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 2366 days.

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

Recommended Posts

What springs in my mind is the following. How bad must be the SL business ? Since we have no longer any reports about their business, nor stats about sims or true active members we can assume only. Understandable is that the best running SL products are meshes. BUT there are other websites where you can upload your work for ZERO Dollar/Euros and sell your products, why should creators/merchants stay in SL then? And does it make sense to label templates as semi exclusive any longer and to pay high prices? It is the most idiotically business decision I have seen. Anyway maybe it is just because SL isn't running well, they simply could take over all contents for a new "game" or whatever. Perhaps it is just a question of time till we will be informed, dear residents something "UNEXPECTED" has gone totally wrong, we have to shut down everything *LOL

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

Top Posters In This Topic

You hit on a gray area. But, as most keep no records of when they uploaded things to SL that may be a moot point. If you cannot prove when you uploaded something, the Lab could say whatever they want.

What would a court accept as proof of when something was uploaded to SL? A copyright is only proof of the date on which you copyrighted it. It offers no proof as to how long you may have waited to upload it.

Then there is the question of whether your current use of SL put this ToS into affect only for new things uploaded to SL or for things uploaded prior. I would bet the Lab's lawyers could make a good case that your use of SL today grants them rights to stuff no matter when uploaded. It is a fine point as to exactly what the ToS means in regard to the time frame it covers. I would have to reread it to see if they missed anything.

If you had not agreed to the current ToS, you could argue that the new ToS does not apply to you. This would then place a burden on the Lab of figuring out what was uploaded when. That may well be part of the data kept in the Inventory system. I would suspect so. But, if they are the only ones with that information... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems it's all very confusing, or rather, LL wins either way.

If we agree, and log in, we let them take the rights.We can argue further if this means at all times, or only after the new TOS.

If we do not agree, we cannot log in, and the items we have uploaded cannot be deleted from our inventories and we cannot delete our prims and close our stores until the rent runs out, unless we have offline contact with the landowner.

At least, that's how it seems to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you INSPECT AN OBJECT  --- right click > object > inspect   -- the chart tells you who owns the object, who made each PART of the object and WHEN IT WAS CREATED (in the case of a linked object when each piece was created.


So it is very easy to prove when you made the object, whether it be uploaded mesh or a simple prim. All works the same.

 

I definitely do not agree with you on the previous made (before August 15) goods and I doubt a court or judge would (could happen but makes no sense to me) as THOSE items were UPLOADED or MADE under a DIFFERENT TOS where LL only had the rights to use our items within the SL platform.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be somewhat off-topic, but it is an interesting coincidence ... if you believe that coincidences actually exist.

As many of you know, I sell a service that is utilized by Land Owners as part of their rental operations. One of the statistics that I can derive from the database backing up the service is the "Occupancy Rate" of all rental properties covered by the service.

Since this new change to the ToS, the Occupancy Rate has dropped to the lowest levels I've ever seen in SL ... EVER!

Link to post
Share on other sites


Darrius Gothly wrote:

This may be somewhat off-topic, but it is an interesting coincidence ... if you believe that coincidences actually exist.

As many of you know, I sell a service that is utilized by Land Owners as part of their rental operations. One of the statistics that I can derive from the database backing up the service is the "Occupancy Rate" of all rental properties covered by the service.

Since this new change to the ToS, the Occupancy Rate has dropped to the lowest levels I've ever seen in SL ... EVER!

Good to see you back Darrius.  I thought you mentioned a few weeks ago you were closing up shop at SL.  Hope this means you you are not!

I don't think the stats correlate but can you clarify... you are are saying that your Occupancy Rate is in the BEST state it has been in ever?  As far as I understand the term "Occupancy Rate", it is the percent of rentals available for rent.  So an occupancy rate of 3% means that only 3% of all rentals are open and available to be rented.  This is not good for those renting but it is good for Renters as it means they are near capacity.

Low occupancy rate can be of because a very good / healthy quickly growing economy (clearly SecondLife does not fall in this category) or the economy is so bad that Renter are shutting down and reducing the total capacity which forces renters into less available spots.

