Do people care about Content Creator rights?

From what I've read, apparently LL could do more about this. A lot of people have pointed out that when they take down stolen content, or content alleged to be stolen, they don't delete it from the person's inventory.

This may be because they aren't taking down the content necessarily as a decision on whether or not the content was stolen, but simply as a response to a DMCA.

But from what I've read, there are cases where it is apparently quite clear who took what, but they don't remove the content from the inventory, and the person simply goes back into business with it again.

Another thing LL could do is some of the things they talked about doing, oh, two years or so ago. There was a blog post about the things they were considering to make content theft harder, but then - we never heard any more about it. A lot of things were listed there (I can't remember them; providing watermarks and such), but we haven't heard about it since.

And finally, LL could make just a whole LOT more noises of disapproval about it. (If nothing else, that would at least help counterbalance all the talk we hear on the forums to just accept it and "get over it."

***

My little theory is this: Let's imagine that SL became mostly real-world. In other words, it became a land inhabited by Nissan, H&R Block, American Apparel, Coldwell Banker, IBM, and other such companies (the ones I listed either have been in or are in SL), and visitors (residents) who come to see their sims and purchase their clothes, cars, etc. (or get them for free).

Now, these companies are playing SL for relative peanuts in the first place, and care nothing about any money they make from their SL-limited pixel products.

But should they care (or, more likely, care about their brand), it is no problem for them whatsoever to pursue real-world legal action.

In the case of indigenous content creators, though, often working alone from their homes for the micropayments that their products bring them, rather than simply to advertise their real-world brand, going to court over these things would usually not be worth it.

(An exception is Stroker Serpentine, who took a resident who had stolen his Sex-Gen bed to court, and prevailed. I don't think he got any money out of the guy, who was apparently living in his mother's basement or something, but he at least got satisfaction, set a precedent, and probably discouraged the guy from stealing anything from SL content creators again, and certainly not from him.)

But should the SL world be filled mostly with real-world companies, advertising their real-world goods to residents on what they hope to be entertaining little playlands, content theft would no longer be an important issue, as these big guys and their legal departments can most assuredly look after themselves.

And I think it is not a stretch to think that perhaps LL would much prefer it if the world WERE this way, and may well be, in fact, the direction LL wants to go in.

I think they see SL very differently from what we do.

coco

I really dont want to get drawn into this silly argument but I have something I want to say ...
Intulectual Property ... OK I have an idea and create it & put in many hours of work creating it ( From scratch) Probably using the same tools as you, Matbe even one of the many many cd's of textures that I've bought and paid for over the years, Then I'm told HEY!!! that was my idea I was the first to "THINK" of that concept, therefore I'm a thief ? ...

There are very few content creators in any of the 3D worlds or moddable online games who create EVERYTHING from scratch, we've all used templates or textures that are in the public domain at one time or another, & theres probably a pretty significant percentage of us owning the same texture,alpha map cd's. ( Granted some will download rather than purchase.)
I really don't understand this IP theft thing you are all getting so worked up about,its intulectual property, Who's to say someone else didnt have the idea before you even dreamed of it ,If you think its such an amazing idea and marketable ,then copyright it.
In fact in the whole design world there are very few , and I mean minimal totally fresh designs they're mostly takes on an existing design.
The RL top designers are constantly evolving, through necessity, This is now the 21ST Century and alot of commerce is electronic, there is no way on this planet you are going to be able to 100% stamp out copying by those who are determined to do it ,
I wonder how many of you who whine about IP Theft E.T.C have downloaded music, or the graphics applications that you use to create your items, or movies to watch on a Saturday night..
You talk about copyright and theft , but look at all the events in SL that clearly breach copyright, Pink Floyd concerts etc streamed into SL for one clearly Copyright Breach, DJ's streaming into clubs from their own machines, again copyright breach, I'm not saying this is the bad thing it sounds ..things have changed, with technology has come new problems, but if corporations like Sony BMG, Disney,Sky,Tequilla,20th Century Fox and the omnipotent microsoft cant do anything about it , how can you /us/we as content creators, I personally ( As a recorded artist) welcome and feel flattered that someone would like to copy my style after all at the end of the day I KNOW I created it, and I'm not daft enough to expect a living from an online metaverse in 2008, maybe a few years ago yes ,when it was new and fresh, but like everything... It changes and we should move on .
There has never been an enterprise that has been totally original for ever, things have always evolved and adapted .
I personally have never even downloaded /unpacked or tried a copybot, I only know what I've read in this forum alone, but it seems to me many of those moaning about them know an awfull lot about how they work , that confuses me.
SL is open source, it and the way it operates is constantly evolving, Don't you think we should to, If you are looking for that all safe sure way of protecting electronic data, I promise you IT doesn't exist. Ask the Multi Billion dollar industries who have been trying to find that holy grail for years, I'm sorry if this seems negative, but all this forum seems to be about is moaning about IPT, the best way to combat it is keep creating something new, because no matter how much we whinge and whine it isn't going to go away and everyone of us has been guilty at some time of downloading an mp3 or application etc.. ( there will probably be a handfull who deny this but I'd call you a liar anyway. )

