Jump to content

Updated LL TOS Claims FULL RIGHTS to ALL CONTENT


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2597 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 627
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


Pamela Galli wrote:

In case anyone is wondering, as far as joining inworld groups, I just prefer to get my news and info where I always do: here.   

 

(I do belong to the inworld Commerce group, tho.) 

 

well its just a matter of choice and all are respectable. 

However, inworld commerce group has other purpose than only fight against the new Tos while the UCCSL's goal is just to make change these new TOS (at least till now) and for some ppl its just fine.

That said, can you tell us a bit about the position of the inworld commerce group about this topic and what are they planing, and also can we meet them, for unite our efforts for making change the tos ?

Link to post
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:

I don't pay a lot of attention to the Commerce group, Trinity, but Toy is a member there.

Yes thats not a problem Trinity.  The inworld Commerce Group is long standing and there to discuss general MP and Merchant topic as well as quicky support for any merchant member that has a question and is looking for an answer.

And no problem Pamela that you would rather monitor the TOS battle and updates from the SL forums / threads.  Part of the UCCSL group's strategy is to communicate any news, progress, updates, etc. out to many of the communication channels - of which the SL Forums are a critical channel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to hear that Vista is joining.  I saw a profile today of a merchant who had on her SL profile that she had quit creating in response to the new TOS - it was worded much better than what I wrote.  I plan to put that in my profile as well.  I have a pick about the TOS to help with awareness but I was encouraged to see someone with that notice in their SL profile as well.

Someone I recently met (non-content creator) asked my opinion on the new TOS, so apparently the word is spreading within SL and not just within the merchant/content-creator community.  I gave a brief synopsis, told him my particular way of dealing with it, and sent a link to him to read more info.  Then he said, "I don't see why everyone is upset; the content in SL compared to other game mechanics is so poor that no one wants it."

Yeah, that didn't go over real well with me.  :matte-motes-sour:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Toysoilder :)

 

 I wish I could join your group,  however logging in means I unwillingly agree to this new TOS and I firmly do not.  I have been watching this and other threads, blogs, and news very carefully on this subject. 

Your group has my full support, and I wish nothing more than LL to revise the TOS for the content creators; within Second Life. To do anything less will further alienate Second Life from mainstream sites and other established grids.


Take Care;

Cat

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's great to see people united on this.

This little quirk I have is to change my signature upon something of note or dedicated to someone from here in these forums every 6 months or so. Of course it must be something from Heinlein, the last of a horse sense generation.

This one's for you Toy, the members of the UCCSL and those with creators in spirit on these issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Catherine Cotton wrote:

Hello Toysoilder
:)

 

 I wish I could join your group,  however logging in means I unwillingly agree to this new TOS and I firmly
do not.
  I have been watching this and other threads, blogs, and news very carefully on this subject. 

Your group has my full support, and I wish nothing more than LL to revise the TOS for the content creators; within Second Life. To do anything less will further alienate Second Life from mainstream sites and other established grids.

 

Take Care;

Cat

Totally understand Cat... and the group is posting all we know off the grid too.  Kylie provided a lot of info and locations.  And another idea would be ... create an alt and have the content free Alt account become a member if you still want to be a group member.

Our membership today grew a lot. and we do have some new LL pressuring ideas being looked at with this large and growing membership.  We have also told the member that the key is to reach out to all those Creators that normally stay quite isolated... they build on their own and run their merchant business in high isolation.  Surprised how many still don't know and are shocked as the members inform them and show them the details.

I have been on SL almost 6 years and I have seen LL do some pretty stupid things, head shaking business decisions, and then often stand by these decisions until a ton of damage has been done then they occasionally fix the decision after the damage... but I can say this is one of their biggest ones and one that is directly impacting the customer base that creates most of the SL grid value.

Rodvik seems to be a very stubborn man and would rather see Rome burn to the ground than admit he has made a HORRID BUSINESS DECISION.  Either that or he needs this new TOS power soo badly as a key to some secret new LL plan that would fail if he cannot gain unlimited power to our content.  This is what scares me the most.  A CEO that knows each day his decision is further damaging his company's flagship product and its reputation and could be solved so easily as far as the creators see it... but he is being forced to try to hold on to these unlimited Creators rights?  AND... he nor LL wont open and formally explain why they needed this additional power?  They just stay silent as Rome burns  WHY?

