LL Screws somebody over again

[Pamela Galli]

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

---

Rizen Allardyce wrote:

Explain everything else in second life then that gets dmca'd and LL lets it stay?

So that bound by law is crap.

---

This isn't "everything else" but about a year ago one very well known skin designer filed a DMCA against another very well known skin designer and the accused designer had to shut down the entire store until it was resolved, which it was recently.  Not only was the accusation, imo, false but that person lost almost a year's income from the SL sales.

Regardless of who I feel was or was not at fault, however, as others have said LL has to respond to a DMCA.

Edit: Typo

---

And like everyone else, LL could have easily determined which content was original and which was copied. I understand they can't do this in each and every case, but this was a major store owner deriving her entire income from her work. LL could have stepped in; it is their company and they can do anything they like as long as it is legal. They just choose not to. They choose not to "take sides" when someone tries to put someone out of business as in the case above. 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Rizen Allardyce wrote:

Actually i'm not. I could file a DMCA on a pair of pants that you have in your inventory.

I wouldn't win cause it'd be as stupid of a dmca as this was.

---

Actually you cant file a DMCA unless you created the "pair of pants" before the other person did and can prove it.

---

DMCA has nothing to do with proof. It is a legal claim that you are the creator of some IP. If you need to go to court, then proof of the claim is required.

---

Of course it does.. If you file a false DMCA notice you are subject to the penalties of committing perjury. Which i believe is a $500 usd fine in California. A false claim can be sued for liability damages as well.

I highly doubt that LL will accept the DMCA claim if you are not a content creator. Or have not created the item in the first place.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

Legally they can't "take sides" in any legal dispute between two users of their product.

[GothGirl Demonia]

1. The animation has to be owned by a person the person who uploaded it generally has the Intellectual Proprty Rights, Over that animation assuming that they created it themselves did not rip it or anything like this.

2. If the DMCA filed was a false claim the solution is to simply Counter File the DMCA.

3. LL doesn't go through invetories each Animationis given a UUID similar to your avatar key which is basically a line of numbers LL just changes it to point to another UUID such as a default cube or animation that is not copyrighted.

4. All this means is that LL has removed that animation, or item from your inventory and they just send out an email to notify you that it was removed, If you are the original creator you should counter file if not there isn't much you can do. I suggest only sticking to popular stores and merchants like Akeyo, Vista, and such, do not buy from market stalls unless you know the actual merchants or people, and always keep your Media, and Voice disabled to avoid viewer scanning, and IP logging in SL lots of merchants still use systems like Red Zone. And also those Freebie AO's you get a lot of them do contain stolen animations from Permissions Exploit in the past, I remember griefers who walk around SandBox's selling AO's and items of leaked content to others which is then later removed, or gets you into trouble for having and not knowing. The reason you only buy from trusted merchants.

5. 4 Years ago it was possible to Permissions Exploit. Animations, and or upload assets with another creator this was patched by LL not sure if its still possible anymore, and DMCA claims on items really don't do any good as a griefer exports content to hard disk and can go to any freebie sploder get some L$ and upload the animation over and over again each time getting different UUID's from different accounts linked to different MAC/IP addresses that easy spread them around as freebies from there. I know that a lot of peeps I knew of left SL because of what some griefers did to their SL companies during griefing things like thieves motherload I still see Full Permissions Exploited content going around today in SandBox, and such as a result to these exploits back in the day.

6. Which btw reminds me how a user can use and access a UUID without consent of a copyright holder in SL simply by using LSL Scripts aka. Set Texture. Play Sounds & Animations simply by UUID which to me if they don't have consent is a violation of the IP rights, Problem is merchants don't have control over information uploaded to LL servers such as removal of own content and such although it could be abused by a merchant themselves it would better help in some cases.

[Syo Emerald]

I'm happy this happened to you. Really. Hope it happens again.

