Question about Terms of Use..

[Drake1 Nightfire]

So, I have been pondering this in light of several threads.

Is it legal, according to LL ToS, for a merchant to dictate what perms, what price or what textures (if they provide examples, why cant they be used?) you use in the full perm items you purchase? 

I would say they can not dictate what cost you sell at. That smacks of price control which is against US law, and we all agreed to follow US law when we agreed to the LL ToS.

If they sell something full perms i don't feel they should be able to dictate what perms you have on the final product, barring that it not be copy/trans. I can understand not wanting it to be resold Ad infinitum.

If textures are included why could they not be used? if you include 4 "example" textures and then say "you cant use my textures" why bother making the examples? I see plenty of mesh template designers that give 4,5 even 8 "examples" of the clothing and then say "don't use my textures" yet they don't sell the textures or even a finished clothing, just the template.

just my thoughts, i would love to hear yours about ToU superseding the LL ToS.

 edit. spelling...

[Drake1 Nightfire]

So, I have been pondering this in light of several threads.

Is it legal, according to LL ToS, for a merchant to dictate what perms, what price or what textures (if they provide examples, why cant they be used?) you use in the full perm items you purchase? 

I would say they can not dictate what cost you sell at. That smacks of price control which is against US law, and we all agreed to follow US law when we agreed to the LL ToS.

If they sell something full perms i don't feel they should be able to dictate what perms you have on the final product, barring that it not be copy/trans. I can understand not wanting it to be resold Ad infinitum.

If textures are included why could they not be used? if you include 4 "example" textures and then say "you cant use my textures" why bother making the examples? I see plenty of mesh template designers that give 4,5 even 8 "examples" of the clothing and then say "don't use my textures" yet they don't sell the textures or even a finished clothing, just the template.

just my thoughts, i would love to hear yours about ToU superseding the LL ToS.

 edit. spelling...

[Perrie Juran]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

So, I have been pondering this in light of several threads.

Is it legal, according to LL ToS, for a merchant to dictate what perms, what price or what textures (if they provide examples, why cant they be used?) you use in the full perm items you purchase? 

I would say they can not dictate what cost you sell at. That smacks of price control which is against US law, and we all agreed to follow US law when we agreed to the LL ToS.

If they sell something full perms i don't feel they should be able to dictate what perms you have on the final product, barring that it not be copy/trans. I can understand not wanting it to be resold

Ad infinitum

.

If textures are included why could they not be used? if you include 4 "example" textures and then say "you cant use my textures" why bother making the examples? I see plenty of mesh template designers that give 4,5 even 8 "examples" of the clothing and then say "don't use my textures" yet they don't sell the textures or even a finished clothing, just the template.

just my thoughts, i would love to hear yours about ToU superseding the LL ToS.

 edit. spelling...

---

There are things they can and can not dictate in their terms.  And I hate to say it but it can get legally very complicated.  What you are referring to here (if you didn't know) is called "The First Sale Doctrine."

The issue here is licensing.  The seller is issuing you a license to use their intellectual property in a certain way.  If they were selling it to you for the simple purpose of resale, they could not dictate to you whom or for how much you resold it for.  But they are not doing that.  They are granting you a license to use their property in your builds.  For that purpose they can require that you reset the perms so their property doesn't "get out in to the wild."

"Courts have struggled and taken dramatically different approaches to sort out when only a license was granted to the end user as compared to ownership. Most of these cases involved software-licensing agreements. In general, courts look beneath the surface of the agreements to conclude whether the agreements create licensing relationship or if they amount to, in substance, sales subject to first sale doctrine under §109(a). Thus, specifying that the agreement grants only a "license" is necessary to create the licensing relationship, but not sufficient. Other terms of the agreement should be consistent with such a licensing relationship."

I am not a lawyer, but from every thing I have read on this, the new TOS does not remove their licensing rights.

[Trinity Yazimoto]

Oh i had an argue last year with a famous mesh template creator about that...

with such terms of use, i felt like this person was wanting to rule my business...

i couldnt even settle my item as gift for promote my store, or put it in my mm board... etc...

