Kennylex Luckless Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I do not like copybotting and did think it was against the TOS or rules, but after seeing copies of famous old builds several old folks has told me that copybotting not is against any rule as long as you not sell, but I think it sounds odd, so I now need help with:1: Get pointed to where in LL TOS or Rules I can read about copying other creators work.2: Get a shorter simpler translation of rules like, "Copybotting is not okay", "Copying okay as long as you not sell copy".3: Get advise for what normal users shall do if they see suspected copies or copybotters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilbert Dilweg Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Well. To answer your question bluntly.. Yes Copying is okay IF IT IS YOUR OWN CONTENT OR Have permission to copy said products.. there are legal copybot type programs that allow builders to copy their entire region The real heart of the matter with copybotting is copying other users work without permission using and or distributing the content, is not legal. Tos Section 7 touches on Property rights. https://secondlife.com/corporate/tos.php?lang=en-US#tos7 Section 7:8 to be more specific. As for advice, if you suspect content being copied is to report it to the creator. Only they will be able to file a DMCA on it. You can not do it on behalf of anyone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Depends what you mean by "copybotting". If you mean, using a copybot (or a viewer capable of making unauthorised copies), that's banned by Section 2 of the Policy on Third Party Viewers. If, however, you simply mean copying someone else's design, LL won't get directly involved unless the creator of the original work issues a DMCA take-down notice, at which point the procedure outlined here kicks in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelli May Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 From the part of the TOS Dilbert pointed out... 7.1 In connection with Content you upload, publish, or submit to any part of the Service, you affirm, represent, and warrant that you own or have all necessary Intellectual Property Rights, licenses, consents, and permissions to use and authorize Linden Lab and users of Second Life to use the Content in the manner contemplated by the Service and these Terms of Service. Clearly states you must have the rights to any content you bring into SL Kennylex Luckless wrote: ...several old folks has told me that copybotting not is against any rule as long as you not sell, but I think it sounds odd... 7.3 "Your interactions with the Service" may include use of the Second Life permissions system and the copy, modify, and transfer settings for indicating how other users may use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, or perform your Content In-World subject to these Terms of Service. This tells you that the permissions system sets the terms of use for any content provided in SL. So if it isn't provided as 'copy', you're not allowed to copy it, and if it's not 'trans' you can't transfer it. Many items are sold copy/non-trans, so yes, you are allowed to make as many copies as you like as long as they don't change ownership. Copying an item you don't own means a change of ownership, not allowed for a no-trans item. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilbert Dilweg Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Kelli May wrote: This tells you that the permissions system sets the terms of use for any content provided in SL. So if it isn't provided as 'copy', you're not allowed to copy it! I think the rights system should be updated for objects to include a license agreement and that agreement should always be attached to the object and accessible in edit mode... Just because it is set to copy It should not mean everyone can copy it for personal use or redistribution. We should be able to attach a clear license agreement because most residents intend their products to be copiable by the owner only and for their use if a loss occurs... Copybotters see that is the only agreement available and they will copy it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Kennylex Luckless wrote: I do not like copybotting and did think it was against the TOS or rules, but after seeing copies of famous old builds several old folks has told me that copybotting not is against any rule as long as you not sell, but I think it sounds odd, so I now need help with: 1: Get pointed to where in LL TOS or Rules I can read about copying other creators work. 2: Get a shorter simpler translation of rules like, "Copybotting is not okay", "Copying okay as long as you not sell copy". 3: Get advise for what normal users shall do if they see suspected copies or copybotters. let me put it this way..are you allowed to walk into a store in real life and take anything you want without paying for it and it be ok? the person that copybots someone elses stuff and does not sell it and does not have permision to take it.. that is stealing.. the selling of it doesn't all of a sudden make it wrong..it was wrong from the start to the finish to take at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelli May Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Dilbert Dilweg wrote: Kelli May wrote: This tells you that the permissions system sets the terms of use for any content provided in SL. So if it isn't provided as 'copy', you're not allowed to copy it! I think the rights system should be updated for objects to include a license agreement and that agreement should always be attached to the object and accessible in edit mode... Just because it is set to copy It should not mean everyone can copy it for personal use or redistribution. We should be able to attach a clear license agreement because most residents intend their products to be copiable by the owner only and for their use if a loss occurs... Copybotters see that is the only agreement available and they will copy it Oops, I edited my post while you replied, which added that extra point. I agree, far more clarity is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanneAnne Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Kennylex Luckless wrote: I do not like copybotting and did think it was against the TOS or rules, but after seeing copies of famous old builds several old folks has told me that copybotting not is against any rule as long as you not sell, but I think it sounds odd, so I now need help with: 1: Get pointed to where in LL TOS or Rules I can read about copying other creators work. 2: Get a shorter simpler translation of rules like, "Copybotting is not okay", "Copying okay as long as you not sell copy". 