[Jadeclaw Denfu]

 

---

Syo Emerald wrote:

I'm happy this happened to you. Really. Hope it happens again.

---

Öhmm, why?
Is there a backstory to this?
(Aside from the fact, that the OP hasn't fully understood the DMCA.process.)

 

 

 

[GothGirl Demonia]

---

Sephina Frostbite wrote:

So know how you feel. When I first started I bought this amazing skin for cheap. I didn't understand copycat and all that stuff was. It was taken from me because well, it was counterfeit. I was scolded for buying the merchandise. I was humiliated. Someone finally explained all the logistics about it. But it sucks having something you love taken away from you.

---

I know exactly how this is with newb people buying skins not knowing much about Counterfeit, or Bot.

(No LL didn't screw you over, although I Agree LL needs better security, they also need a way to verify RL information of registering users, and limit the number of Botting activity.)

Want to know whats worse is logging into Second Life one day to find that someone wrote on your Profile Male & CopyBotter, and then finding your entire inventory deleted of over 50k items its worse, I know the group of people who did this to my account BTW, its just sad LL doesn't keep backup.

So buying One or Two skins isn't really that much of a loss considering I had probabily hundreds of dollars worth of items I can never get again removed.

I would just stick to the merchants you know and trust the big stores here are some of my favorite stores.

1. Dream Inks 2. LAQ 3. Curio 4. RQ 5. illusory

These are just 5 of the best I can think of off the top of my head.

Do keep in mind that the market place, and in Game Mall's/Stalls often have stolen content or counterfeit content for sale, if it looks too good to be true check profiles, know your merchant before you buy otherwise if it gets removed chances are they cashed out anonymously before  they get caught selling stolen items and banned therefore you get no money back. Over All experience, I have found some Land Owners, RP sim Owners, & Mall Owners, helpful at removing and returning counterfeit items in the past, However there are some communties that just dont care, and this is where you have to watch out shopping at.

And to tell why My account was hijacked from me, its simple I got on the nerves of the biggest theft group in SL, and I hate to say this but even some 2005 accounts are in the counterfeit theft ring as well, I got names, and Dirt on a lot of people in SL all around, I even keep names of merchants using IP Logging tools, and if they are naughty or nice. Its simply what I do, so what I am saying is watch out whom you buy your skins from. Personally it was an arrow to the knee, but at the same time  (Legally) A lot more bots got banned, and punished and lost a lot more than I ever did.

If you actually need help because you do not have any skins I am sure there are likely some free skins within some of the popular stores in SL or something.

As for DMCA, in the actual MMORPG, Industry there are scams all the time in Second Life people will attempt to sell you counterfeit items cash out before they get banned, and then you risk loosing what you purchased if its not legit, while there are ways around DMCA complaints and content being removed I dont want to give ideas to people who could ruin those I know.

Even Entropia, and EVE Online, Both these games have scammers in Jita for example people spam constantly selling Plex for 500 million isk, but instead they put it for 5 billion if you are not careful you buy it and have that type of cash there is nothing the game company will do about it, and in Entropia there are people with known reputations for being scammers, sadly virtual currency scams for Real Money is common in any situation you have to be careful whom you trust and who you deal with its that simple, don't spend what you can't loose as for me loosing anything I really didn't loose anything because its all virtual assets all data is still on LL"s servers I Just choose to stay legit as possible, rather than doing things to break the TOS, although I don't even bother with SL anymore except for checking the forums and seeing if any actual people I once knew have logged in thats about it.

[Pamela Galli]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Rizen Allardyce wrote:

Actually i'm not. I could file a DMCA on a pair of pants that you have in your inventory.

I wouldn't win cause it'd be as stupid of a dmca as this was.

---

Actually you cant file a DMCA unless you created the "pair of pants" before the other person did and can prove it.

---

DMCA has nothing to do with proof. It is a legal claim that you are the creator of some IP. If you need to go to court, then proof of the claim is required.

