Do people care about Content Creator rights?

I am also aware that SL is still looked upon as an open source 'game'. If you look at how much revenue is produced in Sl on a daily basis then we may want to take a closer look at the 'free' open source game we interact in. LL is making their cut, the content thieves are making their cut, and well, if there is anything left over, then the content creators will eventually get theirs.

I have been selling my original 3D models on Turbo Squid for over two years now, and they take it VERY serious when one of the content creators open up a trouble ticket against a thief who blatantly is reselling their very own models or textures in competition against them. I have seen where the thief was shut down not in days or weeks or months but within HOURS of the whistle being blown. That is taking it serious.

Open source be damned! There is a hell of a lot of money being made DAILY by thieves in SL and NO ONE (not even LL) takes it serious. Suppose I or a friend of mine finds someone in world re-selling the art they stole from me...and I put in a trouble ticket...what the outcome would be...?

...yeah that’s what I thought.

We bitch and moan about bots, griefers and downtime, but I am willing to bet if LL gets serious enough about the concerns of their clients (that would be us) and begins to take us a bit more serious things will change for the better. But until then...keep expecting the same mediocrity and complacency to continue.

What I am saying is that we are left to our own devices to police against thieves...the problem lies in that if we go about policing it in a vigilantly style, then we bear the potential of being banned...now that is what I would have to call perverted justice.

I am willing to meet with the Lindens in the next public meeting where this subject can be addressed; when it’s my turn to speak, they may get an earful, but I will be civil in how I say it.

What you say is true in many ways, but it isn't as simple as you're portraying it.

In real life, I'm very involved in teaching. And when you're involved in teaching - and working for an organization which will go bankrupt if it does not enable others to succeed - you can't just count on those other people having their own "time, commitment, ambition, effort and sacrifice". You, the teacher, have to work to make that happen too.

And there's all kinds of aspects to this. You can make sure that somebody who starts to show these traits sees reward and positive feedback for them (where in the harsh external market they might not, or it might not be so immediate). You can play Sam-I-Am, badgering or forcing people into doing something that they say they don't like doing, just in case they actually do like the Green Eggs and Ham after trying them. But the one thing that you absolutely _cannot_ do.. is to say it's just a fact of life and blame the students.

And that's what I feel could be Second Life's position. People who can get "into the groove" of content creation - even if they don't make lots of money doing so (because obviously the nature of an economy is that not everyone can do that), just having the ability to define their own aspects of the world - have a much better retention rate. Therefore, there's a lot of benefit in Second Life as a whole trying to ensure that this happens, and it has _much_ more power over the experience a user has, than a teacher has over the experience of her students. Yet although there are classes in Second Life, there is very little in terms of whole world management to create the experience. I mean, Second Life could potentially integrate subliminal messages into the client that induce the properties you describe above! Ok, that is a joke, but it shows the depth of experience management that can be done via SL as opposed to RL.



No, it is by no means an excuse. But if you're saying "tough, fact of life" to people, they will say it back. That, sadly, is also a fact of life.

Are you proposing that we take the initiative to pro-actively seek people, take them by the hand, embrace them, and force them through the learning process to become successful talented and creative content creators?

That is unrealistic.

Did anyone take the current crop of successful content creators and do this for them?

The keyed answer to that question would be a no.

They went out and made it happen for themselves. And they were able to accomplish this because they possessed the requisite and inherent human qualities and characteristics to make it happen.

No one in SL is at a disadvantage when it comes to the availability of building tools to start building. When we are given birth and we enter into our Second Lives we all have the same basic tools. It is up to us to make them work for us.

No matter what anyones claims, I refuse to accept that anyone who comes into SL and ambitiously embarks on a mission to create content, and puts forth the necessary commitment and effort, would not be able to achieve that goal. The depths of their success however, is highly dependent on talent, creativity, personal character, commitment, and effort. Many of the very important human character qualities necessary to be successful can not be taught. They are inherent qualities. They are what separate a Warren Buffet from a Joe Blow stock broker, a Donal Trump from Roger the neighborhood real estate man, Beyonce Knowles from Kelly Rowland, Gisele Bundchen and Heidi Klum from the thousands of other beautiful models.

