Updated LL TOS Claims FULL RIGHTS to ALL CONTENT

[Dartagan Shepherd]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Dartagan Shepherd wrote:

 

None of which really has much to do with the fact that the ToS is indeed perceived as an overbearing agreement. So say most aware users, most lawyers and consumers of various companies and products that do try to pull this kind of thing on their users. Thankfully there are resources to help combat just this kind of thing.

 

---

Dartagan, I have never seen a ToS or contract that wasn't perceived as an overbearing document.  Never!  Not one.  And as contributor to 'open source' software I have exposure to many.

 PS You're welcome.

 

---

Well, that turned into something fruitful. I agree with this partially but the thing is ... it's only this much of a problem online. I actually have dealt quite a bit with contracts, corporate filings and bylaws, etc. (No, I'm not a lawyer).

RL contracts tend to be nothing at all like online agreements. There will always be the sharks, but RL agreements tend to be very predictable, limited and standardized from industry to industry. If you compare for instance, the typical agreements in the art or music industries to the SL ToS, you'll find they're nothing alike unless it's an employee or work for hire situation.

So it's not "just" an SL problem, it's an online problem ... but it's particularly bad here because of the liability clauses, the fake money, the lack of consumer protection you'd have in RL and legal recourse and the fact that it's billed as "your world", your copyright, your goods ... and yet the only rights SL doesn't take are exclusivity and ownership now.

Many online agreements may be seen to be overbearing, but I don't think generally to this extent and no, RL contracts are not like this. When they are, they're either signed by suckers, paid for their work outright or they're re-negotiated into something more balanced for both parties. The fact alone that in RL many contracts for IP are negotiable is a huge difference. Personally I don't think online companies and especially ones that make their living selling other peoples goods should be exempt from the equal power that "creators" in RL have.

There's just no excuse for this ToS.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Dartagan Shepherd wrote:

Many online agreements may be seen to be overbearing, but I don't think generally to this extent and no, RL contracts are not like this. When they are, they're either signed by suckers, paid for their work outright or they're re-negotiated into something more balanced for both parties.

The fact alone that in RL many contracts for IP are negotiable

is a huge difference. Personally I don't think online companies and especially ones that make their living selling other peoples goods should be exempt from the equal power that "creators" in RL have.

There's just no excuse for this ToS.

---

I'm not debating the extremes of RL v. SL/on-line contracts and who wins what and how.  LL is a RL company.  Their software was/is created by RL people who have RL contracts with LL.  LL has RL agreements with RL VCists. This is not the LL business of 2003 or 2008 for that fact!  I think LL did what they felt was a 'must' do to take this product and their company further.  Toward that end, ostensibly LL found an 'excuse".  

PS I think it would be very naive of either you or me to think that 'some' have NOT negotiated with LL on the presentation of their product in SL.  

[Toysoldier Thor]

Welll Well Well....

Peter Gray of LL has formally responded to Kylie of the UCCSL...

Peter Gray Response

Basically he is saying that LL cannot go back to the old wording because they want to have the ability to let content creators share creations / transactions among many of LL's lineup or products but they are looking into the wording to see how they can re-word it to satisfy all the concerns brought up by the creators in the communities.

 

[Catherine Cotton]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

Welll Well Well....

Peter Gray of LL has formally responded to Kylie of the UCCSL...

Peter Gray Response

Basically he is saying that LL cannot go back to the old wording because they want to have the ability to let content creators share creations / transactions among many of LL's lineup or products but they are looking into the wording to see how they can re-word it to satisfy all the concerns brought up by the creators in the communities.

 

---

 I just read it,  that really is a damn shame. As I posted I was fearful they were going the route of the "agent" within the Desura platform. I realize it extends past that now.  The fact this is their intent in writting.  Well I have no words left.

Cat

[Perrie Juran]

---

Catherine Cotton wrote:

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

Welll Well Well....

Peter Gray of LL has formally responded to Kylie of the UCCSL...

Peter Gray Response

Basically he is saying that LL cannot go back to the old wording because they want to have the ability to let content creators share creations / transactions among many of LL's lineup or products but they are looking into the wording to see how they can re-word it to satisfy all the concerns brought up by the creators in the communities.

 

---

 I just read it,  that really is a damn shame. As I posted I was fearful they were going the route of the "agent" within the Desura platform. I realize it extends past that now.  The fact this is their intent in writting.  Well I have no words left.

Cat

---

I don't understand your concern here.  Is it that LL now has it's fingers in more than one pie?

What is or would be wrong with them acting as an "Agent" as long as the content providers are remunerated? 

I myself am encouraged by this. 