---

Of course it does.. If you file a false DMCA notice you are subject to the penalties of committing perjury. Which i believe is a $500 usd fine in California. A false claim can be sued for liability damages as well.

I highly doubt that LL will accept the DMCA claim if you are not a content creator. Or have not created the item in the first place.

---

A DMCA does not require the submission of proof; LL doesn't investigate the claim, just must act on it with a takedown. 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

And again, it is not Linden Labs job to investigate it and in fact should they do so that also could put their Safe Harbor at risk.  They are simply following the letter of the law.

---

How would this put their Safe Harbor status at risk?

 

LL does the bare minimum it must do legally. That is not to say they could not take a more proactive or even reactive stance. They have in the past. Avis used to get their accounts banned if they copybotted. Now, that is rare. There are no consequences.

This is a virtual WORLD, not a website hosting service. It needs governance. I understand LL can't concern itself with everything, but that doesn't mean it can't do any more than the bare legal minimum.

 

---

Sorry if I'm late getting back to this.

It's been too long since I read up on all this but the basic legal advice given to the Service Providers is for them to remain neutral parties.  If they start passing judgement on content, then they are no longer a "Neurtal Party and that is where the risk enters.  This was the general advise given on all the information sites after the DCMA was passed.  At that time it was considered a grey area in the law and I don't know if it's ever come up in Court.  So the advise was  "play it safe."

Now note, I underlined content.  The banning of violators is a different issue.  First off it is against the TOS to circumvent or attempt to circumvent LL's security protocols, which using a Copy Bot Viewer does.  So simply logging in to SL with one is a bannable offense.

I hear a lot of claims that offenders are not getting banned now.  Honestly, whether or not this is true I don't think any of us have any way of knowing.  All we hear are claims.  The TOS states that a repeat offender could find themselves banned from SL.  And if I understand the DCMA correctly, at a certain point LL would have to ban them in order to again protect their Safe Harbor.  What that point is I don't know.  We'd really need an Attorney to weigh in on this.  I'm not an Attorney.  This is just my lay persons understanding of the rules.

[Devoran Comet]

Ah yeah I got this too. Will LL reimburse us for this?

[161488303349]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

It's been too long since I read up on all this but the basic legal advice given to the Service Providers is for them to remain neutral parties.  If they start passing judgement on

content

, then they are no longer a "Neurtal Party and that is where the risk enters.  This was the general advise given on all the information sites after the DCMA was passed.  At that time it was considered a grey area in the law and I don't know if it's ever come up in Court.  So the advise was  "play it safe."

 

---

 

is no law anywhere that says a host provider must host anything. is entirely up to the host provider to choose to host stuff/content or not

linden youtube or whoever can block remove any content off their service they want anytime they want. according to whatever rules they put in their ToS/agreement/contract that the user signs to use the hosting service

the host providers who been peddling the be neutral play it safe advice are trying to be a bit more clever than they actual are really

 

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Devoran Comet wrote:

Ah yeah I got this too. Will LL reimburse us for this?

---

 

No, LL will not reimburse you for it.  Why should they? They have no liability in this and are only following what the law requires that they do.. Just to head off the  next question, the person who filed the DMCA has no obligation, legally or morally to either. 

The person who would be obligated to give you your money back is the person who sold you the stolen content.  Since they are already thieves, good luck trying to get your money out of them.

I am afraid you are just out of luck.  Just look at it as a lesson in being sure you are buying from honest merchants. 

[Perrie Juran]

---

16 wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

It's been too long since I read up on all this but the basic legal advice given to the Service Providers is for them to remain neutral parties.  If they start passing judgement on

content

, then they are no longer a "Neurtal Party and that is where the risk enters.  This was the general advise given on all the information sites after the DCMA was passed.  At that time it was considered a grey area in the law and I don't know if it's ever come up in Court.  So the advise was  "play it safe."

