Another interesting Test case: A Sl avi sues another

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/second+life+avatar+sues+another/598767

Now we will see whether the courts consider SL virtual Intellectual Property to be the same as RL Intellectual Property. I hope they do. What do other resident's think?

Rock

SL and RL intellectual property is _unquestionably_ the same. From the RL point of view, SL is a mode of entertainment based on intellectual property just the same as any other computer game.

On this case I'll be very interested to see how the subpoenaing goes, though..

"which makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year "


Wowza....

Heh the question I'd love to know the answer to:

Would VR IP be as legally enforceable as RL IP IF THERE WS NO MONEY INVOLVED?!

My guess is that R$ == IP laws enforced. If L$ != R$ then I doublt the courts would listen at all...

Eh! IP ...... stands for Intellectual Property.

e.g from Wikipedia:
In law, intellectual property (IP) is an umbrella term for various legal entitlements which attach to certain names, written and recorded media, and inventions. The holders of these legal entitlements may exercise various exclusive rights in relation to the subject matter of the IP. The term intellectual property reflects the idea that this subject matter is the product of the mind or the intellect.

Books, music, sex beds,...

Money is irrelevant. You create something with your intellect, it's your intellectual property (barring you using your intellect to copy someone else's IP).
You don't have to trade with it. It's still your IP.


I remember reading a transcript of a convo between the parties (somewhere on the WWW). The perp admitted selling the beds and claimed that the he was justified in doing so because the permission system had failed to stop him from making copies.

As an example of something similar, I buy textures from TRU. The textures are full perm because of the need to sell builds that use those textures. However, I am not permitted to sell or redistribute the textures themselves.

The perp in the case ripped off someone else's IP for gain. I hope he gets royally f@@@ed.

Intellectual property is intellectual property, whether or not money is involved is irrelevant to the courts.

For many people it is the principal of retaining full IP right to their creations.

In this particular case, as in many others, it appears financial gain or loss is the driving force.

I quite agree, but I think the defence in this case will rest on is whether creating prims with Copy permissions set is an implicit permission to sell on. We could start to see the prim permission system in SL get legal definitions that LL did not intend.

(thinking out loud) - If I sold you a creation of mine with both the Copy and the Resell permissions set, would you take it that you could make as many copies as you liked and sell each one? I am not saying that this is the case in the one before the courts, but we may need to start thinking carefully about this.

Rock

Money is anything but irrelevant - if it wasn't for the ability / opportunity to profit from or realise an income from someone's (or your own) IP the law would never have bothered to address the issue. I would suggest that the extension of rights to property which don't ostensibly involve its financial value still imply it.

As for the case - I seriously hope it doesn't succeed. The Bragg case is about a real world contractual relationship and the cost in USD not L$. If real world law impinges on SL activities I don't see where it stops. Are we going to be seeing AV owners prosecuted for prostitution, fraud etc?

SL defines its own reality and the moment it becomes a pale reflection of FL it ceases to have a point. Stealing L$ is like stealing monopoly money, it can ruin the game for the victim but it's still not real...

I prefer Briggi Bard sexgen beds

Monopoly money? And whats that nibbling my CC account ? How do you get your L$ ? to cash out is not real ? Sorry, i think we dont live the same sl ...

Fraud, yes, prostitution, no.

Prostitution, as a crime, is defined in part as a physical act. Virtual avs need not apply.

Fraud, however, is defined as a quality of an interaction between people. If you deceive someone in a way that hurts them, that's fraud. (Roughly speaking, I don't know the precise definition.) There's nothing about deception that limits it to physical actions.

Depends upon the item and context. If it's an article of clothing, I'd take it as your mistake. If it's a raw animation advertised as full perms, for use in objects that I build, then I'd assume I'm allowed to copy the animation into my objects and sell those objects.

If someone steals the money out of my Monoply game I'd have to go and buy another one with my hard earned. That might be a criminal offence but not a civil suit declaring my rights of ownership. The only difference is the amount some SL members are prepared to put in. Cashing out - same as selling your Monoply set second hand on e-bay - and if you're really smart you might even have a mint condition vintage set to sell at a profit. It's still just a game.