"To that end, we are currently reviewing what changes could be made that would resolve  the concerns of Second Life content creators,"

I have myself maintained that since this happened that because SL is so unique that the TOS for it needs to be separate from the other properties.  This is one of the issues that comes up in the Legal Panel Discussion.  It's uniqueness sometimes can make it difficult to apply case law, that a Court's decision is needed to know how the laws should or do apply.

And while he has ruled out 'dialogue,' that should not stop us from providing input.

For instance, in the reworking of the Terms, a content creator should have the right to decide and mark their content whether it is only for use in SL or if it could be used in another of LL's property.  Similar to how Kitely handles their licensing.

Of course the letter could be nothing more than a lot of PR blow, but at least it isn't full of half truths or misstatements like the letter sent to certain Bloggers.

 

[Toysoldier Thor]

The Jury is OUT for me on this communications from Peter.

It COULD be positive if LL would agree to be more of an OPEN TRANSPARENT PARTNER with the creators that are vital to LL's expansion plans.  The current TOS does not show this kind of relationship is desired by LL.  They would rather do what they have often done ... "do what they think is best for us creators".

If Rodvik and LL were to open their eyes and realize that this vast community of amazing creators are a critical part of their expansion plans... they would agree to dialog with the UCCSL and express clearly their business plans and ask openly for feedback of how they could satisfy Creator requirements to ensure our rights are protected and that it is a WIN WIN for both sides.

You are right that we can hope they are quietly reading the forums and gathering our input since they are afraid to ask for it openly.

So it would be wise for all of us to digest the scraps of what LL might be doing and intending when they say "commercially exploit" and provide out input to them.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

The Jury is OUT for me on this communications from Peter.

It COULD be positive if LL would agree to be more of an OPEN TRANSPARENT PARTNER with the creators that are vital to LL's expansion plans.  The current TOS does not show this kind of relationship is desired by LL.  They would rather do what they have often done ... "do what they think is best for us creators".

If Rodvik and LL were to open their eyes and realize that this vast community of amazing creators are a critical part of their expansion plans... they would agree to dialog with the UCCSL and express clearly their business plans and ask openly for feedback of how they could satisfy Creator requirements to ensure our rights are protected and that it is a WIN WIN for both sides.

You are right that we can hope they are quietly reading the forums and gathering our input since they are afraid to ask for it openly.

So it would be wise for all of us to digest the scraps of what LL might be doing and intending when they say "commercially exploit" and provide out input to them.

---

Oh, I full well know that the proof will be in the pudding.

Personally I'd rather be positive and vigilant than give a knee jerk (and I'm not accusing any one of this), "Oh more B.S. from LL." 

I'd be asking Peter Grey what kind of time frame they are looking at?  It will take some work for them to do it.

[jujmental]

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

this was just a technical

clarification

 

---

On the charge of using a word in the opposite sense to its true meaning: GUILTY

Obiter Dicta: Someone misunderstood you, Trinity? Surely not . . .

© The Judge

[jujmental]

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

 

 we first thought to a forum, but it was tricky to find a provider and to create one, since we are not rich and free ones seems a hell.

---

On the charge of being wrong: GUILTY

Obiter Dicta: I use a free forum that is very simple to use every day, and the administrators tell me it's fairly straightforward to run; it's better than these forums - and has a very effective spam filter. Am i going to tell you what it is? No. Do your own research, but just because you're not very good at it don't make absolutely incorrect statements.

© The Judge

[Catherine Cotton]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Catherine Cotton wrote:

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

Welll Well Well....

Peter Gray of LL has formally responded to Kylie of the UCCSL...

Peter Gray Response

Basically he is saying that LL cannot go back to the old wording because they want to have the ability to let content creators share creations / transactions among many of LL's lineup or products but they are looking into the wording to see how they can re-word it to satisfy all the concerns brought up by the creators in the communities.

 

---

 I just read it,  that really is a damn shame. As I posted I was fearful they were going the route of the "agent" within the Desura platform. I realize it extends past that now.  The fact this is their intent in writting.  Well I have no words left.

Cat

---

I don't understand your concern here.  Is it that LL now has it's fingers in more than one pie?

What is or would be wrong with them acting as an "Agent" as long as the content providers are remunerated? 

I myself am encouraged by this. 

"To that end, we are currently reviewing what changes could be made that would resolve  the concerns of Second Life content creators,"

I have myself maintained that since this happened that because SL is so unique that the TOS for it needs to be separate from the other properties.  This is one of the issues that comes up in the Legal Panel Discussion.  It's uniqueness sometimes can make it difficult to apply case law, that a Court's decision is needed to know how the laws should or do apply.

And while he has ruled out 'dialogue,' that should not stop us from providing input.