This forum and SL would be so much better if all the negativity was put into creating a better platform, theres so much wasted energy here and to me its sad, But its human nature I guess..

Flame me all you want ...these are just my views, remember though royalties go a long way to keeping me eating.. I just know when its time to evolve...

There will always be leechers wether in the electronic world or in RL .. Each has its own share.

That is just simply, factually wrong.

A lot of people are talented enough that they can create content 'from scratch.'

And then there is content that has been created with the use of templates and aid from other content. Very few of these things are in the public domain.

In fact, I often start making 2D digital images by starting with a render in a 3D graphics program, using some models and textures I've created, but using many other that others have created as well. And I have the licenses to use every damn one of them. And I've paid a lot of money to use them.

Not only are you factually incorrect, but your assumption is that content creation is so easy that anyone can do it, so content creators do not deserve anything for doing it.

Your 'opinion' is as uninformed and uneducated as an opinion can be.

It wouldn't be worth responding to, except that I fear a lot of people who know nothing about creating intellectual property may use the same uninformed opinions to justify their own acts of theft.

WELL... I've only been creating for 8 years so what would I know... Intulectual Property , what a stupid term ,, I THINK THEREFORE I OWN !!!.. oh and only been creating digitally for 8 years, Musicaly for over 20 years. .. Take off your blinkers please .
Move on ..flow with the times....

I haven't read this anywhere that I would consider "reliable", but if it is true, I think it is highly subject to the circumstances of the situation.

Since they have warned and banned people for infringement, according to their own policy, they have taken action where not only was the infringing content taken down, but it was also deprived/deleted along with the banned account.



The problem is that they cannot become judge and jury on it. Not only could it involve them in the potential lawsuit, it violates the DMCA process itself. They can't simply go and delete things out of someone's inventory just because someone filed a DMCA takedown notice. If the DMCA notice was bogus, or even just wrong, they could open themselves up for liability.

From the way I understand it, they take down the offending content, serve the owner with the notice and instruct them to NOT rez it again unless they file a DMCA counterclaim. If they went and deleted it the instant they got the original DMCA claim, then the owner could not properly be allowed to continue his use of it which is allowed if he files a counterclaim. It HAS to be this way, because there ARE people out there who DO abuse the DMCA takedown notice process to "silence" or otherwise chill speech and people they don't like. The law was written that way to prevent the defender from unfair disability.



Well, let's look back.. it wasn't terribly hard to find.

http://blog.secondlife.com/2006/11/13/copyrights-and-content-creation-in-second-life/#more-511



They did implement this, in part, for objects... Right-click->More..->More..->Inspect They didn't finish the part for textures, and I am not sure about the "first use" part, or what that is supposed to mean, outside of being a creation timestamp.



I have no idea why this was mentioned. To my knowledge, all avatar/clothing data is baked by the client and re-uploaded to present to other people as a composite texture. As such, that is why Copybot couldn't really make a useful copy of your skins/clothes; just a temporary cloning ability. At any rate, I think this one is a non-issue.