 

---

 

is no law anywhere that says a host provider must host anything. is entirely up to the host provider to choose to host stuff/content or not

linden YouTube or whoever can block remove any content off their service they want anytime they want. according to whatever rules they put in their ToS/agreement/contract that the user signs to use the hosting service

the host providers who been peddling the be neutral play it safe advice are trying to be a bit more clever than they actual are really

 

---

Businesses operate under the umbrella of the law.

At least in the U.S., actually IP rights (patent and copyright) are a Constitutional issue.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

While you are correct that it is any one's choice, whether a business or an individual, to host content, liability for what is hosted is established by Law, whether we agree with the Law or not.

Sometimes when you post music content to You Tube you will get a warning that the song MAY BE subject to copyright infringement based on the song title.  Why they have chosen to go this route I am not certain of.  Their filters identify this stuff.   But they don't take down a song until they get an official complaint from the copy right owner. 

As I stated, the general legal advice given after the DCMA was passed was for the service providers not to police things.  It could establish a precedent that could be used against them.  When the DCMA was being debated, the service providers screamed for Safe Harbor.  It would now work against themselves if they started policing.

Linden Lab like all other hosts plays it safe. 

[Pamela Galli]

---

16 wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

It's been too long since I read up on all this but the basic legal advice given to the Service Providers is for them to remain neutral parties.  If they start passing judgement on

content

, then they are no longer a "Neurtal Party and that is where the risk enters.  This was the general advise given on all the information sites after the DCMA was passed.  At that time it was considered a grey area in the law and I don't know if it's ever come up in Court.  So the advise was  "play it safe."

 

---

 

is no law anywhere that says a host provider must host anything. is entirely up to the host provider to choose to host stuff/content or not

linden youtube or whoever can block remove any content off their service they want anytime they want. according to whatever rules they put in their ToS/agreement/contract that the user signs to use the hosting service

the host providers who been peddling the be neutral play it safe advice are trying to be a bit more clever than they actual are really

 

---

This is exactly right. 

 

Some assume that if LL is obligated to remove content when DMCA'd, they can ONLY remove content if DMCA'd.  But LL is under no obligation whatsoever to host anyone's content, and reserves the right to delete it if they so choose, with or without a DMCA. 

 

From the TOS:

 

 "Linden Lab reserves the right to disable, delete or terminate, without notice, any user's Content or access to the Service if that user is determined by Linden Lab to infringe or repeatedly infringe."

 

"You agree that Linden Lab has and may exercise the right in its sole discretion to pre-screen, refuse, or delete any Content or services from the Service or disable any user's access to the Service without notice or liability to you or any other party, including upon our belief that such user's conduct, Content, services, or use of the Service is potentially illegal, threatening, or otherwise harmful to any user or other person or in violation of our Terms of Service, Community Standards, or other policies."

 

"Linden Lab reserves the right, but is not obligated to use technological measures designed to prohibit the copying, transfer, or distribution of Content outside the Service when we in good faith believe that such copying, transfer, or distribution would or might violate the Intellectual Property Rights of our users, Linden Lab, or third parties."

[161488303349]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

16 wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

It's been too long since I read up on all this but the basic legal advice given to the Service Providers is for them to remain neutral parties.  If they start passing judgement on

content

, then they are no longer a "Neurtal Party and that is where the risk enters.  This was the general advise given on all the information sites after the DCMA was passed.  At that time it was considered a grey area in the law and I don't know if it's ever come up in Court.  So the advise was  "play it safe."

 

---

 

is no law anywhere that says a host provider must host anything. is entirely up to the host provider to choose to host stuff/content or not

linden YouTube or whoever can block remove any content off their service they want anytime they want. according to whatever rules they put in their ToS/agreement/contract that the user signs to use the hosting service

the host providers who been peddling the be neutral play it safe advice are trying to be a bit more clever than they actual are really

 

---

Businesses operate under the umbrella of the law.