For instance, in the reworking of the Terms, a content creator should have the right to decide and mark their content whether it is only for use in SL or if it could be used in another of LL's property.  Similar to how Kitely handles their licensing.

Of course the letter could be nothing more than a lot of PR blow, but at least it isn't full of half truths or misstatements like the letter sent to certain Bloggers.

 

---

No its that they put their fingers in my pie without asking, without giving me options, without proper channels of communication in reguards to my copy right work.  The rest of my answers on the other thread that was created for this part of the discussion.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Catherine Cotton wrote:

---

 

---

No its that they put their fingers in my pie without asking, without giving me options, without proper channels of communication in reguards to my copy right work.  The rest of my answers on the other thread that was created for this part of the discussion.

---

Thank you for clarifying.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Catherine Cotton wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Catherine Cotton wrote:

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

Welll Well Well....

Peter Gray of LL has formally responded to Kylie of the UCCSL...

Peter Gray Response

Basically he is saying that LL cannot go back to the old wording because they want to have the ability to let content creators share creations / transactions among many of LL's lineup or products but they are looking into the wording to see how they can re-word it to satisfy all the concerns brought up by the creators in the communities.

 

---

 I just read it,  that really is a damn shame. As I posted I was fearful they were going the route of the "agent" within the Desura platform. I realize it extends past that now.  The fact this is their intent in writting.  Well I have no words left.

Cat

---

I don't understand your concern here.  Is it that LL now has it's fingers in more than one pie?

What is or would be wrong with them acting as an "Agent" as long as the content providers are remunerated? 

I myself am encouraged by this. 

"To that end, we are currently reviewing what changes could be made that would resolve  the concerns of Second Life content creators,"

I have myself maintained that since this happened that because SL is so unique that the TOS for it needs to be separate from the other properties.  This is one of the issues that comes up in the Legal Panel Discussion.  It's uniqueness sometimes can make it difficult to apply case law, that a Court's decision is needed to know how the laws should or do apply.

And while he has ruled out 'dialogue,' that should not stop us from providing input.

For instance, in the reworking of the Terms, a content creator should have the right to decide and mark their content whether it is only for use in SL or if it could be used in another of LL's property.  Similar to how Kitely handles their licensing.

Of course the letter could be nothing more than a lot of PR blow, but at least it isn't full of half truths or misstatements like the letter sent to certain Bloggers.

 

---

No its that they put their fingers in my pie without asking, without giving me options, without proper channels of communication in reguards to my copy right work.  The rest of my answers on the other thread that was created for this part of the discussion.

---

I have to ask, what pie? If you have a store, I can't seem to find any trace of it. Nothing on the MP, nothing in your profile. So I ask, what is your stake in this?

[Catherine Cotton]

Apparently the term "alt" is foreign to you.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Catherine Cotton wrote:

Apparently the term "alt" is foreign to you.

---

Why is it that so many come here on their non creator avs and act rude? Are you that afraid to put your shop out there?  " I wont post as my creator av so i can be as nasty as possible." seems to be the mentality of some.

[Catherine Cotton]

Dude why are you starting with me again. I am rude to those that do things I don't morally agree with. 

Oh well, you don't have to converse with me. 

Dont assume you know what my motivations are.  They are simply none of your business.

[Dartagan Shepherd]

Seems to be a thing. When the focus starts getting onto the people instead of the issue, it gets off topic. Just smile and nod, smile and nod.

[Catherine Cotton]

nods

[Perrie Juran]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

---

I have to ask, what pie? If you have a store, I can't seem to find any trace of it. Nothing on the MP, nothing in your profile. So I ask, what is your stake in this?

---

Why does one have to have a store to have a stake in this?

I don't have a store but I still have a stake in this.  I used personal photographs to decorate my SL home.  One of them, a very, very lucky shot, won an award in a rather large national contest. 

I don't want LL selling my photo, especially with out remuneration to me.

I do need to remember to delete them the next time I log in. 

 

[jujmental]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Catherine Cotton wrote:

Apparently the term "alt" is foreign to you.

---

Why is it that so many come here on their non creator avs? Are you that afraid to put your shop out there?  " I wont post as my creator av so i can avoid vindictive retributional action by LL." seems to be the mentality of some.

---

FIFY!

© The Judge

[Pixels Sideways]

I'm particularly happy that Linden Labs has appointed itself as my attorney.  

I will now direct any legal actions toward me to their offices. 

However, I will need the private numbers of the Linden Lab legal team in case I need bail or have a pressing legal question that keeps me up at night.  I assume that will be forthcoming?  I should have Rod's personal number too, just in case the legal team is tied up writing the next version of the TOS. 

