Product TOS ????

[2toe Bigboots]

Is it allowed to place a TOS in your product in SL, stating

"using this product you are agreeing to the possibility of sharring IM's with others. The possibility of people seeing your IM's other then the ones you intend is with in the relms of users ability / right. If you donot agree this function can be turned off and any breach of sharing IM with out your consent will be placed solie on the one doing the sharing."

From what i understand sharing IMs is a user choice and you have to have there permision first. so does this violate SL TOS or does it basicly make a perinet YES so the product cant be affected by any scrupulous users?

[Cube Republic]

I would say yes. As an end user of second life you abide by the TOS signed and agreed to when you joined SL. I can't see how subsequently making up you're own terms of service within second life has any legal validity.

[2toe Bigboots]

Im not sure if you get what the TOS im presenting is getting permision to share your IM (users of this product will be doing this its commen place) and the SL TOS i belive says you can share them if you get permission first. So i feel that this is asking for that permission. 

I just want to know if it would actualy apply that way. I want to allow this function ( allow share or denie shar of IM) 

[Devildog36 Python]

If I know its gonna be happening from the start, and i fully understand that it can be undone by me if i choose to, no questions asked I would say yes, but with the understnading that it can be undone by me and I have full working knowledge of it Prior to hand

[Peggy Paperdoll]

A disclaimer disquised as a ToS for some product negating the published ToS for the use of Second Life (the platform) has no standing when the owners of the platform's (LL) ToS are the "laws of the land".  That's like saying with some printed sign behind the counter of a liquor store that by entering this place of business you agree to allow your children to buy alcohol.  It's against the "law of the land" to purchase alcohol for children or to allow children to purchase alcohol (in the US).  That disclaimer by a store owner won't stand up to the law.  The disclaimer violates the Second Life ToS.  You must obtain permission directly from all involved before sharing chat logs.  It does not say (nor imply) that permission can be obtained by any method other than directly speaking to the parties involved..........and it also does not say that once someone has given such permission that that permission is extended beyond the single incident where the persmission was granted (in other words simply purchasing something that has a disclaimer attached to it can not be open ended and "forever").

People are always trying to find a way around some ToS rule.  Disclaimers are one common method and I guess those who make the disclaimer think they sound so scholarly and smart........it actually shows the exact opposite.  I suggest anyone who runs into people (or shops) with such disclaimers either in their profile, group covenent, or "product ToS" to get away from that person, shop, or group.  They are looking for drama and trouble.  I have no time for either in SL.

[2toe Bigboots]

My point here isnt to sound any way other then upfront, There is a user base (RLV) that use this function and i want to know a way to protect my product from any one that violates TOS of SL. I just thought placing this TOS (disclamer ) would put the fact that using this product you are allowing the sharring of your IM's.

Generally people that do this (for RLV reasons) its a DOM / SUB role play were the dom can see all the subs IM/public chats and so on. so how can i avoid this being a issue with my product with out removing the option. Does the option being there make me and my company liable or is it like hey you paid for a gun and its illegal to kill so not my fault ??? or what.

 

So ya thank you for the ToS info there, but question still stands till i get a mod or someone with the right to say yes or no. ....that sounded like a jerk but thats the only whay i could word that. I thank and welcome any input on the subject please.

 

Thank you.

[Devildog36 Python]

ok If that is the case I know about 30 odd groups that have objects on there land that copy there group IMs and they can share it with others Via Websights, I have many Claims on this by Many Groups Many who if what you say hold true peggy then alot of groups that help secondlife and make what secondlife is weither its a Build Group, a Rental Group or anyother object that uses a simular idea but within group chats how is that legal or by the "Land of the Law" Even Exceptiable since its a violation of the TOS, I mean I guess I personaly this is my 4th  discussion on the Forums and I want to know from LindinLabs or anyone else what is teh exact TOS and or TOS for sharing of IMS, Group IM, Object Rezz IM,,

[Dilbert Dilweg]

I dont see anything wrong with it.