3: Get advise for what normal users shall do if they see suspected copies or copybotters. i received 2 sets of belly dancing silks .. when i opened one set a notecard popped up & so did a ltl window saying that copybotting is bad & dont do it .. blah blah .. the silks were gifts .. the box didnt say that the silks i received were unauthorized copies .. but i wonder why it popped up .. is it implying that the silks i received are copies? is it just a general warning sent to everyone? how would i know if theyre copies or not? i dont like being spammed w/ stuff like that Jeanne Edit: also .. why is it wrong to copy something you paid for? whats wrong with giving stuff you bought away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I'd have thought the person best placed to answer your question "is it implying that the silks i received are copies? is it just a general warning sent to everyone? how would i know if theyre copies or not?" would be the person who sent the notecard, or who caused the box to send it, or whatever they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanneAnne Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Innula Zenovka wrote: I'd have thought the person best placed to answer your question "is it implying that the silks i received are copies? is it just a general warning sent to everyone? how would i know if theyre copies or not?" would be the person who sent the notecard, or who caused the box to send it, or whatever they did. i dont even know who or what caused the box to pop up .. the silks were boxed .. i rezzed the box on the ground opened it & copied it to inv .. & the notecard and that warning box just popped up .. this didnt happen w/ the other boxed set of silks .. they were gifts from my sister & i know she wouldnt intentionally do anything wrong .. but i guess my question is: what if copybotted things are being innocently passed along by ppl who dont even know theyre copies? can someone get in trouble for sharing or accepting something thats been copied unknowingly? why should it be my responsibility to acertain if something i get is a copy or not? why should i even care ?? Jeanne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Like I said, I would have thought the only person who could explain what the note was for would be the person who put it there -- maybe start by looking at who created it and asking them? Generally, I don't think there's a problem with being the innocent recipient of unauthorised copies. It's only if you're distributing them, the creator asks you to stop, and you continue distributing them regardless that it becomes an issue, at least in my observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanneAnne Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Innula Zenovka wrote: Like I said, I would have thought the only person who could explain what the note was for would be the person who put it there -- maybe start by looking at who created it and asking them? Generally, I don't think there's a problem with being the innocent recipient of unauthorised copies. It's only if you're distributing them, the creator asks you to stop, and you continue distributing them regardless that it becomes an issue, at least in my observation. ok .. thanks Innula .. i dont want to violate the ToS .. either intentionally or unintentionally .. but if i receive something thats been copied inappropriately w/out even knowing it .. i dont want to get in trouble for that .. i dont think that warning box identifies who sent it but i dont exactly remember what all it said .. it just made me wonder if somehow someone knows those silks are copies & they stuck that warning in with them .. but it could just be that the creator includes that message w/ everything she sells .. just as a general warning about copybotting .. i dunno Jeanne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kennylex Luckless Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 I has read the "7.8 You agree to respect the Intellectual Property Rights of other users, Linden Lab, and third parties", but it is what tha oldies talk about when they say it is okay to copy things in world, they claim it is about import and export things to and from Second Life and not about makig/ripping copies of Inworld objects. I think it (copybotting) is wrong and want to find a clear text in the agreement that say so, for it a bit hard for me to argue with several older users and say that all of them has wrong when they has made copies of old (public) things that never been for sale and copies of some objects they are owner of but wants to be able to alter the object. But I shall now read wole Tos Section 7 again and see what it realy do say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 What do you mean by "copybotting"? When I use that term, I mean using a copybot or, more loosely, a viewer that is able to ignore normal copy permissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 JeanneAnne wrote: Innula Zenovka wrote: Like I said, I would have thought the only person who could explain what the note was for would be the person who put it there -- maybe start by looking at who created it and asking them? Generally, I don't think there's a problem with being the innocent recipient of unauthorised copies. It's only if you're distributing them, the creator asks you to stop, and you continue distributing them