At least in the U.S., actually IP rights (patent and copyright) are a Constitutional issue.

Article I, Section 8

, Clause 8

of the

United States Constitution

, known as the

Copyright Clause

, empowers the

United States Congress

:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

While you are correct that it is any one's choice, whether a business or an individual, to host content, liability for what is hosted is established by Law, whether we agree with the Law or not.

Sometimes when you post music content to You Tube you will get a warning that the song MAY BE subject to copyright infringement based on the song title.  Why they have chosen to go this route I am not certain of.  Their filters identify this stuff.   But they don't take down a song until they get an official complaint from the copy right owner. 

As I stated, the general legal advice given after the DCMA was passed was for the service providers not to police things.  It could establish a precedent that could be used against them.  When the DCMA was being debated, the service providers screamed for Safe Harbor.  It would now work against themselves if they started policing.

Linden Lab like all other hosts plays it safe. 

---

yes I understand the argument. what they saying is that if the host says that they took it down bc they (the host) believe it to be a copyright/ip violation. it could amount to a charge of libel/slander if they said this and it was shown that the copyright/ip did belong to the person

is actual rubbish this argument

bc if the host can show that they acted in good faith and according to rules of due process then they not liable for anything

example

1) send the uploader a notice saying: we believe this upload belongs to: XXX and not you. we have blocked it.

2) if you can proof your ownership then please do so by submit to the following process: YYY

3) on proof we will restore your content

+

this the same rules/process that banks follow with their customers uploads. they will block on suspicion. and then is up to their customer to proof themselves

 

 

[161488303349]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

 

"Linden Lab reserves the right, but is not obligated to use technological measures designed to prohibit the copying, transfer, or distribution of Content outside the Service when

we in good faith believe

that such copying, transfer, or distribution would or might violate the Intellectual Property Rights of our users, Linden Lab, or third parties."

---

^^ that ^^

if linden could start acting in good faith then be quite good I think

[Avelino Bruun]

I respectfully speak to managers SL to tell you voluntarily not bought the shuffe Article 01 as you know the resent of SL tend to be passing animations and you do not know what the source of that article and if any form of find the source of an article the unaware , I agree that this article of my inventory I want to make clear is that I never take items or items that do not belong to me was deleted.
Thanks for having reported the elimination of this article and through you apologize to the resident owner of that item.
Avelino Bruun

NOTE . I do not speak English, did the translation of this message using Google Translate , thank excuse the bad translation and the presence of any improper word that could be due to problems in translation.

[Rhys Goode]

I lost a friend over this issue once.  She gave me a big pack of obviously stolen dance animations.  We argued over the issue of whether taking the stolen goods from someone else (but not actually ripping them ones self) was a legitiamate thing to do.  Turns out she belongs to the "Its not stealing for me, because I am special" crowd.  

Our friendship did not survive.  And a few weeks later, those animations disappeared from my inventory. I was not outraged that LL had "taken my inventory".  My only complaint with LL is that they were not *faster* at enforcing IP rights.  

[Sephina Frostbite]

I get why you are upset but its like you are saying you got a gift from someone and it happens to be stolen. The police should let you keep said stolen item instead of bringing it back to original owner because why? You didn't steal it?

Where as I feel bad you had this done, your logic and anger is at the wrong person. LL didn't make the person steal it, they didn't make you purchase it. All they are doing is bringing it to the rightful owner. Yes they seem to pick and choose what law to follow but this was done because someone proved it was stolen. 

I had bought a beautiful skin when I was first starting SL. I didn't realize that you could steal stuff or what stolen signs were. I just thought I got a good deal. LL took it from me.. Id say about 1and a half years later. I was upset but not at LL. For being new and foolish. I ended up getting a nice one in place of that skin. I would love to find the legit maker of that skin so I can get it again but its been too long I think. 