In short, if you really want it, go get it. Don't expect others to take you by the hand to get it done. I don't see how if this very simple philosophy was employed by every resident, or atleast those you are proposing to represent, that they would not be able to achieve the small measure of satisfaction or success you describe.

It's all up to the individual to make it happen. No one is going to hand it to you.

You don't know.

Was there any regimented system to match them with a group of people who motivated them through the learning process? No.

But... is it possible that this nonetheless happened to them just by social chance? YES. Very much so.

In fact, probably half or more of the content creators I've spoken to have recounted that a vital part of the experience that helped them advance was that they were noticed by, or helped by, a group of other content creators in a similar field who encouraged them and shared tips.

Were they "forced to start"? Often, they found that something they wanted just didn't exist in Second Life. Whether or not that could be considered "force" isn't clear, but it was a motivator that came from the outside world.



But it's not just the tools that are necessary for freedom.

I mean.. take the very subject of this thread. I agree, and I'm sure you do too, that better respect for intellectual property is required for artists to have freedom to create. That's fine - but you can't then claim that access to the building tools is _all_ that is required for people to have freedom to create - at least, not without contradicting yourself.

I mean.. you said above.. that you needed more people to understand how bad a content creator feels when their content is stolen. So in other words, you do know that the feelings are important.. it really isn't just having the tools.



But what do 99% of people who come into SL do? They do they same thing which almost every human does when they enter a new situation, a new city, a new game, a new world - they try to learn about it and fit themselves in. That's the ultimate human instinct which has served us so well for generations. Anyone who "ambitiously embarks on a mission.." therefore is doing it because they believe in their heads that that's how they're going to fit in.

Moreover, those who don't do so may be being controlled out of it. Some newbies give up on the idea of making an attractive avatar when they learn that there are models in SL! Now, yes, myself (and other helpers) will correct them, but we can't assume that we get to every such person in time. Saying "it's all up to the individual" doesn't really count when you, just by your building, might have done something that puts them off forever. Of course you wouldn't have done so deliberately but that doesn't change the effect the other person.



No proof. Are you saying these could not be taught if someone spend 50 years researching and experimenting to learn how to teach them? How do you know?

If you haven't been able to see the obvious around you, all over the world, then I'm certainly not going to succeed in helping you see the light now.

All I can say is i wish you well in your fight. It is a noble one.

What aspect of the world can possibly identify whether a human quality is inherent or not?

Even if you look at the great successes that some people make you still cannot say for sure where those qualities came from.

I understand if you don't want to continue the discussion here, but this issue is just as important as the content theft one. In fact, as you mentioned, they are tied together because the general public is unlikely to ever universally condemn content theft as long as creators are seen as "higher beings". In fact many of them are likely to feel that the thieves should be praised for "sticking it to the man". Immature? Yes. Immoral? Yes. Wrong? Yes. But sadly true.

I don't want to derail a thread, but I have a quick question that I think is important to the main question.

Is the real life identity that is revealed (1) the identity of an avatar's owner or (2) the identity of the holder of the copyright?

The identity of the person (or company) filing the DMCA, I believe.

My dad was one who always encouraged me in my art...because he saw a gift and a talent there...but he did not push or force me...he did give me little nudges from time to time...
But I am inclined to believe it is up to the individual to develop themselves, rather than be spoon fed or force fed to learn for that matter.

Much can be said about gifts and talent, and no mater how much training one has, it can never replace talent or creativity. I can train a monkey to paint, but a monkey would NEVER achieve the painting creativity that an elephant can do.

Learning is something we choose or reject on an individual basis...Creativity is something you are either born with, or not.

But what are we really talking about here?
We are talking about the RIGHTS of a Content Creator.