So please confirm your definition meets mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to an earlier question of whether LL increased their liability, they didn’t. They did not change their level of liability as I see it.

The person uploading cannot grant rights they do not have. So, no rights can transfer to LL in the case of an illegal upload. If the one with rights files a DMCA take down the Lab flushes the items from their system. That is upsetting to those that purchased those items. But, their legal recourse is toward the one selling illegal products.

If the real rights holder does manage to show damages and is successful in filing suit, the Lab can come back on the one doing the uploading to recover their damages. But, such a rights holder suit is unlikely succeed because the Lab can show they acted in good faith. They are assuming the one uploading had rights to the item because they agreed to a TOS that requires them to have those rights. The Lab was thus lied to. There is no legal precedent requiring anyone to assume the party they entered an agreement with is lying.

Considering the previous ToS and this ToS, I don’t see a change in liability for the Lab.

 

The idea that SL merchants have little choice but to agree, if they are to continue their business, is clear. But, to say they agreed to the ToS under duress is not likely to stand up in court. The day they saw the agreement they were free to stop using SL and file suit for damages. Of course their previous ToS agreement makes that difficult.

Since there are other worlds where the exact same products can be sold, LL does not have a complete monopoly. That is a big problem for those trying to claim duress.

 

ToS won’t stand up in court… I believe it will. Agreements that don’t stand up are mostly those that judges see as way one-sided, where one-sided means giving one party in the agreement far more than the other party. That is not the case with the LL/SL ToS for Second Life, at least those saying (Imagine Foghorn Leghorn or John Kerry voice here), “It won’t stand up in court” have yet to explain what won’t stand up or why it won’t.

SL is the service which merchants use to run their businesses, in many cases for free. SL is also a service that connects merchants to customers, which SL has and almost no other system does. So, a court is likely to see an equitable exchange of values.

Whether a clause of the agreement will or won’t stand up can only be known when tested in court. For practical purposes if a clause is likely to fail in court, but the legal process to knock it down is so much more costly than the damage the clause causes, it is probably never going to be tested. The result is, the clause stands and the agreement signers live with it.

We see this type of legal extortion in many places in the USA. Attorneys can threaten a lawsuit with basis or not and it is often less costly to settle rather than fight. This is what the issue of Tort Reform is about. The idea that if you win your lawsuit, the loser pays all costs is a concept used by many countries to prevent frivolous/extortion lawsuits. The US has not been able to get such a law passed, as Tort Reform would kill the cash cow of attorneys. Most politicians are attorneys.

Our damages are so small and LL’s attorneys so well paid, we are at an extreme disadvantage.

 

Removing content… if you wipe your inventory and remove all copies of the items from the grid and Market Place, the items still remain in the asset servers until every last item has been removed from the grid by every person that has a copy. That means trash emptied too.

Obviously that is not something a merchant can do alone. They would have to convince all their customers to eliminate their copies and likely have to refund the purchase cost.

What about those that have purchased and are not logging in? I doubt it is possible for a user to get a popular item out of the SL system without the Lab’s help. You’ll need luck convincing them.

If you plan to start a suit and you have ticked the ToS agreement, the attempt to remove goods might show a judge you never meant to agree to the ToS.

 

Is there any really anything we can do to get this changed? I doubt it. I’ve made suggestions in my blog article (Thanks to Toy for mentioning it in the OP). But, unless merchants and creatives ban together and stop uploading, I don’t see anything happening. Only 300+ people have read this thread…

As hard as it is to reach SL residents and get them to cooperate, I don’t see a reasonable sized coalition that could influence LL being built in a reasonable time. But, a strong movement might be built just as we have built movements in the past. There is hope, but as of today I don’t see it happening. Too many people simply cannot see far enough ahead.

A commenter to my blog suggested contacting places providing 3D models and textures and asking them to decide if their products can be used in SL and pointing them toward the ToS Section 2.3. Also ask them if they are going to prohibit use of their content with SL. As each sends a response forward that to LL. Sounds effective, may be.

That is sort of cutting one’s nose off… but, watching those providers and informing Rod Humble each time one of those ToS’s changes naming SL could be effective. Personally I would avoid aggravating the situation deliberately by contacting providers. I would point Rod to other ToS agreements that you believe prohibit you from using content they provide in SL and asking he correct the LL ToS.

