Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MyAlt4099

Is it against the rules to copybot an item that's no longer available?

Recommended Posts


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

 

So it is OK to violate somoene's IP rights as long as you don't get caught?  That's just a rationalization.  It is NEVER ok. 

ok = right or wrong as in moral - ethical

ip rights = rights granted to people by writen law - rules

if so, my personal answer is - sometimes yes it's ok (moral - ethical) to violate someone's ip rights (as defined by law - rule).  not all the time.  just sometimes.  meaning the law - rules should change.  orca's situation would be an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


MyAlt4099 wrote:

 

Linden Lab really needs to rewrite that portion of the ToS to allow for fair use. Despite the reputation it has, there are (IMO) valid reasons to copy an item that don't infringe on the creator's rights, and I would love it if LL agreed so I could actually do so.

 

Please explain to me how the copyright owner of an item can be sure that you are going to do "fair use" of their item if you get it full permission and you could do whatever you want with it...There are tons of copy items in the market.  Circumventing the permissions of an item it's against the TOS, whatever the reason. Linden Lab do not need to rewrite that portion, you just need to understand that point .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Bernie Shippe wrote:


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:


So it is OK to violate somoene's IP rights as long as you don't get caught?  That's just a rationalization.  It is NEVER ok. 

ok = right or wrong as in moral - ethical

ip rights = rights granted to people by writen law - rules

if so, my personal answer is - sometimes yes it's ok (moral - ethical) to violate someone's ip rights (as defined by law - rule).  not all the time.  just sometimes.  meaning the law - rules should change.  orca's situation would be an example.

And who gets to decide when it's ok to violate someone's IP?

I guess we could write exceptions into the law. 

But then everyone would want exceptions to the exceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


MyAlt4099 wrote:

I wish Linden Lab had your line of thinking, Orca. Why are the Lindens so obsessed with copyright? I mean sure, protecting others' IP rights is very important. But as long as 1) nobody's making any money off of it, 2) nobody is being denied money they deserve, and 3) you aren't falsely claiming something as your own, the Terms of Service really seem to be the only reason something isn't OK. 

And if everyone were doing it, just how would LL keep tabs to assure that '1) nobody's making any money off of it, 2) nobody is being denied money they deserve, and 3) you aren't falsely claiming something as your own.' ? Would you just assume everyone would use the Honor System?  The only way to enforce such is to make it off limits in the first place.  Use some common sense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't know what fair use refers to in copyright law.  It has a very specific meaning, none of which applies here.  There are also four tests to determine fair use and the use must meet all four of them.  No where in the law is personal use cited as a fair use.  For your enlightment here is the law:

 
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections
 
and
 
, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section,
for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research,
is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The two other laws cited above deal with the specific rights the owner of a copyright has.

Copybotting something for personal use is not a fair use and no court would accept it as a defense.  Copybotting is stealing and stealing is morally wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

 

And who gets to decide when it's ok to violate someone's IP?

 

I guess we could write exceptions into the law. 

But then everyone would want exceptions to the exceptions.

 everyone is allowed to have an opinion on whether the law should change or stay the same.  and we're allowed to have an opinion on how bad it is when someone does break the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

You don't know what fair use refers to in copyright law.  It has a very specific meaning, none of which applies here.  There are also four tests to determine fair use and the use must meet all four of them.  No where in the law is personal use cited as a fair use.  For your enlightment here is the law:
 
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections
 
and
 
, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section,
for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research,
is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The two other laws cited above deal with the specific rights the owner of a copyright has.

Copybotting something for personal use is not a fair use and no court would accept it as a defense.  Copybotting is stealing and stealing is morally wrong.


"meaning the law - rules should change"

imho of coarse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Bernie Shippe wrote:


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

You don't know what fair use refers to in copyright law.  It has a very specific meaning, none of which applies here.  There are also four tests to determine fair use and the use must meet all four of them.  No where in the law is personal use cited as a fair use.  For your enlightment here is the law:
 
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections
 
and
 
, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section,
for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research,
is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The two other laws cited above deal with the specific rights the owner of a copyright has.

Copybotting something for personal use is not a fair use and no court would accept it as a defense.  Copybotting is stealing and stealing is morally wrong.


"meaning the law - rules should change"

imho of coarse. 

Your are entitled to try to change the law in RL by lobbying congress to do it.  However, until it changes it remains the law. 

I think you would feel much different about it if you worked weeks, months or sometimes years creating something and someone came along and stole it from you by copybotting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starax Statosky was a legendary creator in the early years of Second Life, but left SL years ago.  His sculptures (made from ordinary prims, not sculpties or mesh) are still seen today.  Original Starax wands (no copy) have been known to sell for staggering sums.

So, our OP would diminish the works of people like Starax, these valuable and cherished rarities, by copybotting.

"Yes, it's a Starax knockoff...but that's OK, I only made ti for my personal use."  "Oooh...can I have a copy?"  "Sure, anything for a friend."

I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

Your are entitled to try to change the law in RL by lobbying congress to do it.  However, until it changes it remains the law. 

I think you would feel much different about it if you worked weeks, months or sometimes years creating something and someone came along and stole it from you by copybotting it.

just so we're clear, i don't think it's ok to copybot someones hard work and then sell it as your own.  i don't think it's ok to copybot someone's hard work so you can have it without paying for it.  i think those are pretty lousy things to do to somebody.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Bernie Shippe wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:

 

And who gets to decide when it's ok to violate someone's IP?

 

I guess we could write exceptions into the law. 

But then everyone would want exceptions to the exceptions.

 everyone is allowed to have an opinion on whether the law should change or stay the same.  and we're allowed to have an opinion on how bad it is when someone does break the law.

I didn't say people weren't entitled to their opinions.  I never to the best of my knowledge have and never will.

The copyright laws were written to protect the creators.

What irks many people is that it protects a lot of greedy sum-a-biatches.

But it protects a lot of folks who aren't in that class.

I have many friends who are professional singer-songwriters.  It is their livelihood.  And they work very hard at what they do.  I also have friends who are professional photographers and artists who also work very hard at what they do.  It is also their livelihood. 

So while there are some greedy sum-a-biatches out there, I still don't want to see my friends IP rights eroded by starting to add exceptions to the rules.  Because where do the exceptions end?

There used to be a gal who posted here that believed ALL music should be free.  You do that and there wont be a lot of music to listen to.

 

ETA, another side of the laws is that they also protect my friends from teh greedy sum-a-biatches.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

So while there are some greedy sum-a-biatches out there, I still don't want to see my friends IP rights eroded by starting to add exceptions to the rules.  Because where do the exceptions end?

i don't think there's any chance that creators will have all their rights eroded away.  not with companies like disney with deep pockets and herds of lawyers around.

 

as far as where the exceptions end, i don't have it all written out.  maybe it is complicated.  i just believe that consumers should have more rights to use the things they purchased.  it irks me to hear that orca got that suspension.  things shouldn't be like that.


Perrie Juran wrote:

There used to be a gal who posted here that believed ALL music should be free.

whoever thinks that way is an idiot.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...