|
Yumi Murakami
DoIt!AttachTheEarOfACat!
Join date: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 6,860
|
01-23-2007 20:49
From: Ryder Spearmann Right, and if people start a movement in SL where copyright violation is assumed as if SL was the real world, as opposed to a model, then they will help generate the violation.
In other words, you're saying: "Let's not try to understand the consequences of these things from a legal point of view, because that way if it turns out it was illegal and we get caught, we can use the fact we didn't understand them as an excuse?" |
|
Jopsy Pendragon
Perpetual Outsider
Join date: 15 Jan 2004
Posts: 1,906
|
01-23-2007 21:37
From: Ryder Spearmann ... if people start a movement in SL where copyright violation is assumed as if SL was the real world... then they will help generate the violation.
... most people seemed to assume that there is commerce and profit in game, yet all factual evidence that I have seen collected says otherwise. (in part because people have a hard time understanding the difference between transactions out of game, and "trades" in game.)
It is called a self fulfilling prophesy. If you act guilty, people will assume you are.
If one person panics, then panic can spread everywhere.
WRT SL and copyright: Don't panic, and fergodsakes, DO NOT CLAIM FOUL if you don't know what you are talking about.
It is one thing to say that "I see copyright violations all over SL." or "SL is full of thieves..." and another to say "I have to wonder if many of the things I see in SL are close to, or actually are infringing on copyright." Okay. An example: You buy the latest "Harry Potter" book. You read it... You love it so much you type the whole thing into your computer. You upload it to your web-site so other people can enjoy it too. You send the URL to a friend and tell them: "This is Free! Read it! Copy it! Forward it! Publish it!" How is that not a violation of copyright?By uploading content, we are automatically granting Linden Lab the right to view, copy, distribute and publish OUTSIDE OF SECONDLIFE if they want ... and they can do it all royalty free. Only the copyright holder can legally grant those rights to Linden Lab. The only reason this whole mess slips under the radar is because it's not cost effective for most artists to try extorting damages from people infringing on their copyrights in SecondLife. Yet. Maybe it never will be. I'm not taking chances with it. |
|
Watermelon Tokyo
Square
Join date: 20 Nov 2006
Posts: 93
|
01-24-2007 09:42
From: Jopsy Pendragon Much of law depends on people making a reasonable effort to abide by the spirit and letter of the law. "Wait and see if we get caught and punished." doesn't fly as well as "As I understood these laws and the environment I operate in, my actions were legal and proper." From: Ryder Spearmann Right, and if people start a movement in SL where copyright violation is assumed as if SL was the real world, as opposed to a model, then they will help generate the violation. From: Yumi Murakami In other words, you're saying: "Let's not try to understand the consequences of these things from a legal point of view, because that way if it turns out it was illegal and we get caught, we can use the fact we didn't understand them as an excuse?" I agree with Ryder that starting up a culture where everything SL is the same as their real world counterparts, but I also don't think it's reasonable to sweep the issue under the carpet under the pretext of "it's all a game" While opinions differ on where the lines are, content creators (especially ones that don't do 100% original work), really ought to have a position one way or the other on this issue, with justification. Having said that, most people are probably NOT interested in hashing out the arguments and would benefit from being told what's allowed and what's not. It's also important to not that if LL removes content due to a charge of infringement, it could affect a lot of people who bought things, in good faith, that use that content. Assuming of course that we're talking about more-or-less honest folks (as opposed to those deliberately and knowingly violating copyright), there is a need for people to know, at least roughly, where the lines are. For example, suppose it was established (in some authoritative way - and I don't mean a forum consensus) that: "Yes you may scan and import a copyrighted picture to hang on your walls, provided that access to your home is by invitation only, and cannot be transferred to others. You cannot display it in a public place, or allow transfers to others." Something like that is tremendously useful for the residents-at-large. |