Sex Gen Removed!

Uh oh. I don't think this was the way it was reported by other posters, who were able to rez new copies of even the E.C. prims, fully intact. And reports were that one or more Lindens even told people to go ahead and do that. One wonders what more is broken now.

This could be about which version of the server of the SIM you are on?

The originals in my inventory are still intact, but rezzed objects were broken.

But now we are on the subject anyway and the original script itself still is open source, does anybody know where and how to set another listen channel in the scripts?

the point here is you cant dmca an open source script the original script was written and made open source by miffy fluffy and is in the lsl wiki for all to take if thay wish,Eva had nothing to do with writting it so how has she dmca a script she didnt even write or own LL need to think carefully about how they are going to compensate us because the damage is done and cant be fixed in the case of my customers .I can fix this myself and hand out replacments to all my customers but that could take a while so how is LL going to compensate me for stealing my work if they dont do anything there no better than common criminals

It's reassuring that yours are still working (I'm assuming they're the ones affected by the E.C.-as-creator problem, inasmuch as the rez'd instances were poofed).

As for the channels, I'm looking at the original MLP 1.2 source, specifically the ~menu script, and it uses three channels assigned at state_entry based on the key of the prim in which the script is contained, so one should (almost) always get a unique set of channels when a new instance of the prim is created. It's possible for there to be a collision between instances because it uses just the last 4 hex digits of the key, but that should be pretty rare. (It uses one of the three channels for the dialog menus, and the other two to talk to the rezzed poseballs.)

......

To the larger question, Eazel, yeah, this is pretty seriously whacked--hence 430-some posts on this thread over the weekend, and other related threads here, too, plus some jiras. And no blog post yet (and is that any wonder? wtf could one say to make this fiasco look like something other than gross incompetence?).

Qie, MLP 1.2 has a bug regarding this. If you initialize one, and then take it into inventory and re-rez it, the copy uses the same base channel and you get menu crosstalk.

MLPV2 does a menu reset on rez to avoid this. You can defeat that feature in the MENUITEMS file.

It should also do a position reset, since it's probably moved -- but doesn't at this time.

I just wanted to be clear that Cristalle is no doubt speculating and Im' sure doesn't intend for it to be interpreted as any more than that; the only way to be certain would be to take the 30 seconds to IM Parsalin Gullwing and wait for an answer.

There is a lot of focus on getting the scripts back.

I'd like to change the focus for a second. Not all [1], but many, have the scripts because they came as part of a "full perm sex bed."

This incident has served to make everyone in this thread, at least, aware that all the animations in that package are pirated.

This is the reason all this happened, and we must not lose site of that.

I'd like to know how many are going to either delete the pirated animations and stop using them, or make an effort to contact the creators and try to get the animations licenced.

I understand that many think Linden Labs didn't do the right thing. Well, examining our own actions for a minute, how many of us are now going to do the right thing?

[1] Some had scripts signed by Eva because Lear used them as a shell for MLPv2.

Just reset the item and it will get a new channel based on it's key. Or use MLPV2, which will do this automatically. Does that answer your question? Sorry, I didn't read this whole thread. A random sampling shows a very large number of posts with serious inaccuracies.

BTW, my suggestion to LL on how to handle this case: for all infringed assets, based on UUID, delete all full-perms copies from personal or object inventories. No doubt an expensive database operation, but one they could run in the background for weeks.

Yes, a lot of innocent people who thought they were buying legitimate objects would get screwed.

BTW, I seriously doubt that Parsaling Gullwing would make so many of his animations free. His shop is still running and selling these animations, not giving them away freely. That was my clue that these were not intentionally set loose as freebies.

I didn't realize that the animations were freebies. I purchased a set in furniture, as would have been intended. Another set, I purchased in an engine, which I thought would have been fine. I didn't realize that animations were being given out as freebies when they weren't.

/me waits for LLs official response on this mater.

I also sell(sold) MLP2 beds. I used Miffys scripts and the assortment of animations that came packaged with them. They did survive Saturdays "big deletion", but this thread(Chaz's posts especially) has made me aware that the animations were pirated at some point.

I have of course pulled the animations out of the items and contacted all the animation creators. I have( and will) make amends with all of original animation creators to clear my conscience. In effect buying license for the animations that I will not use anymore.

