Drongle McMahon Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 You are right. I certainly had the impression that no CC license was compatible with the ToS. In the case of cc-by, this was based on the impression that uploading required the waiving of all moral rights, including attribution. I still have little doubt that that was the intention, because from LL's point of view, there's no difference between having to respect the uploaders attribution right and having to respect the third party's attribution right. However, on a more careful reading, we can see that the letter of the ToS does not say anything about third party moral rights, only about those of the person accepting the ToS. I suspect that is a mistake (we may see it corrected, simply by changing "your" to "all" - have to keep looking, as they no longer have to tell us). Also, the license demanded does not include anything explicitly excluding the respecting of an attribution right (does it?). That raises the possibility that cc-by (but not other cc licenses) might be compatible after all. I think it depends on the interpretation of the sentence you quoted. On one hand, it could be argued that: you have the right to upload; the act of uploading gives LL every right they demand; therefore you do have the right to give LL those rights, and you do so by uploading; therefore your affirmation is valid. On the other hand, it may be argued that the rights obtained by LL when you upload are not given by you. LL gets the rights it demands, but they come from the original licensor, not from you. You have no rights to grant anything to LL in connection with the uploaded content. Therefore your affirmation is invlalid, even though LL legitimately gets everything it demands. It's a question of effective (first) vs literal (second) interpretation. I just don't know which would win. Of course, the only safe course is then to assume you can't upload (or can't accept the ToS), especially because the intent was surely to exclude anything that required attribution. So your arguments on this basis are not undermined in any way. Maybe I should have been a lawyer - they actually get paid for this sort of nit-picking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drongle McMahon Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 "I also don't think LL's lawyers are THAT stupid. " Hmm. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiftRaven Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Czari Zenovka wrote: Chic Aeon wrote: I am still not uploading. Whatever reasoning behind the TOS it was a BIG slap in the face and has hurt many people that work in SL and RL in crossover roles -- let alone the rest of us. *Pulls up a chair next to Chic and Rift in the "not uploading camp." I'm a teeny fish in the huge ocean as a SL content creator, but I do have a voice (and a profile to place my protest within, and people with whom I can *share* the news). * Sure. Pull up a chair. I'm just waiting hoping for change, looks like most of what needs to be said about the situation has been said already. "I'm a teeny fish in the huge ocean as a SL content creator, but I do have a voice." Well I preffer the term "engineer" but you know "tomatoes" "tomatos". lol P.S. Love your Linden Labs work, with thunder and lightning by the way, funny stuff! :smileyvery-happy: Oh and the Once Upon a Time premiere was pretty awesome. "Look! Mean Girl Mermaids!" I said. lol It does look pretty sweet in 1080i everytime I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alicia Sautereau Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 By me quoting you, you grant me all permissions to add/modify/delete/copy/repost your text to as I see fit. I just pulled a Linden Loop, now every one is paranoid with no date, blank permissions and if only a handful of people read it (like the ToS changes) then they are sh!t out of luck. Good example right? I wonder if it will stick with the forum part of the ToS hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Drongle McMahon wrote: "I also don't think LL's lawyers are THAT stupid. " Hmm. Why not? Being that I have actually witnessed a Judge berating an Attorney for this, I will recind that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chic Aeon Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 I guess for me, it becomes a moral issue (oh my! MORALS!). If I were uploading -- and even if I interpreted the TOS to say that I could upload CC by material, I would automatically be putting someone else's work in perel too? That's just not cool. OK I wanted to brag about what I did this morning but will just brag to myself as don't want this thread to disappear . But it was GOOD and it was IMPRESSIVE!!!! HOHO. So thank you for helping me "get there" in mesh! Well, as far as I go anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Cotton Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 I dont care what their "intent" is. Put it in writing; or its meaningless. History repeats. LL lost my trust long ago when it comes to taking user run ideas/content. GOM, Xstreet.... What i hear you saying is: If I own a store, and that store is in a mall. The mall owner suddenely says they have a new contract for me to sign and it says they own my merchandise. If I don't like it, I can't enter the mall at all. I can't enter the mall to distroy that stock, without unwillingly signing a contract that clearly states they own my inventory. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Not not realy. But.... as the tos reads today, LL could resell my inventory for less than what I sell it for, and I would not have a legal leg to stand on. They have worded their tos in such a way that they themselves would be in direct competition with any creator, anyone who has or does anything within Second Life. If like me you create sculpts and/or meshes and/or textures, perhaps you script or your a preformer. Think very carefully before you agree to this one sided ToS. If LL's intent is good in nature, simply change the tos to reflect that. This will however forever leave another bad taste in my mouth about LL. I have zero intention of agreeing to this ToS, It doesn't even seem legal. This is beyond the stupidest move to date. I could go on and on but that would mean that I am passionate about Second Life, end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylie Sabra Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Pulls her chair into the growing circle. I get it that my not uploading content into SL is not likely to amount to more than a breeze attempting to move a rock, but I am furious with LL's attempt to commandeer my hard work, my passion. I have a voice and, even if it be but a squeak, I will use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrius Gothly Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Kylie Sabra wrote: Pulls her chair into the growing circle. I get it that my not uploading content into SL is not likely to amount to more than a breeze attempting to move a rock, but I am furious with LL's attempt to commandeer my hard work, my passion. I have a voice and, even if it be but a squeak, I will use it. It's always important to remember that floods that have washed away entire civilizations .. are made of small, insignificant, almost invisible drops of rain water. One tiny drop, added to another, and another .. and another .. and soon there is a wall of water descending on those unwilling to recognize the power of a single drop of rain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinity Yazimoto Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Darrius Gothly wrote: It's always important to remember that floods that have washed away entire civilizations .. are made of small, insignificant, almost invisible drops of rain water. One tiny drop, added to another, and another .. and another .. and soon there is a wall of water descending on those unwilling to recognize the power of a single drop of rain. THIS ! Thank you Darrius... a lot of ppl forget that so often... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted October 3, 2013 Author Share Posted October 3, 2013 Darrius Gothly wrote: Kylie Sabra wrote: Pulls her chair into the growing circle. I get it that my not uploading content into SL is not likely to amount to more than a breeze attempting to move a rock, but I am furious with LL's attempt to commandeer my hard work, my passion. I have a voice and, even if it be but a squeak, I will use it. It's always important to remember that floods that have washed away entire civilizations .. are made of small, insignificant, almost invisible drops of rain water. One tiny drop, added to another, and another .. and another .. and soon there is a wall of water descending on those unwilling to recognize the power of a single drop of rain. Totally agree with this... and the inspirational video posted earlier in this thread that basically offers the same message. Thousands of small voices make a thunderous choir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dartagan Shepherd Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Sorry Toy, I promised to respond back to this post and some things came up. During the delay though, I did manage to talk to some people with knowledge and experience i respect. I did get one tidbit and that's to keep your powder dry if there's any forthcoming action. When talking about the why of it, I got pretty much the same reasons that we covered here, with one that I don't think anyone brought up, which would be the real "sky is falling!" theory, (should probably put this in Phil's theory thread in this forum) that it'd make sense before a shutdown of the product or company or downsizing and pruning to protect company assets. No, I'm not suggesting in any way shape or form that they're thinking of shutting SL down, it's their largest income. I'm just suprised that we didn't think of it first! I think we're just not good enough at the doom and gloom thing after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alicia Sautereau Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Just helped a guy with a small scripting problem and started to think how even helping out some one is affected by the ToS. As he doesn`t gives much about aswell, he agreed to keep my little joke in the modified script: /* Terms of Service of modified code/* This script has been modified by Alicia Sautereau./* Any modification is strickly forbidden by Linden Lab employees or it`s owner(s)./* Distribution limited solely to _______________ with limited rights to modify as needed./* __/__/____/* Unlicensed distribution of this code will be prosecuted to