Everything tells me that this fight to reverse the TOS must be fought or at least... Creators should start taking protective actions against this TOS... which we have heard a large number already have been.

So... Stay Tuned... this battle is far from over as the group continues to group, organize, and bigger "take notice LL" actions execute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there been any official or unofficial response from any Linden to a member of the group about the wrongness of the ToS? Has Rod said anything?


Toysoldier Thor wrote:

  A CEO that knows each day his decision is further damaging his company's flagship product and its reputation and could be solved so easily as far as the creators see it... but he is being forced to try to hold on to these unlimited Creators rights?  AND... He nor LL wont open and formally explain why they needed this additional power?  They just stay silent as Rome burns  WHY?



That is a pretty drastic analogy. Rome is far from burning. Plenty of people are adding new content. Original content, before I get tarred with the template crap brush again. AngelRed has put out over a dozen new original creations since the new ToS. As have many other big name creators. A small fire may have been started, by the people posting here, but it is hardly a city wide burn.

Who is to say Rod even knows people are upset. By your own admission he is silent on the matter. Personally I will wait and see what happens. I refuse to lose income over this. Stopping creating only hurts me and my customers.

 

ETA spelling before coffee

Link to post
Share on other sites

"create an alt and have the content free Alt account become a member"

Interesting idea, but does it work? Surely, if it means anything, the ToS has to be accepted by a RL person, not a fictitious entity. In that case, would it not effectivly apply to all the Alts controlled by that person?

Link to post
Share on other sites


Drongle McMahon wrote:

"create an alt and have the content free Alt account become a member"

Interesting idea, but does it work? Surely, if it means anything, the ToS has to be accepted by a RL person, not a fictitious entity. In that case, would it not effectivly apply to all the Alts controlled by that person?

Did you use your RL name when signing the new ToS?

Link to post
Share on other sites


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:


Drongle McMahon wrote:

"create an alt and have the content free Alt account become a member"

Interesting idea, but does it work? Surely, if it means anything, the ToS has to be accepted by a RL person, not a fictitious entity. In that case, would it not effectivly apply to all the Alts controlled by that person?

Did you use your RL name when signing the new ToS?

I did, by proxy anyway... since LL knows very well who I am in RL.  They also know who my alts are; I don't believe for one second that they aren't able to connect the dots and would do just that if need be.  If it ever came down to a question of legality, I could absolutely see them arguing that signing on with one account constitutes acceptance of the terms, regardless of whether or not I accepted it through another.  If someone is so concerned that they aren't willing to sign on in order to accept the TOS on their main account, then they need to be concerned about accepting it with any other account as well... just to be on the safe side.

...Dres

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but I didn't use my av name either, and LL knows my real name. I don't see how that matters though. If the agreement is not with the RL person controlling th av, then it couldn't carry any legal weight. You can't sue an av in a RL court.  There is nothing in the ToS saying it applies only to the user content associated with the account from which you accept it. It just says "you user content". It is certainly my guess that the "you" here means you, the RL person, not you, the av. Otherwise it would say something like "this account". Whether LL knows your real name at the time is irrelevant, although it might affect the ease with which they could take action against you. However, they don't want to take action against you. They just want to deflect actions that you or others may take against them.

I will agree that the ToS should explicitly clarify that, one way or the other, but, as in so many other ways, it seems clarity is not among the objectives of its authors. However....

"User Content" means any Content that a user of the Service has uploaded, published, or submitted to or through the Servers, Websites or other areas of the Service.

Nothing there about association with one account, or that "the user" does not mean the RL person.

ETA - I would say the av is part of the service, not the user of the service.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

Has there been any official or unofficial response from any Linden to a member of the group about the wrongness of the ToS? Has Rod said anything?

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

  A CEO that knows each day his decision is further damaging his company's flagship product and its reputation and could be solved so easily as far as the creators see it... but he is being forced to try to hold on to these unlimited Creators rights?  AND... He nor LL wont open and formally explain why they needed this additional power?  They just stay silent as Rome burns  WHY?