 

I have not yet looked at Desura to see how they are taking the change. But, if the LL ToS applies there too, I think Desura will die in record time. Those users will likely abandon Desura and move to Steam.

 

I think this wording in the ToS is eventually going to hurt LL. But, in regard to LL this is like a slow acting poison rather than a gunshot wound. But, the time LL feels it and realizes the cause, it may be too late to turn things around. Also, they may never recognize this as the cause. There are a number of things creating problems for SL and costing it users. The Lab may decide to try and fix the wrong things. So, this is a mess we have to figure out how to fix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WE as creators/merchants who care for the whole TOS mess could stop uploading and building, deactivating our products on MP just for three days. What do you think would happen? No marketplace sales for three days or even maybe a week? If customer still want to shop they could do that in world, so where is the problem to organize such a protest? I mean, what is SL with no residents who won't be creative and shop?  Does it rings the bells?

Link to post
Share on other sites


Nalates Urriah wrote:

 

I have not yet looked at Desura to see how they are taking the change. But, if the LL ToS applies there too, I think Desura will die in record time. Those users will likely abandon Desura and move to Steam.

 

LL has applied the new TOS to Desura.  If you go to the home page and click "terms of service" at the bottom it takes you to the new terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to know; thank you.

 

"occupancy rate - the percentage of all rental units (as in hotels) are occupied or rented at a given time."

if there is a question

I doubt the exodus has much to do with the TOS change, but it certainly could have some impact. The demise of the Phoenix Viewer in particular this last month had a big impact. Folks could have switched to Singularity or another 1.23 based viewer but many simply quit as it was "Phoenix or nothing" for them.

 

I have talked to many content creators over the last week, lots that I don't really know, some on the boards and some in IMs. There are people who have left SL "for good" and some that are going about their business as usual. Many still don't even know the changes that have taken place as they never read the TOS. And a few I suspect will just keep on building; for them it is a put the food on the table - send the kids to college necessity. They will wait for the other shoe to drop when it does.

A large (in my tiny sampling) number of creators that actually know what is going on are in waiting mode. No building, no closing. That is where I am too.

Interestingly enough yesterday seems to be my all time high number of page views on my blog in over FIVE YEARS. Did my TOS posts have anything to do with that? Well it wasn't all the pretty pictures *wink*. So some folks are learning about things and since a big number of referrals to my site this week have been from Google (not the norm) I have to think that people are SEARCHING for information -- a very good thing.

We each have to make up our minds where we stand. Me, I making machinima this week. No uploads there :D.

 

EDIT: The page views for this thread is now at 825 as I type this Sunday morn 9:41.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Chic Aeon wrote:

 

 

I have talked to many content creators over the last week, lots that I don't really know, some on the boards and some in IMs. There are people who have left SL "for good" and some that are going about their business as usual. Many still don't even know the changes that have taken place as they never read the TOS. And a few I suspect will just keep on building; for them it is a put the food on the table - send the kids to college necessity. They will wait for the other shoe to drop when it does.

A large (in my tiny sampling) number of creators that actually know what is going on are in waiting mode. No building, no closing. That is where I am too.

 

 

There are also those (like me) who have read the TOS since day 1, have followed updates via blogs and subscribed to every thread about this topic since the 15th of august BUT english is not their first language and they are not familiar with lawyer vocabulary and grammar... Thus they are here.... still creating and waiting for a day where someone with a great and trustable laws knowledge and an easy english will come clearly to explain. Im also waiting to have more evidence about a nefarious purpose from LL before taking any decision... 

From my knowledge (restricted of course when its about laws), lawyers use always sentences that often seems horrible but its a way of saying and doesnt mean much... So i also take in count the fact if the new TOS looks so horrible its maybe just because, lawyers needs to say it like this but it doesnt really imply a lot.. Since, as i said, i have a really limited knowledge about laws, and in particular US ones, for me every eventuallity is possible and if i had to choose one spontaneously, in this case here, i would rather said its more bonehead behavior than nefarious one... (althougt, that i aknowledge perfectly that these new TOS open a wide door to any nefarious person joining LL now or in the future)

My position is also that i dont have a lot to loose, except hours of works, indeed, but my business is a small one... i understand perfectly those who have a big business, or artists like you Chic, and who have a lot more to loose.