Thank you Linden Labs for covering my ass -- I'll never have to worry about being sued or having to use some pro-bono or court appointed attorney now that you represent my legal interests. 

NOTE TO LL Legal Team:  I may be in touch soon -- apparently there will be a huge protest against Fracking coming up and I plan on chaining myself to a fracking rig and will likely be arrested so please hurry up with those 24/7 phone numbers. 

xo

 

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

Welll Well Well....

Peter Gray of LL has formally responded to Kylie of the UCCSL...

Peter Gray Response

Basically he is saying that LL cannot go back to the old wording because they want to have the ability to let content creators share creations / transactions among many of LL's lineup or products but they are looking into the wording to see how they can re-word it to satisfy all the concerns brought up by the creators in the communities.

 

---

I have read Mr. Gray's response to Kylie .. and I remain hugely disappointed. He has continued to state that one reason for the ToS language and rights grab is so that Linden Lab may act as our agent in sharing our content on their other services. Yet the fact remains that we content creators are perfectly capable of taking the actions necessary to accomplish that ourselves. Furthermore when we choose for ourselves where our content will be used, we further retain the right to determine the price that it will be sold for and the rights provided to the purchasers. In the event that our content contains components purchased from other parties, we can design our uploads so that the licenses covering those components are respected and protected. Finally we retain the right to place our company logo on the content.

The new ToS specifically removes those rights and controls from us. It further gives LL the "right" to act as our agent but does not require them to notify us, pay us for using our content, nor even put our name on the content.

Why in the WORLD would I want Linden Lab to act as my "Agent" in that situation?

Mr. Gray? How can you work out a compromise? Easily. Go back to the wording from the previous ToS. Stop trying to steal our stuff. And stop making statements that are plainly and provocatively insulting.

[Catherine Cotton]

---

Pixels Sideways wrote:

I'm particularly happy that Linden Labs has appointed itself as my attorney.  

I will now direct any legal actions toward me to their offices. 

However, I will need the private numbers of the Linden Lab legal team in case I need bail or have a pressing legal question that keeps me up at night.  I assume that will be forthcoming?  I should have Rod's personal number too, just in case the legal team is tied up writing the next version of the TOS. 

Thank you Linden Labs for covering my ass -- I'll never have to worry about being sued or having to use some pro-bono or court appointed attorney now that you represent my legal interests. 

NOTE TO LL Legal Team:  I may be in touch soon -- apparently there will be a huge protest against Fracking coming up and I plan on chaining myself to a fracking rig and will likely be arrested so please hurry up with those 24/7 phone numbers. 

xo

 

---

Omg I love you!

[Codex Alpha]

I create content in a variety of media from handmade art to music compositions, I create a lot.

In my time as an artist, I have come across many TOS's I don't agree with, and it's hard to find a home without losing my IP rights on my material, or even avoiding 'exclusivity' agreements.

However, I do realize that much of this wording has to be done so that the service I use can distribute, promote, stream, etc throughout the world, etc.

But when there is a specific item in a policy, like in the case of MySpace, it was the same license that LL is using. The exception being "our license to your copyright content ENDS when you remove it from your site/account". For that reason, I felt it was fair, and didn't worry about uploading my original media to their servers, as I could terminate the 'agreement' by simply deleting the files.

Facebook, and many other sites though explicitly state things like "we archive your content even if you cancel your account", etc and I refuse to use their sites, as I have no control over my own content, nor anyway to terminate the agreement comfortably.

 

But will this qualify the same as MySpace type agreement? (Quoted from SL TOS as follows);

"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."

This section needs to be read a few times and discussed, because what it sounds like to me, is that I can in fact terminate their license to use my IP as they wish, by simply removing the content from the SL universe and marketplace, while still letting everyone that has a copy of my item(s) to be allowed to still have them.

 

What do you think of that?

[Dartagan Shepherd]

That bit is born from a universe where logic doesn't exist.

LL has perpetual rights to sell, sub license, etc. after your goods are deleted on copies they already have, which means it doesn't matter to LL if you delete it. They've already got rights to it forever whether you delete it or not.

Users have rights to continue to use it.

So basically it says if you delete your "copies", turning those goods into thin air, your granted licenses on that thin air poof as well, but your items which now have near full rights to LL and limited (or full perm) rights to users still exist.

Contractually speaking, it's a "duh" moment.

Practically speaking, it means nothing. LL could still theoretically do whatever they want with your content whether you delete it or not, including selling it anywhere they wish or turning it into any other derivative work and selling that. Or licensing the copies to someone else to sell.

[Perrie Juran]

I thought the theme of this article would be of interest to everyone here:

'The musician? Give him nothing.'