I never understood what this meant, either. "Creator attribution" sounds a bit like more "first use metadata". The creator is already known by anyone with the Inspect option, for objects and attachments.



Some of this was implemented with Inspect. It isn't a hovertext label, but it does effectively the same thing. The "brand name", signature, and landmark/advertisement deal all sounded a bit gimmicky to me, and don't directly address the problem. Either way, it doesn't matter, as they never implemented any of it beyond what Inspect functionality they put in the system.

Also of note:
http://blog.secondlife.com/2006/02/14/opengl-copying-and-stealing/#more-114



Copyright infringement is bad, mmmmkay? What else needs to be said? It doesn't counterbalance the rest of the truth in that you DO have to accept the situation for what it is: your responsibility to deal with, using the tools and policies they have put in place.

What is it you want them to say? If they are all the time braying on "COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS BAD! DON'T COPY THAT PRIMMY!!", shouted in every sim 20 times a day in text and voice in 30 languages, the only thing that is going to do is annoy people to the point that they either tune it out or quit. If we can agree that the vast majority of people are honest and wouldn't infringe, then what does making more noise of disapproval do for them besides annoy them? "It is bad." "I know." "It is BAD." "I KNOW." "IT IS BAD!!!" "STFU, I KNOW ALREADY!!!!" Those who are going to infringe already know what they are doing is wrong, and no amount of repeated, voluminous reiteration is going to deter them.

I daresay the only thing it will do effectively is make a few worrywart content creators (a small minority of us) feel better, and is actually detrimental for giving such a false sense of security.



Of course they see the world very differently; they are a service provider; what they can and can't do in the instance of infringement against one their customers is different than what their customers can and can't do about it.

Whether it is the "little guy" or a megacorporation, the same rules apply. It's the law, after all, and they have to follow the mandates of the law, which applies equally to everyone.

Copyright isn't a game. Infringement isn't a joke. A lot of folks are finding that out from cases like the RIAA ones. $222,000 for having an open Kazaa folder sharing songs. The content doesn't have to have a substantial dollar value, and if the infringement is criminal, you don't have to pay a lawyer to pursue it! The State will pursue it for you.

At the time that was written that wasn't necessarily true, although it might be now.

If a baked texture (for another avie) was either missing or corrupt, the viewer could compensate by requesting the individual layers and compositing the avie in real time (obviously quite slow). It was only done for a few avies at a time and was controlled by "Avatar composite limit" setting (or something like that, it was taken out a while ago now ).

Let me get this straight. You want ME to take the "righteous" high road and call these people who copy others creations, fraudulently proclaim themselves as the creator of that copied/stolen item, and then set about to shamelessly sell that copied/stolen item for personal financial gain, "infringers' rather than the low-life "thieves" that they are?

Are you serioius?

You can call it whatever fancy name you want. I call it what it is. And that is theft. Copying other people's content, fraudulently proclaiming themselves as the creator of the object, and then selling it for profit or personal financial gain is theft in every sense of the word.

Infringers? What a joke.

Are you by any chance one of those people who refers to suicide bombers as freedom fighters, and not as the terrorists that they are?



Again, no one is asking, or for that matter insinuating that total prevention of content theft is possible. We are simply asking for a commitment toward stricter measures of enforcement. You will never convince me, or anyone with half a brain, that LL can not do more. Because we all know there is much more they can do in this area.






There are a multitude of stricter enforcement measures that LL can implement. Many have been suggested in this and similar prior threads. But let's just start with the suggestions already mentioned in this thread.

Like the following ...



Also ...




And right-off the top of my head ...

* Permanently ban all primary and alt accounts for all indentified thiev ... er ... "infringers" (sic) and proactively blog the enforcement activity taken.

* Ban all other accounts found to have been associated with these "infringers" regarding any theft/copybot activity.

* Completely delete entire inventories, confiscate all linden balances, for the banned accounts found to have been in violation of the TOS.

* Respond more promptly to DMCA Takedown notices.

Etc, etc, etc.

