Guess everyone missed this?

Did everyone miss this blog post wth the header...

Use of CopyBot and Similar Tools a ToS Violation

That means if you use this tool or any other tools similar you are violating the TOS, you dont have to steal from someone to be violating the TOS...
UGH!

/327/66/149502/1.html

Did you not read the content?

... and a mis-informed one at that.
Weren't the twenty we had yesterday enough?!?!??
Has this become the Copybot Forum?????

Nimrod, every copy taken by the CopyBot is an infringing copy, if you didn't have full permissions on the object before (and then you wouldn't need the bot to duplicate it). The CopyBot circumvents the DRM system, changes the permissions applied by the original creator and fakes the creator name. How would that not be a TOS infringement if not a legal offense?

Not if you have permission to copy it from the original creator.

You have my permission to copy the copyable wares that you purchased from me. But you don't have the permission to remove the resell protection of those wares. I don't grant anyone the right to make full perm copies which even have my creator name removed.

CopyBot does NOT just copy ... it STEALS the creators name and replaces it with the thiefs name. THAT IS THEFT ... Remember that. Only prims you can copy LEAGALY are ones YOU create.... otherwise it is THEFT. Plain and simple.

You know what I mean. Don't preach to me what it does, trust me, I know.

Of which there is none in SL. Therefore. no claim under copyright or DMCA can be filed, or persued in this manner. Ergo, use of copybot to make duplicates of in world items you have *purchased* for the sake of backup purposes, been given as a gift, or have written consent from the originating content creator to duplicate in aid of his/her work is 100% legal and covered by the Copyright laws, DMCA and LL's own TOS. Nothing was reverse engineered, nothing was circumvented or broken by copybot....now can we put this to bed? The emotional arguments are getting tiring - anyone that knows the facts and law don't have issue with it's existance or use. (CopyBot that is)

What you describe is the malicious use of CopyBot and that indeed would land you in trouble. Using it to copy and re-distribute an expensive in-world item to either give away or resell at reduced prics to undercut your competition or for self/malicious gain is unconscionable and will be persecuted as you set up the circumstances above. So, the use of CopyBot is legal. It's here, and nothing anyone can say do or *feel* about it going to change that fact.

Now, let's talk about a much bigger problem on the other hand that is just as terrible but doesn't raise an eyebow:

How many parcel/property owners that play music on their parcel actually HAVE licensing to rebroadcast/redistribute music on those properties? Anyone?

That's what I thought. Enough of this kettle and pot bullsh*t and go back about your lives and businesses people. ;>

I am not going to listen to much that you say, nimrod Yaffle (/327/96/149169/1.html). Why are you still here?

From the blog post:
http://blog.secondlife.com/2006/11/14/use-of-copybot-and-similar-tools-a-tos-violation/



Notice the "unauthorized duplicates" - you can use CopyBot, say to make copies of your own or group's work, but that would be about it. It would need to be "authorized" (whatever that means).

So it's not "USE IT AND DIE"... it's more "USE IT INAPPROPRIATELY AND DIE", as is the case with most 3rd-party addons to any product.

MM

The DMCA says explicitly that it does not require the use of any particular technology to qualify as DRM. The fact that there wasn't anything on the server to stop the form of copying that CopyBot does doesn't make it not a DMCA violation since it nonetheless does circumvent the "no copy" protection. (And yes, circumventing includes "working around" - what did you think the "circum" bit meant? )

Which would be correct IF CopyBot operated on data housed on the server. Which it does not. Next.

*Edit*:

Speaking of missed things, a thread I was involved in got moved! Check it out - if secured properly and used in accordance with all applicable laws and LL rules, CopyBot and utilities/viewer updates in future may have abilities that will ensure Copyright and IP compliance and still enable user backups that retain objects/items for personal use only.

/13/8b/149126/1.html

Deinitely steps in the right direction for content creators and average Joe users.

In my experience, the people doing the most shrieking and tearing of clothes usually only have the one good idea and are terrified of somebody stealing it. What CopyBot can't steal is your mind, and your creative flow. Even if we assume for a moment that its only possible use is to steal content from others (which we have proven beyond doubt in numerous other discussions is not the case) you do far more damage to yourself by bottling your work up so that nobody else may view, purchase or enjoy it than any CopyBot ever could.

Using CopyBot to fix object permissions you've screwed up passing your stuff to a friend and back certainly isn't against the ToS. No sane person would argue that using it on one of your own alts in a demonstration to show what the CopyBot is and is not capable of is against the ToS. Using the CopyBot to consolidate a build by several people into a single entity over which a single person may reset the permissions settings, assuming all involved have agreed to this process, is certainly no violation of anyone's rights, and is not against the ToS.

To the person who started this thread, you are becoming more and more strident in your objections to this tool, and applying less and less rational thought to your arguments as you do so. Don't think that the forums readers haven't noticed this - you do yourself no favors by undermining your own moral authority in this way.

