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 2569 days.

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

Recommended Posts

As far as i can see the TOS on Desura looks exactly the same as SL ( the section we are concerned with, thats the part i was looking at)

So it looks like, if they updated the TOS on Desura they have already done the same to developers as they have done to us.

I'm not sure if Desura TOS was like that before and LL changed  the SL TOS to align with Desura

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 627
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I did a search today for "web hosting services claim ownership of my content"  I did not find 1 that claimed any ownership.  Ironicly they said in fact they do not claim ownership of content. 

My question to LL is;  what gives LL the right to claim ownership.  On what grounds?

LL is a provider,  a paid provider for a service.  How can they on one hand accept payment for their hosting service and on the other claim any right to the content of a service they provide.

Lets dumb it down,  LL is no more than a web hosting service.  They do not provide an endgame. They do not provide a fun experince.  They provide a platform on which the creators do provide all the entertainment and content.

If we look at this in the most basic form,  I cannot see anyway that LL has a right to claim ownership of any content on their servers. 

Nail meet coffin.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI:

"It also makes it an unfair practice for a supplier to take advantage of a consumer not in a position to protect their own interests. It gives the Director of Consumer Protection the authority to take action before someone has actually suffered a loss as a result of an unfair practice"

The Consumer Protection Act.

http://www.justice.gov.sk.ca/The-Consumer-Protection-Act

"

  • take advantage of a consumer by including in a consumer agreement terms or conditions that are harsh, oppressive or excessively one-sided; or
  • take advantage of a consumer by exerting undue pressure or undue influence on the consumer to enter into a transaction involving goods or services."
Link to post
Share on other sites

An invite for any SL Creators (both Artistic or Commercial) to have their vote / say on the strategy and plans taking place by the recently formed and quickly growing UNITED CONTENT CREATORS of SECONDLIFE (UCCSL).

There is currently a requested vote out to the UCCSL members (and even non-member creators) to review the content of a letter that will formally be sent to Rodvik & company at LL requesting a meeting regarding the TOS.

The group leadership wants to ensure their actions are transparent and democratic.  So if you are interested to review and vote on this matter, here is the invite request and link via Google Moderator:

 

Group Notice From: United Content Creators of SL, Kylie SabraPlease go to http://www.google.com/moderator/#15/e=211ca5&t=211ca5.40and place your vote.  Voting ends 5:00pm SLT on Oct 19, 2013.Thank you.This notice has an attachment.
Link to post
Share on other sites


Catherine Cotton wrote:

I did a search today for "web hosting services claim ownership of my content"  I did not find 1 that claimed any ownership.  Ironicly they said in fact they do not claim ownership of content. 

My question to LL is;  what gives LL the right to claim ownership.  On what grounds?

LL is a provider,  a paid provider for a service.  How can they on one hand accept payment for their hosting service and on the other claim any right to the content of a service they provide.

Lets dumb it down,  LL is no more than a web hosting service.  They do not provide an endgame. They do not provide a fun experince.  They provide a platform on which the creators do provide all the entertainment and content.

If we look at this in the most basic form,  I cannot see anyway that LL has a right to claim ownership of any content on their servers. 

Nail meet coffin.

 

Sadly you will have to pull that nail out of the coffin based on that argument because the key flaw in the question you are asking here is that LL's TOS has not claimed ANY ownership to our content.  This is what is so frustrating and unfair about the latest TOS.

LL's latest TOS has arbitrarily placed new wording into it that if you agree to the TOS (which for many of us creators is simply not feasible nor an acceptable option since not accepting the TOS means you cannot access any of the SL entry points again to either remove your content of the grid, off MP, or your linden/US cash from your avatar account) you have given LL complete, unrestricted, non-compensating, non-exclusive, non-attribution ACCESS RIGHTS to your IP content that you continue to be the sole owner of. 

They never stated that they have taken any ownership of your content.... they just pretty much strong armed us creators to give them complete shared rights to use your content how ever they see fit.  This is actually a double bonus for them IMHO since they have stated and it would make sense that if there are any legal disputes regarding YOUR IP, they have absolved themselves from this liability.  So.... they can use your content without limitations and they are not held liable on how they might some day in the future use it.