Listen, You and I, as well as 99% of the SL user base knows that LL is not doing everything they can to minimize content theft in Second Live. If all of the residents in SL unified behind a common cause and called on LL to increase their commitment toward stricter measures of enforcement, then perhaps something greater would be accomplished about content theft in Second Life.

Unfortunately, nothing will ever change because the "there is nothing we can do to stop it" crowd, like yourself, Kitty, and other like-minded folk, will stand idly by with your arms raised over your heads waving the proverbial white flag, appeasing and defending the rights of the content thiev ... er ... infringers of Second Life.

Infringers? hahahaha ... er ....

Stooping down to the level of stating that everyone who disagrees with you must be defending content theft/infringement really just makes you loose all credibility.

If you want to try to go down the road of "character assasination" instead of trying to let your arguments stand by their own merit, the only person you end up hurting is yourself.

Once again, please show me one post where I advocate content theft/infringement or you reduce your own posts to nothing but a childish "you smell!" retort/"insult".

(I knew all this looked too familiar /327/37/250565/1.html - you weren't interested in a discussion then either )

Kitty, you may not realize it but yes, you are vicariously advocating it by insisting that nothing can be done about it so we all may as well accept it.

Think about it.

If I were a content thie ... er ... "infringer" in SL, I would love you for that.

I asked for a quoted post. That means you find a post that says something along the lines of "I endorse copyright infringement" and click "Quote". It does not mean attribute something I never said by interjecting your own opinion in place of what I actually said.

I think in any kind of positive endeavor you have to start out saying, "it can be done." and then figure out how to do it.

If SL was begun with an attitude of "it can't be done" it wouldn't have gotten anywhere. Of course there are many examples of this.

There are also many examples where people trying to make something realize that they made errors in the beginning they have to go back and fix, because building on errors make more errors. For example Bill Gates and IBM thinking "no one is going to need more then 640 kb of ram."

When bots were going crazy in Warcraft, the forums were abuzz with some people saying "it can't be done," So Blizzard figured out what to do to fix the problem and it has been extremely effective.

When gold spammers were taking over the chat channels Blizzard fixed that too. There is still a little occasional spam, but the measures have been plenty effective. They have to stay vigilant.

You should. The LAW does. Nowhere in Copyright Law does it equate Copying / Infringement with "Theft". It's also been pointed out in court cases, so it has an established precedent in case law.

That the people you speak of are low-lifes, there is no doubt in anyone's mind, least of all in mine. However, as far as the LAW is concerned, the highly-charged declarative use of the word "thief" or "theft" when it comes to copyright infringement is improper.



Deadly.



*shrug* I call it what it is, and what the LAW tells us to call it. Theft and Infringement are two distinctly different offenses. You may equivocate them in your own mind, and that is fine. You can even call it by some nonsense name, if you like, such as "pleeb". However, that won't change the fact of what it is properly called.



Not really. May make you feel a little less self-righteous, but it is what it is. *shrug*



In that case, I suppose it would depend on which side I am on. If Russia invaded the US back during the Cold War, and I strapped a boom vest on, strolled into the invader's HQ, and blew myself up, taking out some of the upper echelon of the invasion force, I guess "freedom fighter" would be a fair moniker for my compatriots to call me by, albeit posthumously. Of course, the Russians would call me "terrorist", or "guerilla", too.

Now, what that has to do with using the proper word to describe the activity, I don't know, but whatever.



Well, far be it from me to try to convince someone with only half a brain, but how does anyone KNOW for sure what LL HAS done? No one here is in their legal department. No one here is in their policy making roles. How can you propose a remedy for a deficiency you can't even qualify? They've already made a commitment. Where's the evidence that that commitment is falling short? The mere existence of infringing activities does not indicate that they are failing to do everything possible to remedy it. To suggest otherwise DOES mean you are seeking prevention in an absolute sense, because even one instance will be used against them for "not doing everything they can".



OK. Let's take these one at a time.

Cocoanut's I have already responded to in a previous message. The law restricts what LL can safely do without becoming either a party to infringement, or becoming liable for breach of contract.

