Emerald Viewer advantages?

@Dick. Why would I want to search Google on Stroker Serpentine or the other one? What relevance is it to this discussion? Serpentine is a person who has divulged to the world who he is, and I've still no idea who or what "Catteneo" is.

@BeeBee. I'm sorry but the infor4mation contained in your lengthy posts is irrelevant. Those people are thieves. I say that that's not libel. You think differently. So? Why you want to defend them is a mystery to me. Are you one of them?

@Innular. I'm not interested in discussing it in fine detail, except to say that "Phil Deakins in Yorkshire" is anonymous and that non-identity can't be libeled.

ETA:
Don't forget that something is only libel if it isn't true.

Then start another thread about it, or dig the other one up and add your question to it.

Oh, sorry, I'm off topic for "this thread". Well, you know, you are too. This thread is about "Emerald Viewer Advantages", not libel.

You're right. I didn't start the libel part, as you know, but, unlike your contribution, it did at least develope from the thread's topic.

I don't believe you are being honest. You are perfectly aware how my comment relates to yours, and are being deliberately obtuse.

No I don't, and I am not. Would you like explain?

Either pseudonyms (including trade names and avatar names) matter or not. If they don't matter, if you can't "libel" one, then why do you care if someone is misrepresenting another one?

The bottom line is that they do matter, and so they can be slandered and libeled.

Ignorance is not a valid defense. But that's ok. Ya just keep tellin' yaself otherwise.

I don't need a defense, as there's nothing for me to defend

I care if someone is trading with my business name in the same environment, and in the same field, that I am trading in with it. If someone uses it in RL, it's nothing to do with me.

I, Phil Deakins, can be insulted etc. in the SL world, but it would have no effect whatsoever on the real me. There is no libel or slander laws in the SL world, so I can't be libelled or slandered in it. It doesn't mean that it wouldn't be aggravating, but that's all.

I really don't think you 'get it', and that surprises me a lot. Your business is well known and is highly recommended, I have some of your stuff myself, and when I had difficulties you responded quickly, politely, and efficiently; your conduct as a merchant is (in my experience) exemplary.

'You', the self aware, sentient self, 'you' are heart and soul of every avatar 'you' are.


You're a bright and pleasant enough fellow but your apparent unwillingness to hear facts which contradict your truth is astonishing to say the least.

'YOU' have stated that Emerald is not to be trusted because (was it three of the developers of Emerald?) 'are thieves.

Now, if you are charged with defamation of character/libel/slander/calumny/lies for stating as 'FACT' that these people are thieves, or for stating as 'FACT' that Emerald is not to be trusted because of their involvement, it is your physical ass they will haul before the magistrate and no other.

'I' am 'me' whichever of my avatars may speak those words.

Whether the avatar is composed of pixels or flesh it is my consciousness that animates it and 'I' bear responsibility for whatever 'I' do without regard to the means by which 'I' did it.

My physical body is an avatar too, I consider it the vehicle 'I' ride around in... unlike electronic avatars in a 'virtual' world (virtual worlds are actual worlds. but THAT's another discussion that devolves to semantics in a hurry) where 'I' can free-fall from 37,000 meters and just dust myself off and walk (or FLY) away, my physical avatar is not that resilient; the only one to which I'm inescapably bound, it is my physical avatar that 'they' will seek to visit 'justice' upon in the event that 'I' am found guilty of whatever.


Truth IS an affirmative defense against charges of defamation/libel/slander BUT it is a DEFENSE which requires YOU to prove that truth.


With that said, in the unlikely event that the people you call 'thieves' actually decide, for whatever reason, that the 'anonymous person' Phil Deakins Sole Proprietor etc. of Primsavers has enough scratch to go after .... hmmmm, a successful business like Primsavers, with goods in world and on slx? If sl success is any indication of success in the physical world you might be worth dragging into court if just to find out.

We, the public, have no idea what's going on between LL and the Emerald team and only they themselves can decide whether the comments of one currently anonymous 'self' have damaged them enough to go after the physical butt of the anonymous self, but if they do bring legal action then LL will be compelled to supply them with what they have about you.