That is a pretty drastic analogy. Rome is far from burning. Plenty of people are adding new content. Original content, before I get tarred with the template crap brush again. AngelRed has put out over a dozen new original creations since the new ToS. As have many other big name creators. A small fire may have been started, by the people posting here, but it is hardly a city wide burn.

 

 

Who is to say Rod even knows people are upset. By your own admission he is silent on the matter. Personally I will wait and see what happens. I refuse to lose income over this. Stopping creating only hurts me and my customers.

 

ETA spelling before coffee

Well the "While Rome Burns" is a metaphor.  LOL this twice someone has called me out on a metaphor.   So, if we want to discuss about this metaphor, way back When... When Caesar was supposedly fiddling while Rome Burned... I would have to think that Rome was a very large city at that time and not ALL of Rome burnt down.  I am sure there are several areas of Rome that continued to operate business as per usual - possibly not even caring the the downtown / marketplace might have burnt to the ground or that others decided to flee.

I don't see how this is any different.  There is countless examples of those that fundamentally or contractually or morally or legally believe the LL TOS is serious enough that they have take decisive actions in response.  This is not myth - this is fact.  Drake, if you are one that personally feels your content is not at risk or that your content has low enough value that there is nothing of your IP worth protecting or that you inherently believe LL can be trusted with these additional powers or that you require the income from your SL revenue enough that you have no choice... then that is perfectly within your power to stay in the Rome as it burns.  And.. you don't even have to grab a bucket and help put out the fire.

 

As for Rodvik not knowing anything about all the rising revolt from the LL TOS change... REALLY?  I guess stranger things have happened with LL and we have seen LL often so far out of touch with their customers.... but if Rodvik is not aware of the extent to this issue, he had better resign as CEO.

 

  1. His Corp has had two larger content providers publicly ban his flagship product
  2. Many of the online / virtual world media that commonly report about SecondLife - of which Rodvik has been known watch and follow - has reported and criticized LL's policy and talked about the growing revolt from the creators
  3. Almost all of SecondLife's best known top bloggers have reported one and even many times about the seriousness of the issue and actions that have been taken against LL
  4. The SLU and the SL Forums have many active and VERY ACTIVE threads talking about this issue that we know even Rodvik has on the RARE occasion posted in (aka the escalated Merchant concerns of the Commerce Group incompetence a while back).  I am sure the SL moderators would report up any issues that seem to be burning to management.
  5. The several known formal legal filings from creators by support tickets and FAX / Letter statement of their disagreement of the LL TOS
  6. The public actions from two very well known customers of LL - Bryn Oh (a recent former and founding board member of LEA that LL personally invited who resigned) and Gaia Clary who has been a key voice/player on Blender Sculpty Mesh development and integration and support with SL who has distanced Avastar from the SecondLife branding terms and put more focus on a more open opensims branding.
  7. The countless emails, twitter hits, IMs etc to Rodvik and I am sure many of his staff from many of us Creators and Artists that have expressed our anger / fear of this TOS and demanded it fixed.
  8. The fact that some supposedly official LL source (unproven) make a statement to a 3rd party blog under the name of Linden Lab explaining their TOS and telling all of us that we simply misunderstood.... Are you saying this this informal communication went out to the public WITHOUT Rodvik's knowledge?  WOW if this is true?

I am sure if I spent more time I could think of a few other notable flags that should have got Rodvik's attention directly or from this staff.  So Drake, if Rodvik is so out of touch and unaware of the growing "firestorm" that the TOS has created then really ... in all honest Rodvik had better resign from his position because that would be an indication of sheer incompetence in the position he holds.  It would also say that LL Sr. Management around him are incompetent in their role to keep the CEO informed of any issues that could impact LL Corp.  This qualifies for many reasons.

BUT... I doubt your theory that Rodvik is not aware of the situation is correct.  I am very sure he is well aware of the seriousness and size and impact that the TOS is generating.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Drongle McMahon wrote:

"create an alt and have the content free Alt account become a member"

Interesting idea, but does it work? Surely, if it means anything, the ToS has to be accepted by a RL person, not a fictitious entity. In that case, would it not effectivly apply to all the Alts controlled by that person?

