Sex Gen Removed!

I haven't been keeping up with OpenSim lately (too much chaos and too many moving targets), so I don't actually know anything... Having said that, I find it hard to believe that they will be able to come up with any kind of secure system when the server code is open source and freely available.

.

Whether Linden Lab did something right or wrong, I would like to renew the call for everyone using the pirated kit, (including Sgoobzy Sideways who started this whole thread :} ) to get legal by either deleting the set from his / her inventory, OR by contacting the animation creators to get legal.

It's no less amateurish. It'll be just as avaricious. The problem is the immature mindsets behind the whole open source thing that breeds the corruption and signals thieves to come join the throng.

LL needs to be careful on how they use section 3.2 and not just let it be "tough, read your TOS"; because, one, it will discourage the creation new works and content along with loss of quality of such content (plain bad business move), and second, in American law, we have a thing called an "adhesion contract" which is unenforceable. One of the hallmarks of an adhesion contract is that it is a take it or leave it without any opportunity to negotiate the terms and conditions. I do not know whether the SL TOS could be deemed an adhesion, probably not, but they did set the whole thing up to have an economic stream. Since any and everything in SL is an intellectual property, and the ONLY value of an intellectual property is in its exclusiveness and ability of its owner to control its distribution. LL needs, in every way, to be careful how they handle this situation, business as well as legal.

That's pretty close to what I suggested too .

There's one little loophole there, but that's only for current content. You'd have near-full compliance for existing objects and full compliance for newly created objects which you'd never be able to achieve any other way.

I've read a few things that gave me pause - the most interesting of which is that many of the major movers and shakers behind the project take a dim view of IP and copyright. I've seen plenty of comments from people who thought SL was ruined by the whole commerce direction that it took early on -- those people are now the early pioneers of OpenSim.

Some worthy reads:
http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/general-sl-discussion/9069-please-help-me-understand-ibm.html

http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/content-creation/12519-content-permissions-alternate-grids.html

Who said anything about patents?? LL calls "things" that appear in inventory or rezzed in SL as Content. Content may or may not be associated with a patent, copyright or trademark. The point being, according to the TOS, any Content you create and sell or use is subject to the TOS and how it's interpreted.

The section of the TOS you quoted refers SOLELY to PATENT RIGHTS. Not copyright, nor trademark. (I mentioned trademark gratuitously because it is typically confused with copyright, as seen in discussions re: Stroker's lawsuit)



You said: DMCA deals with COPYRIGHT. Not patents.

Where in 3.2 does that say you give up copyright? It is very explicit as to what you give up, and copyright is not it.

No, you're confusing patents and copyrights. That TOS item is only about patents, and has nothing to do with copyrights or DMCA.

/me shuffles off to her corner totally embarassed.

You are so right. You do give a lot of copyright licenses to Linden Labs but not to other users. I was overenthusiastic in my reading from the previous paragraphs!

Hey everyone,

Sorry that took so long, I know it's rough when it seems like information should be available and isn't!

We're just now putting up the blog post, explaining in as much detail as we can give.

I realize we're not going to be able to answer all questions, and I'm sorry abut that, though we'll be there to talk in blog comments and or here, later this afternoon. (Laura and I are both in meetings until about 2pm SLT, but we'll be there talking later in the day.)

I hope you'll all understand that we can't always give details in legal matters, but we do care, very much, about keeping Second Life a great place for us all, and we are paying close attention to your questions and needs in this matter.

Thank you!
-- Katt Linden

*hug Snickers*

The point behind 3.2 seems to make some sense. Keeping it simple, patents are about protecting IDEAS. Copyright is about articulation distribution of ideas. Trademarks are about protecting a business' reputation.

My reading is this: if you upload your invention into SL, even if it is patented or with a patent pending, you cannot pragmatically say that Linden Lab does not have a right to use your invention. By uploading it you give Linden Lab and others the right to *use* (not copy!) your invention.

Copying is different, and you *can* prohibit copying of your item via the DMCA with a takedown notice, and in the event that the notice is contested, the initiation of a lawsuit.

Does anyone know if this thread holds any clue / truth as to how it all really started?

/327/14/232038/1.html#post1851943

Thanks for the update, Katt.

Well, the blog post is up. It doesn't say a lot but the key bit is the opening paragraph:

"Linden Lab inadvertently disabled some inworld content this past weekend. The problem should be fixed now, and we apologize for the inconvenience it caused. If you believe your content was inadvertently disabled, please try re-rezzing it. If that doesn’t work, please contact Support at http://secondlife.com/support."

Matthew

I am not seeing a blog post where is it exactly?

A lot of us know how it happened Chaz...
The way it happened is absolute.
I'm not going to point fingers in public.
The leak was confronted, and spoken to.. a long time ago.
It was unintentional, and a misunderstanding of perms. (the belief that if an object was marked as "no mod, no copy" that the animations inside were as well)
It was also corrected after a tutoring session.
But... the damage was done.
Its kinda obvious when someone is using the mis-permed menu/animations.
There is a pointless script attached to them.. the same one that the leak had.

The blog post is wholly disappointing.

Not to mention, inaccurate. The disabling was "inadvertent"???

If they had said, "Due to a mistake, content was disabled ....", then it would have been nicely spun but true. As it is, it's a bald-faced lie: it implies they didn't *mean* to disable this content.

PLEASE, LL: spin as you like, but make sure every statement is factually correct.

I would really like more clarity there too, Lear. Do they mean "inadvertently" because it was a technical problem, a miscommunication or a false DMCA claim? Katt?

Told you...Linden Lab would never intentionally remove infringing content. They would rather you suck it up in the name of "Fair Use".

Whatever the truth was, it took three days for it to settle out of suspension and leave a clear, colorless liquid for the blog. The original solution must have had a lot of the pesky stuff.

I'm not going to go back through all the posts in this thread to where you said it specifically, but early on in this thread you said that your best guess was not that the deletion was a DMCA crackdown, but most likely, to use your word, it was an "anomoly."

It seems like you guessed it right on the button.

Are you implying that the MLP script does infringe a copyright/patent?

Matthew