That said... except saying like we say in french "a cat mother wouldnt see her kitties in the middle of this mess", i bet creators like me doesnt have much more to say... 

i will of course follow any strike or others forms of protestations proposed... but i have commitments for 2 big fairs in october and i cant abandon these ppls without being sure there is a really danger...I know for some of us its obvious, but its not blatant from every point of view... 

of course, i totally agree LL need to rephrase their TOS according to the mail they sent to some bloggers for clarification. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely understand and honestly I respect each and every person's choice of action whatever it may be.

I am not sure that even reading English well and having a bit of knowledge of "legalese' is a big help though; these are murky waters for sure.

 

I readily admit that I clicked through just like 98% (guessing) of the folks when the new TOS came up. I did however FULLY plan to follow up and see what the changes had been. I was willing to read the TOS, I had done so many times over the years. I also knew that I would not be able to pick out the changes and LL definitely doesn't make it EASY for us to see them. So for the next week I keep Goggling "TOS changes Second Life August" and eventually found some posts and a detailed report of what exactly had been changed.

The problem was not that many folks were really getting it. I wasn't either back then. It wasn't until CG Textures made its stand that creators started paying attention. Again, there are still plenty that have no idea what changes have been made.


I am not all that worried about my work. I am a small shop too and while doing well in my sense of the scale it will not be a huge thing to stop building. I am sad that I can no longer make things for MOSP  -- or at least I am not willing to as I feel like that is enabling a process that I don't support.

The Lab has reverted positions on things in the past when they saw the uproar -- and they have NOT reverted on some things. So history isn't a big indicator of what might happen.

I do worry about the artists though. It is one thing to have the ability to --- "hijack" seems to be the closest word in the thesaurus :D -- a pair of boots, however lovely they may be, and another to take a piece of an artist's soul without even attribution.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

(Being lazy is such a delight sometimes. Thus I'm lumping everything into one post. Hope y'all don't mind.) 


Phoebe Avro wrote:

Thats more likely people who have qit SL coz of sever side baking and those people may have had several weeks or months rend paid and now just showing up!

 @Phoebe - Very possibly. I recognize that many factors are in play and the cause of the dip could be any or all of them in some measure. It's just alarming to me to see that the number of rented parcels has dipped so low despite (one would hope) LL's interest in boosting the number.


Toysoldier Thor wrote:

Good to see you back Darrius.  I thought you mentioned a few weeks ago you were closing up shop at SL.  Hope this means you you are not!

I don't think the stats correlate but can you clarify... you are are saying that your Occupancy Rate is in the BEST state it has been in ever?  ...

 @Toy - Sorry for the confusion. As Chic mentioned later on, "Occupancy Rate" is the percentage of rental properties (Parcels) that are rented. A low number indicates many are open for renting, while a high number indicates few are available. The higher the better for Land Owners .. and following on, LL.

I closed my Main Store in-world due to the Sim Owner making adjustments in their land inventory. It had been losing money for some months, but I was able to prop it up by using income from other sources. I took the opportunity to cut off a dying branch of the tree.


Chic Aeon wrote:

Good to know; thank you.
 

"occupancy rate
- the percentage of all rental units (as in hotels) are occupied or rented at a given time."

if there is a question

I doubt the exodus has much to do with the TOS change, but it certainly could have some impact. The demise of the Phoenix Viewer in particular this last month had a big impact. Folks could have switched to Singularity or another 1.23 based viewer but many simply quit as it was "Phoenix or nothing" for them.

 @Chic - Thank you for the clarification. I agree in part that the change is not due solely to the ToS change. But it is just another of those indicators that calls into question the efficacy of LL's management decisions. Of course numbers such as how much income they have vs. employee hours spent supporting SL are much more important. But as symptoms, such numbers as Occupancy Rate can be telling of the general health of the platform.

@All - Now for my "Two Cents" worth about the ToS Change and what all is really going on ...