And for the 9% of you who voted otherwise... how utterly shallow and shameful of you!
It is good to see you are a small minority! Could it be (oh lord forbid!) that you may even be some of those thieves who steal content???

That is a very good thing for the individual who is doing the developing to believe.

It is not such a good thing for a teacher or motivator to believe.

The actual truth is that applying some direction - and yes, even force! - can be beneficial to helping people develop. (The most obvious example is that all children are forced to go to school.)

In fact, at one point SL did in fact force people to create.. because you couldn't buy L$.



Comparing two species that might have different brain biologies isn't the same as comparing two humans. Creativity is something you are born with or not.. do we know this? Have scientists identified the brain differences between the creative and uncreative? Or even the alleles involved? What's the difference between being uncreative, and having creative ideas that very few people like? If it is true that creativity is something you're born with, why aren't all creative people creative from birth? If it takes something to awaken creativity then couldn't the "uncreative" people just have died before that thing happened to them?



And I'm saying that as long as content creators, in general, are asking for these rights on the terms of "we're better than you, so we get this and you don't, tough", they won't get them. SL has far more security now that it did in the past, but is actually less secure - because in the past the model was "we're all in this together, so if you respect me I'll respect you" - and of course, that worked much, much better. We need to bring those feelings back as much as we can. Of course there will always be some who are pure griefers and are all the way to the fringe, but we can at least have them shunned rather than tolerated, or (ugh) cheered.

It ISN'T required to be revealed, until such time as legal action takes place and there is a subpoena. Therefore there is no standard.

If it came to legal actions the identities would be those of the copyright holder and the alleged infringer. However, there is no requirement for any service to keep any of these identities secret - for instance I know the name of the filer of the DMCA against me, even though I don't think it was the owner of the av who was claiming copyright.

Copyright law and procedure is available for artists to protect their copyrights, even when the infringement occurs in Second Life, regardless of whether Linden Labs offers a DMCA.

As has been noted previously in the thread, though, using copyright laws to protect ones works within the legal system is not easy. If one doesn't make a good income from one's art, then enforcing a copyright might be more trouble than it's worth.

One of the great features of Second Life, though, is to encourage a lot of hobbyists to become involved in Second Life content creation. That isn't going to happen unless Linden Labs can offer an alternate, less expensive way for content creators to protect their works in Second Life.

That's why a functioning DMCA is a critical component of "your imagination, your world."

Hobbyists will only be encouraged to create content for Second Life if they can have fun doing so. Spending lots of time and energy trying to protect works is not fun, and turns off a lot of potential content creators (meaning less of the benefits of competition).

I'd have to think it's almost insane for professional artists to try to create content for Second Life. Content is so hard to protect in Second Life, and the "economy" is screwy. Anyone with the ability to create graphical content professionally would be far more successful doing it anywhere else but for Second Life.

Protecting the work of content creators should be a continuing top proirity of Linden Labs. But I acknowledge that it isn't an easy task.

Especially considering the fact that the internet has created a culture of theft. Digital intellectual property is just so easy to steal with impunity, that it overcomes what most people were taught about the moral impropriety of theft. So many people will just steal ditigal properties, and come up with justifications why it isn't like "really" stealing.

The way the original post was phrased seemed to imply that by filing a DMCA complaint, Linden Labs revealed to the person complained against the personal contact information that Linden Labs had on file for me. It would have shocked me if that were the procedure, so that's why I had to ask to confirm that it wasn't the procedure.

LL _don't_ do this actually, or at least say they don't - the case in question here involved SLX. I posted some more detail on the Shopping Cart Disco entry which the Herald entry links to.

My question is why would SL be treated any different than any other entity? Are they (LL) exempt of being responsible? Or is it they just don’t have the resources, and we are left to fend for ourselves?
I suppose if they did a clean up there would be no freebies (or very few) left and folks would go elsewhere for entertainment. Still it does not excuse the low life’s who are stealing anything and everything of value. And the claim that it all belongs to LL anyway is a crock, even though they put it in their agreement. When I upload content...IT IS STILL MINE. and I suppose the day it is deemed someone else’s to the exclusion of the one who created it...the simple solution would be to pull the plug and remove it. That would be the only real way of protecting it.