LOL Drongle... it is not surprising you brought up this point - smart man - because as soon as I posted that last night and went to bed... I thought Hmmm... how would this work if one of my ALTs came in on behalf of my main Avatar account that holds all my creative content.

I do see some of the points made this morning but honestly as was mentioned, the TOS is not clear who YOU is.. the RL human behind any SL Account or YOU the Account itself? 

Regardless, maybe some of you have fully disclosed to LL who you are but countless others have not.  LL only knows me by my PayPal account ID which could be someone else's paypal account that I used and so it does not 100% associate the account to me the RL person.  They also might known me as my IP address but that has ZERO association to me the person that would ever legally agree to the LL TOS.  My IP is to a firewall for my home of which there are 2 PCs and 5 Laptops connected behind it used by many ppl.

So, there are countless examples of SL accounts that extrmely anonymous and with only small shreds of possible identity of the RL account holder.  So exactly... who has LL Legal actually got to contractually agree to the TOS?  LL's process of getting me to agree to the LL TOS by means of a CLICKTHRU agreement with my Avatar account has no ID confirmation of high confidence requested of recorded.  So all they got was some person that is not clearly identified by LL records to agree to their TOS.

Most other CLICKTHRU agreements have more validity because the account that is agreeing to the TOS has a lot of RL personally valididated information to associate the agreement to.  In LL's case that often is not true because of LL's strong belief (even from Rodvik himself) that the avatar/account should be anonymous as possible.

A final thought.  IF its true that the terms "YOU" in the TOS relate to me the RL person behind all my Alts... then why does each of my ALTs have to review and agree to the TOS?  If the TOS was an agreement between me and LL, they should not be asking all my ALTS to re-agree to the TOS that the first one already did.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"then why does each of my ALTs have to review and agree to the TOS?"

Because it's easier for them that way? As long as they don't have to make the links, even if they could.

No doubt you are right about how difficult it might be for them to prove a RL association, but as I said, I don't think they have to. They want the rights, and they want to be able to say that the uploader affirmed they had the right to confer them. That's all they need. If it comes up in a dispute with you, then you have to give them RL data to proceed anyway. If it's a third party, they can just say it's the user's fault, they made the affirmation, here's all the information we have, you go and find them. So I don't see that they need the link, but they do need the agreement to be with a RL person, otherwise they can't claim a RL person made the affirmation. It's no use blaming the avatar because that only exists on their system. So it would still be them. At least, that's how I imagine it is. I would be glad to be wrong there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"You agree as a rl person for the account your are loging in and clicking on the "agree button". You can disagree with one other alt and agree with another account."

You can quite reasonably assert that view. I guess the important thing is how LL uses the information. If they record the agreement per account, and then use that to determine which content they can use the new license for and which they can't, then that is the effect. That might well be how it operates to begin with.

However, suppose they accidentally used some content uploaded by you using the second, non-agreeing* account, and you chose to take legal action against them (or just a DMCA takedown). You have to do that as an RL IP holder. Now they can say that you agreed, even though you used only one of multiple Alt accounts to do so. I'm not saying that would happen, just that it appears to me to be within the scope of the ToS as written.

*I say "non-agreeing" rather than "disagreeing" because you can't actually express disagreement (unless you write to LL explicitly doing so). Failing to accept seems likely to be because you disagree, but isn't necessarily so. You could have lost interest in using this Alt in SL for other reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think its right to start a new thread and I am not trying to hijack this thread in any way.  I would like to however add the following. 

   
Dear Linden Lab;


It's been some time since I spoke out on hotbed issues, and got upset to the point where I felt I needed to say something.  However today that old feeling of angst has resurfaced.   When I came to Second Life 10 years ago I felt artistically free in a new and creative way.  I built many builds, sims, objects, created countless textures some animations and even tried my hand at  a script or two, rented countless parcels, hosted events...the list is as long as the capabilities of Second Life, also made the news a time or two, and life was sublime within the confines of my virtual lands.   So I feel I have a good sense of what Second Life is.


 I have watched the Gaming open market being taken over by Linden Lab.  I watched xstreet being taken over by Linden Lab.  I watched in disbelief as Linden Lab started their own residential communities in direct competition with it's residents.  Yet for the most part, I stayed, I created. 

