So what's new in the TOS now?

[Teagan Tobias]

---

Erik Verity wrote:

You always could drop it to them. Nobody's profile disclosure claiming that they don't agree to the TOS is a replacement for it. Nobody's profile is a contract that anyone has to agree to, and never was.

I would go so far as to say you always could AR a profile that claimed they were not going to honor the TOS - it was proof in writing that they intended to violate it.

---

Yes, intelligent people know that. But (I don't think) it was ever spelled out this clear before. Well yes, again, for intelligent people it was, but they are not the people with the disclaimers in their profile.  They know better.

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

---

Erik Verity wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

Felis Darwin wrote:

Yes, I've seen it.  The problem is that Section 6.3 is a separate section which does not modify Section 6.1.  In fact, the top of Section 6.3 even starts, "In addition to the rules set forth in Sections 6.1 and 6.2".  In addition to, not in modification of.

Because of the wording both sections are in effect and do not modify each other.  Thus, sexually explicit content is technically a bannable offense under the current TOS wording.

---

By the same token Section 6.1 refers to harrassing and violating peoples rights and therefore you can't use sexually explicit or violent material to do that. That does not mean it can't be used in ways not intended to harass someone.  6.3 refers to general rules of conduct, so it is allowed in the properly rated regions.

---

You don't change the meaning of a sentence by focusing on the last few words.  The beginning of the sentence says you will not post or transmit prohibited Content.  The following part lists some things that are included.  It doesn't give a green light to prohibited Content if the content isn't illegal, harassing or violating any person's rights.  Putting it more simply:  It does mean you can't post or transmit the list of prohibited Content even if it's not used in ways intended to harrass someone.

I give you an example to clarrify.  The TOS are generalized to apply to all LL services. 

Suppose a user of a non-SL service posts some sexually explicit content.  Further suppose they did it in a way that was legal and didn't harras or violate any person's rights. 

Clearly that posting is intended to be prohibited by TOS 6.1. 

6.3 is additional rules of conduct that apply to Second Life users.  It is not general rules of conduct.  It is not something that applies in place of 6.1.  Although that may have been the intent.

6.1 You will not post or transmit prohibited Content,

including any Content that is illegal,

harassing or violates any person's rights.

 

---

 

 

 

It looks to me like it DOES apply in place of that; except for the heading, bolding is mine:

---

2.2 Linden Lab grants you certain licenses to access and use the Service while you are in compliance with the Terms of Service; Additional terms may apply.

Linden Lab hereby grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicenseable, limited, personal, revocable license to access and use the Service on a personal computer, mobile phone or other wireless or internet-enabled device (each an “Internet Device”) as set forth in these Terms of Service and expressly conditioned upon you and each of your Accounts remaining active, in good standing, and in compliance with these Terms of Service.

Additional terms may apply to certain elements of the Service (“Additional Terms”)

; these terms are available where such separate elements are made available on the Websites.

If there is any contradiction between any Additional Terms and these Terms of Service, then the Additional Terms shall take precedence only in relation to that particular element of the Service. For examples of such Additional Terms, please see Section 12 below.

---

Included in Section 12:

---

12. RELATED POLICIES

 

The following related policies are incorporated by reference in and made part of this Agreement, and provide Additional Terms, conditions and guidelines regarding the Service.

 

•   

Linden Lab Privacy Policy

•   

Intellectual Property Policy

•   

Second Life Brand Center

•   

Second Life Trademark Guidelines

•   

Snapshot and Machinima Policy

•   

Second Life Fee Schedule

•   

Second Life Billing Policy

•   

Second Life Marketplace Fee and Listing Policies

•   

Community Standards

•   

Second Life Mainland Policies

•   

Gambling Policy

•   

Banking Policy

•   

Age Play Policy

•   

Maturity Ratings

•   

Policy on Third-Party Viewers

 

---

Notice Maturity Ratings are included in these "Additional Terms".

 

 

---

LOL

6.3 says "In addition to the rules set forth in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 above, you agree that you will not: ..." which is different from saying "In place of the rules set forth in Seciton 6.1 and 6.2 about, you agree that you will not:..."

That is poorly written and self conflicting.  However I agree that the Maturity Ratings have precedence over 6.1, 6.3 and any other sections they conflict with.

 

[Sei Lisa]

If you accept the TOS, you have to comply with all clauses of it where applicable (by applicable I mean e.g. that if you don't do machinima, the machinima clauses don't apply to you) in order to abide by it.

If some service's TOS say:

1. You can drive on roads.

2. There are roads for you to drive on.

3. You can't drive except using the roads.

4. You can't drive.

5. There are roads explicitly for you to drive on.

6. You can use the roads to drive.

7. Consult the road guide for places you can use to drive.

No matter how you look at it, if you drive, even if you only use the specified roads, you're violating clause 4 and therefore not complying with the TOS.