If obtaining virtual money by deception is a crime prosecutable IRL, why not the selling of virtual sex acts for virtual money? But, fair enough, if virtual money does fall under RL law, how about "living on immoral earnings" for the sex club owners? The point is, be it fraud, theft, assault by orbiting & bumping, "age play" or any other forms of SL behaviour do we really want it determined by RL law? Beause if civil suits pop the cork I don't see why criminal law shouldn't turn out to be the genie.

Theft is theft, but needs to be dealt with in-world.

Do you think people who sell intellectual property on the internet shouldn't have legal protections? People seriously need to get over thinking of SL as somehow different because it has a game-like appearance. I very much hope the case does succeed so that we have a precedent to point to to counter attitudes such as yours (no offense). There's no reason for SL to become an overly litigious environment if people know that theft and fraud here are no different (and just as serious) as theft and fraud anywhere else online. If the case fails it will just encourage thieves to screw over as many content creators as they can for their own personal profit. I'd rather not put my creativity and energy into a lawless environment where there's no protection for my livelihood. We need serious deterrents.

Chip;

I'm not deliberately trying to be controversial so I withdraw the "its just a game" argument. And God knows you've got more to lose in all this than I will ever have but I still think that allowing FL law to adjudicate will prove to be the thin end.

If SL's not a game then it's a virtual, 'alternative' world. If it loses it's alternativeness why would anyone want to hang around?

I just don't want the world which I come here to get away from occasionally to be setting the terms & conditions of my involvement. SL 'law' should be administered in-world and nowhere else - just as US law is administered in the US and German law in Germany. The legal structures and restrictions are part of the defining character of those places; and is one of the reasons why the developed world is becoming increasingly homogeneous as - especially commercial law - is standardised to facilitate the global market.

I know this is to accept a pretty lawless - or at least toothless - situation. In the end our stake in the real world is exponentially greater because the bottom line is we can only leave it the hard way, so what happens there impacts at a more profound level than SL ever can. The safest way to suffer no real loss is not to invest disproportionate time, effort, emotion, money etc.

I can take it or leave it frankly. I can. I know I can. I just won't log on......

Linden Labs could have made the ToS include a statement that uploading IP gives the right for any use within SL whatsover to anybody (you'll see this kind of language sometimes in forum rules, basically to say 'you can't sue somebody for quoting you within the forums'. They could similarly have said 'by putting stuff in the game world, it becomes part of that world and subject to in-world arbitration'), and then they could have set up a virtual government with its own virtual laws that enforced this stuff in its own virtual way, whatever that would be.

They did not do that, they said 'whatever happens between residents is between residents', they are as hands- off as possible and they have explicitly left IP covered by RL law. That makes SL not a world unto itself, but merely a 3D means of network interaction with other people around the world.

I know a lot of residents think it's somehow 'really' another world, but there's no basis for thinking that. It's just a very fancy 3d graphical communications medium. Of course, you can make of that medium what you will and have something more truly like another world if you're part of an RP sim or such; but that's just creating your own fictitious world within the communications medium that SL is.

That's a TREMENDOUSLY naive and narrowminded statement. Try telling Anshe Chung, who's in-world holdings in $L are worth over $1M USD according to most estimates, that its JUST monopoly money, and isn't real, and its no big deal if someone steals it - shouldn't involve any RL laws!

Why would it change your experience in any way? If you're not planning to engage in fraud or theft of intellectual property it shouldn't impact you at all.

All SexGen beds are made by Briggi and Stroker. They are partners in SexGen.

Because I'm afraid it'll be the thin end - the question is where do you draw the line. As I said above, this case is one in which only L$ have changed hands in in-world transactions. While L$ clearly have a RL value, they are nevertheless not real money and not legal currency. Why should the law rule on one aspect of virtual activity in SL and not on others? Do you want SL should be a place where no Avatar can indulge in activity which would plainly be illegal IRL? Why should the law rule on one aspect of activity in SL and not on others?