As for getting rid of free accounts, I can tell you I would champion that in a heartbeat, for more reasons than copyright infringement. However, it isn't going to happen, because the reason they opened up registrations is to make SL more like the 3D Web, rather than a closed service. They opened up their "platform". Unfortunately, it is far far too late to do anything effective about free accounts. There are millions of them out there, and closing now would have a minimal impact on infringing activities, even if they did want to change their business model.



Most alt accounts are not linked to primaries, even for honest folks. Dishonest folks don't link them at all, and the smart ones make sure they can't do it. That said, I have no doubt that they do ban all accounts related to infringing activities, when they are properly identified.

As for the second part, are you asking for a public lynching announcement? While there is some attraction to that point of view from the perceived deterrent angle, I think it would only serve to make drama and give people a false sense of proactivity, as they probably would make an example of a few people at a time, and most of the rest of the "bad guys" would continue on oblivious to it.



I am pretty sure they do this anyway, at least where they can identify them accurately. They do it for fraud accounts; wouldn't be tough to extend that to infringement activity.



For the accounts that are actually permanently banned as a result of any kind of illicit activities, this is standard procedure.



Since I have not had the need to file one yet (knock on wood), I can't speak with experience, but I doubt that would necessarily be and accurate gauge of how promptly they are responding overall. Do you have any statistics on this?



Actually, I don't know that, and I seriously doubt there is anyone around qualified enough to say so here. Sure, you can presume that it is true, and it might be, but like me, you can't KNOW that. You don't have all the facts. I don't have all the facts.

I know all about rallying behind a common cause. I am about to embark on one to put a serious cramp in adfarming and small plot extortion practices on the mainland. I tried today to get them to work towards a commitment towards that themselves with little luck.

However, unless you go to them with a solid plan in hand which identifies specific, REAL deficiencies in their current policies, and a REAL set of suggestions to counter them, you're not going to get very far, either.



Well, we are facing reality. You CAN'T "stop it". Again, that implies prevention, and "stop it" is an absolutist phrase. I'm most certainly not waving any white flag. I know what I am up against, I know what they can do, I know how I can fight it from the trenches, I know what tools are available to me to use against them, and I am not afraid to use them. How that gets translated into a "defeatist" posture, I don't know.

I'm sorry, but I am just getting a tad peeved at the continued moronic implication that I am appeasing and defending the "rights" of copyright infringers. If you can't get it through that thick bone you call a head that we're on the same side when it comes to that, I can't help you, and further discussion with you is pointless. However, if you want to insult and pander to a more base form of communication, I am happy to oblige, but just remember, you asked for it.



http://www.copyright.gov Laugh at them.. it's the law!

That presumes that the thing desired is feasible in the first place, or is at least possible.

"Stop it" isn't either.



There are also things that weren't possible then, still aren't possible today, and most likely will not be possible in any of our lifetimes. There are also things which are mathematically, physically, or socially impossible. Like getting 100% of the people here to agree on any one complex subject. Just isn't going to happen, no matter how positive you think.

I mean, I believe anything ultimately is possible, but there is only a problem in timeframe.



Yes, but they haven't even come close to stopping bots.



Yes, but they haven't even come close to stopping it.

In both cases, it might be possible for them to stop it, but I find it highly unlikely. The client is on the player's computer. It CAN be cracked. It HAS been cracked. It WILL be cracked. Again. and again.

You answered the whole thread in your last sentence...

They (we) ... will ... have ... to ... stay ... vigilant.

If you are bound and determine to think things are impossible then I can't convince you otherwise. Its part of being a game company to always put down the insurgents. So what else is new? Saying it's impossible is just being a defeatist and that attitude never gets anywhere. It doesn't need to be 100% effective at all times, 99% is quite feasible and far better then rampant botting, spamming etc.

While you're arguing for a closed system with only the official viewer and changing to a subscription model, LL is looking at integrating a smooth transition between the official grid and open grids right into their viewer and looking to create a more efficient model for automated clients to connect to the grid.

LL isn't interested in being that "little company that created a moderately popular virtual fantasy world", it has its eyes on making the history books as "that little company that created the de facto standard for all future virtual worlds".

