Copyright abuse in SL

I dont' withdraw US dollars or any LEGAL currency, PERIOD.

THe problem with your argument is in that since something *can* be done, therefore it is to be assumed that it *is* done.

How can you discern between the players that will never try to convert game elements for real US cash, from those that do?

You are forcing, with your argument, people OUT of a game role play (which may be their entire intent), because you personally know of a way to make RL dollars from what you do in SL (I do not know how to do such a thing).

Recasting the basic level and type of interaction that game players have in SL based on some narrow notion of commercial potential that you see, is a bit heavy handed... is it not?

Now to the extent that you modify your OWN behavior in game to support your idealism, be it true idealism, or a role play... you have my full support!

I think it's fun to examine the issues... but only for the sake of discussion...!

SO, for example... let me float a question from the world of tomorrow...

Let's say that you are a virtual designer... and you create immersive "vacations" for people... and you decide to model locations from around the world... the coasts of Mexico, ancient Greece, the Pyramids of Eqypt... wherever. And the simulation is SO GOOD it is like BEING THERE.... so much so, that RL Tourism goes down!!!

Do you believe that you would "owe" Mexico money for "stealing" Puerto Vallerta from them? After all, they can show TRUE financial LOSS due to your work...

hmmmm interesting.

You are a Judge in the courts system of any country?

You said "people" are "selling" "items".

Define "person".

Define "sale".

Define "item".

I submit to you, that there is no "item" owned, in game, in any real world sense.

If you can show me how Linden Labs is FINANCIALLY LIABLE for a loss of my game inventory because I "OWN" it, then you might have a point.

IF LL is NOT liable, and that I do not in fact "OWN" ****anything**** in game, then how can you say that I ***SOLD*** anything?

You have to make a case for true and actual *posession*.

Outside of that... all you have are these swirling "game tokens" that bounce around in game, following "game rules".... and that there are provisions for converting game tokins to $$$ at the end of the day.

You MUST show OWNERSHIP.

Can you do that?

Why does it matter if you own the item or not? If you're making copies without the copyright owner's permission, you're breaking the law. If you're making those copies for other people in exchange for those other people doing something for you, you're selling copyrighted material.



How does that make any sense? That's like saying that if you come to an ice skating rink I own, and leave your skates there, and they get broken or damaged, then I should be financially liable for that - and then that, since I'm not, and since without my rink your skates mean nothing, that therefore they aren't really your skates. That's quite surreal



The courts also, however, have intent. If you obtained L$ with the intent to cash them out, that's likely to be legally as bad as actually cashing them out.

well..this isn't true. I've created all sorts of poses from scratch in Avimator and uploaded them into SL without going anywhere near Poser.

Of course there are taxes paid for internet purchases... I pay LOTS of it. Some states do not charge tax, some do.

"If I know I'm supposed to pay it..." you say?

You seem to not know quite a lot... I don't say that to insult you... I merely point out that there is a GREAT DEAL that is NOT KNOWN, and that for folks to be stating things as *fact* wrt theft and such is very wreckless IMHO. VERY.

ANd who says what you are "supposed" to pay? For Americans, *WE* say what we are "supposed" to pay, as a group through elected representation. Americans are not ruled by a dictator.

But that does not mean that all taxes are "just". America was founded, in part, on the notion that some taxation is UNJUST. So what if you are "supposed" to pay it? Does that make it right?

I do not doubt that issues of "virtual economies" will become big issues in RL (and interesting ones), but my point is: WE ARE NOT THERE YET. It is not reasonable to state strongly that you *know* of actual violations to copyright law.... and that you *know* of sales and transactions.... because, frankly, you do not. Nobody does.

I can see where you might *wonder* or even *guess* that activity in virtual worlds begins to infringe on RL activities...

For example, some licences and contracts specifically prohibit "any form of duplication".

That would be seem to be covered for players moving materials into the game... but the violation happening before it was put "in game".

But if you don't know what the techincal definition of "money" is, or the technical definition of what a "sale" is.... (I don't), then I can't see where you can be taken seriously when you state as fact, that such things are happening at all.

I know that the courts are starting to see lawsuits... and specifically LL is starting to see it...

But the brave new world of copyright and trademark infringement in virtual existance is IMHO, far to new to be saying much of anything with firm conviction.

Example: if a I made a convincing model of the Eiffel Tower on "my land" in game... do I owe something to the owners of the Tower? Do I owe something to the French? Can I not model the countries and lands of the world in SL?