No matter the contradiction between 6.1 (vi) and 6.3 (iv), if you conduct sexual activities, post sexual content, post violent content, roleplay with violence, host violent rolaplaying, etc. you're violating clause 6.1 (vi). If they meant it as applying to harassment, the wording doesn't suggest so.

One potential solution would be to allow displaying sexual activities in adult-rated places. If you're in an adult sim and feel harassed by someone displaying sexual content, I think you have a problem.

Another potential solution would be to specify explicitly that it applies to harassment as written in the 6.1 section introduction. Something like: "You agree that you will not: [...] (vi) Post, display or transmit any Content or conduct or host any activity that is sexually explicit, or intensely violent, in a way that Linden Lab, at its sole discretion, considers illegal, harassing or violating any person's rights."

The LL's sole discretion could still be a backdoor, but at least it leaves it crystal clear that the conduct applies to harassment only.

[Sei Lisa]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

http://lindenlab.com/tos

Section 11.4

"

You acknowledge that no other written, oral or electronic communications will serve to modify or supplement this Agreement.

"

Yay!  Now we can start dropping this to those who have their own TOS 'amendments' in their profiles.  :matte-motes-evil: :smileytongue:

 

 

---

That's there for a long time. I have a notice in my profile in that regard for a while. (I guess I'll have to change the section numbers though, I think it was 13.4 before)

[Innula Zenovka]

I really think the problem stems from the fact that they're trying to use the same ToS for both dio and SL, which need different ToS when it comes to sexual/violent content. 

There are two possibilities I can think of.  

• One is that someone's simply copy-pasted material from both SL's and dio's original ToS and no one noticed that the result is self-contradictory nonsense before the new ToS were posted.    
• Another is that, after discussion of what LL's policy in this area actually is, somone was paid to write it up, his or her work was reviewed, and it was finally agreed that the new ToS accurately describe LL's policy.  

All joking aside, I really think that Hanlon's razor applies here.

[Wallace Wirefly]

THe discussion of "age play" is not so much an issue as the change in what LL is able to "collect". THe question really is "How will LL KNOW that this is occurring?" Lets look at this one section 6.2 (viii) Post, display or transmit any material, object or text that encourages, represents, or facilitates sexual "age play," i.e., using child-like avatars in a sexualized manner. This activity is grounds for immediate termination. You may review our full Age Play Policy here. You understand and agree that we may report any and all such incidents -- and any and all of your corresponding personal information -- to any authorities we deem appropriate, whether or not it in and of itself violates the law of your (or any) jurisdiction.

Now "any and all" ! Well this must mean that LL is collecting ALL ones data. Lets look at Privacy Policy as to WHAT LL collects:

We collect two basic types of information – personal information and anonymous information – and we may use personal and anonymous information to create a third type of information, aggregate information.

Aggregate Information means information about groups or categories of individuals which does not identify and cannot reasonably be used to identify an individual. We may share Aggregate and Anonymous Information with other parties without restriction.

Understand this is also : Information sent either one-to-one or within a limited group using our message, chat, post or similar functionality, where we are permitted by law to collect this information.

If one reads through this whole section it is saying that LL is and will collect ALL. So by using "The Service" you are allowing LL to "mine" this data however they choose. In essence there is no privacy once one logs onto "The Service". I doubt that LL has plans to restrict what is happening in World. It is not about "Sex" and/or "Minors" it is more about LL's ability to harvest the data and use as they see fit to protect their investment. Plain and simple. As we all know from recent events the World of Technology has taken away ones thought of "PRIVATE". Just ask Edward Snowden :matte-motes-big-grin-evil: >Welcome to the Wide World of Openness.

:catvery-happy:

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

I really think the problem stems from the fact that they're trying to use the same ToS for both dio and SL, which need different ToS when it comes to sexual/violent content. 

There are two possibilities I can think of.  

• One is that someone's simply copy-pasted material from both SL's and dio's original ToS and no one noticed that the result is self-contradictory nonsense before the new ToS were posted.    
• Another is that, after discussion of what LL's policy in this area actually is, somone was paid to write it up, his or her work was reviewed, and it was finally agreed that the new ToS accurately describe LL's policy.  

All joking aside, I really think that

Hanlon's razor

applies here.

---

There is another possibility here and that is that we are all reading into the TOS.  I would consider it unlikely that it was not at least at a minimum reviewed by an Attorney.

A contradiction or ambiguity would generally work against Linden Lab.