I think you should make the product give the end user license in a popup that they agree to, with a yes or no button . If they chose no. then it turns off the feature.

It clearly lets the resident know that their chat messages can be repeated in local and to others which is no trick and there is an opt out option. Its not like you were not telling the resident that this product could repeat their chat. as long as it doesnt repeat others chats without their permission. If the Ims consits of other residents in them and not just their personal messages. then it could pose a problem

this releases the seller of the product  from all libailities

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Devildog36 Python wrote:

ok If that is the case I know about 30 odd groups that have objects on there land that copy there group IMs and they can share it with others Via Websights, I have many Claims on this by Many Groups Many who if what you say hold true peggy then alot of groups that help secondlife and make what secondlife is weither its a Build Group, a Rental Group or anyother object that uses a simular idea but within group chats how is that legal or by the "Land of the Law" Even Exceptiable since its a violation of the TOS, I mean I guess I personaly this is my 4th  discussion on the Forums and I want to know from LindinLabs or anyone else what is teh exact TOS and or TOS for sharing of IMS, Group IM, Object Rezz IM,,

---

if it is outside fo second life there is nothing LL can do about it..their TOS is only covering their website and grid and all their places..they can't stop anyone from what they do outside of their jurisdiction..

but here is the section you were asking for that pertains to the community standards..

 

1. Disclosure

   Residents are entitled to a reasonable level of privacy with regard to their Second Life experience. Sharing personal information about your fellow Residents without their consent -- including gender, religion, age, marital status, race, sexual preference, alternate account names, and real-world location beyond what is provided by them in their Resident profile -- is not allowed. Remotely monitoring conversations in Second Life, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without the participants' consent are all prohibited.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

2toe Bigboots wrote:

Im not sure if you get what the TOS im presenting is getting permision to share your IM (users of this product will be doing this its commen place) and the SL TOS i belive says you can share them if you get permission first. So i feel that this is asking for that permission. 

I just want to know if it would actualy apply that way. I want to allow this function ( allow share or denie shar of IM) 

---

the only problem i would see with this is not from the person that uses your product..

but from the people your users would be having conversations with..

if it is monitoring say a slaves conversations so a dom can see their IM's..then permission is going to have to be granted from the ones in the IM's with that slave..

i don't see a problem with someone well aware that they have something monitoring their IM's and it is off by default at the start..and they turn that option on themselves..

i only see a problem in the area i spoke about first..the person having the conversation with your users..

it can put your users in a spot and possibly AR'd for using a monitoring system that someone other than your user would have access to..so it may be that area that i would check with LL on..

..

[161488303349]

agree

if the user/wearer has a way to accept or reject the sharing of IMs then is ok and is not a ToS violation. if is a collar or something then can have the dialog ask when they attach. if not agree then disable/detach the collar

[Perrie Juran]

Legalize can be so conflictingly confusing at times, especially when written by lay people.  This sounds more like a merchant just trying to play CYA ( cover your *rse ).  Probably in response to people crying "foul" over it as a violation of the TOS.

I have never used this type of product but from what I understand from people who do the way it works is this.

Mistress A activates it on Submissive A.  Submissive A accepts the activation/agrees to have their IM's monitored.  I have a private IM with Sub A.  Mistress sees what Sub A says to me.  Mistress DOES NOT see what I type. In other words, Mistress only sees one side of the conversation.

It's not really much different than me telling you what I said to someone else in PM.  The violation would be if I also quoted your response. 

_____________________________

edited to add I was wrong when I said private messages.  after double checking with friends using this function it does not send what is typed in PRIVATE IM.  Only what the sub says in LOCAL chat.  Unless as is stated later on in this thread someone has figured out a hack to access private messages.