Rodvik has from his first day indicated that he wants to increase LL's stable of titles. Furthermore he has said quite clearly that he sees the future of online entertainment platforms as being built around user creativity functions. He sees SL as (perhaps) the Purist's form of that concept. SL is quite truthfully the first really successful platform that was designed from the start to put responsibility for making the world rich and varied into the hands of the players (customers). Despite all the chaos and confusion that any new concept can create, SL has magically succeeded.

It has also mysteriously succeeded. I say mysteriously because LL and many others (myself included) do not have 100% proof of what exactly has caused it to succeed. But Rodvik has decided that one of the primary factors in its success is the ability of the users to build things to suit their desires and tastes. The User Created Universe is thus one of the primary pillars of every title he has put LL's resources behind.

In order to get ready for that, LL's legal staff has done a massage of the SL ToS to bring it closer into line with what they hope will be the future of internet law. From day one there has been a major quibble going on over who owns what. Even back in the days of such simple platforms as ICQ, there has been disagreement over who owns the digital assets uploaded or shared via the service.

Companies like LL want the decision to land in their side of the court because that gives them a lot more legal protection should a really serious legal challenge arise. Thus LL has made a GLOBAL change to their ToS that slants the protection their way. After all, they ARE the ones paying the lawyers to write it, so it stands to reason that it leans their direction. However the reality of the legal system dictates that we won't really know who owns .. I mean REALLY owns the digital assets we upload until a law-making case hits the courts and is tested all the way up to the highest levels. (Which could possibly mean the U.S. Supreme Court, but definitely means 2 or 3 decades from now.)

What we are seeing is an initial attempt by LL to keep the power in their hands. In the most evil interpretation, it gives them the legal right to totally screw us over. Will they? Most likely not IMHO .. but then again our banking system used to be in business to SERVE the depositors. Now? Not so much.

The fact that the language in the ToS gives them the power to screw us is troubling. I agree with the many other voices that LL needs to rewrite and rerelease the ToS to go back to less draconian language. Their "explanation" serves no purpose as the ToS itself is what is used in conflict resolution. No court in the land would give one whit's thought to the comments and "Official Statements" released as none of them required our "Approval" before we could enter SL.

Whew! Thanks to all for reading this far. I shall now return to my cocoon.

@Czari ... BLUSH!

Link to post
Share on other sites


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Companies like LL want the decision to land in their side of the court because that gives them a lot more legal protection should a really serious legal challenge arise. Thus LL has made a GLOBAL change to their ToS that slants the protection their way.
After all, they ARE the ones paying the lawyers to write it, so it stands to reason that it leans their direction.
However the reality of the legal system dictates that we won't really know who owns .. I mean REALLY owns the digital assets we upload until a law-making case hits the courts and is tested all the way up to the highest levels. (Which could possibly mean the U.S. Supreme Court, but definitely means 2 or 3 decades from now.)

What we are seeing is an initial attempt by LL to keep the power in their hands. In the most evil interpretation, it gives them the legal right to totally screw us over. Will they? Most likely not IMHO .. but then again our banking system used to be in business to SERVE the depositors. Now? Not so much.

The fact that the language in the ToS gives them the power to screw us is troubling. I agree with the many other voices that LL needs to rewrite and rerelease the ToS to go back to less draconian language. Their "explanation" serves no purpose as the ToS itself is what is used in conflict resolution. No court in the land would give one whit's thought to the comments and "Official Statements" released as none of them required our "Approval" before we could enter SL.

 

(bolding is mine)

Thank you Darrius, you just said in a perfect english what i couldnt say because of my english language limitation. And the bolding seems to me pretty obvious, i bet it works like this everywhere, everytime... Maybe, because those who owns the companies and so pay the lawyers, have much more to loose than us and also, because, they are rarelly philantropist. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Chic Aeon wrote:

I absolutely understand and honestly I respect each and every person's choice of action whatever it may be.

I am not sure that even reading English well and having a bit of knowledge of "legalese' is a big help though; these are murky waters for sure.