You may believe you are right Gentle, but you are not. CopyBot just copies what's in front of it and what crosses it's path and has no selector. As long as it just copies whatever is in range or whatever the client is looking at it cannot be said to have "permission to copy." It will always end up copying things that it explicitly *doesn't* have permision to copy, therefore simply using the thing at all should definitely be a violation of the TOS. If you add a selection mechanism, (especially if it has a way of asking the creator "yes/no," then your argument is correct. Otherwise not.

Also your main arguments are so unlikely as to be ridiculous. In the first place CopyBot is described by libsecondlife itself as a "subversion" of the original backup tool. Why use CopyBot to make an in-world copy of stuff you own, when you can simply right-click and "save copy" using the regular interface? Secondly, the idea that a creator has a product that is not copyable, but still wants you to have a copy for it (cause you asked so nice or something), and gives you verbal permission but lets you use CopyBot instead of simply changing the permissions on a copy and handing it to you is just plain laughable. This scenario is so unlikely as to be valueless in any argument for the use of CopyBot.

It will never get there, but in a court of law you simply would have no legal case or argument whatsoever. You are just plain wrong.

Also, the creators of Copybot have been documented to have discussed the use of the tool as a sort of giant shovel moving around the sim and from sim to sim copying whatever they can find or see. It's clear from this alone, that the intent of the CopyBot, and the creators of the CopyBot is exactly the opposite from what you maintain it is.

Also I would like to take the opportunity to apologise to "Yiffy Yaffle" for confusing them in a previous post with "nimrod Yaffle" as being the distributor of CopyBot.

Yiffy Yaffle is apparently a much nicer Yaffle altogether and well liked. sorry Yiffy.

* It's a TOS violation if LL says it's a TOS violation, it's not if LL says it's not

* It may be a violation of the DMCA or not, depending on how you interpret the term "security mechanism". LL did not implement any security mechanism in the client-server protocol, so copybot itself may or may not be in violation of the DMCA. I am not a lawyer and can't make a positive statement either way. Unless you are I don't think you can either.

* I don't think there's anything in copyright law that says a copyright owner has the reight to restrict your use of a product. That's why software has EULAs that attempt to apply restrictions, and how much of a EULA is enforcible under copyright and related areas of law is still up in the air.

What this means is that a copy made by copybot may or may nor be an infringing copy, and the creation of that copy may or may not be illegal. It also means that it may be illegal to make the copy but the copy itself is not an infringement, and vice versa.

If your head isn't already hurting from this, check out google and wikipedia and groklaw, but run down to the grocery and pick up some Aleve first.

I don't think you can make a positive assertion that there is no protection system in SL. SL does implement a digital rights management regime, but the only technical mechanism it uses to enforce it is obfuscation.

This is perhaps shortsighted of them (or simply honest - after all, the iTunes music store doesn't do a lot more than SL: the music you buy has its DRM applied by your client, not the server), but obfuscation may be considered a protection mechanism by the court and until that gets decided it's up in the air.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm saying that you're not in a position to make an unqualified assertion to that effect.

Wrong question. The right question is How many of the sites streaming the music via the URLs linked from SL have the right to broadcast/redistribute music. The music is never actually sent to the sim, so it's not played "on the parcel". As far as the law is concerned, the link in the parcel is no different from a link in a website.

It's still an interesting question, for those who do their own streaming rather than linking to licensed internet "radio stations".

Going to blacken my name further for the sake of why I got blacklisted in the first place: facts rather than rumor about the copybot. I tried out copybot prior to the TOS declaration, and it can be used to copy individual objects, not just whole sims, so someone could use it to copy something of their own or an individual object that one has been granted rights to. Hadn't even thought about the group ownership copy thing: poor gadget could have reclaimed her giant monkey that she deeded prior to knowing just what would happen.

Regardless, copybot, while useful in a limited manner, is far more of a danger than a boon, and despite the shrill hysterical banning of me by at least one merchant for having *gasp* been a stand-up guy about having tested it, I support the banning of it's use at least until more robust safeguards for IP are in place.

First off, if you are going to *try* to be insulting - have a little taste to show a little intelligence before you do so. Also, to make a logical argument - one must apply LOGIC. Not emotion - so, that being said:



And it is to the discression of the copier as to the content they keep and destroy. If they keep content they do not have a legal right to do so, by ownership/gift/written permission, your argument is valid. In part, it is not valid as you have so elloquently proven.



A sub-version of a tool yet to be implemented. Yours and other's inaccurate use of the word implies this:

subversion n 1: destroying someone's (or some group's) honesty or loyalty; undermining moral integrity; "corruption of a minor"; "the big city's subversion of rural innocence" [syn: corruption] 2: the act of subverting; as overthrowing or destroying a legally constituted government [syn: subversive activity]

I do not think they meant to turn SL on it's ear.