"Courts frequently interpret an ambiguous contract term against the interests of the party who prepared the contract and created the ambiguity. This is common in cases of adhesion contracts and insurance contracts. A drafter of a document should not benefit at the expense of an innocent party because the drafter was careless in drafting the agreement."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ambiguity

"Also, in most jurisdictions, ambiguous contracts are said to be resolved “against” the party that drafted the contract.  That is, the party that did not write the contract will sometimes receive the benefit of the doubt regarding ambiguities.  This is because it is assumed that the party that drafted the contract may have more knowledge and bargaining power compared with the other."

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/ambiguous-contracts.html

[Coby Foden]

---

Sei Lisa wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

http://lindenlab.com/tos

Section 11.4

"

You acknowledge that no other written, oral or electronic communications will serve to modify or supplement this Agreement.

"

Yay!  Now we can start dropping this to those who have their own TOS 'amendments' in their profiles.  :matte-motes-evil: :smileytongue:

---

That's there for a long time. I have a notice in my profile in that regard for a while. (I guess I'll have to change the section numbers though, I think it was 13.4 before)

---

Oh, I thought that was a new addition. This proves now that I have never read the TOS thoroughly earlier. :matte-motes-bashful:

[Iris Junot]

Do you think it's possible that if Linden Labs were to close that they might sell to another company who would keep SL going?  And their other stuffs too?

[Sei Lisa]

Someone's made an excellent point here: https://my.secondlife.com/auryn.beorn/posts/520d328ff40e20000200045b

Ian Undercroft points to Section 2.2 which states:

[...] Additional terms may apply to certain elements of the Service (“Additional Terms”); these terms are available where such separate elements are made available on the Websites. If there is any contradiction between any Additional Terms and these Terms of Service, then the Additional Terms shall take precedence only in relation to that particular element of the Service. For examples of such Additional Terms, please see Section 12 below.

It seems quite clear that the Maturity Ratings policy (which is contained in Section 12 and therefore it obviously counts as Additional Terms under Section 2.2) directly contradicts section 6.1(vi) when it says: "Maturity ratings designate the type of content and behavior allowed in a region [...]"

Edit: I should not have obviated this: the Maturity Ratings policy also states: "The Adult designation applies to Second Life regions that host, conduct, or display content that is sexually explicit, intensely violent, or depicts illicit drug use." End edit.

Therefore, according to Section 2.2, the Maturity Ratings policy overrides Section 6.1(vi) at least for inworld.

[Erik Verity]

---

Sei Lisa wrote:

Someone's made an excellent point here:

https://my.secondlife.com/auryn.beorn/posts/520d328ff40e20000200045b

Ian Undercroft points to Section 2.2 which states:

[...] Additional terms may apply to certain elements of the Service (“Additional Terms”); these terms are available where such separate elements are made available on the Websites. If there is any contradiction between any Additional Terms and these Terms of Service, then the Additional Terms shall take precedence only in relation to that particular element of the Service. For examples of such Additional Terms, please see Section 12 below.

It seems quite clear that the Maturity Ratings policy (which is contained in Section 12 and therefore it obviously counts as Additional Terms under Section 2.2) directly contradicts section 6.1(vi) when it says: "Maturity ratings designate the type of content and behavior

allowed

in a region [...]"

Edit: I should not have obviated this: the Maturity Ratings policy also states: "The Adult designation applies to Second Life regions that host, conduct, or display content that is sexually explicit, intensely violent, or depicts illicit drug use." End edit.

Therefore, according to Section 2.2, the Maturity Ratings policy overrides Section 6.1(vi) at least for inworld.

---

 

 

 

Made that point here in this thread too, 2 pages back.

[Sei Lisa]

---

Erik Verity wrote:

Made that point here in this thread too, 2 pages back.

---

Right, sorry that I missed it

[SpiritSparrow Skydancer]

---

Lindal Kidd wrote:

I don't know if it's new, but Section 6.2 (vii) should give anyone pause.  Apparently, if you cyber with someone you know is a minor, or

in LL's opinion should have known,

you are in Big Trouble.

in response to an earlier comment:  LL has not banned sexually explicit content, except as provided by the Maturity policy (e.g. not in General regions.)  You're taking that sentence out of context.

The wording of the new policy which removes the requirement for 30 days' notice prior to making a policy change should also raise eyebrows.  Taken literally, it seems to say that they can change the TOS at any time

and not tell you about it

.  You are responsible for checking it every so often to see if they've changed it.  I doubt that they would do that in practice, but if they did, I also doubt that "you should have caught the change we made last month" would fly in court.

---

 :womanvery-happy:  Why in the hell would it give me pause to know LL will come down hard on sex offenders?? More power to them! I can tell you how to not have to worry about this if you want.

It's LL ball and game, if you dont want to play.. Dont agree.

