Sins Committed in Second Life..Good or Bad SL PR..?

There I was watching the Real World news this evening when an article popped up regarding Second Life...they had my immediate attention!! It seems an avatar (or his Real World operator) which we'll refer to as 'SS' is suing another avatar (operator unknown) which can be referred to as 'VC' for the duplication and selling of a certain type of bed, designed and created by 'SS'. Apparently 'VC' bought a copy of the bed from 'SS' then 'VC' allegedly went on to sell approximately 50 copies of the bed. Now 'SS' is suing for a claim equal to 3 times the proceeds from the bed sales (which seems a pretty reasonable settlement to me), the bed apparently retails on SL for quite a considerable sum, hence the legal action. Linden apparently investigated 'VC' but were unable to detect his activities.

It was a fascinating story (and can be found on the internet) and though having only been in SL a relatively short while, it seems to me to be entirely inevitable. I suspect it may be the start of many similar cases.

So does this sort of publicity bring SL into bad light and/or will it have the effect of increasing awareness of this Alternative World and hence population and hence all the inevitable consequences (land price rises etc.) that entails.

Go here for further details of the case...

http://www.secondlifeinsider.com/2007/07/04/stroker-serpentine-vs-john-doe/

oops did I say that...

Hmm, I bet I can guess who SS is...

Since SL has been out of the news lately, it might be seen as good, although it just reaffirms what some people think about it being all about pixel sex. However this poorly researched article can only be seen as bad publicity:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1638344_1638341_1633628,00.html

Really Ann? My eyes went all ooggly and my brain hurts from the initials

Any news is good for Second Life. I don't see LL putting ads in magazines or making any commercials so word of mouth and news articles generally get people interested. Now we'll see an influx of people who realize that we have sex beds in SL.

Yup...he also tried to sell a popular sim on eBay for like $50,000 (US!) not that long ago, but the deal fell through. I think I heard he was putting it back up, but then I lost interest. lol

Thats a touchy subject however, If something is not copyrighted.. I don't see much of a case..
I do symphathize though.. I build and have a store, and if somebody was able to do that with my items, I would be furious..

I think it's positive, sex and money are reason enough for the avarage person with a PC to take a look and see if they can make money without leaving their home...

And maybe get (virtually) laid at the same time? IRRESISTIBLE!

I give it 5 big-grin emoticons from SL's point of view. : D : D : D : D : D

You don't have to register everything in a copyright office to own the copyright on it.

I could not have said it better than the 2 of you.

was hopin to pick up Daz's quote when I quoted Har. Oh well...


Brandi...xxx

Everyone sins. Real life or Second Life, it doesn't matter. Should we give existense a bad rap for this?

I don't think the title of your thread is appropriate though...it's a bit seedy.

People steal. Real life or Second Life, it doesn't matter. Should we give existense a bad rap for this?

I would probably guess the same name but.. Copy/Transfer?

There was an article about this on the Second Life Herald. They name names there.

The issue isn't the copy of the bed but the use of the "SexGen" brand name that has been trademarked (or copywritten or whatever) by the original creator of the item and the company he started.

Apparently the duplicator of this bed has been using that name in advertising the bed. The item itself is pretty much just a knockoff with less features from what I gathered.

They actually have a link to the court filings in the SLH article.

Pretty interesting stuff...

Recently a judge in New york brought a Lawsuit against a drycleaner for $54,000,000 USD because the cleaner misplaced his pants for Three days, The basis of the suit was, the Cleaner had a sign up in his shop saying "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and since the judge was NOT satisfied with having to wait three days for his pants, he felt $62,000,000 USD was adaquet compensation (In a show of rare benevolence he reduced his claim later to $54,000,000. After all, lets not get stupid about this). The case whent through the courts, and the presiding judge threw out the claim, and awarded the Drycleaner tens of thousands of dollars in court costs to be paid by the Plaintiff.

In the United States anyone can sue anyone else for Anything. That is why it is known as the land of Frivelous Litigation. Luckily, what the population and Lawyers lack in reason, accountability, Proportionality, or mental stability is usually compensated for by Judges who's patience must be tried along with every case.

Just because somebody brings a ludecrous suit into the court system, this doesn't mean they have a Chance of prevailing. I'd bet the FIRST thing the Judge will want to see (After the psychiatric assessment of the plaintiff that is) will be the Patent, and/or Copyright paperwork that the plaintiff has Proving His ownership of the bed, but also proviing his possession of the bed predates that of the defendant. If he's relying solely on a provision in TOS, he's going to Fail in his suit. Even if he does, i've seen Judges Grant awards of ten, and Twenty dollars, but NOT award court Costs (As i said they can range into the thousands) by way of punishing the plaintiff for wasting the courts time with trivialities. Oh well, at least they score a moral victory.

That being said, I am actually On the side of the bed maker. I create things, and i know others who do the same, and there are MANY ways to protect ones work from being Copied and STILL have a marketable product. It's wrong for people to Steal someone elses creations and market them as their own but the creator Has to accept Some responsibility to learn how to protect their product from being Copied, and if it Means THAT much to them that losing the RL equivelent of maybe ten dollars in sales is cause to waste Hundreds, or possibly Thousands in court costs, then it SHOULD be sufficient justification to PAY for a proper U.S. Patent and/or Copyright that will be recognized and enforced EVERYWHERE. At least having done that one can avoid wasting the court systems time as any good layer, presented with the correct documents can rectify the situation long before it's necesary to take up a judges time.

