Copy Content OK unless you specify no ?

Anyone else get a notecard from Stanford University concerning "preserving Virtual Worlds"? Says they are gonna copy and use our content unless we register with them and specifically say no. Text is below:

"You are receiving this note card because you created one or more objects that are on an island being preserved in an archive. This is being done by the Preserving Virtual Worlds research project through a Library of Congress grant by University of Illinois Graduate School of Library and Information Sciences (GSLIS) and Stanford University Library & Academic Information Resources in association with University of Maryland Institute for Technology and the Humanities (MITH) and Rochester Institute of Technology.

This is a second notice, so if you have received this notecard before and registered, we thank you for your time and you need not do so again. If some of you had problems creating an account before, we have streamlined the procedure a bit and it should be easier now.

We are seeking your permission to preserve these objects by downloading the structural data as well as the textures associated with the object. In principle this would allow us to recreate the object in Second Life, and soon on other platforms as well. You retain your full intellectual property rights and we will make no commercial use of your object(s).

Please follow the landmark below to learn more about the project, see a list of the object(s) to be included in the archive and review the agreement for the preservation of your object(s). When the dialog box appears, click [New Account] to be directed to the form where you may either grant or deny permission to archive some or all of your objects. The list of the objects we are interested in should appear on the right side of the registration page.

If you do not wish any of your objects to be archived, just choose that radio button option, and we will not contact you further and your objects will not be archived. If you agree, choose the appropriate radio button and provide the requested information.

NOTE: If you do not wish to have your objects archived you must register for an account and explicitly say no.

The system is still in development, so please feel free and inform us of any problems you have or make any suggestions! We thank all of you very much for your time and effort.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact (REMOVED)in world or visit our website at http://pvw.illinois.edu/pvw/ or http://olendorf.org/slibrarian/.

􀀀"

Sounds kinda backwards, No? Anyone else get this?

They seem confused - you don't give up copyright by not taking action.

No, they cannot legally alter copyrights unilaterally.

Just like I cannot legally come to own your car by sending you a letter saying, "I'm taking your car unless you say I can't," and then come and take your car when you don't respond.

To gain proper permission, they would need to obtain an affirmative response, not the absence of a denial.

I guess you might also be able to say "no" by spelling it "DCMA".

I don't think they're saying you'll lose copyright. They're saying that unless you object, they will archive your work and display it somewhere else. You're basically giving them rights to distribution, though they say they won't sell it.

It's like those brochures that come in your bank statement saying that unless you opt out, they're going to sell your name to anyone who can pay for it.

Still not legal. They can't reproduce it without permission from the copyright owner. The owner does NOT need to say "no".

Send them a bill.

They *MIGHT* have a legal right to do it.

In my Country they archive as much of the New Zealand web space as they can on a yearly(?) basis. They have a mandate from the Government and it's done via the National Library (I think?)

Not sure if any other Country has something like this.

Yes that is just what is going on. In the US, there is a similar mandatory deposit thing for the Library of Congress. Generally they let the process work voluntarily but they reserve the right to demand copies of many media types. There are some exemptions for online materials, but those are riddled with exceptions and they change over time (there was a change just this week, even). But yes, this digital worlds thing is a real government program.

The letter the OP received came from a private university, not a government agency.

The program is funded and authorized by the Library of Congress.

Then they should have plenty of money, I'd send them a really big bill.

The letter mentions funding, not authorization to violate copyright law or the SL TOS.

I'd tell them no and a DMCA level of no at that.

what they are doing is covered under law regarding historical archiving, although being able to use it is a bit of a grey area. presumably that would be covered under ownership of the items in question, (although they might run into trouble with LL's ToS regarding the export).

archiving doesn't violate copyright, it's treated the same as if an individual who owned the works were to put it into storage.

Send a copy of the notecard to Prokofy Neva. Prok knows how to properly rip this to shreds in the public eye.

Write a letter to your elected representatives demanding that Stanford and all it's people and alumni be immediately placed on the no-fly watch list and put under 24*7 surveillance as communist agents of China. They all need to be investigated and be taught that in the USA the Congress makes law and the President signs it into law. Not tech companies make law because they think they know better because they love Mao who murdered more innocent people than Adolf Hitler. Sorry but that is really what is going on here. Another Stanford Maoist attempt to create collectivism law by defacto precedent.

LL is one of the project members, so I don't think ARs will work this time. =)

Being able to use it on SL plus other multiple platforms is not a grey area. I have no problem with saving for an individual user. However, If Stanford university stores it for archival purposes, who will be able to access it...All SU students? All of America? the World?

Geez, I don't want to get Prok going on this ! My stuff isn't so important that we need to call out the Army to protect it...the request just seemed backwards and odd to me. I wondered if it was for real or not. Anyone else get this notecard? Ann...better cut back a bit on the caffine....just a little? hahaha (oops, sorry....)

I'm pretty sure archiving material you don't own any rights to sure as hell violates copyright. Besides, they aren't only archiving it, they state they intend to recreate it in other virtual worlds.

If they want such a license to people's works, they can pay for it! It's nothing more than copybotting.

Under the normal copyright stuff, libraries are allowed to make a limited number of copies (usually 1-3) on the condition that they provide public access. This particular project is a little different because it also picks up some of the research exemptions, its main purpose is to figure out ways to address the dead media problem that so often frustrates access to expired works.

Seems pretty similar to the Internet Archive Wayback Machine http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://twitter.com
which is pretty successful

It's fine if they archive it.

The issue is providing access to it: recreating these archived assets. Under what conditions is this allowed? I suspect that Fair Use would apply (and that's far more limited than most people think).

I think that falls in the category of "National Emergency". Only one person out there can help and resue the world. Super-Prok!

If they have paid for it.

If it were me the thing I'd care about is reconstitution of my work with someone else listed as the creator. If there's a way to guarantee the creator stays the creator I'd not be worried (but I don't think that's the case).