 

:catvery-happy:

 

[Canis Canning]

the most important part for me is:

SecondLife
Terms of Service
[...]
2. CONTENT LICENSES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
[...]
2.3 You grant Linden Lab certain licenses to your User Content.
[...] you hereby grant to Linden Lab, the [...] cost-free right and license to [...] sell, re-sell,
sublicense (through multiple levels), [...] make derivative works of, and otherwise exploit
in any manner whatsoever, all or any portion of your User Content (and derivative works thereof),
[...]

To me this means: I will never again load up any mesh or texture.

[Rini Kling]

Reference this blog"

http://elfclan.ning.com/profiles/blogs/caution-to-members-sl-policy-change

If it's true, I'd stop building/creating in sl.

[Rini Kling]

Referemce: http://elfclan.ning.com/profiles/blogs/caution-to-members-sl-policy-change  It makes you think

[Rini Kling]

Reference: http://elfclan.ning.com/profiles/blogs/caution-to-members-sl-policy-change  Something to think about.

[Rini Kling]

Reference: http://elfclan.ning.com/profiles/blogs/caution-to-members-sl-policy-change  Something to think about.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Rini Kling wrote:

Reference:

 Something to think about.

---

I couldn't fit it all in the link..but here is the title to the article and the link

 

Linden Lab Expresses Regret for Confusion Over New Draconian Terms of Service, Affirms Respect for SL Content Creators (But Were You Really Surprised?)

Linden Lab Expresses Regret for Confusion Over New Draconian Terms of Service, Affirms Respect for SL Content Creators

 

Also you should stop spamming up the thread .. one link of the same thing is  more than enough ..

[Juris Amat]

On May 7 2013 the SL TOS changed in a serious way that affects your ownership rights in, and ability to control, the content you submit to the Service. Basically the changes allow Linden to claim rights to your content and to sell and transfer those rights without your consent knowledge or permission. It also allows Linden to NOT attribute you as creator of that work under the provisions of this same section. It seems like a take the money and run scheme that would allow them to claim ownership of all the content submitted to the service.

 

 The 2010 version of the Service Content License granted by users to the Service used to look like this:

 

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."

As of May 7, 2013, perhaps before, Im still looking for additional versions, the same service Content license looks like this:

2.3 You grant Linden Lab certain licenses to your User Content.

.....

Except as prohibited by law, you hereby waive, and you agree to waive, any moral rights (including attribution and integrity) that you may have in any User Content, even if it is altered or changed in a manner not agreeable to you. To the extent not waivable, you irrevocably agree not to exercise such rights (if any) in a manner that interferes with any exercise of the granted rights. You understand that you will not receive any fees, sums, consideration or remuneration for any of the rights granted in this Section.

Except as otherwise described in any Additional Terms (such as a contest’s official rules) which will govern the submission of your User Content, you hereby grant to Linden Lab, and you agree to grant to Linden Lab, the non-exclusive, unrestricted, unconditional, unlimited, worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, and cost-free right and license to use, copy, record, distribute, reproduce, disclose, sell, re-sell, sublicense (through multiple levels), modify, display, publicly perform, transmit, publish, broadcast, translate, make derivative works of, and otherwise exploit in any manner whatsoever, all or any portion of your User Content (and derivative works thereof), for any purpose whatsoever in all formats, on or through any media, software, formula, or medium now known or hereafter developed, and with any technology or devices now known or hereafter developed, and to advertise, market, and promote the same. 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 2.3 is referred to as the "Service Content License."

Except as prohibited by law, you hereby waive, and you agree to waive, any moral rights (including attribution and integrity) that you may have in any User Content, even if it is altered or changed in a manner not agreeable to you. To the extent not waivable, you irrevocably agree not to exercise such rights (if any) in a manner that interferes with any exercise of the granted rights. You understand that you will not receive any fees, sums, consideration or remuneration for any of the rights granted in this Section.

Linden Lab has no obligation to monitor or enforce your intellectual property rights to your User Content, but you grant us the right to protect and enforce our rights to your User Content, including by bringing and controlling actions in your name and on your behalf (at Linden Lab’s cost and expense, to which you hereby consent and irrevocably appoint Linden Lab as your attorney-in-fact, with the power of substitution and delegation, which appointment is coupled with an interest).

 

Thats whats changed...only EVERYTHING. If you want to join VIPO, (Virtual Intellectual Property Organization) and the movement to protect user generated content and your rights to own it, send me a notecard or an email.

[Czari Zenovka]

Another informative thread on this change can be found here.  The last page has some links to well-known SL content creators' opinions as well as a good summary of the change.  Many merchants have quit uploading new content in light of the changes while others have found other outlets to sell particularly their mesh offerings.

I have profile pick with this info - if anyone would like the texture and/or nc that can be given out, please IM me in world.