regardless that it becomes an issue, at least in my observation. ok .. thanks Innula .. i dont want to violate the ToS .. either intentionally or unintentionally .. but if i receive something thats been copied inappropriately w/out even knowing it .. i dont want to get in trouble for that .. i dont think that warning box identifies who sent it but i dont exactly remember what all it said .. it just made me wonder if somehow someone knows those silks are copies & they stuck that warning in with them .. but it could just be that the creator includes that message w/ everything she sells .. just as a general warning about copybotting .. i dunno Jeanne LARGE PRINT: You don't get in trouble for being in possession of "illegal content." FINE PRINT: There have been reports of people in possession of illegal content having their accounts suspended or in a few instances banned. In these instances it appears that the behavior was egrarious. Like the one user who stated they had collected 4,000 illegal items. But these incidents are very much the exception to the rule that you don't get in trouble for mere possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhys Goode Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I know several designers who include an anti copying message with each and every item they sell, not all that unusual, especially for people who have been around long enough to get burned. In cases where a proper DCMA was filed by the real creator of the copybotted items LL will sometimes replace affected items in your inventory with an empty placeholder item. Unless they find pretty convincing evidence that you were involved in stealing them in the first place, this is about the worst that could happen. This happened to some dance animations a friend gave me. One day, they were gone from my inventory, with only an empty placeholder left behind. Now if I had paid a lot of $L's for the dances, I would have been really pissed, but since they were free, I shrugged my shoulders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanneAnne Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Rhys Goode wrote: I know several designers who include an anti copying message with each and every item they sell, not all that unusual, especially for people who have been around long enough to get burned. Ah! this must be the case then .. id just never seen it before Thanks! Jeanne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilbert Dilweg Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Here is a more clear Policy on bots http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Bot Read below where it says Forbiden use Forbidden usage According to Linden Lab Terms of Service usage of scripted agents is forbidden for: increasing the parcel traffic by camping ("gaming" traffic); stealing an in-world content; violate the copyright (see CopyBot for details) performing any other activity prohibited by TOS. See Linden Lab Official:Inworld policy on bots for more details. And more clearly on the copybot page it states very clearly Using CopyBot or any other software to make copies of avatars, objects, or textures that you did not create, beyond what the official Second Life viewer allows, is a breach of the Second Life Terms of Service and can result in being banned. The answer you are looking for are tied to both of those pages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Dilbert Dilweg wrote: Here is a more clear Policy on bots http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Bot Read below where it says Forbiden use Forbidden usage According to Linden Lab Terms of Service usage of scripted agents is forbidden for: increasing the parcel traffic by camping ("gaming" traffic); stealing an in-world content; violate the copyright (see CopyBot for details) performing any other activity prohibited by TOS. See Linden Lab Official:Inworld policy on bots for more details. And more clearly on the copybot page it states very clearly Using CopyBot or any other software to make copies of avatars, objects, or textures that you did not create, beyond what the official Second Life viewer allows, is a breach of the Second Life Terms of Service and can result in being banned. The answer you are looking for are tied to both of those pages And a few sentences later, it gets even stricter: "The use of programs that can copy other residents' creations is a violation, even if you do not use that ability." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanneAnne Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Dilbert Dilweg wrote: Here is a more clear Policy on bots http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Bot Read below where it says Forbiden use Forbidden usage According to Linden Lab Terms of Service usage of scripted agents is forbidden for: increasing the parcel traffic by camping ("gaming" traffic); stealing an in-world content; violate the copyright (see CopyBot for details) performing any other activity prohibited by TOS. See Linden Lab Official:Inworld policy on bots for more details. And more clearly on the copybot page it states very clearly Using CopyBot or any other software to make copies of avatars, objects, or textures that you did not create, beyond what the official Second Life viewer allows, is a breach of the Second Life Terms of Service and can result in being banned. The answer you are looking for are tied to both of those pages LL viewer lets you take pics .. so what if you just took a foto of something then used fotoshop or something to make something just like it .. w/out actually having 'copied' it .. or using CopyBot software? what if you copy something then alter it just a ltl bit .. or quite a bit? what if you thinkuv something on your own that someone else has already thotuv 1st? Jeanne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 JeanneAnne wrote: Dilbert Dilweg wrote: Here is a more clear Policy on bots http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Bot Read below where it says Forbiden use Forbidden usage According to Linden