You know as well as I do that stored/copied materials in inventory are just as volatile as anything else within inventory or worn by your avi. I have had things spontaneously decide to either not work, or disappear when worn. This tool allows for the rightful and discrete copying of materials available in-game for archival, allowing for off-line storage hopefuly down the line... It's not perfect either, it will not copy content. And DMCA in particular states that a "perfect copy" can fall under scrutiny for a violation. Until it does this copying *perfectly* it's just a fancier version of any prim mirror/copy LSL based script which I also possess in world. Are you going to chase me down over that mirror script too? Back on target though, CopyBot is at least a step in the right direction for archival/backup use despite what people think or feel. Archival and personal storage *IS* legal, no TOS/DMCA/Copyright law says otherwise. I have dupes of all of my DVD based media for movies and games IRL. I have dupes of Tape materials transferred to optical media. All legal, as long as it stays in MY home, or my property for MY use. This is not a tool to circumvent good faith between buyer and seller - this is proof of concept that the little guys that buy content NEED a viable backup system that is currently NOT available from SL, LL or anyone else at the moment. Funny how necessity is the mother of invention in this case....funnier yet how it IS legal despite what people *feel* about it.



Proof please - or just blowing more fluff as per my opening statement? Show me the facts, and I will show you mine. I have over 8+ years been dueling with copyright law, and have been choosen by my local government's office-holders to write supplementary law in part for them which is now ammended to state law. What have you done, dear?



Actually, re-read the ENTIRE dialogue between the LibSL team/staff. You will note that it was all the actions of a single, mal-adjusted individual that brought the hammer down on all of us. His intent was to shock and derail the usual, daily goings on around here *against* if I may add; the advice of some of the team. It was indeed in spirit - meant to give the users of SL a means of backing up volatile in world data. But as the *minority* of the group proved - indeed a *minority* of people within SL too would act in the same manner. But as a caution to those that would use this tool to do harm - look where it got him...



I welcome the opportunity to meet with this fellow too. :>

Oy guys, this thread is going to be locked soon. (Not to mention the lack of enforcement of the naming names thing.)

Well this is already too long and like your firend the CopyBot distributor says probably due for a locking, so I will be brief in my reply.

For the most part absolutely nothing you have said has even answered any of my main points, although you do go on even longer than me and that is saying something.

This is particularly "illogical" though.
Here you seem to be arguing that even though it is against the TOS to copy without permission, and even though the CopyBot does exactly this, that you somehow have permission to copy because you have the ability to delete the stuff you illegally copied after you copied it?


That's like saying although it's illegal to rip off comics from the local Drug Store, it's okay because you have the option of putting them back and thus somehow not stealing them. Bleh. It hurts just to type something so stupid!

If you are indeed getting paid to do any legal work I would consider yourself lucky that your employer hasn't found out about your faulty and circumlocutory logic (or your bad spelling), so far.

As to your assurances of what was "supposed" to happen at libsecondlife and the whole "blame the loose cannon" theory, it just doesn't wash. All the logs that have been revealed on various forums so far lead to the conclusion that even those canons at libsecondlife that claim to be still bolted to the deck are really just lying. Lying about what their intentions truly were, about who was at fault, about who knew what, and about who was ultimately to blame.

Given that why would anyone believe them anymore?

*head begins to sping around*

Actually, it's more like claiming to have permission to copy because you are going to throw out the item after you have taken it, kept it, and played with it.

coco

Obviously you haven't a clue as to what I or you are speaking aobut. You also flatter yourself into thinking that you have presented a logical, legal point in any missive you have sent and also demand answers from me on those morsels of emotional rhetoric?

The very definition of insanity.

My Final word on this and why LL HASN'T banned the use of this product will be posted below. I have better things to do like enjoy my in-world experience with friends. So to this ends and effect, I will happily show you exactly where I or anyone that has a clue is *right* and granted rights under our DMCA/Copyright law that paprallels our TOS:

Excerpted from the US DMCA Law, Section 1201:

`(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.

`(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `interoperability' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

That's just a taste. Get the whole swag at your Library of Congress Online, free of charge, and free to copy in whole or part for your own edification. ;>

Don't like the Law, at least start arguing with LL to rewrite the TOS to *specifically* ban the use of these types of programs. They cannot do that under federal law as it stands. Yes it is legal to do everything you say as long as it's for personal use only. Read again: For explicit and limited personal use to do what and with as they please. Copybot does not enable any more what has already been done with myriads of other programs in circulation and use within SL. Fine you cut off copybot's head...what about the other programs and scripts long forgotten and remade every day that DO THE SAME THING? Goodnight, have a good weekend everyone. :> The smart ones out of the lot will spend some time at the online library. *giggle*

I'm out of here. Ta ta!

Troll you may be, educated one you will certainly be when I am done with you. That's so low....pointing out one mistake in an off the cuff, hastily written document between sips of coffee? How long does it take you to think up something that you *think* is mildly amusing? With that, no more. I am done. I know when to quit when it comes to ID10-T communication protocols.

WTF?

Sorry I only read this far

Not much more to say after a statement like that and no reason to read whatever it is you said below.