That is the way I understand the new TOS in my humble and non-legal expertise minded opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Toysoldier Thor wrote:

An invite for any SL Creators (both Artistic or Commercial) to have their vote / say on the strategy and plans taking place by the recently formed and quickly growing UNITED CONTENT CREATORS of SECONDLIFE (UCCSL).

There is currently a requested vote
out to the UCCSL members (and even non-member creators) to review the content of a letter that will formally be sent to Rodvik & company at LL requesting a meeting regarding the TOS.

The group leadership wants to ensure their actions are transparent and democratic.  So if you are interested to review and vote on this matter, here is the invite request and link via Google Moderator:

 
Group Notice From: United Content Creators of SL, Kylie SabraPlease go to http://www.google.com/moderator/#15/e=211ca5&t=211ca5.40and place your vote.  Voting ends 5:00pm SLT on Oct 19, 2013.Thank you.This notice has an attachment.

I have a feeling that without a lawyer present at that sit down, should you actualy get one, anything they agree to will have no binding.

I highly doubt you will get a sit down with Rod.

Good luck  to you though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Drake, two points:


1)  I would not be part of that team that would sit in front of Rodvik or what ever minions he sends on his behalf if he is too nervous to meet with the group.  It would be the UCCSL Board members.  I am just pssing forward the VOTE notice as a member of the group.  You could be right - Rodvik has not shown any strong examples of personally standing in front of his customers that he has angered / screwed to explain HIS decisions.  I suspect he won't for this team either.  Likely his legal team that created the TOS mess.

2) Contrary to your belief that a Lawyer would be needed or the meeting will not have any meaning.  The proof of a successful outcome to the meeting will be IF and WHEN LL releases a new version of the TOS that shows the corrections in the offedning sections of the Aug TOS.  So a Lawyer is not needed - if the UCCSL is successful we will all see the results in a new acceptable TOS that does not hijack our IP rights.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right they haven't taken my content for their own gain nor have they the right to do so, until I log in.  Then everything is LL's to do with what they wish. 

Which is why I will not log in.  It is a strong arm technique, and as I have also provided it is against the consumer protection act to do so. 


So when I say nail meet coffin, it means just that.  What is SL without creators.  Dead.

Link to post
Share on other sites


nikita Jefferson wrote:

As far as i can see the TOS on Desura looks exactly the same as SL ( the section we are concerned with, thats the part i was looking at)

So it looks like, if they updated the TOS on Desura they have already done the same to developers as they have done to us.

I'm not sure if Desura TOS was like that before and LL changed  the SL TOS to align with Desura

I haven't gone to look but .. isn't it exactly the same ToS? It's my understanding that the "Terms of Service" link for all of LL's software titles leads to the exact same web page with exactly the same agreement displayed.

Or have they built one special for Desura?

My impression is that LL took all the various Terms of Service and Terms of Use agreements from all of their products then tossed them into the Legalese Word-Masher 2000 and created the new ToS that covers them all today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On Saturday October 19th at 10am SLT there will be an inworld meeting called:

The Second Life Terms of Service : Content, Creators, & Rights

A SL TOS Legal Panel will take a deep dive look at the latest TOS changes - specifically Section 2.3 and talk about why this is upsetting so many.  They will also answer audience questions on the TOS and creator's rights.

Here is the link to the details of this meeting...

http://insertfunnyname.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/second-life-terms-of-service-a-legal-panel/

Link to post
Share on other sites


Toysoldier Thor wrote:

On Saturday October 19th at 10am SLT there will be an inworld meeting called:

The Second Life Terms of Service : Content, Creators, & Rights

A SL TOS Legal Panel will take a deep dive look at the latest TOS changes - specifically Section 2.3 and talk about why this is upsetting so many.  They will also answer audience questions on the TOS and creator's rights.

Here is the link to the details of this meeting...

 

 


Just to clarify for anyone.. This is NOT a LL legal panel. They are SL residents. We have only their word they are RL attorneys. As said many times and places, if you require legal advice, seek your own lawyer that you know or can find in RL.

 

That being said, I wish it was at a time i could attend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to say the same thing to Drake.  It really seems from all of Drake's postings that he is highly in support of the recent LL TOS Change that higjacked our IP as his posts are digging real hard to see a negative side to anything discussed about or actions taken against the TOS.