Game console creator should have the easiest time in the world to prevent piracy, they have control over every line of code and circuit in their hardware. Yet apparantly people can still quite easily copy and play pirated games on their console if they choose to.

Grasping and accepting what is and isn't possible isn't defeatist, it's being practical. You can sit in your little boat and keep telling yourself that nothing is impossible and continue to row against the stream and ultimately getting nowhere, or you can accept that you can't beat the current and figure out a different way to get where you want to go, even if that means abandoning the boat and walking along the shore.

Semantics over what to call the people (or what to call what they do) who 'take' content that they themselves did not make, and turn around and resell it to make a profit... Hmmm... It puts a frown on my face that I don’t like at all.

I did retract the use of the word 'rape' to describe what they do to content creators, but the fact that it is THEFT, PLUNDERING, and PILLAGING still stands; lets not water down what it is... If I see a piece of paper that is white...then I call it a white piece of paper. If I see a drop of blood that is red, then I call it a red drop of blood, so simple a child could understand.

These arguments over what to call them, what not to call them is really a smokescreen to side track the real issue of what can be done legally and technically about the issue they are causing.

I think that most of us here can agree that it is not a good thing to have content that you created 'taken' and sold without your permission.

I may be naive of all the implications of IP responsibility as was pointed out to me previously... but one thing, I am not stupid...I can get up to speed quickly on the issue at hand and become part of the solution rather than part of the problem by arguing, accusing, and fragmenting even this discussion about coming up with a solution.

all this talk of (to paraphrase) 'who do you think you are' and 'why don’t you get off your self righteous high horse', 'lets not use a certain word to describe something', or ‘I’m right, and you are wrong,’ etc. etc. etc. is a waste of our precious time. None of us are perfect (not a one of us)... nor is the world we live in perfect, but if we want something close to perfection, then let us come up with SOLUTIONS.

Well, you let me know when you can wiggle your nose and teleport to Alpha Centauri, OK? Right now, it isn't possible OR feasible. There are some problems to which there are no present solutions.

If the power of thinking positive can work magic, then by all means, go right ahead and show me. Otherwise, IT ISN'T POSSIBLE RIGHT NOW.

Declaring things that are presently impossible "impossible" isn't defeatist in any way. It's called being a "realist". However, that doesn't mean we can't look (this thread proves we are), nor does it mean that, in time, we can find a way.

So far, NO ONE has offered a feasible OR realistic solution to the problem. I am not asking for a 100% effective solution, either. 50% would be fine. However, we can't seem to find common ground on the less than 1% interval at the moment.

IN the end, SL is just one of many things you can do with your life. If it isn't meeting up with your expectations and demands, then by all means, exit stage right. No one is putting you down here, least of all the Lindens.

I am sure they would be happy to have a workable, effective, and feasible solution to the problem. Provide it. Blathering on that there should be, and that they are evil for not finding it / implementing it isn't winning you any points here.

Um, are you actually aware of what you're saying there?

If your own land is on your own hard disk, then all content on that land must be on your hard disk too. That would make content theft much _easier_ than it is now. In fact, every piece of content anyone bought would have to be automatically copied to the buyer's hard disk, so essentially the copying has been done for them!

Or do you mean that it'd be good to have your own land on your hard disk, on the basis that you're going to make everything that's on your land? I'm sure there are people who do that, but notice I said, "_consumer_ lock-in".

A marketing reality of SL is that most creators are already locked into SL because no other virtual world provides creation tools similar to it, and many are making money and thus have no reason to stop making money. Unfortunately, providing those creation tools has a fairly major tradeoff in terms of performance, stability, etc. and the "consumer" users have to accept all those downsides without benefitting from the upside (because the upside is being able to create and they don't want to, or can't, or are being prevented from, doing that) - and they are the ones who put the money in.

This is why I don't think will want to go ahead with bot scanning or anything similar - it's a performance loss for consumers (scanning for bots will take CPU time and memory, and Second Life already normally uses 100% CPU time, so the only way to gain extra is for Second Life to slow down further), yet they don't gain from it - and they're the people SL needs to sell to most of all.