If you can not provide a clear answer to that question, I would argue that you are over stating your position a bit.

Ryder, answer this for me:

Suppose somone sold only copied items and ended up with a new REAL WORLD $500,000 home from it. Would that still be "not real commerce"? What, the house would be made of starstuff? They wouldn't have the house if they hadn't sold the copied items. They used criminal means to gain that home.

So you are saying that the US dollars that real people withdraw from SL every day aren't real? How does that work? If they are a result of selling something the person has no right to sell, how is this not theft?

It doesn't matter a bit that most of the money is used "in game". Even if they never cash in those lindens, they are still enriching themselves from the work and creativity of others. Maybe it's not "profit" in the legal sense, but they are still "profiting" from it. That makes them criminals in my book, even if they will never be prosecuted for it. So I won't buy anything from them.

"Legal" ramifications are irrelevant to me. They are still thieves.

Hi Yumi,

I conceed a point, which is that you do not need to have "ownership" of something in order to copy it... poor choice of words... I intended to convey "posession"... which we can agree is not ownership.

Now, as far as LL liability for loss of inventory... it is simple. They PROVIDE inventory services in game. They have created the STORAGE mechanism for GAME ITEMS.

If they loose it... hard disc crash... or if they decide to END the game... you can show that they are directly responsible for such loss!

Now... do you really believe that you can say you "owned" or were in "posession" of something "real" such that LL would have to give you $$$ for it?

If you can't... then how can you say you had "sold" or "bought" any of those "items" that you claim to have "possed"?

You also mention intent... and I agree that intent means something.

If I "sell" to you, somethign I have in game... with no intent to try to convert to $$$... that it is just a role play for me... then that might make a difference.

But you will note that some here believe that just because a few people seek to try to convert game elements into actual CASH, that therefore all activity in game that mimicks a "sale", therefore is, and is subject to RL law for transactions!!!

You don't really deserve an answer, because you have not answered my questions... but I will answer yours anyway.

1 - "ended up with" is FAR too vague.

2 - if someone plays a game, and as a result has cash to show, then I would call it "winnings", just like playing a poker game in Vegas. A game of skill. I don't call playing the game "commerce".

If I invented a game, were you had plays that were called "trades", and "investment", and "sales" (essentially a card based gamed that modeld RL sales), I would NOT call it commerce. I would call it a game.

Do you call the transactions in Monopoly commerce???????

If you started a monopoly game... and paid REAL CASH to get in, and WON real cash at the end of the game... would YOU call the GAME PLAY actual COMMERCE?????????

I think it is past time for you to start answering my questions, my friend.

I hate to break it to you, but Intellectual Property is something that one can own, which is also recognized by the court of law in most countries.

However, Winter makes an excellent point that there is a big distinction between fan art, which usually involves some skill and artistic design-- with financial gain not being the main motivator (Coke Machine, Trek uniforms) and for-profit items with logos or other misappropriated artwork slapped on them (Winnie the Pooh Bedspreads, Scanned Paintings).

This is not under debate here.

Copyright law, for example, talks about "fair use". It's not the existance of intellectual property that is being examined, it is the USE.

I do not know the law, so I can't answer most of your questions. Most of what you are saying revolves around word meanings. I don't care about your restrictive definition of "commerce".

You obviously think it's okay to profit from the work of others. The word "profit" does not just mean "money".

Even if they don't cash in the lindens, they are using it to pay their tier, or rent, or whatever. They still are gaining something. They still have more than they would have if they didn't steal others' work. That is theft in my eyes.

I am done here. I will just not buy from theives as I see them. You can enable the theft to continue if you want.

See this is truly annoying... I have specifically stated that my words here are NOT making a case for theft of any kind.

I think it is one thing for you to say that some use that you see in game is "theft" in your eyes... and you do not support it.

It is another thing to say that laws are being broken, or copyrights are being violated... especially when you admit that you don't know law.

My cautions have been that folks simply watch out for this kind of overstatement of things in SL.

SL IS A SPECIAL CASE... very unique in the world!

THere will be resolution of many of these issues in the courts SOME DAY. Let's not pretend that we know what those resolutions will be...


THe courts have a hard enough time protecting "property" in real life, let alone in virtual worlds!!!!

