Copy Content OK unless you specify no ?

So LL is supporting Stanford in violating the Second Life Terms of Service? How ironic.

Oh, that would be fun to watch. Meanwhile it is less of the normal rants on his blog.

Opt-out is the norm these days. Google decided to make alterations to other people's web pages without asking the owners' permissions. The owner of the pages don't get a say in the matter - they can't opt out. The user gets a say - the default is on but they can turn it off (Google toolbar), although they are very unlikely to even know that it's happening, so they are unlikely to turn it off.

I wonder which university the Google founders went to

Thanks, everyone, I appreciate your help. I get it now...... Copybotting is a bad thing, but if the government wants to copy and redistribute your works without permission or compensation , that's a good thing.

1. Copy that note card and send it to all the big clothing creators in SL
2. Wait 2 months and then copy bot everyone that didn't respond
3. .....
4. Profit!

I don't think the government is "redistributing" it.

Like I said, it all depends on the circumstances under which they would provide access to it.

The creator can be archived, so it can be restored. There's no technical hurdle here, just a bit of code.

... but don't forget ...
5. Get DCMA takedown, banned, $L confiscated, and possible lawsuits.

So, do you have issues with the US law that requires published copyrighted material to file a copy of record filed at the Library of Congress, and to *pay* to do so (a small fee), rather than being paid by the LoC?

Bottom line: this is either legal or it's not, but I bet they've had serious legal counsel on the matter. While it may eventually be successfully challenged in court, I'm confident that it's not an open-and-shut case that it's illegal.

So, what would your problem be? That someone has a copy of your property? Or that someone might use it?

We can boldly claim our rights, but our rights are defined by law. Intellectual property is a legal fiction: it exists solely because laws provide for it. I feel that many creators think they have far more rights than they actually do concerning their creations. If they keep them private, they'd be right. But as soon as they publish them, it's a matter of law. "Fair use" applies, as do other caveats. Intellectual property rights are not unlimited and all-inclusive, and they're not what many creators wish they were.

I suspect that the legal issues here are recondite, and we'd be about as likely to come to the truth of the matter as (to recall Kurt Vonnegut's metaphor) two yeast cells having a philosophical discussion and figuring out that the purpose of their lives is to create wine.

I would refuse purely on the principle that I find negative option deals disgusting. It should be opt IN not opt OUT.

I believe what they're doing falls under fair use as well. The Library of Congress, for example, is fairly allowed to keep a copy of any book you write on the shelves where visitors are free to find it and read it for free.

I honestly can't see why anyone would object to this after some checking up confirms this project is legit. They're spotlighting something you made and attaching your name to it permanently for posterity. How can this possibly be a bad thing?

ETA: Also, I think the SL TOS allows LL to use anything you make for projects like this (and other uses, like infomercials or whatnot). If that's the case, I think these people are doing exactly the right thing. "LL says we can use this - but if for whatever reason you don't want us to, just tell us and we won't".

I don't think Stanford is violating the ToS. There is something in there that seems (to me) to give LL rights to the stuff you make in SL. It's *supposed* to be there to cover their butts, because *your* stuff is on *their* servers, and they don't want some closet lawyer sending them a bill, instead of the other way around. But it could be interpreted to mean that they can, if they choose, give your stuff to someone else.

But copyright trumps ToS. You own your creations. If I get a note like that from Stanford, you can bet I'll be telling them so. And since LL is on the team, I'll be telling them, too.

Cody, I'd agree with you, except for one thing. Digital media is so easily cloned. I'd be pleased and honored if someone liked my work well enough to want to preserve it. But how can we be sure it won't be re-created? Let out into the public domain? Stolen by someone by "viewing" the archive copy? The statement by Stanford that the content may be ported to other virtual worlds worries me a LOT.

http://section108.gov/ is where this all started.
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/ outlines the overall preservation program.
http://pvw.illinois.edu/pvw/ details the specific program going on in SL. It's not about stealing your stuff, it's about assuring access to it after you are dead and your limited rights expire.