 

I readily admit that I clicked through just like 98% (guessing) of the folks when the new TOS came up. I did however FULLY plan to follow up and see what the changes had been. I was willing to read the TOS, I had done so many times over the years. I also knew that I would not be able to pick out the changes and LL definitely doesn't make it EASY for us to see them. So for the next week I keep Goggling "TOS changes Second Life August" and eventually found some posts and a detailed report of what exactly had been changed.

The problem was not that many folks were really getting it. I wasn't either back then. It wasn't until CG Textures made its stand that creators started paying attention. Again, there are still plenty that have no idea what changes have been made.

 

I am not all that worried about my work. I am a small shop too and while doing well in my sense of the scale it will not be a huge thing to stop building. I am sad that I can no longer make things for MOSP  -- or at least I am not willing to as I feel like that is enabling a process that I don't support.

The Lab has reverted positions on things in the past when they saw the uproar -- and they have NOT reverted on some things. So history isn't a big indicator of what might happen.

I do worry about the artists though. It is one thing to have the ability to --- "hijack" seems to be the closest word in the thesaurus
:D
-- a pair of boots, however lovely they may be, and another to take a piece of an artist's soul without even attribution.

 

after the Tos came out in august, i ve found some thread here and in the slf about the changes, and even one with both versions mixed for displaying better the changes (im sorry i thought i bookmarked this, but it seems that not.. but it shouldnt be really hard to find it in the forum history). 

Weirdly, at this time ppl focused about lines on adult contents and not a lot about contents uploaded... Go figure ...

As you pointed, im more worried about my artistic contents than about my fashion designs.. but since its digital art, and i share it on the web, i bet i loose a big part of my rights as soon as i launch it on the web...Of course, to prevent that, im always careful to never upload my works full size, thus even if ppl take it, they wont never be able to get the same quality than mine... But still.. for me, its something i had to accept at the first minute i decided to share my artwork on the web. And, nevertheless,  im still happy to share it ...After all is one of the purposes of Art, imho.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Darrius - well said.

@ Trinity - I believe the "side by side" old and new TOS that you were referring to (or maybe just another one) can be found here.    I have also put together a list of of some of the better threads and most prominent blog posts and such so that people can research on their own.

Also, way back in this thread there was mention that people could delete all their copies of uploaded content and I said I didn't think this would help much because of the wording of the new TOS. While researching for my link list (above) I found mention of the section this topic is referenced in. It is 2.6.

*************************************

(my blue)

2.6 You may delete copies of your Content from the Service, and the licenses you have granted for the deleted copies will terminate with certain limitations.

Where permitted, you may delete copies or instances of your Content that you have displayed In-World or that are in your Account inventory through the normal functionality of the Service, including by emptying the trash folder in your Account inventory (such as in Second Life). In such event, the licenses granted by you in this Section 2 shall terminate in the manner provided below, but only for those particular copies or instances of Content that you have deleted from the Service.

You acknowledge that this termination will not apply to any other copies or instances of the same Content that you have not specifically deleted from the Service, including without limitation those that may be displayed elsewhere In-World and those that may be in the Account inventories of other users to whom you transferred copies.

You acknowledge that the Snapshot and Machinima Content License granted to Linden Lab and other users with respect to your Content will survive any such termination.

You also acknowledge that the Service Content License granted to Linden Lab with respect to your Content will survive any such termination solely as follows to permit Linden Lab: (i) to retain server copies of particular instances of your Content, including copies stored in connection with back-up, debugging, and testing procedures; and (ii) to enable the exercise of the licenses granted in this Section 2for any other copies or instances of the same Content that you have not specifically deleted from the Service, including those that may be displayed elsewhere In-World or exist in other users' Account inventories.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep the '"side by side" was this one.

looking in my subscription folder, i found also these threads, i subscribed for, after the TOS changed and you ll see there that the "adult content" thing was the worry at this time : http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/So-what-s-new-in-the-TOS-now/td-p/2140173 (in there, there is a link for another thread in SLU and it was almost same).