Angel.

Read my post again. The issue is a trademark violation. The defendant is accused of using a trademarked brand name (SexGen) on a similar sex bed of his own creation. He was being very smug about it, too, since part of the issue is that they don't know the guy's RL identity and he claims to use a bunch of alts.

If you read that second life herald article they interview both guys.

It's not a copybot lawsuit. It's a trademark issue!!!

Yes,, i got that but it amounts to the same thing.
IS the Trademark COPYWRITTEN?
I mean by More than a TOS protection?
You Know, if it isn't not only can the other person Use a non registered trade mark, he COULD register it Himself and TAKE it from the person who originated it. Under the law it isn't who thought of it First, it's who got the paperwork first that counts. and in a court battle, TOS protection Vs. a Trademark registered with the US government, Guess who is going to Win that one.

If it means that much to you, Do the paperwork, and protect what is yours.

Angel.

You take the words right out of my mouth. News about sex toys in SL will attract exactly the type of people that make the customer base of LL (including me). Even the Time article is good advertising, since it mentions virtual sex.

Actually the title came from the title of the RL News broadcast, I thought it sounded pretty appropriate but if it caused offence to anyone or SL..my apologies.

A trademark doesn't need to be copyrighted if it's already trademarked. I'm in the process of trademarking my shop name and some of my bestsellers (that is, I'm having perform a trademark search and SAS report on my company name, product names and slogans).

But a trademark will only protect me against copyists who unauthorizedly associate their wares with my trademark, unless the product design is 100% identical. I'll get some design patents in addition.

My main reason for starting this thread was I wanted to see if anyone thought this was good or bad PR for SL. I became a member as a result of a RL television programme broadcast in the UK. The 'Money Programme' is broadcast on BBC2 and their article concentrated on the fact that many people were making a living - not to mention in some cases a fortune - from SL. All in all the programme was a pretty positive view of SL though obviously concentrated on the financial aspects. I didn't join because for those reasons but because the broadcast got me interested in the whole SL idea. I just wondered would I have been as interested if the programme had taken a negative and more damning view?

As someone else has said, any publicity is good publicity when the theme is sex based. Sex is a huge crowd puller.
But like you, I was pulled into SL by an interesting article, not by any promises. For me it was Reuters entry into SL. It just fired up my curiosity. The rest is history .. and a slow but steady consumption of L$!

Just to keep the facts straight :-

The item in question is both copyrighted and trademarked in RL. The copies being sold are direct digital copies, including the LSL code and animations, not "a sex bed of his own creation" and even show the SexGen trademark on the packaging.

This is both a copyright and trademark issue that should be of great interest to all content creators.

Oh...and yes the original sale of Amsterdam did fall through, but it was subsequently sold to 3dutch.com for the US$50K asking price.

Your conclusion, that filling the paperwork for trademarks and copyrights is worthwhile, is correct. However, much of what you wrote leading up to it is flat out wrong.


According to the Washington Post (1), the case was in D. C., not New York, and the time he had to wait was not three days, but a week and five days, when the cleaners produced a pair of pants they claimed was his. The plaintiff claimed those weren't the pants he had given them and didn't match the suit jacket. The judge in the trial found that he couldn't prove they weren't the ones he had given them. The defendants apparently ignored his initial request to replace the suit (a much more reasonable, but still significant $1,150 request), which led to the lawsuit. The plaintiff subsequently rejected offers to settle as high as $12,000.

Had he filed a reasonable case in small claims court, chances are the case would have been more credible, and he might have won it if they didn't make a settlement offer.


Trademarks and copyrights are two entirely different things. There might be circumstances in which you could have a copyright on a trademark, and it would be advantageous, but generally copyrights are irrelevant to trademark infringement cases. ((The word is "copyright" not "copywrite". A way to remember this is that it refers to ownership rights and it can apply to paintings, photographs, and recordings, which aren't written.)

There is no requirement that a trademark be registered to win an infringement suit. Benefits of registration (in the U. S.) include owning the trademark nationwide, a presumption of ownership (which I think is rebuttable), being able to use federal courts, and being able to prevent importation of infringing goods. However, a trademark that hasn't been registered is still enforceable in state court, and has the potential of being enforced in federal court. (2)(3)

There is no requirement that a copyright be registered to win an infringement suit. The benefits of registering include the availability of statutory damages and a presumption of ownership (which I again think is rebuttable, with more confidance than in the trademark case). (4)

<start Soapbox mode>Please, please take a little bit of time to check your facts before making claims like these. Granted, it took me extra effort to actually add the citations to the pages I found, with some double-checking, but it took me less than a minute to find the facts about the lawsuit, and at most another minute to confirm that my understanding of trademarks and copyrights is correct. It simply isn't fair to other people to post misinformation about copyright and trademark law. Misinformation about lawsuits contributes to the lack of respect for the legal system (not that there aren't any valid reasons for losing respect of the system).<end Soapbox mode>

Citations:
(1)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500443.html

(2)http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm

(3)http://www.marklaw.com/trademark-FAQ/benefits.htm

(4)http://www.oppedahl.com/copyrights/

Ahhh, that makes sense. No, I'm not offended at all...It's just strange that they relate digital theft to "sin." I meant appropriate in the "matching" use of the word...I didn't mean to say it was inappropriate in the offensive way. Sorry for the confusion.