Example: I heard that a photographer won a copyright infringement case for his picture of the Golden Gate Bridge... not that the infringer copied his picture... but that he took his camera to the exact same spot, and pointed it in the exact same direction, and got what was considered the exact same result!!!! Hell, neigher one of them even owned the bridge!

So... let's not go where "law" takes us, folks... law is a twisted mess of bullcrap as often as not. Law does not = truth.

Ryder said:

"If you started a monopoly game... and paid REAL CASH to get in, and WON real cash at the end of the game... would YOU call the GAME PLAY actual COMMERCE?????????

"I think it is past time for you to start answering my questions, my friend."

Now, I'm no lawyer so I'm probably wetter than a turtle's belly.

However, I believe they still exist in the States -- Bingo Parlors. You pay REAL CASH to play the game and WIN real cash at the end of the game(s). The company that owns the Bingo parlor has provided you with entertainment and, possibly, winnings. The company would pay taxes for the actual COMMERCE they have engaged in (unless they are not for profit, which many used to be, and frankly, I don't know how much taxes they pay or don't). However you must declare your winnings to the IRS. As you would in your Monopoly game example.

And let's not forget about Vegas casinos. They are all havens of commerce, even though their "goods" are as vaporous as a flexiprim prom dress. They offer up games. You don't buy the cards or the dice. You pay for the joyous experience of betting and rolling and hoping you'll win the big jackpot. The casinos report business earnings from the gamblers. The gamblers report their winnings to the IRS.

Hey Rocky...

Yes... and we agree! The commerce that is going on here, is Linden Labs selling you a "seat at the game table" so to speak, and they pay their taxes!

The difficult question here... is that in the case of gameplay... activity IN game... is that "real" enough to be considered commercial activity in real life?

When I buy "Park Place" from sombody in Monopoly... does the IRS care?

What if I paid for a "seat" at the game before we started? What if I win some Monopoly money in the game? Is the game play itself "real"? Now, I might walk away with a lot of cash when I am done playing bingo or poker... and as INCOME, the IRS does in fact care... but what about the "wins" and "losses" in game??? Do we really have to show "betting" as a tracked expense? If I lose a hand in poker, is that deductable?

See what I mean? What happens IN GAME, is very very very very different than any winnings you might have when you walk away at the end of the day.


to all:

REPEATED CAUTION: Don't let a good SIMULATION or MODEL of "sales" in game, FOOL YOU into thinking that the sales are "real", any more than in Monopoly.

I know that some of you see that money goes into game... and money appears to come out... so you are tempted to assume that the "model" is real in all its aspects. I think that goes too far.

If I "buy" 1.5 million "lindens" from someone... play SL for a year, and then sell my "lindens" to someone else as I leave the game... for cash... what can really be assumed about what happened in game? I might take that cash and buy a $500,000 house. But since I bought the lindens in the first place...

And if I don't get all my $$$ back at the end of my time in SL... who here would say that I should be able to claim that as a "loss" with the IRS, and pay less taxes? (shifting that tax burden on to someone else in real life...)

We need to be very careful with what we assert here... as such assertions can have astounding ramifications that we may not see at first.

What some are saying here leads *directly* to strict accounting practices for tax purposes, and the full weight of TAX LAW to apply IN GAME.

Be VERY VERY VERY careful of what you are saying, folks.

You WILL kill the game if you are not.

Bump.


If you`re going to complain about people infringing(Which is definitely understandable) then help educate people, like answering this question

Ryder-

Real money. Real people. Real time. Real transactions.

There are a lot of things in this world that can't be used outside of whatever container they exist in... and yet they still have "real value".

Pre-paid unused cell phone minutes aren't "real" either,
but they do have real value.

Illegal reproduction and distribution of copyrighted works, especially for personal gain isn't "okay" just because the medium of reproduction is "very unique".

Movies aren't real either... but failing to obey copyright law has consequences there too.

--
c'est nes pas une pipe

heheheheh

You *say* real....
But can you show it?


If they are REAL people (in game) can you hire them? If you have "employees", then will you pay social security for them? Unemployment insurance?

You really have a LONG way to go before you can say "real" and have it mean a thing.

Real people OUT OF GAME, PLAY the game.

Real people OUT OF GAME, SPEND real money to PLAY the game.

Real people OUT OF GAME, TRANSACT for real, to PLAY the game.

It does not follow... that all of these REAL OUT OF GAME events.... make the GAME real, that there is real money IN game... or that there are real people IN game, or that real transactions (legal definition) happen IN game.