In the end.. one of the item bought had on top a glitch. It was long pants.. there was a glitch on one of the pockets.. at first i thought it was my texture so, i remade, again and again (15 days long).. nothing could fix... in the end... i thought i could try the texture provided in the pack.. and omg.. the glitch was still here ! it was on the mesh itself... and since i wasnt used with meshes, this didnt came to my mind right away... 

I was angry bec i worked for 15 days trying to fix it via my textures for nothing.

so i made a review saying that with such terms of use, i was at least expecting the product was perfect.

She didnt liked i left such review, saying i was insulting the other good reviews left by others.. We had a long talk... and then after that... i said i didnt wanted to be refunded, but i accept to delete my review, if she does less restrictive terms of use.. what she accepted to do..

I hope you are not talking about the same merchant bec it would mean that after some monthes, she came back so her restrictive terms of uses... and forgot our deal...

Like you, i refuse someone tell me what price i have to put on my items... i understand and accept totally the fact i cant sell my items full perms but i want to choose what other alternative i m going to choose.. and well, i dont need textures since i prefer to make my owns...

For that reason, i stoped buying mesh templates.. after what happened with this merchant, i browse the mp and saw it was almost same restritive conditions every where...

ill just wait until i learn how to create my own meshes... and i keep doing my clothes with the old method, then i dont need anyone and noone will put his/her nose into my business...

 

ETA : typo

[Trinity Yazimoto]

Well it appears that this merchant (since its the same) didnt made his part of the contract and kept the same abusive terms of use...

I cant indeed for him... i still have the logs of our conversations and the nc but they wont serve for nothing, since they dont have legal value.. i just regret to have removed my review...

But well, long time now i decided to not buy anymore from this person.. i wont surely change my decision in the future.

[Erik Verity]

Price Control is too generic a term to simply say it's illegal; the laws are too complex too suggest that it's illegal for anyone to simply set a minimum price - and it is perfectly legal and reasonable in a lot of cases. Why should a creator allow any single buyer to kill all of their own future sales when no one else could use their products to make a profit? If all mesh creators agreed to never sell their (even competing) products below a certain level, that could be against anti-trust laws. For one manufacturer to require their distributors to have a minimum price may be perfectly legal and rational.

LL TOS requires products to be sold with either copy or trans (or both) allowed, but not both forbidden. This is what is referred to when they state that we cannot try to override their permissions system. Even Permissions is misnamed for what its description implies - Abilities might have been a better choice. You often buy things from a creator with the ability to do things with it that you don't necessarily have the permission to do. The TOS acknowledges that many things will be sold full perm solely to allow builders to be able to use them in their builds without being allowed to redistribute them with the same permissions.

Since LL TOS also require buyers to abide by creator terms, where is the example of a creator's terms superseding LL TOS?

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Erik Verity wrote:

Price Control

is too generic a term to simply say it's illegal; the laws are too complex too suggest that it's illegal for anyone to simply set a minimum price - and it is perfectly legal and reasonable in a lot of cases. Why should a creator allow any single buyer to kill all of their own future sales when no one else could use their products to make a profit? If all mesh creators agreed to never sell their (even competing) products below a certain level, that could be against anti-trust laws. For one manufacturer to require their distributors to have a minimum price may be perfectly legal and rational.

LL TOS requires products to be sold with either copy or trans (or both) allowed, but not both forbidden. This is what is referred to when they state that we cannot try to override their permissions system. Even

Permissions

is misnamed for what its description implies -

Abilities

might have been a better choice. You often by things from a creator with the ability to do things with it that you don't necessarily have the permission to do. The TOS acknowledges that many things will be sold full perm solely to allow builders to be able to use them in their builds without being allowed to redistribute them with the same permissions.

Since LL TOS also require buyers to abide by creator terms, where is the example of a creator's terms superseding LL TOS?

---

It is illegal in the US for a manufacturer to dictate what a distributor  or re-seller can charge for the end product. The creator of the kit/template/whatever would be the manufacturer. The person buying said item to texture, put together, add to and re-sell would be the distributor. Therefore it IS illegal for a creator to dictate what anyone can re-sell their items for. Just like if someone bought a couch that was transferable, they could sell it for what ever they wanted to.. even at a loss.