Anyways, sorry your inventory loss. I hope you realize your anger is misplaced, although I understand. 

EDIT:TYPO

[Sassy Romano]

---

Rizen Allardyce wrote:

Cause yeah I got a dandy little Email today pretty much telling me LL went into my account and removed a hardstyle shuffle animation I've had more almost a year and that there isn't **bleep** I can do bout it.

---

Nothing like a bit of necroposting for fun!

Anyway, LL recently took some animations from me (and all the others with the same animation) only I could prove that I legally owned it.

In true Linden Lab style, they totally failed to respond to my complaint about THEIR THEFT of my legally purchased content, they did not restore it and remain thieves to this day.  I expect no less from Linden Lab.

The creator however was very helpful, you know who you are Artoo

Poor Artoo had to undo Linden Lab's mess and replace dances stolen from legitimate customers.

[Qie Niangao]

Note that this thread is a bit necro. It was brought back to life by someone who -- if I read the post correctly -- was troubled to seemingly be accused of IP theft in the messaging that appears when Inventory assets are removed in response to a DMCA takedown. I can see how that message would be tricky to word clearly without implying more than is actually meant.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

---

Rizen Allardyce wrote:

Cause yeah I got a dandy little Email today pretty much telling me LL went into my account and removed a hardstyle shuffle animation I've had more almost a year and that there isn't **bleep** I can do bout it.

---

Nothing like a bit of necroposting for fun!

Anyway, LL recently took some animations from me (and all the others with the same animation) only I could prove that I legally owned it.

In true Linden Lab style, they totally failed to respond to my complaint about THEIR THEFT of my legally purchased content, they did not restore it and remain thieves to this day.  I expect no less from Linden Lab.

The creator however was very helpful, you know who you are Artoo

Poor Artoo had to undo Linden Lab's mess and replace dances stolen from legitimate customers.

---

As I recall the situation, Artoo had a DCMA against some of his dances that were stolen and LL accidentally included the legitimate ones when they did the removal.

I agree, LL should have been more careful in the first place and failing that should have taken responsibility for restoring the legitimate copies.  But it was however not just some 'random' mistake.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

Note that this thread is a bit necro. It was brought back to life by someone who -- if I read the post correctly -- was troubled to seemingly be accused of IP theft in the messaging that appears when Inventory assets are removed in response to a DMCA takedown. I can see how that message would be tricky to word clearly without implying more than is actually meant.

---

Yes, a lot of people fail to read that E Mail carefully and take it as though they are being accused of stealing.  But really, the E Mail is at least in my opinion, very clear. 

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Rhys Goode wrote:

I lost a friend over this issue once.  She gave me a big pack of obviously stolen dance animations.  We argued over the issue of whether taking the stolen goods from someone else (but not actually ripping them ones self) was a legitiamate thing to do.  Turns out she belongs to the "Its not stealing for me, because I am special" crowd.  

---

I used to go to a then very popular dance club in SL back in 2009, and one day a DJ there gave me some wonderful fullperms hair that he avatar was sporting.

Took me a week to track it down, but I found the maker of it, who was not the name listed, and sent all the info I could gather on to that maker.

And I stopped visiting that venue.

It can be a surprise when people you thought were good about things, turn out not to be. That club was the hangout spot for a number of women content makers in SL at the time - who were handing out 'content creator IP protection' posters and speaking against copy-stealing... all while it was going on in their venue with the goods made from other content creators not inside their clique...

 

[Sassy Romano]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

 

As I recall the situation, Artoo had a DCMA against some of his dances that were stolen and LL accidentally included the legitimate ones when they did the removal.

I agree, LL should have been more careful in the first place and failing that should have taken responsibility for restoring the legitimate copies.  But it was however not just some 'random' mistake.

---

Absolutely correct Perrie, it wasn't a random mistake, it was deliberate theft and failure to recognise it, rectify it or even apologise for it while sending an appropriate "finger" salute.