Do people care about Content Creator rights?

I think you are misunderstanding what I meant and that is just my opinion and how I think SL should have been built from the ground up. I am not talking about a "copy"on my hard drive and this is not directly related to the theft of Content Creastor's property. I just think that it would have been a better way to use the resident's computers as the servers of Land resident's own and then the company would have their servers as common areas and their service would be to connect people's local machines to the grid.

But what do you think is stored on those servers? What's stored there - amongst other things - is the details of what's on the land, including every prim and texture ID (but not the textures themselves).

If you have your land stored on your own hard disk, then that data has to be stored on your hard disk. So if you buy a prefab house from a builder, then all the data about that house would have to be stored on your hard disk, and you could copy it from there with almost no way of stopping you - because after all, it's your hard disk on your computer.

If the house stayed on LL's servers, then your land would be there, too.

I know this is just an opinion that you didn't mean to relate to the IP issue, but if you want to try and think up a better way of enforcing IPR on Second Life then you will need to appreciate the technical side of the problem (amongst other things).

Clearly if SL is going to be this end all be all, yet can't manage to protect IP, saying it can't be done, then some other company will have to come along to do it right. SL boasts Content Creator ownership do they not?

Not wanting to be the devil's advicate but "thief" is a too big word fr IP infringement.

Thievery means to depossess someone of something, IP infringement is the action of copying something you haven't been allowed to.



I know some like to connect both but copyright infringement only deprive you of potential sales (if you plan to sell your work)

It isn't actually taking you something you already own.

Did you at all bother to read the legal definition of the crime of theft I copied into the above post?

Here, I'll post it again.

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."

To emphasize ... "the "GENERIC TERM" for "ALL CRIMES" in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes the property of another without permission or consent and with intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale).

The above accurately describes content theft to a "T."

The term "all crimes" is encompassing. You can call it infringement all you want but that does not detract from the fact that it is theft.

So, let's just stop it with the word play semantics please. They are counter-productive to the discussion.

Yes, but it still requires a person to ".. intentionally and fraudulently _take_ the property of another."

IP infringement doesn't involve "taking" anything. It involves making something new - a copy - and the original creator still has everything they had before.

That's the thing, there is no discussion occurring really, every side is deadlocked in his opinion and that's about it.

It would still require a system to prevent copying and selling or giving away property you purchased from a Content Creator. Same issue, same need to prevent me from being able to make multiple copies of someone's IP and distribute them. Same need to have the attitude that it can be done, rather then saying it is impossible.

If someone creates content and registers it and it has a watermark or unigue identifier and there were guidelines that determine what is and isn't a copy, then the software would be unable to make that copy, because it would contain someone elses identifier.

And keep in mind that a huge part of the problem would just go away if there was actual deterrents including the loss of one's account for stealing content. They would have to start by just enforcing their own existing TOS in this regard, but clearly a new system would need to be built in to catch violators.

And of course SL can't have Alts with fake Id unlinked to master accounts.

Oh, for crissakes, give me a break.

They did take something. The negative externalities resulting from the copied stolen items are indisputable and irrevocable.

For starters your property immediately looses value as soon as the thie ... er ... infringer releases your stolen creation at a discounted price. It often times becomes worthless, as exemplified by those cases in which the items are immediately released as a freebies.

Much is taken by the act of content theft.

You underestimate.

One idea i had was that a creator could live from a "pay on release" system, basically the creator ask lets say 200000L$ for item X, as soon as the amount is reached the content creator release it for free to everybody.

Of course it wouldn't bring as much money as monetizing each and every copies but since there is no reproduction cost for SL items, it only create a virtual scarcity and rely on the system "forcing" peoples to honor your digital right management system.

I can only giggle at peoples that says me LL "should" enforce things going on a computer they do not own.
How do you plan to tell to John doe's computer that he must defy john doe's orders?

Sure in LL' example they can restrict how computers communicate with LL's servers and what they are allowed to do, but any data sent to the client by LL is good for taking, on a technical point of view.

So far the poll seems to show a pretty clear opinion about this. Perhaps all the Open Sourcer anti-ip superdelegate people, can tell their cult friends to get in there to sway the vote

But I'm sure you understand that that is many, many times more difficult if the data is right there on someone's hard disk.



It isn't as simple as making "the software" unable to copy the content. Already, the plain Second Life program can't copy any content without copy permission. For greater security, you have to make it so that *no software* can copy the content. Because people can write their own software, this means that the restrictions have to exist in the way the content is stored, rather than any rules about what the software does.



How do they do this in a way that doesn't create a situation where a random griefer can accuse you of copyright infringement (possibly of a copyright that exists outside SL, eg, that you copied textures from their website) and immediately put you in a position where you have to spend time and effort defending yourself or risk losing your entire account?

The poll is a bit skewed, i can't find a way to vote that isn't in contradiction with my beliefs

And this is where you fall into the danger. For example, suppose that someone does resell a copied item of yours, but your item doesn't lose any value, because your customers know and respect you and won't buy from the copier.