____________________________________________

And to the great socialists, you cannot train someone to be creative, nor force them to be so...you can train them to be skillful and follow a pattern, but to CREATE the pattern is not in the training books.

There are leaders, and there are followers in this world.

This is all very true and how can SL be taken seriously as a place content creators can sell their products until LL gets cracking on a new method of internal safeguards and mechanisms such as object registration and identifiers, on separate databases, that compares and searches for copied items, and flags them to see if they were copies from someone else's object. This would require effort and ingenuity on LL's part, but it would be essential if SL is to be taken seriously.

At any rate, the excuse that it is "too hard" to do, or "impossible" is a very feeble excuse. If the deterrents means suspension or loss of one's account then that could be a major deterrent.

The most practical place to start would be to scan for copybots and ban users of them. Since people can make unlimited free alts with flimsy and fictitious identification, alts that are not linked to one's master account, then that too would need to be changed so that a copybotter would be in danger of losing their main account and all alts associated with it.

When Warcaft added the "Warden" software to the WOW boot up process, to search for "Glider," or other botting software on one's local machine, some people complained that this meant their computer was being scanned.

Regardless of the initial hubbub about invasion of one's computer by the WOW software, clearly it is a major deterrent to bots and 99.99% of users didn't mind "Warden." at all, because they know that is needed.

In SL it would even be more important to use software that catches botting software, since "content creation" really is the main backbone of SL. But still LL has this atttitude that copybots have legitimate uses.

I think the big question here, then is: are those "legitimate uses" of copybots, more important to SL and it's future, then making sure "content creators" are not robbed?




There are clearly arguable distinctions between the ability to copy something for your own use that you already paid for, stealing a product for one's own personal use, and stealing a product and selling it as your own creation, but in all three of these, the content creator's rights are being violated. The latter type of stealing is of course the most terrible and that needs to be the first focus, but the other two types also need deterrents, especially since people will pay more for the right to copy an item they buy, if the creater is willing to sell it that way.

Any any rate, I think that as things are, having to file an official real world, DMCA is as silly as if Blizzard told a player to call the police and bring in attorneys, because someone ninja'ed a epic sword and saying it's "too hard" to program in protections, is like NASA saying that it is too hard to keep Space Shuttles from exploding.

In the blog post linked to by the blog post linked to in the original post, the release of RL information with a DMCA is inconsistent:
According to that, it is SL Exchange in this instance who released the RL info, not Linden Lab.

This is scary, that people should have to worry about RL stalkers as a result of trying to protect their copyright. I know that there are quite a few people in SL that I would not wish to *ever* get my RL info, and even a few jackasses who've threatened to kill me if they ever did (yes, Sup* *****, I mean you), which means that as a result I would never file a DMCA against them. Well, that is if I even knew about that possibility in the first place, and this is the first I've heard of it

As for whether people should care about Content Creator's rights, it would seem that the majority of people who don't are not creators, and many of them seem to have a mentality of entitlement that is just completely asinine.


.

One of the lessons is that if you want to create content for Second Life, intend to protect it, but still want to preserve personal privacy, you need to think about how to accomplish that before you start putting out your content. You need to set up a legal business entity, under which you can operate instead of your personal identity. Then you need to take advantage of services for sale to small business owners to create a phyiscal address for your business (I think places like Mailboxes, Etc. does this) and a business phone number or answering service.

Of course, none of these things are free. Cheap, yes, but free, no.

The fact that "content thieves" seek to sell copied content actually helps limit the loss suffered by the original creator.

Imagine a "content thief" that copies something and sells it for personal gain, or one that copies something and releases it out into the world as a freebie. The latter would be an absolute nightmare if it happened on a large scale.

