Copy Content OK unless you specify no ?

I've looked at the "registration" site to determine what my stuff is. There is a long legal document to sign that protects the university, but doesn't do much for the content creator. The parts that bother me most in this legal agreement are as follows (I would be the Donor):

...."Donor hereby grants Stanford a non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable, worldwide license to preserve the Object(s), and to display and distribute the Object(s) for educational and/or not-for-profit purposes in all media now known or hereafter created, including but not limited to print, audio, electronic, video, optical disk, photographic, digital, and film, subject to the following.

1. Donor warrants and represents that s/he is the exclusive creator of and sole rightsholder for the Object(s) and has the full authority to enter into this Agreement. Donor agrees to indemnify the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University against any claims (including attorneys’ fees and court costs) made against the University relating to this Agreement.
2. Stanford is licensed to use and manipulate the Object(s) in all ways necessary to preserve the work, including changing the format of the Object(s).
3. Stanford may display and distribute the Object(s) on its own website, and may also share the Object(s) with partner organizations for purposes of display and distribution....."

and it goes on and on.

So...they can manipulate and change the format of my object. They can distribute it as they wish in any media, as long as it's for free (nice for Open Sim).

Oh, and while registering, they want my SL and RL name and e-mail, too.

Hmmmmm

...and you must register, and click checkboxes for each item individually to opt-out of the agreement.

Ah yeah, the non-profit clause doesn't wash for me. That would allow them to pass it out willy nilly anywhere, including inside SL, turning your product into freebies.

Someone might want to point out this gaping hole to them.

As usual, the lawyers are only covering the asses of those paying their fees, and the other side of the table can ... well, you fill in the blanks. This is a PG forum.

yeah, that "/or" really needs reworked... the reason that it is in there is that under standard terms, it allows them to charge fees for viewing to cover operational costs (but not for the actual items)... that part of law hasn't caught up with the digital domain

It should just refer to fair use, which everyone gets anyway, so it's not giving anything away for the content creator. Instead, this allows it to create freebies and distribute them willy-nilly in SL. I doubt that's their intent, but their terms should match their intent!

Bad Lawyer! Bad! Go to your room!

http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2010/01/offline-book-lending-costs-us.html

Offline Book "Lending" Costs U.S. Publishers Nearly $1 Trillion
Hot on the heels of the story in Publisher's Weekly that "publishers could be losing out on as much $3 billion to online book piracy" comes a sudden realization of a much larger threat to the viability of the book industry. Apparently, over 2 billion books were "loaned" last year by a cabal of organizations found in nearly every American city and town. Using the same advanced projective mathematics used in the study cited by Publishers Weekly, Go To Hellman has computed that publishers could be losing sales opportunities totaling over $100 Billion per year, losses which extend back to at least the year 2000. These lost sales dwarf the online piracy reported yesterday, and indeed, even the global book publishing business itself.

From what we've been able to piece together, the book "lending" takes place in "libraries". On entering one of these dens, patrons may view a dazzling array of books, periodicals, even CDs and DVDs, all available to anyone willing to disclose valuable personal information in exchange for a "card". But there is an ominous silence pervading these ersatz sanctuaries, enforced by the stern demeanor of staff and the glares of other patrons. Although there's no admission charge and it doesn't cost anything to borrow a book, there's always the threat of an onerous overdue bill for the hapless borrower who forgets to continue the cycle of not paying for copyrighted material.

To get to the bottom of this story, Go To Hellman has dispatched its Senior Piracy Analyst (me) to Boston, where a mass meeting of alleged book traffickers is to take place. Over 10,000 are expected at the "ALA Midwinter" event. Even at the Amtrak station in New York City this morning, at the very the heart of the US publishing industry, book trafficking culture was evident, with many travelers brazenly displaying the totebags used to transport printed contraband.

As soon as I got off the train, I was surrounded by even more of this crowd. Calling themselves "Librarians", they talk about promoting literacy, education, culture and economic development, which are, of course, code words for the use and dispersal of intellectual property. They readily admit to their activities, and rationalize them because they're perfectly legal in the US, at least for now.

Yeah Chris, I'm really upset by that too! Whattawe gonna do?

you do realise that libraries have to pay a royalty fee each time a book is borrowed, don't you? The same as radio stations etc have to.

I believe that started this decade in the UK. Is it true in the US as well?

Most aspects of copyright law were largely harmonized internationally, an initiative started back in the seventies and mostly concluded by the 90's. However, there still are a number of national differences, and oddly enough, US copyright laws are more liberal than UK. If I understand it correctly, in the UK you can't legally loan or resell your legal copy of a book without permission. In the US, you can. It falls under the principle called "right of first sale", dating back to US Constitutional precedent in 1908.

Just read the inside cover of a book published in the UK and compare that with one in the US.

DAMN YOU CHRIS NORSE, YOU'LL NEVER TAKE US ALIVE!!! LIBRARIANZ ROOL!!!11!!¿/001001011

IN UR DREEMZ CONTENT CREATURZ!!! MWUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


... but in all seriousness, no, we don't pay a royalty fee. At least not in the U.S., not sure if the laws are different elsewhere. Here, we fall under "fair use".

In some cases, like some academic journals, the publishers charge a higher subscription fee for libraries than they do for individuals. I've never seen this done for books, though.

just make it all no rezz no mod ,no copy ,no trans ,no shirt no shoes no service and no smoking!!
that should stop them alright..

I don't think that's the principle that applies here.

My apologies for being ambiguous. My comment only applied to Couldbe's comment about libraries loaning books.

I don't know anything about this particular digital archiving project, so I have no idea whether it qualifies as fair use or not. Libraries do have a good deal of wiggle room in fair use, but it is not absolute.

For example, in interlibrary loan, we regularly scan/photocopy articles or book chapters from our collection and send them to other libraries. This is perfectly okay to do if that copy goes to a user and is not kept by the library; if the library keeps a copy and uses it to make additional copies for their users, then it's not okay anymore. Instead, if the library receives another request for the same item, they must request it via interlibrary loan again.

In practice, the effect is the same, but the courts have decided that one is fair use and the other is not. IP law is a mysterious thing.

And then there's people like this:

http://capgrasproject.blogspot.com/2008/03/kevin-underwood.html

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant to say that I believe that "fair use" is not the principle that allows libraries to keep and loan books. I'm sure that it does apply in a number of specific situations that arise in libraries, especially when copying only a part of a work, but it's not what applies to loaning books.

Ah yes, good point. The fair use exception specifically relates to reproduction of copyrighted material, not lending. I don't think lending is specifically addressed, probably because it was always a given that someone is allowed to lend their own physical property as they see fit.

I looked up this "libraries pay royalties for loans" thing, and I see the UK has something (separate from copyright) called the Public Lending Right, established about 30 years ago. The payments come from the government rather than individual libraries, but the amount is based on lending data provided by the libraries. Payments are capped around $12,000 for each author.

I'd never heard of this... we definitely don't have anything similar in the U.S. I learned something new today!