Updated LL TOS Claims FULL RIGHTS to ALL CONTENT

[Madeliefste Oh]

I think this is a complete different situation then between LL and SL content creators.This is about a deal between an IP right holder (the music producer) and a customer (the television producer).

It happens a lot that people try to get a free ride on the back of an artist.
A point here is that many artists show to be willing to give away their productions for free, since they see this as a marketing tool. See alone all hunts going on in SL, most hunt organisers ask for a freebie specially created for the hunt. People invest time in creating a free product, in the hope to get sales from other products.

Or the displacement of full perms items to grids outside SL. Though people bought a license for the use of (for example) a sculptie in SL, some people feel the product belongs to them when they move to another grid. From people who do ask permission to transport full items to other grids, I hear that quiet a bunch of creators do give permission to use the items in other grids without any additional fee for the use.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Madeliefste Oh wrote:

I think this is a complete different situation then between LL and SL content creators.

This is about a deal between an IP right holder (the music producer) and a customer (the television producer).

It happens a lot that people try to get a free ride on the back of an artist.

A point here is that many artists show to be willing to give away their productions for free, since they see this as a marketing tool. See alone all hunts going on in SL, most hunt organisers ask for a freebie specially created for the hunt. People invest time in creating a free product, in the hope to get sales from other products.

Or the displacement of full perms items to grids outside SL. Though people bought a license for the use of (for example) a sculptie in SL, some people feel the product belongs to them when they move to another grid. From people who do ask permission to transport full items to other grids, I hear that quiet a bunch of creators do give permission to use the items in other grids without any additional fee for the use.

---

 

I knew these are not "Identical" situations.

But note carefully your own words that I have bolded above.

In the above the TV producer was dealing with something that is very clear in IP Law.  They could not use the Creator's content with out the Creator's express permission.  Also there is the TV producer's attitude, 'we will be giving you exposure so we should have it for free.'

It is still questionable if LL could do what they did.  The Jury is still out on that.  Knowledgeable people have expressed various opinions.

Also there is LL's attitude toward and sometimes lack luster treatment of Merchants that is in play here also, similar to the producers.

 

 

[Madeliefste Oh]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Also there is the TV producer's attitude, 'we will be giving you exposure so we should have it for free.'

---

Yep. And he is in the position to stands up against it. 

 

But this attitude is wide spread, not only among TV producers. And this will continue as long as there also artists who see more profit in the exposure then in the payment for their work.

[Dartagan Shepherd]

It is an example of how content is becoming devalued by companies that bring in millions from that very content. In that sense it's like LL, although LL is a worse offender.

Madonna recently lauched a "non profit" venture where artists "donate" content and her company gets full rights. Here we have a case where an artist who knows the value of IP beyond a shadow of a doubt taking advantage of others content who haven't achieved the status of her own brand. She claims outright that she's getting rights to commercialize the content.

It also serves to indirectly monetize her own brand and there's nothing selfless about this. Needless to say she should know better. I aimed some organizations that protect musicians rights at her people, so at the very least there's no claim of ignorance.

Absolutely it's a problem. There needs to be more effort on all fronts with creators of all types.

LL could be heros on this front and milk the fact that they take minimal rights, but there's no forward thinking to be had here.

[Cerise Sorbet]

Haven't seen much discussion of this, so ...

On Desura: Changing the sites TOU to protect indie developers

This is from November 7, and has the updated ToS language that LL is proposing. The ToS for Desura and SL are both the same document, http://lindenlab.com/tos  so you really, really want to read that.

(this is not a reply to any particular post in this thread, just a random hit of the thread reply button.)

 

 

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Cerise Sorbet wrote:

Haven't seen much discussion of this, so ...

On Desura:

Changing the sites TOU to protect indie developers

This is from November 7, and has the updated ToS language that LL is proposing. The ToS for Desura and SL are both the same document,

http://lindenlab.com/tos 

so you really, really want to read that.

(this is not a reply to any particular post in this thread, just a random hit of the thread reply button.)

 

 

---

Seems to me, that post isn't about LL's ToS, but DBolical's TOU (link), which is not the same.

...Dres

[Cerise Sorbet]

Several of the same people are involved, these sites are all interconnected. it's important to see how they are thinking.

 

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Cerise Sorbet wrote:

Several of the same people are involved, these sites are all interconnected. it's important to see how they are thinking.

 

---

True... I was especially amused by this, "While we cannot change what other sites do, we can change what we do."  They may be connected to Desura in some way (I honestly don't know how all that works), but this makes it clear to me that they're trying to distance themselves from LL's stupidity.

...Dres

[Trinity Yazimoto]

Thank you Cerise

althought i agree with Dres that its not about LL TOS, this is indeed interesting.

im sending right now the link to our attorney and ask her if she can bring to us some more explanations.

[Trinity Yazimoto]

Ive posted here : http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Merchants/NEW-MAIL-FROM-THE-UCCSL-TO-LINDEN-LAB-OFFICE-AND-PETER-GRAY/td-p/2327355

the copy of the letter that UCCSL group has sent to LL office 2 days ago

[Pierre Ceriano]

Since the UCCSL decided, without consulting its base, to separate the debate on the TOS, I wonder about the future of the association. Several thinkingheads have already left. I was fired and muted yesterday because I gave my opinion, not about the TOS evolution, but on the principle of separating the debate.

What becomes a monument when one of its main pillar is shot by the owner ?

I completely agree that this organization should carry other problems forward. I think for example of 3D libairies that are looted by pseudo-creators.