As a short recap from another thread: if you sell "stuff" where the only value is in "owning" it then copying is unfortunately something that you will have to accept. Experiences and services are the only thing that are pointless to copy because the added value is not something that can ever be copied.

---

The biggest problem is currently with content creators who are unwilling to accept that at the core, nothing will ever make copying impossible. As hard as it may be for someone to hear and accept that, it *is* necessary or you'll never make any progress. Pretending there is a magical solution that will stop it dead in its track only means you'll be stuck in neverending loop of frustration.

Focus on what you can accomplish instead of stubbornly trying to drain the ocean one spoonful at a time. You'll accomplish far more when you refocus on what you *can* accomplish.

I should have added "giving it away for free" as a forth distinction, since it is true that giving it away as free is also a major violation to the creator.



As soon as you say something is "impossible," then you are saying that LL, inherently has less ingenuity then those out to violate creator's rights and then nothing can change. If that is true then hire smarter programmers.

The use of deterrents would be very effective. The use of software scanning for copybots and banning or supending users of copybots would be effective.

Creating new mechanisms to protect content creators to register and identify their creations for better protection would be effective.

Saying, "it can't be done," is always ineffective. I can't agree with this attitude because then it is a self-fulfilling prophesy and an excuse not to use more ingenuity.

Just because a bank vault could be cracked by diligent safecrackers does not, the bank should throw up their hands and give up.

I could see there being controversy if the RL info of one party was disclosed to the other, but *not* vice versa. I have always understood that both parties get the RL info of each other.

In such a case they can stalk me all they want, it will only give me more charges to file on them. However, if they were given my info, and I was not given theirs, that would be a serious failing of the system.

I am not really sure what you mean by this statement...if taken at face value, well, it doesnt sound very good.

are we creators suposed to just go into a fetal position and let them kick at us?... Or surrender and let the rape begin?

please by all means tell us in laymans terms what the 'goof' you are saying here... I am a little confused, as I assume several here are as well. It doesn't make logical sense to me.

Graph, go into hysterics often?

Let me ask you a question. If you lived in a state with an inventory tax, would you be willing to pay taxes on your "intellectual property"? If not why not? You are wanting it to have the same protections as real property.

It was meant to be taken the way Rebecca quoted it:The first stops when you stop the copier, no new copied copies enter circulation, the loss to you ends right then and there. If the copier wants to make money of their copies, it's in their best interest to sell it with restricted permissions. People also have to find the copier's "store" first of all (could be that's trivially easy, never bothered to find any).

The second is near-impossible to stop and really does make your creation worthless. On the one hand people can get it for free and it'll spread like wildfire, and on the other hand I personally wouldn't pay money for something that half of the grid has already no matter how much I might like it.

If the future is in "open interconnected grids" like so many claim, the latter will become the predominant way of copying since other grids have no monetary system of their own, and because people won't be happy to live on a barren grid, they'll want content there.
There's also the twist that copying without recreating it is undetectable. If you copy something from SL, but recreate it on an open grid, there will be no consequence for you in SL. There's no way to prove that "Graphicguru Gustav" on the "EverythingGoes Grid" is the same "Graphicguru Gustav" that exists on the LL run grid other than taking someone to court.

It's not socialism to suggest that people sometimes make self-destructive mistakes but shouldn't be held back from their full potential by that.

It's not socialism to suggest that we shouldn't hold back from trying to help people achieve their potential because of a statement - that creativity is unteachable - that is no more known to be true that we knew we couldn't fly before the Wright Brothers did their thing.

And it's certainly not socialism to point out that, if you are saying "tough luck, it's reality" to anyone, they will say it back if they can.



Software scanning for copybots is already controversial. WoW does something similar, and that was a controversial measure even for them. SL would have much more of a problem with it (because of the open source aspect) and wouldn't have the installed trust base that WoW has to back it up.

What deterrants would you mean using?