There are some manufacturers that say in their ToU that you can not sell their items with copy perms. There are some that say no transfer. or "you can't use my items in a MM board or lucky chair" If i buy your kit, full perm, what gives you the right to tell me what i can and can't do with it? if i want to give it away to promote my store, so long as i don't give it full perm, why would that be an issue?

I have no problem with the "don't set them for sale  full perm" that's common sense. But to further dictate what we do with it is not right. Nor do i think legal.

I would like to point out that i am NOT referring to anyone specific. just a general query after perusing the marketplace.

[Drew Bhalti]

I've been trying to figure this out too drake,  I've found some full perm mesh kits I need and with the tou/tos they have layed out it's not possible for me todo what I need todo.   so guess I'll have to do some real digging into real law to see what I can figure out.

[Erik Verity]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

It is illegal in the US for a manufacturer to dictate what a distributor  or re-seller can charge for the end product. [. . .] it IS illegal for a creator to dictate what anyone can re-sell their items for.

---

No, it is not, and no, it is not.

I'm not even saying dictate, although close to it is good enough, especially minimium. Franchises especially, operate within required sale price ranges.

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

 Just like if someone bought a couch that was transferable, they could sell it for what ever they wanted to.. even at a loss.

---

It's apples and oranges - buy one personal object that is trans and no copy, for your personal use any way you wish - sell it, give it away - you won't still have it to do it again; or purchase a building product that has full ABILITIES / CAPABILITIES for custom, commercial reproduction.

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

 If i buy your kit, full perm, what gives you the right to tell me what i can and can't do with it?

---

The law; SL TOS, and  my EULA ( or ToU).

FULL PERM does not mean you bought something without restrictions on what you are authorized to do with it, it means you bought it without restrictions on your ability to copy, modify, and transfer to make customization possible. Just because LL named this a Permissions system doesn't mean you can define what it means by what they named it - its meaning has been fully described in writing - and it seems to me that Capabilities would have been a better choice for the name of the system. Choose whatever name you want to call it, but SL TOS requires you to discover and abide by a creator's agreement even when you purchase full perm.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Erik Verity wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

It is illegal in the US for a manufacturer to dictate what a distributor  or re-seller can charge for the end product. [. . .] it IS illegal for a creator to dictate what anyone can re-sell their items for.

---

No, it is not, and no, it is not.

I'm not even saying

dictate,

although close to it is good enough, especially

minimium

. Franchises especially, operate within required sale price ranges.

---

---

Guess again.  It is illegal.  Go read the First Sale Doctrine and Rulings.  (I posted a link to a good summary)

The way the manufacturers control pricing is through INCENTIVES.

For example, on Movie DVD's, there is something called MAP, Minimum Advertised Price.  It is the lowest price that you are allowed to advertise and get co-op ad dollars from the studios.  That is one of the reasons you will see ads that read, "priced so low we can't print it." 

The same is true with 'franchises.'  The incentives are where the real money is made.  "You participate in this promotion and we will do such and such for you."  There is one additional caveat for Franchises, and that is they are operating under license.  So there are a few more rules that come into play.  To retain their license to do business under say McD's or KFC's name, they agree to certain rules.  If they violate those rules, McD's or KFC will come and tear down their signs.

But once that product leaves the manufactures hand and is in mine, I can do anything and everything I durn well feel like doing with it. And the manufacturer has no say or control.

What get's unique in SL is that you are dealing with intellectual property.  And intellectual property can be either sold or it can be licensed.  That is something that may make a big difference here. 

[Drew Bhalti]

Ah thank you perrie, I've been digging around, but now I get it.  we'll it's a shame, but I'll have to just get items built for me instead of buying kits and such.

 

I'm not wanting to piss any body off so this is the best route.  at least I've did some homework and just not ignored them peoples and did my own things, I'd be in some hot waters right now.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

From what i have read of the DMCA laws, and have talked to my families lawyer about it, the DMCA laws are for stolen content. Meaning,  content that was illegally acquired, not content that was purchased and then had the creator change their mind for whatever reason. A user license can not be revoked on a whim, you have to break the terms, and they CAN NOT tell you what to sell for. They can say not to give away full perm but nothing stricter than that.