About a year ago, I changed gears and found a new grid to call home.  I did so  because Second Life had lost something special for me,  a sense of community; a sense of belonging and frankly I thought Linden Lab had stopped communicating with it's residents directly.  All of which remain true today.   


I try to look at the big picture,  I do see Linden Lab has a bunch of startups all of which are connected to idea of a virual world idea; in some way.  Most of which do not appeal to me at this  time.
The only one that does have my attention is the High Fidelity.io which seems to be Philip Rosendales pet project. It's an interesting concept but; honestly I don't think I trust enough to allow any of my computers to host someone elses world in a "cloud" platform. CloudPlay is what I would imagine Philip is going for there, with more gadgets.  I also don't have a desire to play ping pong with my $$$ andriod phone lol, but some might.  Ah but it is said on their web site; plain as day; that they are in need of content from their users.  Is that a hint? Could be.


I look at Linden Lab as a bank of servers,  they provide a service.  They host my art, my worlds, my creations.  Linden Lab allows me to share and sell my work to others if I choose.  They keep the peace and they protect my work from copy botters.  


Or so I thought.  


Today threw this latest revision of the ToS I am now told that Linden Lab can amongst other things; resell my work.  If I simply agree to the tos when I log in I agree any future works are at their disposal.  I strongly disagree with this revised ToS and cannot in good conscience agree to these terms.  


"I rent a storage unit down the street from where my house is.  I pay monthly.  I got a letter from them the other day.  They said they are glad that I pay my bill,  but that everything in my unit is now theirs because they changed the agreement.  If i go into my unit just once to get anything, that means that I agree to their new agreement.  They said they can resell my belongings, they can take any art I have stored there, reproduce it and sell it for less than what I sell it for.  What do you think I did about that? Of course I didn't agree.  I called the police and had them stand by as I removed my belongings. "


What Linden Lab is asking me to is just as absurd, worse than that the virtual police who were suppose to be protecting my virual goods are now telling me they in are allowed to take what is mine. 

Crooked cop much?  I think so. 

It isn't any wonder why my trust of Linden Lab is all but evaporated entirely.  No its no wornder at all.


In the real world people do pay for art, people to pay for C++ people do pay for music and preformers.  In the real world people do make money off their 3D models and textures.  Just because you put the name "virual" does not mean that Linden Lab is above real life laws.  If someone was to tell me they are going to break into my house and take my things, what would I do? 

Shall I file a DCMA against Linden Lab at this point? Do I contact a lawyer? Do I simply cut my losses and move on?  What I don't do however is; sit by and say it's ok. It isn't.  


I have been known to be right when it comes to Second Life and Linden Lab.  
Here is the future of Second Life so listen up,  
When all the major original content providers within Second Life have packed up their bags and moved on to other grids. What is left is even more ripped content than before.  Everyone selling the same crap over and over again.  Because believe me other grids will not allow content to be ported to Second Life,  not with the current ToS they won't.  Some grids and web sites have already put this policy in place; as a direct result of the revised ToS.


3D model sites should be following suit shortly.  So if your ripping 3D models and claiming  them as your original work, and its not;  besides shame on you;  prepare yourself for that fallout.  


When all is said and done, like I said years ago; Second Life will be nothing more than a disneyfied virtual chat room.  That opinion has not changed, it's just been reinforced as of late.  


Second Life is all about people in it and those people want what s new and shiny and pretty.  When your wearing old shoes and you cant find a decent sofa;  it was because Linden Lab decided they owned it all and forgot to give credit where credit is due.  To those that created it all.  


If it is Linden Labs intent to do right by the creators; then they must say so on their own blog; in their own forums; in their own press releases;  in their ToS; they have not.  


This will have a direct trickle down affect, if you stand by and say nothing,  you go to a club and poke fun at those leaving. If you post to the blogs and forums in support of Linden Lab over those who provide your content;  then your ignorance will pay off in spades; as you go to a club with last years dress, no dj, and the same scenery that has always just been there, when your sexy walk breaks, who will fix it?   


