ignore or actively violate it.

Addressing something earlier in the thread:

Falling back on the "tattletale" defense really stops being acceptable past the third grade. If you aren't willing to accept the consequences of your transgressions, then don't transgress. Otherwise, there's no reason everyone who passes by shouldn't AR you left, right, and center.

98% of SL is a copyright infringment....clothing lines , car names , artwork , games, the list is endless i know everyone of you own atleast one copyright infringment item. what it comes down to is why go through the trouble of your secondlife reporting such things its a game have fun go mingle enjoy yourself leave the police work to LL if they were really worried about this theyd be making it known.


id be more worried about all the movie theathers if you really want to freak out over things but once again have fun and leave the police work to LL


just like in elementry school no one likes a taddle tail lol

its the same problem over and over again, the fact you use a RL tradmark or brand name without autorisation is illegal, game or not

SL isn't over the law

SL movie theaters show copyrighted content. People don't AR copyright violations. They AR trademark violations.

Yes. Kind of like the MP3 music that so many DJ's play on their SL radio stations. Both the MP3's and the streaming of them. Again, just because it's not policed actively doesn't make it any more right.

How do you know they didn't buy it from itunes and stream it into SL?

A discussion regarding moral ethics within the game, while interesting, is moot to this thread. Because Second Life mimics 'real life' on many facets it is morally corrupt by nature. Sure, it is 'wrong' to stream illegally downloaded music into the game. It is 'wrong' to steal others tms and copyrights. It is 'wrong' to know yourself, as a buyer, that these goods belong under the sole ownership of x company but continue to buy them anyway because you weren't the one that created them (passive thievery).

One could delve into other areas of the game where (according to some) morality seems to be lacking. Mature items in PG areas, married humans having cartoon affairs, rampant intolerance and discrimination, cursing, 'mafias' ingame. Some of these 'real world' illegal, others more a matter of morality or lack thereof.

Whatever your personal morality set may be (and I guarantee we all have a different set), it appears that Linden Lab has little interest in policing it. They have set up their terms of service to reflect what you shouldn't do (as is required to legally protect themselves), and once stated they also note in the very same tos that it is the sl resident's responsibility to adhere to these terms. Clearly LL is not interested in protecting every one of these terms to their utmost ability or we would see Linden police scanning the land for possible trademark infringements amongst other glaring abuses to the tos.

If you wish to report abuses that you happen upon, by all means do so and hope that Linden takes note. But as I stated before, whether or not they take note, whether or not it is their moral obligation to do so (according to you), Linden Lab doesn't have to do a damn thing until they are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to, which in the case of trademark infringement or dilution is when the owner of said trademark (ie. Playboy) decides to protect that trademark by contacting LL themselves.

I am not opposed to making SL a more utopian, legally and morally sound environment, what I am opposed to is willful ignorance regarding LL and participant responsibilities in trademark infractions. You can choose to spend your game time flying around and abuse reporting left, right and center as much as you like but until the Lindens need to take notice and action under the law, your time would probably be better served notifying companies like Anheuser-Busch that Budweiser(tm) is being served in nearly every bar across the Second Life grid.

It wouldn't matter. Buying it on iTunes means they have a legal right to have that mp3 for personal use. But that doesn't necessarily mean they have the right to stream it.

*applauds Talis* Nice post.

The owner of the Playboyz seemed to take issue that he was being "singled out" by the person doing the original post. That doesn't negate the existing issue.

"Well, they won't care". "Playboy makes enough as it is". Etc. THose are false logic arguments. LL are Da Bosses, and if Da Bosses say to AR a copyright infringment and have it in the TOS that copyright infrignment is wrong (Which makes sense because some companies are very sue happy- Disney etc., and a lawsuit could really hurt LL) then its against the TOS. You can be on your high moral horse all you want, but if Da Bosses say its wrong, then its wrong. ANd I agree, too. Are we so intellectually and creatively bankrupt that new ideas aren't possible?

As the owner of outland tech once put it, "Well, thats a cool gun, and I know I could make it, but its someone else's work, and I don't want to copy". And I think we can all agree that the most successful builds and such are based on someone's personal creativity and imagination.

How hard would it be to make new outfits for your girls, pick a new logo, and rename the place? If that would shoot your business in the head, then you dn't have a sustainable business anyways. *shrugs*

But the bottom line is this: Is Copyright infringment against the rules? Yes.
Did Playboyz infringe on a copyright? Yes.
See? Its simple.

And we need to build a Church of Obvious Truths in world, and make notecards with all the truths that SL desperately needs to have as common knowledge.