Jake;

SL is clearly more than merely a communications medium and it's precisely the storehouse of creativity and "intellectual property" that makes it so - that'd like saying that War & Peace is a book in the same way as the L.A. phone directory is. Furthermore, where in the TOS does it say that LL have left IP do be dealt with by RL law? Not only is it not explicit (ie stated as such) but is only inferred - and correct inference can always be debated.

Dallas;

I don't think it's naive and it is most certainly NOT narrowminded. I am a huge admirer of some of Anshe Chung's stuff but he's braver than me. Any currency is only worth it's exchange value - & that is largely determined by market confidence. At best L$ is an experimental virtual currency. If LL goes down - or the Law shuts them down for allowing the simulation of illegal activities - or somebody produces a better product, those L$ aren't going to be worth diddly. And given the obvious insecurity of property (be it intellectual, land-holdings or whatever) in SL I wouldn't have that much wealth tied up in Monoply money for anything. But I'd defend to the death the right of another to do so.

Apologies if this seems a bit arrogant - it's just that I'm evidently in a minority of one here so all objections are being addressed to me.

In relation to theft and fraud, yes. Absolutely. In relation to things that are only roleplay, no, because no actual crime is taking place. Theft of intellectual property is a crime. It's just not likely to be litigated often unless what's been stolen is central to someone real world income. You'd have to be making quite a lot of money before attempting to sue anyone would make sense. In this case the value of the property is high enough to justify the suit, and I hope very much that he wins.

Ok - I concede the floor. Not least because I shall continue to use your excellent templates to try to produce something useable in-world (don't hold your breath) and it seems churlish (and possibly foolhardy) to argue with someone so much more experience of this than me.

It'll be interesting to see a ruling though.

People SHOULD remember however, that in order to HAVE protections on IP, one must register a Copyright, or Patent on thier product, Service, Trademark, Business name Et-Al. The protections IP creators are seeking are NOT automatic. You Need to Do the paperwork, And pay the filing fees.
LL-TOS, and Your say-So will not hold up in Court IF the person you are suing can bring up any doubt at all that you are the originator, or legal title holder to the IP in question.
When you start taking VR situations into the Real World, the established RL Conditions will apply.
and in RL, If you can't run with the big dogs, Stay on the porch.

Angel.

Yes, SL is a communications medium full of created works, much like the Web is. The differences are aesthetic; the only substantive difference is that SL servers are all privately owned by one entity.

Anyway, about the ToS my point was exactly that the ToS does not make a statement about ownership of intellectual property. Given that I have not given up any of my rights, then real world laws still apply. Just as including my artwork in a webpage does not invalidate my rights, including my works in SL does not invalidate my rights. You cannot infer the loss of a legal right from the lack of a statement -- the presumption is always that legal rights remain unless explicitly given up.


This is not correct. In the United States, at least, copyright protection is automatic; it used to require a statement of copyright on the work, but that requirement was removed in the 1970s. Any created work now has copyright protection unless it is given up explicitly.

Trademark protection requires only to begin using the 'TM' symbol. Registered trademarks will get preferential treatment in any dispute, but the primary criteria is how much a trademark has established itself as a recognized brand.

Patents are the only thing that requires registering, and are not applicable to SL, unless it's a software patent.

I don't think any of us have much experience in this since virtual world economies are so new and raise a lot of interesting legal questions (and I'm no lawyer), so I don't think you're being churlish at all. There's good aspects and bad to both our points of view. If the law goes your way then SL will likely remain an isolated playground and any serious development here will need to be for the fun of it first, because any connected commerce will be very high risk. That's really not a bad thing. It's the way SL was when I started and it wasn't a bad place to be at all. I know a lot of people wish it was still that way - just a fun sandbox without any serious commerce or intrusions from the real world. I have a lot of empathy for that view.

Personally, beyond enjoying being able to supplement my income here, I really want to see SL get to the point where there are serious large scale destinations to go to in SL that are like serious games or VR experiences themselves. That's not going to happen without SL living a whole lot longer and there being people with the requisite skills willing to invest their time and money to develop them. They won't if there isn't a financial incentive to do it (there's only so many hours in a year and people still have to eat). That requires that IP laws be enforceable here. That's just my opinion of course.