This issue affects the grid,  stand by if you wish. Content providers will flock to where they are valued.  
Cat

Link to post
Share on other sites

I contacted a shoe merchant who has a large presence on SL the other day, i asked her if she was aware of the TOS debacle and that the new TOS hands over all rights to her shoes and clothes creations to LL to do with as they please.

She got back to me and thanked me, i asked her if she was aware of the TOS uproar in the merchant/creator community.

She said no and was very flippant i thought ,and did'nt seem concerned at all.

As one of her affiliates she is still putting out new product.

Same as one of the biggest hair creators on sl.

I also contacted a large animation creator, i never heard back from him.

I gave them a link to this thread.

Either they don't take it seriously or they don't think LL would do anything with their creations,but reading a lot of blogs about Desura and steam and Indie game developers, one has to wonder

They obviously have something in mind to go to such an extent to make the TOS all inclusive.

I am just a small creator ,skins, and clothes, i have 'nt uploaded anything since this started

Link to post
Share on other sites

This post really is meant more in general terms to all the issues.  I keep hearing of people who are taking a wait and see attitude or saying there is no need to act until LL actually does try to use or sell someones content under the new TOS.  The following was a reply I wrote to someone who felt this way:

----------------------------

 

I am going to disagree sharply with this.

While it may be true that this is a "boiler plate" TOS that SL has chose to use, that still does not justify it.

Among other things we do not know how many contributors to those services pulled their content or stopped contributing to those services when those TOS's were instituted.

This whole concept of "all your base belongs" to us is bad for growth.

While there may be a few points in the new TOS that give added security to content creators, this one concept, that LL can do anything that they damn well please with your creations, that they can use them in any way that they want up to and including selling them without remuneration to you is bad.

When I started this thread, The Technically Marvelous, it was one of the things I had in mind.  What "Artist" would want to devote the the time, money and other resources necessary to build something like those Builds in SL knowing full well that under the new terms LL can do as they fool please with the content. They will take their talents elsewhere.

How many Creators have already left SL or stopped creating because of content theft?  How many are already avoiding it because of the problems.  To some and possibly many this new TOS is theft to the nth degree.

When Rezzables (Greenies) left SL it was over a TOS update dispute.  As I recall, Rezzables felt that at the time of that update that LL was claiming more rights than they were entitled to.  Now at that time it really was a question of "interpretation" of the rules and I think Rezzables interpretation was wrong.

But with the new TOS there is no question about "Interpretation."  It undeniably says "all your base belongs to us."   The only question left is "Intent."  And the only safety valve a Creator has right now is a Public Relations Letter sent to some bloggers that was full of half truths and lies stating "it isn't our intent."  Good luck with that.

Now is the time to take action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could be right,who knows.

Thats the problem we are all faced with,although LL says they do not read posts in the forums ,you can be 100% sure they are following this subject/thread very closely

Uncertainty can drive people crazy and the longer it goes on the worse it gets, i could 'nt even guess as to why LL has decided to let posts and blogs explode with theories and guesses as to their motives behind the TOS change and hi jacking of our creations.

Maybe they are having a big laugh about it, for some reason they have decided to just say nothing, looks they they have no desire to ease peoples minds.

That in itself should tell you that when they say we have nothing to worry about, the opposite is true,if they did they would be playing their hand and that is something they do not want to do at this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure who to ask, Toy  ... do you guys at UCCSL know anything about the lawyer giving a talk on the TOS?

From Hamlet's blog: "Agenda Faromet, by the way, is giving an in-world presentation on the new ToS soon; more details when I get them."

Also mentions the SL Bar association, I'm not sure if you guys have spoken with them.

And of course mentions about how when Google tried something like this they had to answer to the FTC. The Federal Trade Commission by the way, may not be a bad idea to send a letter to, especially if you can manage it with some signatures. Can't hurt.

From: htttp://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2013/10/linden-lab-tos-1.html

Edited: Link not behaving, beat it with a stick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO!! I have not heard about this yet.  This would be an excellent event for the UCCSL members to be aware of and attend. 

I suspect if the group announces this meeting it will overwhelm the sim.. so we should find out who and where inworld this will be held so we could somehow simul-cast it to other sims or on video.  I havent done this before.

I will have to look at the details of the event as soon as i get home.

Thanks for the heads up - this would be great.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2597 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...