[Erik Verity]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Guess again.  It is illegal.  Go read the First Sale Doctrine and Rulings.  (I posted a link to a good summary)

---

I stand by what I posted, while pointing out that  "dictate" is too harsh a requirement to blanketly be legal. The First Sale Doctrine purposely excludes every case other than the true end user. I suggest you read from your wiki page again if you think it said something different.

Apples:

---

Erik Verity wrote:

[...] buy one personal object that is trans and no copy, for your personal use any way you wish - sell it, give it away - you won't still have it to do it again;

---

 

---

Oranges:

---

Erik Verity wrote:

[...] purchase a building product that has full ABILITIES / CAPABILITIES for custom, commercial reproduction.

---

The First Sale Doctrine applies in the exact same sense of purchasing a single product for your personal use. It seems to go pretty far out of the way to make a clear distinction between the same apples and oranges I referred to. There is no regulation there that has anything at all to do with products sold specifically for reproduction and remarketing.

 

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

The way the manufacturers control pricing is through INCENTIVES.

For example, on Movie DVD's, there is something called MAP, Minimum Advertised Price.  It is the lowest price that you are allowed to advertise and get co-op ad dollars from the studios.  That is one of the reasons you will see ads that read, "priced so low we can't print it."

---

Minimum Advertised Price and Incentives can be regulated by laws to prevent one party from injuring another (e.g., you can't just force someone to operate at a loss), but they themselves are not laws; they are marketing techniques.

 

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

To retain their license to do business under say McD's or KFC's name, they agree to certain rules.  If they violate those rules, McD's or KFC will come and tear down their signs.

---

Because they are allowed to protect the integrity, quality, reputation, image, etc. of their own works. They can also protect their customer interests (you, or other resellers/remanufacturers, etc.) with their agreements limiting their customers from overly-aggressive predatory practices against each other. Content creators can require you to agree to certain rules too if you wish to do business using their products; break the creator's rules for remarketing their products in SL, and they can come tear down your signs too.

 

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

But once that product leaves the manufactures hand and is in mine, I can do anything and everything I durn well feel like doing with it. And the manufacturer has no say or control.

---

You're talking about apples here, not oranges.

While there might be legal exceptions to a minimum price rule (to accomodate different tax rates, local laws or zoning, bankruptcy liquidation, or whatever), I have not yet seen one that blanketly forbids minimum pricing requirements.

 

[Erik Verity]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

From what i have read of the DMCA laws, and have talked to my families lawyer about it, the DMCA laws are for stolen content. Meaning,  content that was illegally acquired, not content that was purchased and then had the creator change their mind for whatever reason.

---

 

Part of first paragraph from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act  - read the bolded text:

---

The

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

(

DMCA

) is a

United States

copyright

law

that implements two 1996 treaties of the

World Intellectual Property Organization

(WIPO).

It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as

digital rights management

or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works.

It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself.

---

I'm not saying anyone can change their terms of your use after your purchase - but they can enforce the terms you purchased under.

 

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

[...] and they CAN NOT tell you what to sell for. They can say not to give away full perm but nothing stricter than that.

---

I still won't say an exact price can be mandated, but within ranges? Yes. What law are you referring to? Where is a law limiting a creator's usage agreement to a setting in Second Life software?

[Pamela Galli]

If I am selling a license to use something I make, I can pretty much make it say whatever I like. And anyone is free to read it and either buy it or not. 

 

 

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Erik Verity wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Guess again.  It is illegal.  Go read the First Sale Doctrine and Rulings.  (I posted a link to a good summary)

---

I stand by what I posted, while pointing out that  "dictate" is too harsh a requirement to blanketly be legal. The First Sale Doctrine purposely excludes every case other than the true

end user

. I suggest you read from your wiki page again if you think it said something different.

Apples

:

---

Erik Verity wrote:

[...] buy one personal object that is trans and no copy, for your personal use any way you wish - sell it, give it away - you won't still have it to do it again;

---

 

---

Oranges

:

---

Erik Verity wrote:

[...] purchase a building product that has full ABILITIES / CAPABILITIES for custom, commercial reproduction.

---

The First Sale Doctrine applies in the exact same sense of purchasing a single product for your personal use. It seems to go pretty far out of the way to make a clear distinction between the same apples and oranges I referred to. There is no regulation there that has anything at all to do with products sold specifically for reproduction and remarketing.