 

 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

16 wrote:

agree

if the user/wearer has a way to accept or reject the sharing of IMs then is ok and is not a ToS violation. if is a collar or something then can have the dialog ask when they attach. if not agree then disable/detach the collar

---

but wouldn't the wearer be wearing a chat monitoring system that can be accessed by a 3rd party to any of the IM's of the wearer?

in other words the dom would be seeing not only to their slaves IM's  but also another second life residetn that is chatting with the slave or whoever the wearer is?

the wearer would be giving access to someone that is an outside party to the IM log.

 

[Lynda Baran]

I find it ironic that LL/SL makes such a big deal about the sharing of IM's within any sites officially controlled by LL/SL.  

Yet the fact that I participate in discussions within theses same site, including the blog/forums is shared with Google Analytics (which I personally have blocked, along with other such services).

Google Analytics is tied to over 2,000,000 sites and "is a free service offered by Google that generates detailed statistics about visitors to a Web site for marketers. Google Analytics makes it possible to track users across search engines, email campaigns and display advertising giving advertisers the opportunity to optimize campaigns on multiple platforms".

LL/SL never informed me they share this information with anyone, nor ask me for permission to do so.  Aren't they violating their own TOS?  :smileywink:

[Perrie Juran]

---

Lynda Baran wrote:

I find it ironic that LL/SL makes such a big deal about the sharing of IM's within any sites officially controlled by LL/SL.  

Yet the fact that I participate in discussions within theses same site, including the blog/forums is shared with Google Analytics (which I personally have blocked, along with other such services).

Google Analytics is tied to over 2,000,000 sites and

"is a free service offered by Google that generates detailed statistics about visitors to a Web site for marketers. Google Analytics makes it possible to track users across search engines, email campaigns and display advertising giving advertisers the opportunity to optimize campaigns on multiple platforms".

LL/SL never informed me they share this information with anyone, nor ask me for permission to do so.  Aren't they violating their own TOS?  :smileywink:

---

 

Ummm, the TOS does grant this:

http://secondlife.com/corporate/tos.php

7.2 You grant certain Content licenses to Linden Lab by submitting your Content to the Service.

You agree that by uploading, publishing, or submitting any Content to or through the Servers, Websites, or other areas of the Service, you hereby automatically grant Linden Lab a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicenseable, and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the Service.

You understand that this license enables Linden Lab to display, distribute, promote, and improve the Service. You agree that the license includes the right to copy, analyze and use any of your Content as Linden Lab may deem necessary or desirable for purposes of debugging, testing, or providing support or development services in connection with the Service and future improvements to the Service. The license granted in this Section 7.2 is referred to as the "Service Content License."   (my bolding)

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.

[Perrie Juran]

Really I think just about everyone is using the same cookie cutter for their Terms of Service whether it be Facebook, SL, IMUV, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.  Essentially they all say this.

1.  Anything you post or do using our Service belongs to us.

2.  We can do anything we want with what you post or do.

3.  Don't like it?  Click the little "X" at the top of the page.

 

[Peggy Paperdoll]

The only way you're going to get an answer from Linden Lab is to ask Linden Lab directly.  And my bet is that you won't get a straight answer from them either.  It's a gray area..........the SL ToS forbids it without prior consent directly from the people involved.  A disclaimer is not prior consent directly from the people involved.  The gray area arises with role playing and LL knows it happens with those groups, yet they've done nothing to enforce the disclosures under those circumstances even though, technically, it's ToS violation.  I don't role play but if I were to decide to role play and one of the requirements was that I agree to IM's and chat logs being disclosed, then that role playing would not be something for me.  Too much wiggle room for disclosures that are not related to role playing due to the "blanket" statement in a disclaimer.

That's my take and nothing that I can find in the SL ToS makes be believe disclaimers trump the SL ToS.  Linden Lab holds the trump card.........not the person making the statement that disclosure is okay under this set or circumstances.  Do as you want.  I gave my opinion based on reading the SL ToS.