The Hollywood model, where We Have Millions and We Get Paid More In A Day That You'll Ever Make and You Can't and You Can't Make Your Film and we stop you copying with chips in your DVD player and lawyers and police with metal batons, is not the way I see SL usefully going, or even being able to go. (Don't forget that if you want rigid copyright penalties you'll also have to close every Star Wars sim, every Harry Potter sim, every Transformers avatar, every anime avatar that's from a real series..)



So you're suggesting SL should scan a person's computer.. without them knowing or noticing..? And thus, with that person - who probably has not read this thread - having no idea what it's scanning for (could be passwords, browser history, bank details)?

That would make SL spyware. Having antivirus software block your program from starting up.. really isn't good publicity.



But what is most important of all from a business point of view, is pleasing the people who want to put money in. That means the innocent consumers. And unfortunately they would have to run the bot scanner too, with all of the associated slow down.



I don't think this is likely. Myspace, Facebook and YouTube all basically gain their popularity by offering free hosting, which SL doesn't. If you want to remove free accounts (as you describe below) then this will become even worse.

It will likely never defeat WoW as long as it doesn't focus on offering users _progress_ as a key goal of the world, but I don't think LL are too interesting in doing that.

Who cares what they call it in the mumbo-jumbo passages of a Copyright Law document? In legal law documents involving the crime of homicide the passages consistently refer to the murderer as a defendant. That doesn't mean that the defendant is not a murderer. It just means that in this venue "as far as the law in concerned" the highly-charged declarative use of the word "murderer" is not proper. That doesn't change the fact that this person is a murderer. Does it say in Copyright Law that infringement is not theft. I think not. "Infringer" is just a legal term used within copyright law documents to describe the crime of theft. It does not however, change the fact that it is theft.



Here, for your convenience, is the legal definition of theft;

theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny."

*shrug*



Would you also walk into public transportation buses and blow up innocent women and children? Woluldl you also walk into packed supermarkets at noon time when they are most inhabited and blow up innocent women and children. Would you also walk into churches and blow up innocent women and children? Would you Mr. freedom fighter?



In some circles many denounce the title thief preferring instead to call them by the gentler and more honorable name of infringer. In other circles many people denounce the title terrorists preferring to address them by the gentler and more honorable title of freedom fighter.

Get it? I don't expect you to.



Excuses.



More excuses.



And yet more excuses.



I'm sure you are. Let me guess ... because everything that can be done has already been done, right?



Of course. Because everything that could be done tp combat this problem has already been done already.



Oh, so you've never had the experience of being ripped off? But you doubt this to be an accurate gauge of how promptly they are responding overall?

Why am I not surprised.

I suggest you keep knocking on wood. But by all means do continue to give us your point of view even though you've never actually experienced having an "infringer" copy your creation, proclaim it their creation, then release for sale at a discount price in direct competition with you. And when you file your beloved, all-encompassing, DMCA, they just simply laugh in your face and file a counter DMCA calling you a thief. Wouldn't that be ironic. You are a thief but they are infringers. Wonderful



Oh look, more excuses.



Then let's go to them with a solid plan. Oh wait, we won't will we? Because all that can be done has already been done. Silly me.



Again, no one is asking you to "stop it." We are asking for a commitment toward stricter enforcement measures.

Get it?

A commitment toward stricter enforcement measures.

Not "stop it.'

Why do I get the feeling I will be repeating that again.



And a raucous chant of "All Hail Talarus" is heard accross the world of Second Life, as the "infringers' of Second Life raise a monument in Talarus Luan's name.

You are a hero.

It does not say it's not murder either, but I hope you wouldn't call a copyright infringer a murderer (nor a rapist, in spite of some of the earlier posts)!



No, the crime is infringement. In some circles, people denounce them further by calling them thieves. But they aren't thieves by the definition of the law - to be a thief you have to take something away that the victim originally had. That's all I think Talarus is trying to say.

If someone DMCAs you and publically calls you a "thief", there's a possibility you could sue them for libel, although IANAL.



