Second Life Sued For Allowing Sale Of Impostor Virtual Goods

Given how Stroker's 2007 Catteneo lawsuit came down, I imagine one thing he would like to see happen is that all merchants are required to have RL contact info on file with LL. That would not be a bad thing.

Better DMCA processing would be good too, more baking would be excellent, and there are a few other ideas mentioned above that would help. Since you can't completely do away with the copybot threat without fundamentally changing the platform, I think all these measures that limit the number of useful textures that can be snagged, and make it harder for thieves to succeed with stolen goods, are excellent.

What would NOT be excellent is if LL decides that all merchants have to go through a licensing process. That would kill creativity in SL.

I agree that this lawsuit will be settled by LL, unless it turns out that the filing has enough weaknesses that it can simply be defeated. By now, I assume Stroker is savvy enough t not to expect a huge windfall settlement. Class action suits (though I've never heard of one with just 2 beneficiaries!) have a way of twisting so that the only people buying new beamers are the lawyers.
I don't read clause 35 as establishing a claim to all menued furniture - I see no way Stroker could make that stand up. I bet you anything that menued cushions with touch-to-change-position predated Sexgen.

Your point about the "moon and stars" is interesting to hear; if so, that makes settlement more likely.
.

how will it benefit us ?

the next thing is that Lindens will start banning the production of items based on tv shows and films for fear of those companies bringing copyright to bear...

Im sure those people who manufacture avvy's based on film stars or personalities might get a little worried as might those who produce items based on tv shows or films.

I suppose if Lindens suddenly decide to ban items based on films or tv shows makers might very soon to complain about the application of copyright laws then. As might all those people who come to enjoy role playing as their favourite Star Trek, Star Gate , Disney or Doctor Who character.

not to mention that any hefty damages against lindens will certainly NOT benefit users.

You watch tiers increase if hefty lawsuits become the order of the day.

I understood what you were trying to say just fine.

The only point I was trying to make, which you would have picked up on if you'd actually read what I said, was that to many people the term "copybot" means anything that can make illegal copies of stuff. To those people, saying...

...when everybody knows that such modified open source viewers do indeed exist, makes you less credible.

And you don't have to argue with everybody that responds to everything you say, you know.

That's already in the pipe. They've started to step on "unlicensed IP" on XStreet. Stargates, cartoon characters, etc. If you don't have a license to the IP, and the IP owner hasn't publicly licensed its IP, you're infringing on their copyrights/trademarks when you make objects/avatars which are based on it.

For example, Coca-Cola has given blanket permission to use its logo anywhere and everywhere in Second Life (and other virtual worlds). A smart move, if you ask me; free marketing. Unfortunately, not very many copyright/trademark holders are so forward-thinking, and LL is obligated to protect their IP interests just as much as it is to protect those of the Residents.

I agree. And I think other statements here about what Stroker is attempting to do are broader than what is stated in the complaint.

Well they announced this sometime back:

But I couldn't understand the negative reaction to the news on this thread:


Seems like they can't win.

Misusing a term is no better than making a false assertion. Modified viewers aren't even bots, so misusing the "copybot" term to ascribe to all copy tools is more than a misnomer.



I don't; just when I feel it is necessary; especially when the poster posts thinly-veiled snark, which you have on a number of occasions now.

If LL gets serious about content creators' rights, it will benefit everyone by making it a more attractive platform for creative people to invest their time and RL money. As it stands now, many successful creators in SL have had to stand by and watch their hard work get pirated without much intervention by LL. This is a huge disincentive, and many have quit rather than to continue to feed the pirates.

The current situation allows for piracy, and LL has been remiss in taking steps to address it despite countless ARs and requests from creators. Doing so may mean that knock-offs and copyright-infringing goods get removed from the servers, but that is as it should be. It's long past time LL seriously address this issue, and because of this delay any solution is going to be accompanied by a good deal of pain for many, unfortunately.

I must order up on all the star trek/ doctor who goodies before the inevitable happens then

and lets see how many are happy when that includes ' financial' pain too.... lindens wont stand out of pocket it'll be the ordinary users of sl who pay for this.

I suspect this is trying to link in with the Taser lawsuit, which argued that since LL now owns XStreet and takes a profit margin from goods sold through it, LL can be legally deemed to be "selling" everything on XStreet and responsible on that basis.

Yes. So it should be ignored that so many people think of it that way anyway. All these non-technical people really, really need to get their asses in school and learn this stuff so you don't have to see anything, ever, from somebody elses point of view.

Best of luck with that.

I think this already happened in the recent update to the rules on trademarked goods on XSL.

It's worse than that: When they are directly informed of content theft, they do absolutely nothing (and in my case, worse than nothing).

.

The shouldn't do that because of fear of lawsuits.

The should have done that a long time ago because it's the right thing to do. Exploiting someone else's reputation or intellectual property is wrong, and should never have been allowed.

I am kinda worried about that...
I do see Stokers side to... but knowing the Lindens they will make us pay in every way they can so none of us upstart customers get any more ideas in our heads about LL needing to do the right thing.

okay so suppose lindens introduce the sl version of a patents office ....