Lesson learned. Never use other people stuff in you products....ever. Kinda puts a damper on collaboration...

I will also not sell MLP anymore due to the stigma it picked up this weekend.

/me introduced the new line of Non animated static beds.

Right, Crystalle -- innocent people get hosed.

Thanks to Ann OToole for this bit, from a JIRA entry:



However, DCMA may override this. That's part of the legal question here. The other part is deletion of non-infringing assets, such as the MLP scripts and notecards.

LL was trying to do the right thing here, and goofed. And I suspect that any reasonable remedy will have unfortunate consequences. The root problem is lack of permissions system support for value-added reselling.

For a good summary of this issue, see

/327/17/265105/1.html

and be sure to read post #3 as well.

Can't even count how many times the vocal minority (I say that only because it seems the be the "big money-makers" being vocal) - has complained to Linden Lab that when a DMCA Take down is requested - every single instance of it in the database should be removed and not just the specific instances in some in-world shop.

Well... in the case of the MLP scripts - it appears (based on other discussions I've seen) - to be a fraudulent DMCA complaint for griefing purposes.

Hmmm - I;ve had only one request for a replacement product all weekend (the scripts poofed) and the replacement worked fine.

Meh - using XPose now anyway.

All I can say is: be careful what you ask for. Practically everything I have seen people whine about on the SL Blog -HAS- come to pass, whether LL acknowledges it or not.

Heh. Ouch.

The code Ann quotes is about "goods". Although much of the discourse about selling in SL is about selling virtual objects (virtual goods) - and indeed the UI talks of "owners", burried in the smallprint is that what are being sold are licenses to use content, not the content itself (it is the same issue that you don't buy software, you buy a license to use software).

As such it isn't clear that rights as regards the sale of goods necessarily apply here.

Matthew

I haven't seen any evidence for that, but I am convinced that EC distributed copies of animations by at least two prominent makers with full permissions, and is the legitimate target of a DMCA filing.

And I'm happy to hear that Miffy is getting XPOSE business. XPOSE can do significantly more than MLPV2, so I'm not surprised.

That's an interesting interpretation. However, one would wonder whether DMCA would override the UCC for something like a CD.

I'd refine your distinction: when you buy something that has copy/xfer permissions, it's more like a license than goods. However, why you buy something with copy/no-xfer or xfer/no-copy, it's more like goods. IMHO (which doesn't mean much here), these latter should be treated like goods from the standpoint of UCC, and copy/xfer items should not.

But this is the problem - the actual digital content is never in your possession on SL, it's all on LL's servers. If LL allowed you to rez the object, you would have to access the content on their asset server in order to do so, and then they would have failed to block access.

Whilst I have no doubt that the music industry would love to lobby for such a power - pragmatism comes into play - removing all content from a service is due to technology quite trivial; locating every physical copy of a CD (possible sold and shipped world wide) and confiscating it isn't economic.



There are plenty of software licenses which restrict you to a any user on a given computer (cf no copy/transfer) or a given user on any computer (cf no transfer/copy). Borland once had a somewhat enlightened "use like a book" license whereby you could install on as many computers as you liked, and could be used by as many users as you liked as long as only one person was using it at any one time. All these are licenses that are arguably "more like goods" but it doesn't change the fact that they are licenses nevertheless.

Matthew

Fine, but the question remains as to whether this has been ajudicated. For the purposes of UCC, are they treated as goods or not?

My interpretation would be that UCC was drawing a distinction between goods and services, leaving licences in a gray area. IMHO, UCC should apply to software items governed by license agreement, rather than being considered as services (where it's not feasible to undo in any case).

So, what are the facts? Our opinions here don't matter, legal precedent does.

"Goods" means all things that are movable when a security interest attaches. The term includes (i) fixtures, (ii) standing timber that is to be cut and removed under a conveyance or contract for sale, (iii) the unborn young of animals, (iv) crops grown, growing, or to be grown, even if the crops are produced on trees, vines, or bushes, and (v) manufactured homes. The term also includes a computer program embedded in goods and any supporting information provided in connection with a transaction relating to the program if (i) the program is associated with the goods in such a manner that it customarily is considered part of the goods, or (ii) by becoming the owner of the goods, a person acquires a right to use the program in connection with the goods. The term does not include a computer program embedded in goods that consist solely of the medium in which the program is embedded. The term also does not include accounts, chattel paper, commercial tort claims, deposit accounts, documents, general intangibles, instruments, investment property, letter-of-credit rights, letters of credit, money, or oil, gas, or other minerals before extraction.