Ive also found this one among my subscription, about the CG texture new TOS and SL new TOS : http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Serious-Changes-to-ToS-amp-the-Fallout/td-p/2189305

About the fact to delete contents, it seems to me obvious that a creator CANT ask for a total deletion of their contents.. I really wouldnt appreciate, if one day i log inworld and i see things disappeared from my inventory or my land, things i ve paid for, because of a decision of a creator... its just like if a RL fashion creator, decide to take out of their creation one day, and ppl come in my outlet to take back what i bought from this person.. The best example, because it happens sometimes, its when a book is for a reason or another (it can be an editor decision, but more often a court's one) is taken out of the sale.....All the ppl that have bought the book before the decision are certainly not asked to bring back the book to the store. What is sold, is sold... 

When i buy an item in SL i dont buy it for the limited period the creator will agree for this item exists within SL. Or at least id like to be aware before buying because i would certainly not buy such kind of item.

Same for photographies or machinima... I really cant imagine one day, someone will ask to me to trash some of my artwork, just because, there is an item displayed on  one of my photographies that has been created by a creator who just decided to take off all their creation.

And as a creator and artist, i would certainly not, whatever it happens in my relation with SL, ask that the items i created AND are in other ppl's inventory or displayed on snapshots  to be deleted. One time someone bought them to me, the copies sold are not mine anymore. 

So, here i dont understand well, why its subject to discussion... lol.. (my limited english again), the TOS seems pretty clear about this precise topic and it seems obvious to me, that till everyone trash their copies of a said items, a copy of this item has to remain in the database... Since, inventories are not stored in our harddrives but in SL servers.

Maybe you, or someone else, could make it clearer for me.. ive seen several other posts about this precise section of the TOS and my understanding was that some creators are regreting they cant delete totally their creations even copies in other resident's inventory. So im not sure i have really understood.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Darrius Gothly wrote:

From day one there has been a major quibble going on over who owns what. Even back in the days of such simple platforms as ICQ, there has been disagreement over who owns the digital assets uploaded or shared via the service.


I haven't thought of ICQ in years!  I remember when it first came out and was considered a cutting edge message system. 

Trivia question:  Does anyone know why the company was called ICQ? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trinity -

There have been several people who believed that they could simply delete their items from inworld and on the Marketplace -- thus PROTECTING THEIR CREATIONS from resell, reuse, dirivities etc which are now possible under the new TOS. As I read section 2.6, this will not accomplish what they planned.

They didn't state WHY they wanted to do this, but one might postulate (a good word to look up if you don't know it *wink*) that they were planning on selling their creations somewhere else or on some other platform. They could still do that it seems. Rights are granted to The Lab but the original creator still holds the copyright and seemingly can use their same files (in the case of mesh and textures easily) and upload other places.

Hope that helps.

 

@ Czari -- when read aloud it sounds like "I Seek You". Clever!

Link to post
Share on other sites


Chic Aeon wrote:

Trinity -

There have been several people who believed that they could simply delete their items from inworld and on the Marketplace -- thus PROTECTING THEIR CREATIONS from resell, reuse, dirivities etc which are now possible under the new TOS. As I read section 2.6, this will not accomplish what they planned.

They didn't state WHY they wanted to do this, but one might postulate (a good word to look up if you don't know it *wink*) that they were planning on selling their creations somewhere else or on some other platform. They could still do that it seems. Rights are granted to The Lab but the original creator still holds the copyright and seemingly can use their same files (in the case of mesh and textures easily) and upload other places.

Hope that helps.

 

@ Czari -- when read aloud it sounds like "I Seek You". Clever!

Thank you Chic for those explanation and we have almost same word as "postulate" in french ("postuler") but we dont use this one often lol... :smileywink:

So from you post, i bet my understood was good, but i still cant understand why the hell creators would like that the copies sold would be deleted aswell .... copies sold are not their anymore. I have hard time figuring how some creators could ask for such thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Chic Aeon wrote:

@ Czari -- when read aloud it sounds like "I Seek You". Clever!

WINNER!!!  That is exactly the explanation stated by the company when I first began using it, apparently in 1996 as this history indicates.  I had no idea it was eventually sold to AOL and subsequently to some group I've never heard of.  IIRC, I used ICQ until Yahoo's IM came out.

No I feel like installing ICQ and see if my number is still connected to it. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2366 days.

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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...