 

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

The way the manufacturers control pricing is through INCENTIVES.

For example, on Movie DVD's, there is something called MAP, Minimum Advertised Price.  It is the lowest price that you are allowed to advertise and get co-op ad dollars from the studios.  That is one of the reasons you will see ads that read, "priced so low we can't print it."

---

Minimum Advertised Price and Incentives

can

be regulated by laws to prevent one party from injuring another (e.g., you can't just force someone to operate at a loss), but they themselves are not laws; they are marketing techniques.

 

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

To retain their license to do business under say McD's or KFC's name, they agree to certain rules.  If they violate those rules, McD's or KFC will come and tear down their signs.

---

Because they are allowed to protect the integrity, quality, reputation, image, etc. of their own works. They can also protect their customer interests (you, or other resellers/remanufacturers, etc.) with their agreements limiting their customers from overly-aggressive predatory practices against each other. Content creators can require you to agree to certain rules too if you wish to do business using their products; break the creator's rules for remarketing their products in SL, and they can come tear down your signs too.

 

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

But once that product leaves the manufactures hand and is in mine, I can do anything and everything I durn well feel like doing with it. And the manufacturer has no say or control.

---

You're talking about apples here, not oranges.

While there might be legal exceptions to a minimum price rule (to accomodate different tax rates, local laws or zoning, bankruptcy liquidation, or whatever), I have not yet seen one that blanketly forbids minimum pricing requirements.

 

---

OK.  I could have and should have been clearer.

Intellectual property rights can or may cover terms of use.  I am not disagreeing with that.

However, under First Sale Doctrine, you can not dictate pricing.

Example:

I worked as an account representative in music and video distribution.

Videos are licensed for "personal home use," not public showing or exhibition.

When a new release came out, or any video for that matter, the stores could not randomly open any video that wanted and play it on their TV's.  That became "public exhibition."  We produced "demos' that were "lent" (and I know there are still some legal battles going on about this with demos that are sent to reviewers, dj's etc) to the stores for display purposes.  They were custom made for this and had their own licensing terms.

But we could not dictate to any one the sale price.

Like wise with "street" (release) dates.  Once you had the product in hand you could sell it and there was nothing we could do to stop you.  But what the Studios and Music Labels did with (repeat) violators was to not ship future releases to those stores until "street date."  So they would get it after the release date.  That the Studios and Labels could do.

 

[Erik Verity]

I agree that you might not be clear enough for me to know for sure exactly what you are implying, but I'm not sure it's possible to be too specific about how complicated sets of laws apply to individual cases in a forum for non-lawyers.

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

However, under First Sale Doctrine, you can not dictate pricing.

---

This statement is too generic and vague to have any real meaning as is - if it were possible to narrow a summary down to this simple statement, then it is wrong - First Sale Doctrine protects an end user's rights to a product only - it has nothing to do with regulating commercial sales, including pricing.

 

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

We produced "demos' that were "lent" (and I know there are still some legal battles going on about this with demos that are sent to reviewers, dj's etc) to the stores for display purposes.  They were custom made for this and had their own licensing terms.

But we could not dictate to any one the sale price.

---

You cannot dictate to an end user - who purchased a video for their personal use - what they can sell their personal (non-reproduceable) copy for. That's the only scenerio that the First Sale Doctrine covers. This sounds like a complicated legal question for good reason - there is a blatant attempt to blur the distinction between commercial use and end use.

 

---

Pamela Galli

wrote:

---

If I am selling a license to use something I make, I can pretty much make it say whatever I like. And anyone is free to read it and either buy it or not.

---

I think we agree on this.

[Pamela Galli]

There is a difference between selling something to someone and selling a license to use something. 

 

Bottom line for either -- see what exactly is being offered for sale and decide whether you want to buy it. If you don't want an orange sofa, don't buy an orange sofa. If you don't like the terms of a license, don't buy it. 

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Erik Verity wrote:

LL TOS requires products to be sold with either copy or trans (or both) allowed, but not both forbidden. This is what is referred to when they state that we cannot try to override their permissions system. Even

Permissions

is misnamed for what its description implies -

Abilities

might have been a better choice. You often buy things from a creator with the ability to do things with it that you don't necessarily have the permission to do. The TOS acknowledges that many things will be sold full perm solely to allow builders to be able to use them in their builds without being allowed to redistribute them with the same permissions.