Lab Terms of Service usage of scripted agents is forbidden for: increasing the parcel traffic by camping ("gaming" traffic); stealing an in-world content; violate the copyright (see CopyBot for details) performing any other activity prohibited by TOS. See Linden Lab Official:Inworld policy on bots for more details. And more clearly on the copybot page it states very clearly Using CopyBot or any other software to make copies of avatars, objects, or textures that you did not create, beyond what the official Second Life viewer allows, is a breach of the Second Life Terms of Service and can result in being banned. The answer you are looking for are tied to both of those pages LL viewer lets you take pics .. so what if you just took a foto of something then used fotoshop or something to make something just like it .. w/out actually having 'copied' it .. or using CopyBot software? what if you copy something then alter it just a ltl bit .. or quite a bit? what if you thinkuv something on your own that someone else has already thotuv 1st? Jeanne Then it becomes a legal issue subject to the terms of the DCMA. There is technically nothing to stop you from doing this. That is how some content gets 'stolen.' We have to note that ALL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT is a violation of the TOS. But LL does not play the judge and jury whether content is stolen. They just follow the DCMA. It doesn't matter if you did using a copybot viewer or a screen shot. But again note from the Wiki: "Repeated copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property violations by a Resident may result in their accounts being suspended or terminated." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanneAnne Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 well .. i dont intend to copy anything .. i just think all the implications are interesting .. for instance .. what if someone said they 1st made shoes so everyone else who makes shoes afterwards are infringing on their IP ?? thatd be ridiculous .. but what if they said someone elses shoes are so much like theirs that its a violation & the other person says thats just a coincidence .. or that they may be similiar but they arent identical? it all comes down to a matter of opinion .. so who decides? a judge & jury ?? are our courts goin2 be all tied up deciding whether someone violated someone elses IP over pixel shoes ?!?! Jeanne 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 JeanneAnne wrote LL viewer lets you take pics .. so what if you just took a foto of something then used fotoshop or something to make something just like it .. w/out actually having 'copied' it .. or using CopyBot software? what if you copy something then alter it just a ltl bit .. or quite a bit? what if you thinkuv something on your own that someone else has already thotuv 1st? Jeanne Regarding your statement about "alter it just a little, etc," and my statement that it becomes a legal issue, the well known law suit against George Harrison and the song "My Sweet Lord" might interest you. "Although Harrison's inspiration came from the out-of-copyright "Oh Happy Day", "My Sweet Lord" was at the centre of a heavily publicised plagiarism suit due to its similarity to the Ronnie Mack song "He's So Fine", a 1963 hit for the New York girl group The Chiffons. In 1976, Harrison was found to have "subconsciously" plagiarised the earlier tune, a verdict that had repercussions throughout the music industry." You can read a good overview of the suit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sweet_Lord A lot of people disagreed with the Courts finding, especially the settlement because as the Court found it was "done subconsciously," that George had not done it "on purpose." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilbert Dilweg Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 JeanneAnne wrote LL viewer lets you take pics .. so what if you just took a foto of something then used fotoshop or something to make something just like it .. w/out actually having 'copied' it .. or using CopyBot software? Reproductions/knockoffs are covered in the DMCA . It is not allowed JeanneAnne wrote what if you copy something then alter it just a ltl bit .. or quite a bit? what if you thinkuv something on your own that someone else has already thotuv 1st? Jeanne Copying and altering is also covered in the DMCA and trademark policies. It is frowned upon. If you think of something on your own. You can almost guarantee somone else has already thought of it. So always check and research your ideas to make sure you are not stepping on anyones toes and your efforts do not go in vein Run Trademark and copyright database searches before you sink money into a venture that somone else has already done... http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp and google Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 JeanneAnne wrote: well .. i dont intend to copy anything .. i just think all the implications are interesting .. for instance .. what if someone said they 1st made shoes so everyone else who makes shoes afterwards are infringing on their IP ?? thatd be ridiculous .. but what if they said someone elses shoes are so much like theirs that its a violation & the other person says thats just a coincidence .. or that they may be similiar but they arent identical? it all comes down to a matter of opinion .. so who decides? a judge & jury ?? are our courts goin2 be all tied up deciding whether someone violated someone elses IP over pixel shoes ?!?! Jeanne If someone decides to pursue it that far, yes, it becomes a matter for the Court. Google "Curio Skins Lawsuit," for an example. It may be just "pixel art' but it is still art and in some cases there can be a lot of RL money involved. It's not "just a pair of pixel shoes," in some instances it's a persons lively hood. And if making great looking pixel shoes was as easy as some think, then the major players in SL would have very stiff competition to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now