Sex Gen Removed!

If that is what is happening here, i can only hope that the complainer reaps what they have sown. But we are just supposing that this issue involves the animations used in the MLP product. For all we really know this could be a dispute over a texture that somewhat resembles one created by E.C.

The sad fact is that the bar for filing a valid DCMA takedown are so low that it is easy to file a misguided notice and very difficult to prove a bad faith filing

Linden Labs does have potential liability for operating Second Life in such a way that it is easy for rip-off artists to thrive. The reason is that Second Life has induced people to come participate in its little Second Life economy.

In marketing Second Life, Linden Labs has advertised that it would recognize and protect intellectual property on Second Life. This is one of its great advertising points on "Your World. Your Imagination." This is the feature that supposedly makes Second Life so unique and different from other virtual worlds, remember?

It's Linden Labs that has induced people to operate in its cesspool economy by promising that residents can, "Make real money in a virtual world. That's right, real money."

It's Linden Labs that has claimed that, "The Second Life world has a fully-integrated economy architected to reward risk, innovation, and craftsmanship."

It's Linden Labs that made the claim that, "Residents create their own virtual goods and services. Because residents retain the IP rights of their creations, they are able to sell them at various in-world venues."

So when Linden Labs induces people to participate in the economy with fraudulent claims about the economy, then yes, it opens itself to liability to people who are damaged by participating in the economy based on Linden Labs's fraudulent inducement.

Linden Labs has taken down some of its grand claims about the Second Life economy, but some still remain on the web:

http://secondlife.com/whatis/marketplace.php

I'm hearing a lot of opinion about how the law should be.

Sadly, it aint' going to change how it is, and what Linden Lab must operate under.

Wesley Snipes got opinions from Eddie Ray Kahn, and Douglas P. Rosile that Americans didn't have to pay income tax. Guess what, despite getting opinion based on firmly-held belief, he going to jail anyway :}

Linden Lab is according to the law doing the right thing.

Nothing in the law required LL to remove items that were innocently and legally made using a script which happened to be used in an illegal item elsewhere.

Sometimes, to make an omelette, you gotta break a few eggs.

This is a very good point.

Transfer should not automatically allow someone to resell the item. There should be a separate checkmark for resell.

transfer/no resell will allow someone to transfer the item for free, and enforce a non-commercial use provision.

Not entirely, I can totally see the situation where Ms. Capalini's scripts might have been included in freebie distributions. In such cases, people might have actually thought they were getting a free script that was totally legal to use, replacing animations with their own content, not noticing the creator tag is different from Miffy Fluffy.

In such a case, and its clear from many replies that this is the case, these people got caught up in the aftermath innocently, and this is why I stress educating people about using notecards to distribute code, and copying code into a fresh script with their own creator tags, to avoid this scenario.

edit - let me stress again

MLP IS A TOTALLY LEGAL OPEN SOURCE SCRIPT.

I'm investigating what happened and will post more information when I have it.

Thank you!
-- Katt Linden

So in reality the idea that creators have to file DMCA's for that which SL really controls and owns is just a way to not have to deal with it.

They have to reimburse losses? Complete bollocks. The TOS covers that.

Agree that LL should have taken more prompt action (IE when Stroker first made his complaint) however reimbursing everyone for every little thing that happens (which seems to be a common thread with you) would bankrupt LL and force everyone including the legal hard working content creators out of business.

No what they did was right (except for leaving inventory copies) As painful as it is, if there is a potential of an infringement, the moment a take down order is given then any potentially infringing content created by that AV should go. Remember it hasn't been totally zapped as it will still be in the database. A judgement can be made as to whether there is any infringement by comparing the alleged infringing item with the "real" item provided by the original creator. If they are found to be innocent then the items can be restored.

Oh BTW I'd like to know how you can code SL to prevent this happening. It's a known fact that SL uses OpenGL as its graphics engine. the Open bit says it all. It's a well known standard. Someone could code to get all the details they want without even modifying the viewer. Problem is, unless SL is made platform specific (ie Windows only) there is little or no way of stopping it. That would go for any object. I'm not going to say how its done. I've not tried (I don't steal) and to explain it fully would be irresponsible if I had. But I know it is possible. Digital theft is next to impossible to prevent as the RIAA know only too well. You cannot blame Linden Labs for this one.

World of Warcraft also uses OpenGL, but they have programmed within their source code, the ability to detect if external applications are running from the installation folder.

Anyone copying textures is perma-banned.

LL could do the same, but they choose not to... so once again, the interface facilitates piracy.

Actually I own anything I create in SL. I own the FULL IP to it as long as it isn't stolen or being cross licensed.