---

This is all factually incorrect and no where in the current or previous version of the TOS does it state this.

The TOS does not require an item to by copy or transfer, nor does it require the creator use the permission system at all.  It only says that you MAY use it. You may sell your content under a user license for any terms you care to specify including NO copy and NO transfer. Posting your terms where they can be read inworld or on the MP or telling people where they are available and can be read prior to a sale is also Interaction with the system

In fact the TOS makes clear that people don't own the content they buy only content they personally create. If you buy something you buy a license to use it under terms set by the creator.  You have to agree to this, by agreeing to the TOS to be allowed to log into SL.

 

2.4 You grant certain Content licenses to other users by submitting your Content to publicly accessible areas of the Service.

You agree that by uploading, publishing, or submitting any Content to any publicly accessible areas of the Service, you hereby grant other users of that aspect of the Service a non-exclusive license to access the User Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content In-World or otherwise on the Service solely as permitted by you through your interactions with the Service under these Terms of Service.  ....

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. Any agreement you make with other users relating to use or access to your Content must be consistent with these Terms of Service, and no such agreement can abrogate, nullify, void or modify these Terms of Service.

2.7 You agree to respect the Intellectual Property Rights of other users, Linden Lab, and third parties.

...You acknowledge that the Content of the Service is provided or made available to you under license from Linden Lab and independent Content providers, including other users of the Service ("Content Providers"). You acknowledge and agree that except as expressly provided in this Agreement, the Intellectual Property Rights of Linden Lab and other Content Providers in their respective Content are not licensed to you by your mere use of the Service. You must obtain from the applicable Content Providers any necessary license rights in Content that you desire to use or access.

A case could be made, not without precedent in contracts,  that you give up any rights to what the law says about pricing or what you can or cannot do with the item by agreeing to the TOS because you are only buying a license.  You then agree to the terms set by the creator when you buy the license to use it, provided you had a way to read the terms prior to purchase.. That doesn't mean a creator can change the terms AFTER the sale though, unless the original terms stated it was permissible, IMO, and if they did, no one in their right mind would buy such a thing.

[Trinity Yazimoto]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

If I am selling a license to use something I make, I can pretty much make it say whatever I like. And anyone is free to read it and either buy it or not. 

 

 

 

---

Indeed Pam. And i never contested that. Neither never thought it was illegal. 

But imho some use abusive terms of use. and unfortunatly its legal.

My point is that now, most of mesh templates merchants use such abuse terms of use and for me, its impossible i accept someone else rule my business.. Since im the kind of person who respect carefuly these terms of use, i dont want to break them. So, as you said...i prefer to not buy.

If i happen to use smth i didnt create myself in one of my creations, i never use it like it is... First i add a texture and a texture is not nothing... above all when you have to deal with a crappy uv map and sometimes, im pretty sure than i give more time for the texture than what gave the creator for the mesh template. I also add a lot of other items in the pack that are not mesh and complete the outfit. So in the end, the outfit i create, is really more than the poor lil mesh template i added within the pack. 

This is why, there is no way, someone comes and tell me what price i can sell it, or if i can or not give it away for promoting my store.

So as you said, i dont buy, they lost a customer. And i move on.

I just find regretable, that they are mainly all doing the same kind of terms of use like it they think they are gods than can rule other ppls' business and if like creating meshes is so superior than creating anything else. ..I bet we wont see so often this kind of behavior one time there will be more ppl creating meshes.

[Erik Verity]

I have seen  four (I think that's the right number) different, updated versions of the TOS since joining, so even though I have already read first-hand a few things which are not easy to bring up for documentation, I will limit myself to current information only. I am sure I have read it in more direct wording than I will show here, but don't rule out someone else jumping in if they find something in an older TOS version or other documentation.

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

[...] nor does it require the creator use the permission system at all.  It only says that you MAY use it.

---

It does not require a USER OF THE SERVICE to use the permissions system at all. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A USER TO BE A CREATOR EITHER.