Now, you COULD be logging in using proxy servers and rotating IP addresses and all sorts of other electronic voodoo to maintain your illusory sense of anonymity and unaccountability, but that runs counter to everything we 'know' about who 'YOU' are so I doubt it, besides... under a court order you would be traced in short order the next time you logged in, whether you use your own IP or route through Brazil, Europe, Canada and Paraguay.

If you believe that the avatar which represents 'you' is immune to being libeled, you are sadly mistaken, damage to your avatars' reputation does, in fact, damage 'you', especially when 'you' own a business made the more vulnerable by its' own success..

@Phil,

the basis of your argument seems to be something along the lines that because an avatar is an anonymous entity, libel cannot attach as an issue. i submit that were that true, neither could any other legal issue attach, such as, say, infringing a trademark, for example a business name.

BeeBee. I have said that I don't trust Emerald because of the involvement in its development of three thieves. If somebody wants to try to "haul my ass" before the court for saying that, they can have a go. It will get them nowhere but they have a go. What I don't understand is why you keep on about it. Does it have something to do with you?

@Eternus. I have stated my reasoning. That's all. There's nothing to discuss. Anyone is free to disagree, but I'm not interested in other people's opinions on this topic. I'm perfectly happy with my own.

Why would anyone want to defend those people, anyway? But since a couple of people do want to defend them, I'll ask again - who are we talking about?

You can always tell a Yorkshireman - but not much.

Why do you want to defend the people who wrote tools for the sole use of content ripping, Innula? It's a genuine question.

Have you stopped beating your bots yet, Phil?

The RL laws of the United States apply to Second Life, so there are libel and slander laws applicable to SL.

I'm going to use Emerald right now. (^_^)y

in other words 'this is what i think and you all had to listen to it but i don't care to listen to what you think'. gotcha.

but since apparently the subtlety was lost on you or you deliberately ignored it let me restate it as something other than an opinion. you can't use the same brain to claim the PrimSavers guy is guilty of... well pretty much anything at all and then also claim that false statements against the avatars of the Emerald devs cannot be libel, because if a crime cannot be committed against an anonymous/virtual entity then neither can an anonymous/virtual entity commit one. that is fact, sir, not opinion. in fact it occurs to me as i write this that in your logic the very statement that they are thieves is a paradox. if they can't be libelled they can't be thieves.

Even if you do identify the culprit after great personal expense, good luck with your local legal system dealing with some guy in a backwater 2nd world country.

I'm not.

In the immediate case, I'm trying to make a general point about the law of libel as it relates to SL, because I am interested in the way virtual worlds throw up all sorts of legal questions that neither statute nor case law have had, in the past, to address. More generally, my desire for fairness and accuracy causes me to object to people saying "so and so is a known thief" when they know nothing of the sort. Nothing you've so far said on the topic has given me any reason to believe that the people in question have behaved in any way dishonestly, though I might agree a case could be made out that they've in the past behaved irresponsibly. But I'm more interested in what they're doing now.

And more generally still, I don't think any of this is particularly good reason for not wanting to use Emerald if, other things being equal, you would want to use it, for the same reasons it's never occurred to me to inquire about the criminal records nor the characters of individuals involved in making OpenSuse, Firefox, Gimp or any of the other OS tools I regularly use.

@Argent. You equate the use of bots with content ripping?

@Milla. Of course RL laws apply within SL, and not anly U.S. laws. For something to be libel, it has to fulfill some criteria, and there's nothing here that does so.

@Innula. You've given me a strong impression of defending the people who wrote tools to rip content, as have a few others here. Don't you think they are able to look after themselves? Whether or not you think that it's a good reason to not use Emerald is irrelevant as far as other people are concerned. I think it's good enough reason for me, and that's what I've said. If that's the point you were trying to make, why were you standing up on the side of the thieves? Btw, I don;t think that the word "irresponsibly" quite cuts it. It's content theft - ripping other people's content - outright theft - remember?

Now you're learning. The same is true of everyone who posts, including you. It's never a case of, I'll accept your view on one thing if you'll accept mine on something else. I don't do deals like that.

There is no subtlety that's lost on me, but I'm not impressed by amateur lawyers.

One more thing. Why won't somebody answer the question, who are we talking about? Doesn't anyone know the answer? If not, what's all this "libel" stupidness about?

I don't know if you're married, so "have you stopped beating your wife yet" might not apply.