the full extend of the law within the United States of America and the European Union. Knowing it will never see the daylight with LL, but couldn`t resist to start sticking it to them and it will most likely hold up in court as much as their own ToS, but ffs, I`ve got to try ps; I know, spelling errors and the header doesn`t makes much sense, joke in progress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czari Zenovka Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 RiftRaven wrote: Czari Zenovka wrote: Chic Aeon wrote: I am still not uploading. Whatever reasoning behind the TOS it was a BIG slap in the face and has hurt many people that work in SL and RL in crossover roles -- let alone the rest of us. *Pulls up a chair next to Chic and Rift in the "not uploading camp." I'm a teeny fish in the huge ocean as a SL content creator, but I do have a voice (and a profile to place my protest within, and people with whom I can *share* the news). * Sure. Pull up a chair. I'm just waiting hoping for change, looks like most of what needs to be said about the situation has been said already. "I'm a teeny fish in the huge ocean as a SL content creator, but I do have a voice." Well I preffer the term "engineer" but you know "tomatoes" "tomatos". lol P.S. Love your Linden Labs work, with thunder and lightning by the way, funny stuff! :smileyvery-happy: Oh and the Once Upon a Time premiere was pretty awesome. "Look! Mean Girl Mermaids!" I said. lol It does look pretty sweet in 1080i everytime I see it. My pet peeve is "Linden Labs" especially said by people saying how long they have been in SL. I "appropriated" the lightning/logo from someone on General Forums, with her permission. Dang! Thank you for reminding me that I still need to watch the "Once Upon a Time" premiere. With the ship heading out to Never-Never land mermaids would fit right in. What I'm still not getting is Peter Pan (I'm assuming that's the archetype being used) as a dark shadow figure perplexes me; unless the show is just going with a darker version overall. In the last show prior to the premiere I almost felt "good" about Mr. Gold/Rumple and his tenderness toward Belle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnet Homewood Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 I will just paste over what I said in another thread, and then add a few more thoughts for discussion One point I think a lot of people are missing, when it comes to how useless SL content will be in other games etc, is ... it's not just about the prims, it's about designs. LL has the right to it ALL, not just prims, scripts, textures, but if any of those elements do not work well in aother grid/game? Copy the idea, the design. Sometimes that is more valuable that the actual setup already present. Could be with a piece of clothing, shoes, hair, vehicle, avatar, whatever. If the prim doesn't port over, copy the idea onto a prim that does port. Also, what about the question of alts? If I have an alt, one with a shop and one without, and I only log in to the alt without the shop, I am agreeing to the TOS, and I would think in the eyes of the law, it doesnt matter if I am on an alt or not - I am the same person. Then we have the issue of lack of warning. What if I was just about to finish a big custom job, and was just about to upload the work, then BOOM new TOS.If you log in, you hand your rights to LL. You may have no way to inform the client without using SL, and they may have already given payment or a down-payment. There goes your reputation as an honest creator! Then there is basic customer support. If by any chance a product ceass to work (for example, as has happened, by a server side update, which has broken scripts), you have no way to not accept the TOS and also be able ot log in to fix your stuff. Again, you may end up with unhappy customers, but then again, you may never come back to SL because of the TOS anyway .. hmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drake1 Nightfire Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Perrie Juran wrote: Drake1 Nightfire wrote: I've been saying since the start of this that the new ToS isn't leagal. Somehow that makes me a troll in some eyes.. Thanks for the support from both you and Darrius. I don't think you are a Troll. I just think you don't understand "content rights." Do you understand the difference between exclusive and non-exclusive rights? Do you understand the difference between a limited and an unlimited right? With all due respect, so far I have not read anything in your posts that shows that you do. Comparing granting someone license to use your digital creation to granting someone the right to commit murder? Really now? Do you have any concept of what kind of an apples and oranges comparison that is? ETA: My first thoughts on this when I read it was that it could not be legal. But the more I thought about it and read people's comments the more my opinion changed. Of course, I am not a lawyer. But applying my limited knowledge of copyright laws, yes, I do think this may very well be legal. I have a better comparison. You come home from work and there is your landlord standing outside your home, with a contract. It states that you agree to pay twice your rent or you cant enter your home. Do you sign it? We had no way to remove our items before signing. IE "moving out" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drake1 Nightfire Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 It's this section that has me scratching my head.. "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)." Why do they need to act as our attorney? Are they going to go after copybotters or content thieves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrius Gothly Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Drake1 Nightfire wrote: It's this section that has me scratching my head.. "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)." Why do they need to act as our attorney? Are they going to go after copybotters or content thieves? This is the last paragraph of the killer section 2.3. It has several purposes, but one of them is to ensure that should they find themselves on the receiving end of an ownership or usage rights lawsuit, you agree to come to their rescue and proclaim it was all your fault. Remember that paragraph 2 says you agree to only upload content that you possess sufficient usage rights to allow Linden Lab the full range of uses they lay out in paragraph 5. Furthermore, by agreeing to designate them as your attorney-in-fact, you grant them the right to throw you under the bus while neatly side-stepping any penalties themselves. It further says that they don't need to actually ascertain the validity or veracity of your usage rights before they confiscate your uploaded content for their own purposes. It's your responsibility to make sure their intended usage is allowable before you actually upload the content. In short, it's a further refinement on the "In any dispute it's all your fault and we are totally blameless" assertions upon which the entirety of Section 2.3 are based. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: Drake1 Nightfire wrote: I've been saying since the start of this that the new ToS isn't leagal. Somehow that makes me a troll in some eyes.. Thanks for the support from both you and Darrius. I don't think you are a Troll. I just think you don't understand "content rights." Do you understand the difference between exclusive and non-exclusive rights? Do you understand the difference between a limited and an unlimited right? With all due respect, so far I have not read anything in your posts that shows that you do. Comparing granting someone license to use your digital creation to granting someone the right to commit murder? Really now? Do you have any concept of what kind of an apples and oranges comparison that is? ETA: My first thoughts on this when I read it was that it could not be legal. But the more I thought about it and read people's comments the more my opinion changed. Of course, I am not a lawyer. But applying my limited knowledge of copyright laws, yes, I do think this may very well be legal. I have a better comparison. You come home from work and there is your landlord standing outside your home, with a contract. It states that you agree to pay twice your rent or you cant enter your home. Do you sign it? We had no way to remove our items before signing. IE "moving out" Now we are talking contract Law. We will assume for the sake of this discussion that I had a valid unexpired lease (contract) with the landlord. I'd have a few choices (several of which, like assaulting my landlord would be illegal) so I will stick to the reasonable ones. 1. I could walk away, doing nothing and hence abandon my property. 2. I could sign the new contract and take the risk that when I go to Court the next day that the court would strike down the new contract as "unconscionable." 3. I could refuse to sign and go to Court and get a Court order compelling my Landlord to honor the current contract and allow me access to my property. With that said I have had leases that had clauses that stated the Landlord could add new conditions for the purpose of maintaining the property in good condition. We had a problem at one property with people not disposing of trash properly. The Landlord sent a notice that any one caught doing this would be subject to a fifty dollar fine to be added to their rent. That term was not in the original lease and I believe a Court would have found it reasonable. Now with that said, let us consider the previous TOS that you were operating under. "1. CHANGES TO THIS AGREEMENT This Agreement may be changed by Linden Lab effective immediately by notifying you as provided in Section 13.4 below; provided that Material Changes will become effective thirty (30) days after such notification. By continuing to access or use Second Life after the effective date of any such change, you agree to be bound by the modified Terms of Service. A "Material Change" is a change to this Agreement which reduces your contractual rights or increases your responsibilities under this Agreement in a significant manner." http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Terms_of_Service_Archive/Through_6_May_2013 You had THIRTY days before the "Material Change" in the new TOS came into affect. The fact that the new TOS did not re-inform you of this does not negate it. LL had no obligation to re-inform you. Additionally you had accepted in the previous TOS that LL could change it, just like I had accepted that my landlord could make changes to my lease. That now leaves three basic choices. 