So no, you don't have to use the permissons system, but you don't have to be a creator either. But you are forbidden from trying to circumvent the software's functionality (hacking or otherwise) - which automatically includes the permissions system when content is created or uploaded, whether you set specific options or not. The software will not allow you to set both NO COPY and NO TRANSFER at the same time for a reason. There are legitimate and technical ways around this (e.g., object contents with different perms), but they don't overrule the basic intent of one or the other being allowed.

So can a user be both a creator, and bypass the permissions system which requires an item to be either copy or trans?

No:

---

This agreement (the "Agreement" or the "Terms of Service") describes the terms on which Linden Research, Inc.  ("Linden Lab") offer you access to its interactive entertainment products and services.  The "Service" means all features, applications, content and downloads offered by Linden Lab, including its Websites, Servers, Linden Software, Linden Content, and User Content (as those terms are defined below). This offer is conditioned on your agreement to all of the terms and conditions contained in the Terms of Service,

including the policies and terms

linked to or

otherwise referenced

in this Agreement, all of which are hereby incorporated into this Agreement.

---

Notice my bolding - The TOS includes abiding by the policies that it refers to, even though they are not included directly in the actual TOS. The permissions system includes policies and FAQs found elsewhere:

---

Right of First Sale

The right of first sale applies when an item is transferred without next owner copy.

Since you are allowed to specify no derivative works by specifying next owner cannot modify, this right is interpreted as next owner can always transfer that single instance of the item to anyone else.

---

This is a very direct set of statements. If you transfer an item that is not copiable, (and if you are a seller, you are tranferring an item when you sell it - the second statement makes it clear that this applies to creators), the receiver is entitled to the right of First Sale - including right to transfer that single copy.

So yes, TOS does require that objects be either copy, trans, or both, but not both forbidden.

 

[Erik Verity]

I know I limited that last response a little bit, and wondering if I should have added more.

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

This is all factually incorrect [...]

---

ALL factually incorrect? I believe it is ALL factually correct, including this:

---

Erik Verity wrote:

[...] Even

Permissions

is misnamed for what its description implies -

Abilities

might have been a better choice. You often buy things from a creator with the ability to do things with it that you don't necessarily have the permission to do. The TOS acknowledges that many things will be sold full perm solely to allow builders to be able to use them in their builds without being allowed to redistribute them with the same permissions.

---

---

In the third paragraph of sec 2.7

---

Linden Lab and other Content Providers may use the normal functionality of the Service, including the permissions system and the copy, modify, and transfer settings, to indicate how you may use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, or perform their respective Content solely In-World. You acknowledge and agree that

the permissions system and other functionality of the Service do not grant you any license, consent, or permission to copy, modify, transfer

, or use in any manner any Content outside the Service.

---

The Permissions system is the name of one of the software's functionality settings, but specifically does not give actual, legal permission to do a single thing.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Erik Verity wrote:

In the third paragraph of sec 2.7

---

Linden Lab and other Content Providers may use the normal functionality of the Service, including the permissions system and the copy, modify, and transfer settings, to indicate how you may use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, or perform their respective Content solely In-World. You acknowledge and agree that

the permissions system and other functionality of the Service do not grant you any license, consent, or permission to copy, modify, transfer

,

or use in any manner any Content outside the Service.

---

The Permissions system is the name of one of the software's functionality settings, but specifically does not give actual, legal permission to do a single thing.

---

try reading the rest of that paragraph... "outside the service" as in, in other virtual worlds. 

[Erik Verity]

The rest of the paragraph is separated with the word "or" for a reason. It doesn't change the meaning of what I highlighted at all.

ETA: It simply means the permission system does not grant you any rights to use content outside of Second Life either.

[Erik Verity]

Actually a lot of what Amethyst said is also true - it gets confusing when you have to separate if something is being sold for use by an end user or not - and the meaning of the Permissions System, which only grants you abilities, not legal permissions. You can create content that can be used in Second Life, but you don't even have to go through Second Life to create or sell it unless you choose to. You can always state your own terms when you license something for others to use, but if you use the SL service for uploading/selling content, you have to either choose what other users are able to do with it or accept the default settings.

When something is created for an end user inside Second Life, they are granted Right of First Sale if the item is not able to be copied.

Full Perm can actually be the most restrictive of permissions - while you have the ABILITY to do more with the content, your legal permissions are only what the creator allows.