There is still a CLEAR barrier between the two.

You have the burden, it seems to me, to show how the reality of the cost of playing SL, translates into a meaningful "REALITY" inside of the game, where OUT OF GAME legal concepts can pass through.

And, *again*, I am NOT saying it is OK. I am saying that claims that it is *illegal* are very risky... and very "out there".

Don't try to find "truth" in law, "right or wrong" in law, or validation of any sort in law. They are not the same concepts. It used to be legal to own slaves. Will you use that to argue that it was true on some universal/basic level?

And nobody is arguing a point of percieved "value"... so that is a straw man.

The questions concern wether the kind of "value" created in a game experience... and that can not leave the confines of the game, requires legal protections for non players in the real world!

Would you play in SL if the IRS made you show recipts for your in game "purchases"?

Really, my friend... you are kinda out there...

well I understand how artists would want to protect there creations, like Boris. and his art shouldn't be sold unless by someone autherised by him or rep. as for the Coke machines, I am sure the company knows they are in SL, and are seeing that as free advertisment, I mean think about it almost 3 million people are signed up to SL, and they will at some point most likely see the machine. Free advertisment for COKE, any idea how much COKE spends for commercials and adds, In all copy right and trademark infringement is a tricky area in SL. But something like art, specialy when its known to be protected by online copyright acts, is just wrong. I can see uploading a scanned pic of a painting you bought RL to display in your home in SL, but uploading and selling the art . that was never yours. But to each there own.
As for Boris and his art yes i am a hugh fan, will i buy his art on SL "NO" only way i would is if him, julie or someone of proper legal statis makes a AV, joins SL and opens up a BORIS/Julie Bell art studio . Given that, If boris, does come to SL, to sell prints, Yay.

If he *can* sell them. It still remains to be seen if selling in world is possible!

Selling here, is really "selling" (with quotes).

I think that electronic duplication is all that Boris is covered for in SL... he could potentially prevent others from making copies here... IF it violates fair use.

I already mentioned this.. if I own an ice rink, and you leave a pair of ice skates there, I'm not responsible if your skates get broken or damaged. Since you can't use ice skates without a rink, and since I'm not responsible if the skates get broken.. by your logic, you never owned the skates. (?)

You place too much emphasis on SecondLife being a "simulation".
It is not a "closed system", but an open one.

It's obvious with LL's adherence to the DMCA that RL copyright law DOES affect SL, whether that's because LL chooses to respect and enforce it voluntarily, or because they can be forced to in a court of law no longer matters.

Simply put... they abide by the applicable laws.

Yes, there's a lot that's not yet decided, but I think you're being delusional if you think that because "SecondLife is not real" we can upload music and scan artwork with impunity.

SL is a repository of digital content, most of which can be experienced dynamically. That it can't all be downloaded and saved makes no it no less real than going to a movie theater to see a movie. You can't take it home, you pay for and enjoy the experience.

IF you profit from providing content that you don't have authorization to share... copyright law dictates consequences if applicable.

The MEDIUM of sharing may mitigate the consequences, to some degree. SecondLife is just another medium with it's own benefits and drawbacks... like web servers, or streaming audio, or cable tv, or netflix.

Taxes... however... I feel will only get as far as SL's gates. The IRS will want to tax the US citizens (And businesses?) that profit in US$ from using SL. Just like they want to tax gambling winnings, stock sales, etc.

It's easy for folks to hide their US$ income from SL for now... but I don't expect that to last for long.

While we're on the topic... /invalid_link.html

Flawed analogy. Of course you can use skates without a rink! Ever seen a porn movie?

If you will NOT LET me take the skates from the rink... then I *can't* leave them there... because it implies that I have a choice! If I may NOT take them, then how can I be said to own them? In fact, if I have to create them there, and use them there, and can not remove them... if their definition in every way is maintained by LL, at all points of it's existance ... then what is *mine* exactly? I don't even have the "right" to rez them in world!!! LL provides me the ability to... which they reserve the right to remove at any time and for any reason.

If you owned a RL rink... and I owned skates... just you TRY to keep me from taking them.

Posession is considered a God given NATURAL right. Are you sure you know what we are talking about here?


I know of someone who was locked out of their rental space in RL... such that they could not get to their posessions inside the rental space to remove them. Can you guess what the judge said when the place was broken in to and the contents vandalized?

You need to do MUCH better with you analogy I think.