So Drake, you seem to know something about the members of this Legal Panel that is hosting this meeting on Saturday that puts their credentials as experts on IP Law in doubt.  Instead of spreading FUD on the thread, provide some facts for us to chew on.  Asking doubting questions that you do not have answers to is referred to as FUD IMHO.

Here is part of what was stated in the meeting announcement about the 3 members of the panel

"Please join me (as my alt, Agenda Faromet), Tim Faith, and VIPO’s Juris Amat — all of us IP attorneys in real life — "

They state clearly in the announcement that they are REAL LIFE IP Attourneys.  I am sure they will provide more details of their credentials at the meeting.

Now its your turn Drake... provide your KNOWN FACTS to us in this thread that they are deceiving us.  The floor is open to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one plan to attend this meeting because I cannot afford a REAL LIFE Attourney to review the LL TOS and tell me how it will affect me.  I also have to assume that if this team is willing to come forward so publicly and announce that they are a Legal Panel made up of RL IP Lawyers, they would be saying this with some knowledge that people would want to hear their RL credentials as part of the meeting.  Also, that why would they go through all this effort simply to deceive all of a large crowd of content creators?  What is in it for them to do this?

As such, I will give them the benefit of the doubt that when they say they are RL Lawyers of IP Law, that they ARE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To second what Toysoldier just said, here are two links.

This is where work this person : http://vipo-online.org/about/

And this is who is she and her qualifications in RL : http://vipo-online.org/organization/contacts/

Now, you can keep quibbling Drake, but im going to trust more someone who is RL attorney at Law and who works daily in an organisation whose purpose is to defend virtual ip rights and who wants to help, more than everyone else not qualified and experimented with laws. Of course, you can argue, i cant check in person, but i cant either check anything about everyone here and i hope that some ppl in US will check closer for being sure.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Toysoldier Thor wrote:

I was going to say the same thing to Drake.  It really seems from all of Drake's postings that he is highly in support of the recent LL TOS Change that higjacked our IP as his posts are digging real hard to see a negative side to anything discussed about or actions taken against the TOS.

Now you are the one spreading lies and ZFUD.. Show me one instance where I said I was in support of the new ToS.. I have said several  times that I am against it.

So Drake, you seem to know something about the members of this Legal Panel that is hosting this meeting on Saturday that puts their credentials as experts on IP Law in doubt.  Instead of spreading FUD on the thread, provide some facts for us to chew on.  Asking doubting questions that you do not have answers to is referred to as FUD IMHO.

This whole thread is FUD, it's all doom and gloom and what may comes.. 

Here is part of what was stated in the meeting announcement about the 3 members of the panel

"Please join me (as my alt, Agenda Faromet), Tim Faith, and VIPO’s Juris Amat — all of us IP attorneys in real life — "

They state clearly in the announcement that they are REAL LIFE IP Attourneys.  I am sure they will provide more details of their credentials at the meeting.

Do you believe everything that anyone tells you? I take everything with a grain of salt.

Now its your turn Drake... provide your KNOWN FACTS to us in this thread that they are deceiving us.  The floor is open to you.

Show me where I said they were deceiving us. I said we only have their word. Just like anything in SL, take it with a grain of salt. How is that a bad thing?

You want people to rally around and take your viewpoint of the ToS as gospel and be damned with anyone that doesn't drink the kool-aid. All I want is to point out a different interpretation and I get called a troll or liar or dummy.

SO, do what you want, drink all the  kool-aid, convince people that the sky really is falling and if they do nothing, what then?

What will you do if LL refuses to change the ToS?


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Drake, you can spin the posting anyway you want but your posting on the meeting was very clear...

Its primary objective was to cast doubt about the credentials of this LEGAL PANEL when even in the invite they stated they were RL IP Attournies.  Instead of either keeping your own personal doubts and respective comments about their stated level of legal expertise to yourself, you had to make a point of casting doubt about their credentials.

You did not express your doubt in a way that suggested that... "maybe we should ask this so called legal panel to provide more background to their RL credentials".  Re-read your posting.  You started out all guns a blazing ... THIS IS NO LEGAL PANEL as if you could state with complete authority that they were not experts in the field of IP LAW.