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/article9.htm#dgoods

So software is not covered by goods unless it is an integral part of another good (e.g. the firmware of a mp3 player)

virtual goods aren't explicitly mentioned (unsruprisingly) but I'd hazard would probably be deemed "general intangibles".

Matthew

I was talking to a friend yesterday when she complained that a couch she bought recently stopped working.

It wasn't until she mentioned that it was "naughty" that I made the connection. I asked her to tp me over and indeed, the animations mentioned in this thread were all there, without scripts.

The seller/creator wasn't EC so it looks like there are likely more people who need to have all their content wiped from the grid; if you're going to clean things you might as well do it properly and rid the grid of everyone who ever resold those animations (she paid L$5k for that couch or something).

Are the involved creators interested in names of others who resold/are reselling the animations?

"The right thing" would have been to sue all the resellers one by one and collect damages based on the amount resold. The damages would have retroactivelly licensed all the animations in furniture consumers bought and wouldn't have caused anyone who wasn't involved in the resale of them any inconvenience and more importantly, you'd have the money that should have been due to you.

All this did was annoy a whole lot of innocent people for no good reason and all the resellers get to walk off with all the proceeds for their illegitimate sales.

Looking at the whole big picture, from start to finish, it did a few other things as well:

- it put those of us who prided ourselves in using animations legally at a competitive disadvantage;
- it ripped off the people who did the hard work of making animations;
- it caused some people to give up making animations all together.

Just wanted to make sure those items got added to the list of "all this did" :}

While the removal of the scripts was just wrong, I can see why LL did that. To do it without any sort of notice was VERY, VERY wrong. While as a content creator I am very much against content theft, this was a very bad way to handle this particular issue.

I think there are a couple of broader issues here as well.

As a consumer how are we supposed to know what is safe to buy now? Sales were already in a deep slump from the constant database issues, and now we have had tens of thousands of items either go missing or break. I expect sales to plummet from this. With this kind of impact even those that do not read the forums will know someone that had something go poof. Word will spread, and people already afraid to spend hard earned cash will be even more afraid.

As a content creator how can we really know that the texture we are buying is safe to buy? Or that we can use the animation we got in a freebie box in some build? Does this mean that to be safe we all have to become animators, texture artists, scriptors and builders? That the only way to no be a content creator is to make EVERYTHING yourself?

I am a pretty good builder, and a very good scriptor, but my photoshop skills are still rather primitive and my animation skills even worse.. So where does this leave me? I will tell you my initial reaction. And that is to just not bother with it.. But the building is one of my big enjoyments in SL. So what do I do?

So far I have not been selling my creations on any large scale. And much of what I have made is 90% to 1000% my own creations. But I do use some textures I bought at some of the larger texture houses, and some "freebie" full perm animations I got from some freebie boxes.. So how do I know those are ok to use? The answer I have gotten from reading all of the posts here is that I cannot tell. I can try to IM every "creator" of everything I use that is not mine, but how does this help? If I had sent an IM to Eva and asked her is these items were ok to use, what would have been the response do you think?

This whole fiasco is going to have a very chilling effect for a great many people.

While I don't have a good answer to the problem of determining what is safe to use, I think LL had better come up with something.. The enconomy of SL is shaky right now as it is.. It does not need any more shaking up.

The official definition from Article 2 is:

(1) "Goods" means all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (Article and things in action. "Goods" also includes the unborn young of animals and growing crops and other identified things attached to realty as described in the section on goods to be severed from realty"

It appears there has been an attempt to add licenses to the scope of UCC initially as article 2B but then as a seperate act - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCITA

Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have got very far, not least because it looks like an initial attempt to add consumer protection became subverted. It included clauses to prohibit reverse engineering and which limited liability protection in a way that only large companies could take advantage of and not small open source developers - see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ucita.html

Matthew