I can imagine how many content creators would suddenly start whinging about increased red tape and possibly the costs of copyrighting in the virtual world too....

If you want all that go make something in the real world, copyright it and patent it there and let the rest of us escape the irksome realities of real time beaureaucracy and adminisitration....

these people are already spoiling the 'game'

No, it most certainly should not be ignored. That's the point.

Like everything else in life, some lessons come easy, but most come hard.

I don't know about you, but I don't think I would defend ignorance as a point of view. <.<



Thank you for your support!

How about "the vast majority of copying tools (including copybots) are NOT based on the open source code, and if there was never any open source client they would still all be out there. Open-sourcing the client did not create this problem, eliminating the open source client wouldn't even slow it down."

I'm becoming absolutely sick to death of people lighting pitchforks and sharpening torches under the banner of "ban open-source viewers" every time a story surfaces about stuff being mass-copied. It is extremely illogical and just makes no sense - and is also harmful to the community at large.

One of the largest open-source projects in existence (well, okay, *two* of them) do not have the sort of problems plaguing SL, and they are GNU/Linux. How many virus infections or security breeches have you ever heard about involving Linux systems? Not many, I'd reckon. Conversely, how many of these have happened involving a well-known *closed source* system (aka Windows) have you heard about? I'd reckon not a day goes by where it's not news somewhere. Now before you go off and say, "well, yes, but Windows systems outnumber Linux systems by a thousand to one", I'm talking *per-capita percentages* here. As for theft of third-party IP, it's pretty even across both the closed- and open-sourced platforms, which suggests rather strongly that it is not the platform itself that is the problem.

And, no, before we even go there, the problem isn't OpenGL either. Texture-extraction can be performed just as easily on Direct3D systems.

The problem is, in my opinion, unreasonable paranoia on the part of the content creators who turn to rather draconian means of trying to protect their products. Although I can understand the sentiment, it does nothing to stop true thieves. It only serves to piss off your legitimate customers. Record companies applying draconian DRM to their music have actually made the piracy problem much, much worse because of it, because the DRM mechanisms were so onerous that normal, everyday people were forced to commit piracy just to get fair use from their purchases. The same thing may be happening in SL. Just the other day, I got a really nice outfit from over the Designer Subscription Network (DSN). However, it had one fatal flaw: It was no-mod/no-copy. So, here I am with a dress containing so many scripted listening agents that it would put sionCorn to shame. So, I can either wear the dress, fit it, delete all the scripts after the fitting, and then never ever change my shape ever again; or I can deal with the immense lag I would get every time I TP or cross region boundaries.

There is no reason whatsoever for a clothing designer to make any part of the outfit (particularly the primmed parts) no-modify. None. Oh, sure, there's the argument that someone could easily slip a duplicating script into a moddable outfit and then sell knock-offs based on that. But that can be done regardless of the modify permission. The only thing setting clothes to no-modify (and worse: no-mod/no-copy) accomplishes is to *encourage* your customers to buy the less-restrictive knock-offs.

As long as there are computers, there will always be a way to steal intellectual property. We can limit the likeliness of theft by instilling sensible security measures and fostering respect for intellectual property. However, the minute you treat your clients as potential criminals and lock everything down through restrictive and punitive DRM or keeping everything closed-source, you've lost the war.

Well, they've announced similar initiatives all the way back to late 2006, too; even had "town halls" with content creators after the original copybot fiasco, with all kinds of ideas they said they would get right on. Well, it is THREE YEARS LATER, and, well, there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to show for all that effort.

http://blogs.secondlife.com/community/features/blog/2006/11/17/todays-town-hall-with-philip-now-available

http://blogs.secondlife.com/community/features/blog/2006/11/14/copyrights-and-content-creation-in-second-life

I presume you did file a proper DMCA takedown notice, correct?

Even if so, I have heard several tales now of how LL does little to nothing to stop the infringement even after receiving a proper DMCA notice for the content.

My suggestion: if you are serious about protecting your content, and LL has had ample time to handle your notice (they are supposed to do it immediately, but if it has been two weeks, the time is more than up), I'd suggest going ahead, getting a lawyer, and filing suit, naming LL for vicarious infringement. You might even be able to get on this lawsuit, if it indeed attains class-action status.

This.

Here's my whole take on this case: Some guy creates an amazing product a few years ago, and demand for the product skyrockets. Rather than continue to innovate and branch out, he rests on his laurels and enjoys the profits he's raking in, completely ignorant of the fact he's about to be come a victim of his own success. While he stagnates, other people, inspired by his work, take up the innovative slack, and create newer, better things based on the Sexgen concept. Seeing his market share slipping away, he decides - rather than to fight innovation with innovation - to fight innovation with lawsuits. Instead of taking responsibility for his own success, he's imploring an already-overburdened legal system to do it for him.

On the issue of people making direct copies of his work and passing them off as the originals, I am curious to know how involved he was in pursuing proper legal and DMCA actions *as the piracy was occurring*. Was he vigilant from day one? Or did he ignore the problem until he could use it as an excuse for his declining market share?