And you said this with no facts to back up your highly confident statement that they are NOT LEGAL PANEL.  Your only argument was that they cant be RL Lawyers because they are "...just SL Residents"???  REALLY?

this is F.U.D.

And.. since your initial posting accusing them of not being a legal panel, the proof that they are in fact experts in the field of RL IP Law has been posted.  Ohh By The Way... before you now post that "how can we trust that proof"...  how bout YOU call them in RL since you are the only one that has doubts.

They have shown me more than enough evidence that they are RL experts in the field of IP Law and would be excellent members of a legal panel to talk to the SL Creator community about the LL TOS and how it could impact us.

I defended you last time for not being a Troll.  That support has ended since you have proven to this thread your role in this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK sooo... you are correct.  You said they are "not LL Legal Lawyers"

this makes less sense.  Who said they were? They said they were a LEGAL PANEL and that they had the credentials to interpret and provide advice and guidance to the creators on what the LL TOS could mean in court.

Bigger question.... Who wants the LEGAL opinions of the LL TOS from the authors that wrote the LL TOS?

If LL is the Party in this contract that is trampling over our rights as creators on a contract they wrote and we had no say on, we already can safely assume their opinions based on their intent for the wording inside the new TOS.  Do you in your right mind think that a LL Legal Member is going to come into a meeting fill with creators whom he/she has just hi-jacked all their IP rights and say....

"OK Folks... we wrote a lot in this TOS that we full well know likely wont stand up in court if you ever challenged us on the TOS.  We over stepped our legal, moral, and contractual bounds and if I were all of you... I can see where you have a good case to take us to court on this or at least present our TOS to government agencies and Consumer Protection agencies since we likely have trampled on your rights".

Somehow Drake, I really do not see how LL Legal would be a good candidate to provide unbiased interpretation and advice to the SecondLife Creator community.

I would rather have the LL TOS picked apart and interpretted by legal experts that are unbiased and are looking at the TOS on the side of the offended party in this TOS.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did I post that? Because they are from a group called SL Bar Association. Which some people would think would be LL lawyers. I wonder if they have approval from LL to use SL in their name? I would hope they do as they are lawyers and that would be illegal.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

Why did I post that? Because they are from a group called SL Bar Association. Which some people would think would be LL lawyers. I wonder if they have approval from LL to use SL in their name? I would hope they do
as they are lawyers and that would be illegal.

I wasn't aware that you were an Attorney able to make such a pronouncement.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

Why did I post that? Because they are from a group called SL Bar Association. Which some people would think would be LL lawyers. I wonder if they have approval from LL to use SL in their name? I would hope they do
as they are lawyers and that would be illegal.

I wasn't aware that you were an Attorney able to make such a pronouncement.

Nope, I'm just a dummy.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

Why did I post that? Because they are from a group called SL Bar Association. Which some people would think would be LL lawyers. I wonder if they have approval from LL to use SL in their name? I would hope they do as they are lawyers and that would be illegal.

ahahhahha this time, Drake, you are funny ! How many groups have "SL" in their name ? Tons. Do this mean they are officially dubed by LL ? NO.. this just mean their activities are located within SL plateform. no more. Would they have called their group "LL Bar Association" now there will be a pb and i would have agreed with you.. But i know sooooooo many groups with SL inside (UCCSL the first) , and this never meant that they were offcially mandated by LL lol... 

now, with all the friendship i have for you Drake, I really dont understand why you insist so much trying to discourage ppl who think their creations worth to fight aggainst these TOS. 

Its not your choice. We have already understood this pretty well, and as you can see, none of us have tried to stalk you for you change your mind about this and join the fight. To each their own. It's your choice and i respect this, like, i think everyone else here. 

but on your side, you dont stop to come and try to discourage those ones who made a different choice than yours, saying it doesnt worth, saying it wont be a problem bec tos are illegal and wont stand in a court, saying whatever you find to drain our morale.... i still cant understand your real purpose, Drake... In France we call ppl like this the "yellow", i hope you are not one of those ones.. Really... 

You made a different choice than us, its ok, no problem, its your freedom, but stop trying to discourage those ones who think different than you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2569 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...