[2toe Bigboots]

Thank you for the responces everyone,

first part of the hole sharing function is)  you can only see the persone wearing it's message, "i would never want nor attempt to share messages from a person that wasnt in valved in the product"

second part who sees it: well only the Dom can see this, yes its possible for him/her to copy past it, but thats out side of our responcibility. And they realy ont need out product to do so. It simply would take a min or two of reading to find out how to intercept IM's.

lastly, i am satisfied with these answers they all make sence personaly and ToS wise. I will in clude this functon like someone said with a drop down dialog explaning in PLAIN ENGLISH how it works and wether they aree or not.

If any LL employee actually coms accross this please IM in game or here on forums with a straight answer Thank you all.

[161488303349]

in addition to a dialog informing the wearer, can take to another level and inform the person on the other end of the IM as well

example:

the object/collar appends an automated text label to IM messages sent by the wearer. eg: mary (contrary): [iM IS BEING RELAYED] hi how are you?

could even make an optional safeword like STOP RELAY. so that when is said in IM by either person the relay stops working til START RELAY is said in IM, or the collar owner or wearer resets the relay

for owners who wants to pwn then can make it an option so that the wearer cant stop the relay if owned. only the owner can do that with the controls; and the other IM party can do that using the safe word

 

 

[Amethyst Jetaime]

Disclaimers of any sort are not sufficient.  I have reported people that have used them and then shared my IM without my specific permission and have seen them 'disappear' from SL for a period of time.  You must get the permission of all parties to the IM each and every time that an IM is shared.  You can refer to the Answers section of this forum to see that this is the "accepted" answer every time its come up.  Although residents do the answering, the answers are overseen by LL employees.

Of course, it has to be reported by the person whose privacy was violated for LL to act on it, and apparently people that participate in roleplay don't usually report it, but the fact remains,is if one did report it, the person sharing the IM by any means within SL is in violation of the TOS they will be subject to the consequences.

What is not clear to me is if this is an object that reports IM's to a master, would it report every IM of the slave?  What if t he slave were out shopping and I IM'd them, would that IM be report to the master too?  Because if so, it is without question a violation of TOS unless the slave specifically asks and obtains my permission prior to the first word being shared.  A statement generated in the IM that it will happen is just another disclaimer and not valid.  However if the object send me a request to grant permission and I clicked yes, that would be valid.

 The only grey area in my mind is will a creator who didn't actually share the IM but made it possible through a gadget that facilitates it be held in any way liable.  I don't know, but it is the risk you are taking if enough people report it that LL see's it as problem.   LL has a new emphasis on privacy now as demonstrated by the new TPV rules and statements that Rodvick Linden has made.  I would proceed with extreme caution if I were you.

[Dilbert Dilweg]

Funny how many misunderstand it all lol

 

Ultimately this resident can submit a ticket to Linden Lab asking their approval of such system if it would be a violation

[Qie Niangao]

I'm a little confused here.  Is it really the product that is sharing IMs, or the RLV-enabled viewer?  There's no way for a script to see the contents of IMs on its own, so wouldn't it have to be the viewer that's doing the sharing?  And if so, wouldn't it be the viewer that would need the disclaimer?

[161488303349]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

I'm a little confused here.  Is it really the product that is sharing IMs, or the RLV-enabled viewer?  There's no way for a script to see the contents of IMs on its own, so wouldn't it have to be the viewer that's doing the sharing?  And if so, wouldn't it be the viewer that would need the disclaimer?

---

yes. unless the OP knows something thats not documented then would have to mod the current RLV API, make a viewer to use the mod. then make a lsl relay object/script. and then get the mod viewer past linden. not sure if will happen. dont think linden going to be happy with a viewer that enables IMs to be relayed to a 3rd party through an inworld device. even if is only one side of the IM

but if all this was possible then what would you need to do to make a IM relay ToS compliant. would have to get permission somehow in the first place and i just say how that might be done