Well, I think it's quite sensible for the Lindens not to want to offer a commitment until they know exactly what the stricter enforcement measures will be. If it's really true that they aren't deleting infringing content from inventory then that's a very bad thing. (Oh, and by the way, I don't think they'd be vulnerable to "breach of contract" for deleting inventory without due process - they're protected by the same disclaimers that apply to inventory loss.)

Po-ta-to, potatoe. Who cares? It's theft by every definition of the word. Get over it.

It is an ideological rift. Smarter people than us sat down and looked at the situation and crafted language specifically to identify what the act is. There are reasons why it is treated that way. If you want, there are some very good dissertations on the subject by the likes of Lawrence Lessig. Google him or go to http://www.eff.org for his and others' excellent work in this area.



No one is watering down what it is. We're calling it what it is. That you choose to call it something more hyperbolic is your choice, just like using the word "rape" to describe it. It isn't rape, in any way, shape, or form. Likewise, it isn't "theft", simply because the act of infringement alone does not automatically deprive you of anything.



It isn't smokescreening anything. The issues are being debated alongside it. It is a segue because people are exaggerating and stretching things beyond what they are solely for the purpose of extending their own arguments into absurdity. In other words, if you make something sensational enough, you can justify in your mind ANY kind of extreme measure regarding it, regardless of its real impact. Stop with the emotional sensationalism and debate the issue on its merits, and you'll have the best chance of finding a common ground which works for the majority of us. Keep it up, and we're all just pissing into a hurricane of emotional posturing.



Looking at who all is in the thread, I think it would be safe to say "all of us".



Then you really need to read up on the subject and understand it from as many sides as possible. I have spent the better part of 30 years keeping abreast of Copyright Law and its impact on me personally as a consumer and my business (software developer, btw). I don't know everything about it, but I think I know enough about it to be able to make valid points and debate it fairly well. I also know what LL CAN do, and I can discern a poor solution from a good one.

Being part of a solution includes testing said solution for validity AS a solution. If all we had to do was pick the first solution that popped into our heads and implement it, we'd be in a fine pickle. Every solution needs its detractors to test it, like we need QA people to test software that developers put out, because the developers don't have the resources to make sure it is good from the get-go (well, they actually do to an extent, but that's another debate).

There's no fragmenting the discussion. I made a single point, and the rest of you extolled your incredulity on it. OK, fine. It doesn't change the fact that it is what it is, and if you educate yourself on why it is, then you will understand it better, too. In the meantime, don't let it distract you from the task at hand, which is to find a feasible and effective solution to prevent copyright infringement.



More hyperbole. Yes, you can paraphrase things no one said to bolster your point, but it fails quite miserably. No one claimed perfection, so you are restating the obvious. No points there. The only one wasting time is you. If it is so important to find realistic solutions, stop arguing irrelevancies (to your point of view), and get to it! We are. Try and keep up, k?

No. It's a _much_ more complicated crime than theft.

Theft is taking away something that you had. If someone comes into your house and takes away your television, that's theft. But it's theft because they took your television - not because they got a television for free.

If your neighbour wins a random call contest from your local radio station and wins the same television you have, but without having to pay for it, then you wouldn't say they've stolen your TV. If you want to sell your TV, and your neighbour wants to sell the TV they got for free, so they can always undercut your price because it's pure profit for them - you still wouldn't say they've stolen your TV, nor your sale.

To distinguish why "copying someone's texture" is a crime while "getting the same TV they have, but for free" isn't requires subtleties that aren't part of the definition of theft, which is why a different term is used and why it's important that it's used in legal discussion.

Of course in regular social discussion maybe people will use the term "theft" because of condemnation and because of the feelings of violation it produces, but it isn't theft in legal terms, and there are good reasons why it's not in the same category. (Bear in mind that, if people had not rushed to use the emotive term "thief" to convey this, then the word "infringer" could be just as emotive now.)

Thank you! See that wasn't so hard was it?



We are trying.

It is quite hard to make any head way in this regard however, when there are a "certain" group of people telling us to give up, it's impossible, and there is nothing we can do about it.