If you use the "theft" definition: You didn't lose anything. Thus, they didn't take anything. Thus, no theft. Thus, they're innocent.

Or how about if a small content creator sells an item at a ridiculously high price. At that price, it would never have sold. The copier sells it cheaper. As a result, the creator lowers the price and the legitimate version begins selling too.

If you use the "theft" definition: the content creator, after all the consequences are taken into account, has actually _gained_. Were it not for the copier, they would have left the item overpriced and gotten no sales at all.

But.. if you use the "infringer" definition, they became guilty the moment they made the copy, regardless of whether or not they sold it, or whether or not the sale had any effect on you.

That's exactly why you can't use the "theft" definition in legal terms.. to avoid being stuck in the confusing quagmire that comes up if you try to judge a crime by consequences that are four or five steps down the line.

(Of course in legal terms also none of these involve "taking" because the lost value does not go to the copier - they're just "loss". But that's a less important point.)

Same way we have software on our own computer we can't duplicate and then sell or distribute---and consequences as well.

In the case of content the consequences and deterrent could be a permanent ban from SL, based on actual identity not some fake alt accoiunt. To control IP theft, you have to start by actually preventing what are essentially anonymous alts from running amok.

Now you are talking about popularity of an item by theft? Thats a great defense.

Nope. What I'm saying is that if you try to use the word "theft" - on the basis that the copying might cause a loss to the content creator - then you have to look all the way down the line of consequences to see if a loss was actually caused. And if it happens that it wasn't, then there's no "theft".

"Infringement", however, happens the moment that the copy is made. No need to consider the consequences it had.

It's primarily the use of the word "theft", and the belief that the key to the crime is the consequential loss, that leads to bogus defenses like the above - or the well known "they were rich anyway so they haven't really lost anything", or "they didn't lose anything because I wouldn't have bought it otherwise". Using the word "infringement" makes it clear that it's still a crime even if the victim didn't lose anything.

You have to show me one of these, i haven't found anything on my computer that can't be duplicated....
Also this debate is not only valid in the scope of SL (it's a hot topic currently in my country)

This is how I feel about it as well. I'll go further and say that I think artists should be able to set the terms for how their work is distributed and used. I don't believe that anyone has an entitlement to the work of others, which is why I tend to disagree strongly with Lessig's "Free Culture" mantra. I think it's a noble idea and kudos to anyone who decides of their own free will to make their work free to distribute and modify. But any belief that creative works should be that way by default is the real tragedy of the commons. It casts creative people in the role of slaves to the collective. No one's going to starve if people can't copy Mickey Mouse with impunity, but they might if artists are no longer able to profit from their own labor. Copyrights might extend too long, but copyright itself is just, fair, and necessary.

Patents are where the real abuses lie and where damage is done to innovation and the advancement of ideas through their abuse. When you have companies that invent nothing, create nothing, and exist solely to buy up as many patents as possible and make their money by suing for infringement, something is wrong with the system. Patents are overly broad and used as often for bald profiteering as for protecting the ability to profit from innovation.

The patent problem goes further when it's used by companies to prevent their competition to work.

What would have happened in SL if you or me or other designers where to patent creation techniques and sue anybody that use them?


Back on topic:
The current copyright laws aren't practical anymore because copying became a virtually free process, peoples violating copyrights are millions and millions, when a law can't be enforced equally and fairly for everybody then something has to change.

Yeah, what he said!

voted: 'Content Creators are the backbone of SL'

Prolly the only option that isn't sarcasm filled...

I'm sorry but I missed this exemption in the definition of the crime of theft. Perhaps you can direct me to it. It says nothing about having to permanently deprive the victim of anything.



This ... is ... a rather nutty series of analogies. I am sure, if given the opportunity, you would quickly take this back. So I will quietly leave it alone.



... mmmKayy

Let's reprise this thread:

Cheyenne: The definition of theft says that it applies to any crime in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes property of another without permission or consent.

Yumi: That does not apply because in IP infringement, nothing is "taken" - even after the copy is made, you still have your content.

Cheyenne: No, something is "taken" - you lose value from the product as soon as it's copied.

Yumi: But if you say that - that "it's theft because the lost value is taken", then that implies that in a situation where - as it happens - no value is lost, it's not theft anymore. That's a very dangerous definition, and it potentially requires a judge to make predictions that she can't possibly make.



Let's remember that it's an example of a broken argument that becomes possible if your definition of "theft" is used. It isn't one I would support. I support using the definition of "infringement" which makes all of these nutty analogies immediately invalid.

Yumi, It's not what I said, or what you perceived me to say, it's what the definition of the crime of theft says. And it says nothing requiring that the victim be permanently deprived of their property before it can be classified a theft. The crime is complete once the victim's property is taken. Period. Regardless of what value the victim may be able to obtain, in whatever intrinsic way or fashion, from the stolen property after it has been stolen.