I assure you that can be got around. It doesn't have to be run from the installation folder.

However I agree LL can do more. and Permabanning people who are proven to be content thieves is a start. They should also suspend those who are under query.

I didnt say you don't own you IP I said LL can delete anything it wishes whenever it wishes. Has nothing to do with your IP rights.

To hell with the TOS.. LL has to look at it from a PR point of view. If someone spends a lot of money on something they had no idea was illegal, then got that item pulled without reimbursement that person is not likely to ever buy anything from anyone ever again... If this happens to enough people you can say good bye to SL.

Also people are not going to WORK to find out if what they are buying is legit. SL is all about convenience. If a buyer has to spend the "30 seconds" to IM someone they will simply not buy from them. Also who says the person answering the IM is legit? What proof can they provide? None. Even reputation isn't enough anymore.

People are already spending considerably less as the usefulness/value of SL has diminished. Just keep giving people more reasons not to buy stuff and watch SL's economy slowly die.

Add to that the alt games going on... Alt camping, alts for traffic farms, entering events and voting for themselves with their other alts to win, club owners offering a lot of money in their events and have their own alts winning it so they don't loose, certain DJ's having a "fan club" they say they will bring to events to get the DJ job but his "fans" are just his alts (funny to watch when they crash, he and all his "fans" crash but no one else does), alts being used to steal and make stuff, alts being used for land grab bots and so on.... Who ever has the most alts wins these days and people are getting tired of it.

LL ruining peoples stuff with no reimbursement just adds insult to injury.

This is what happens when you mix RL money into the mix.... Greed takes over and eventually ruines it for all.

I think you should look at it from a RL point of view. Be happy the original maker of the content doesn't sue you for infringement. You are potentially liable.

the people who might have a case are those who lost content with open source freely available content that got accidently lumped in with what was deleted. These people are also best poised to make right to their customers by simply fixing the items. If you are selling merchandise with stolen content - you have no leg to stand on.

*bump*

Content creators can cheer over this, but then you're missing the fact that many innocent people got hit by this. You may not care, that's fine, but you should care about the fact that those peple are your potential customers as well and they're not going to think you're any more trustworthy than the person they bought whoever it was they bought whatever from.

Someone mentioned the RIAA... unless it's just a lot of noise, they don't seem too terribly popular even though all they're doing is protecting the copyright of whoever has signed up with them. Most people in SL are very to hugely supportive of content creators right now; they'll happily report infringement whenever they find it, they'll support legitimate business and condemn anything that hurts a content creator. Going down the RIAA path of "my rights matter, to hell with consumers" has the potential to sour that very badly.

(Edited that none of the above in any way means you can't go after infringers however you want, please do, but do it in a way that doesn't impact people who had nothing to do with the infringement which is currently the *only* group who ends up hurt by it, you're letting infringers get away with a pat on the back, they already cashed out long ago)

Yeah indeed, that has nothing to do with my post however?

I was going to let your earlier thiny veiled "Strokerz beds are the only ones you can trust, MLP is a copycat!" post go by without comment but then I happened to take a look at what you're selling on OnRez and that coupled with the above quote was just too delicious to let pass without noting the sheer irony of you saying it while being a freebie/stuff from BIABs seller.

yes, you have no right to reimbursement, unless you sue the person who sold you the bunk content.

LL and the copyright holder have no obligations to them.

LL *have* to remove content in response to DMCAs, but it could be done in a better manner.

For example, only the specific infringing asset could be removed - so that items with a stolen texture would just change to "texture missing" - and then the creator could be offered the chance to replace the asset with a non-infringing one, which would then appear on all of the bought items.

In the case of modifyable objects it becomes even more complicated. What if I buy a modify-ok object that's got an infringing texture on it, but I recognise it's infringing, so I replace the texture with one of my own?

Not sure I made my point clear... I didn't mean throw the TOS out... I meant just because LL in not required to reimburse the people they removed the content from, because the TOS says they don't, does not mean that it the right thing to do. That is NOT in their best interest from a PR point of view.

That'll make a great incentive to encourage sales .

LL should make a MOTD out of it: "Please note that you're liable and might get sued for anything you buy in Second Life that turns out to be infringing. Happy shopping!".

LL has never done anything I can remember based on what looks good for their PR. Every decision that has resulted in a major sweep of the grid (child porn, gambling and now this) was the result of covering their rears legally. They use a broad sword to clear, not a pair of tweezers.

If you expect them to do something for PR sake or even because it makes sense you will be disapointed often.

I know this.... That is why I said from a PR (public relations) point of view.... People will give a rats ass that they "have no right" to reimbursement. They will expect it or they will either not buy anything anymore or leave and that is far worst than reimbursment...