That's a completely different issue.

This is a project by a group of universities. AFAIK publishers are not required to pay them to take their copyrighted material.

If they want the content, they can either ask creators to donate it to the project, or pay for it.

With third-party independent proof (like this project) that you are the original creator, I'd think you would have a slam-dunk court case, and might stand to make quite a bit of money if someone rips something off and sells it in another VW.

Imagine being able to -license your creation- to an honest seller in another VW, who saw your thing in a show or whatever, and wants to pay you for the right to sell copies.

Copyright is defined by law. If this usage is permitted by law, then whether copyright trumps ToS is irrelevant.

Of course, you're within your rights to opt out, and to raise the issue of whether it's legal with LL.

BTW, LL's lawyers tend to run on the paranoid side (as lawyers tend to do; they're paid to protect). I doubt they'd permit this without pretty solid legal exculpation to hide behind. Of course, they could have had Standford indemnify them, but in that case Stanford's lawyers would need a good legal argument.

I'm not saying this proves it's legal -- just that I bet it's *arguably* legal. One can rarely say for sure how courts will go. Who'd have predicted that the Supreme Court would let corporations put Congress on their payrolls?

This is the funny part. 70 years after we're dead, who'd want to run clunky old SL anyway? Imagine trying to come up with the ancient computers to run it.

Evidently not, as they're doing under the aegis of the US Government.

We should be happy that they're relieving us all of the US legal "Mandatory Deposit" requirement.

There's a US$500 fine for failure to comply. Clearly, it's not widely enforced. The project cited above is aimed at figuring out how to comply with the reasons for the MD requirement in the modern era, because it's clearly antiquated.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I understand and sympathize with those who have security concerns.

I also understand and sympathize with those who have issues with opt-out systems, though I also see the other side of the coin on this one. It's a difficult balance to make.

Well - a Model A Ford has horrible gas mileage, ridiculous suspension, unsafe brakes, can't carry much of anything - has a terrible ride, and so on and so forth compared to a modern automobile. So why would anyone go to a museum to see one?

I learned to drive a stick, at 16, on a 1929 Model A (Tudor style).

I've yet to see anything quite as cool in SL.

But your point is still valid!

Oh, gas mileage was about 40 MPG. Amazing, eh? It was my best friend's car; he and his father had restored it from a rolling junk pile to classy looking car, but he was only 15 so I got to do the driving. 0 to 60 in 5! (minutes )

There are people today who are still using the Commodore 64 and have copies of the games for it. I probably would look back on these bad old days of clunky interfaces and having to actually have a keyboard and mouse to use computer with fond memories of sitting and doing next to nothing for hours on end.

Hey, that's only 30 years ago! Stop making me feel old.

At the risk of major derailment, there's an upside to that. The law prohibited nonprofit groups that represent the collective views of a LOT of citizens from participating in the political process. Like the NRA, for example.

I'll gladly let GM make political contributions, as long as the incorporated groups I belong to and that champion my causes have the same right.

Isn't the NRA already the most powerful lobbying group in the US? ... and now it gets to be MORE powerful? Eep!

You forgot to mention the technorati, FIC, illiterati and dead chickens.

Muwahahaha!

Seriously...a corporation is, at bottom, made up of people. They are formed as a means of accomplishing more as a group than is possible as individuals. The view of a corporation as a few fat men in suits sitting around a table and deciding What Will Happen is a serious over-simplification. Yes, someone is in charge...but they are accountable to others.

A corporation is a way for (among other things) many people to shout with one voice.

Kinda cool that some official place is logging virtual worlds - sort of for future anthropology/archeology maybe?

Provided they are trustworthy which it seems they are (who knows.) Kind of like being in the virtual Smithsonian if one thinks about it.

What will future students think of Second Life?