1. To not have accepted the new TOS in which case the new terms would not have applied to your content. 2. Accept the new TOS, continue to use the service and concede your rights. 3. Provide LL with a written statement that you do not agree with the new terms in the (reasonable) manner they have stated, "All notices given by you or required under this Agreement shall be faxed to Linden Lab Legal Department at: (415) 243-9045; or mailed to us at: Linden Lab Legal Department, 945 Battery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111." informing them they you do not grant them the new rights (to your properties) and that you will no longer be using the Service. Remember, nothing compels you to use the service. The only other hope you have is if a Court should find that either 1. The new terms violate copyright laws and/or 2. The new terms were unconscionable. Continue to use the Service and by continuing to use it you concede that you accept the new terms. eta:clarity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Tagging my own post here. Sometimes people add a phrase when signing a contract, "Signed under duress." I had an employer who would conduct an exit interview before he would give people their final paycheck. During that interview he would give people a paper to sign stating that you were 1. Leaving of your own accord and 2. That he had payed in full all wages due to you and 3. That he had never violated your rights as an employee. Those of us who had a few brains added the above phrase, 'signed under duress,' the duress being he would not give us our paychecks until we signed it. He found out that paper was worthless in Court when a few people sued him for certain back wages that he had not paid. Not only did he have to pay the back wages but he was assessed additional penalties on top of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alicia Sautereau Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 As that can`t be done when accepting the new ToS, I think all the threads and the permission revaking from CG would qualify of the hostage situation some are expiriencing to prove it`s a pita in court when it is a grab on pre ToS date uploaded content. Never knew of that duress word, kind of a neat way to say you got royaly screwed on a legal document lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Alicia Sautereau wrote: As that can`t be done when accepting the new ToS, I think all the threads and the permission revaking from CG would qualify of the hostage situation some are expiriencing to prove it`s a pita in court when it is a grab on pre ToS date uploaded content. Never knew of that duress word, kind of a neat way to say you got royaly screwed on a legal document lol I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding your statement here. Not trying to be difficult, but may I ask you try rephrasing it. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Alicia Sautereau wrote: As that can`t be done when accepting the new ToS, I think all the threads and the permission revaking from CG would qualify of the hostage situation some are expiriencing to prove it`s a pita in court when it is a grab on pre ToS date uploaded content. Never knew of that duress word, kind of a neat way to say you got royaly screwed on a legal document lol The reason for doing this "signed under duress," is because a Judge will more than likely ask you why you signed the document in the first place. However, you'd be advised to have a good reason before doing so. Judges are used to dealing with people with "buyers remorse." Regretting your purchase the next day is not enough reason for a Judge to cancel the deal. eta:typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alicia Sautereau Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 No problem You said that you and others wrote on that real contract that you were forced to sign it. As that isn`t possible with the ToS, maybe the complaints and the texture sites removing SL specific usage, maybe some judge will see it the same way as that legal document that was signed under force. Ofcourse this would only work for old items and not for any new ones, but maybe it`s enough of a bone to throw to a judge that every one is being held hostage, same as the tenant example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Alicia Sautereau wrote: No problem You said that you and others wrote on that real contract that you were forced to sign it. As that isn`t possible with the ToS, maybe the complaints and the texture sites removing SL specific usage, maybe some judge will see it the same way as that legal document that was signed under force. Ofcourse this would only work for old items and not for any new ones, but maybe it`s enough of a bone to throw to a judge that every one is being held hostage, same as the tenant example. A Judge will recognize you couldn't "write" on the TOS. However, his next question might be did you contact LL as explained in the TOS. "All notices given by you or required under this Agreement shall be faxed to Linden Lab Legal Department at: (415) 243-9045; or mailed to us at: Linden Lab Legal Department, 945 Battery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111." Reasonable expectations could come in to play here. Gets interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now