 

Understand that I am not hateful against LL or anyone else for that matter. I am very grateful to LL for bringing us such a tool. Thanks to them, I enjoy myself and I'm just delighted every day of my progress and achievements.

 

But I think underestimate (even bury) the debate on the TOS is a serious mistake. Without going into details, because everything has already been explained at length, I think we are cutting off our nose to spite our face.

 

So today I'd like to know everyone's opinion :

• What is your position on the current revision of the TOS ?

• What changes would you make to the TOS ?

• What other domains would you like to make proposals and what proposals ?

• What is your position regarding the future of UCCSL ?

 

Thank you so much for participating the debate and bringing your ideas !

Pierre Ceriano

[Chic Aeon]

Asked to respond and so here I am .

 

• I have not changed my mind on the TOS of August.

• I have not uploaded since perhaps the beginning of September when CG Textures rang the bell loudly

• I am still a member of the UCCSL but I am not a group person. I hate meetings and am better in a supporter roll. I do vote when asked.

• I have no problems with the route UCCSL is taking; I suspected that The Lab would ignore the group and The Lab did.

• I am still in Second Life. I take care of LEA7 and support the working content creators with a blog post a day (three or more in busy December). My shop is still open and doing quite well selling things I made BEFORE the TOS change. I no longer participate in hunts or update the store other than adding decorations now and then.

I am currently building joyously and for free on another grid, something I never suspected I would be doing. I MAY bring some of that work to Second Life when summer rolls around. I am giving the TOS a year to play out -- just my personal comfort level. [Later edit: Actually since I do try and abide by all the rules and we can NOW only use textures "legally" that we either made on our own computer or from our own photos (items we hold full copyright to) it is unlikely that I will be building much again in SL. I often make my own textures but a starting place is often free to use photo stock. ]

I am very pleased to have found a place to work in the interim. Happy to talk with content creators about expanding their horizons, but not on this long thread. IMs go to email. Chat me up; I am full of info after several months of adventuring on other grids. There are also several articles on my blog of interest.

Edited for grammar.

[Phrynne]

My opinion has not changed in regard to the TOS.  It is one thing to say that LL is trying to help us market our creations to its other projects (if and when that is possible), but it is quite another thing for LL to claim ownership and right to exploit our creations without our consent or knowledge.  This needs to be cleared up, and it needs to be done as soon as possible, as it affects *everyone who creates anything in SL*, whether that person is creating an elaborate full-sim fantasy or putting two prims together for the first time.  I want to see a clearer, plain-language TOS that explicitly restores full rights and ownership of work to creators, while making it possible for creators to market their work wherever creators wish to do so.

I would like to know the reactions to the TOS that came from the many corporations and universities in Second Life to the TOS's explicit asserting of SL's supposed ownership of their own copyrighted and trademarked logos and other content.

When the TOS was made public I was in the process of opening a shop, and was involved in building both hats for the shop and building replicas of Victorian houses that have been in my family since the 1840s.  I have continued with the hats at the shop, but have ceased work on the houses altogether.  I would like to make these authentic houses available, but I want complete control of how they are to be made available, and since I have done the work on them I want the profit.

I have not put any of my work on Marketplace because of the TOS in its current form.  This means that I have less income from my work -- and SL makes no profit from it at all -- and this reduced income restricts the amount of money that I have to spend in SL.  But it also means that I have control over my work, sold only inworld and with my knowledge and consent.

I am uncomfortable with the direction that UCCSL is taking.  I do not like the efforts to control discussion of the TOS on UCCSL chat, or the impatience with reasonable questions concerning the status of the TOS.  Not everyone was inworld during the entire time when notices were posted during the holiday season; it would be a good idea to create an accessible archive of all notecards and notices concerning the TOS, so that they could be read at any time and would not need to be reposted.  

I am distressed that intelligent, creative people appear to be leaving or forced out of active participation in UCCSL because of differences of opinion with those who are in charge in various areas.  Surely, in an organization that came together to 

I also see no need for a guild seal, pledge or other emblem of exclusivity.  The UCCSL came together to deal with the TOS issue; it was not intended to be an exclusive private club.  It was supposed to represent creators from as many areas as possible who were concerned about retaining full legal rights to their own work.  It does not matter if the member is making something simple or elaborate, or in what medium this is being done, or the size of the work, or anything else.  What matters is that it is an act of creation and is subject to the TOS.  This is not a medieval guild, with secret symbols and authorities policing shops to make sure things are done in the guild's approved way.  It is a coalition of creators who came together to deal with a threat to their ownership of and rights over their work.  That's all.

[Toysoldier Thor]

My position is quite similar to Chic's.  

1. Since the TOS I have pretty much not uploaded any new mesh content or art (just one art texture of which I have of course signed the texture).  
2. I have re-branded my website to completely match my avatar name and I have made it clear that my "Toysoldier Thor" name is trademarked as a name effective to the date that I first rezzed in 2008 (i.e. http://ToysoldierThor.com and my branding of Toysoldier Thor on FB as well).  This might be one of the only loopholes in the current TOS that LL did not highjack - their violation of trademarks of creators of SL.  
3. I have grown my Inworldz merchant store activity and I am thinking of expanding to place my artworks into a gallery there.
4. I continue to educate, promote, and communicate the current LL TOS HIGHJACK situation to my reach of SL community whenever I can.  And I also do not encourage others to start up content creation in SL or to grow their business in SL.  I don't tell creators they should stop or pause - that is their choice, but I will not encourage or support its growth.  I guess this would be where Chic and I are different as the LEA sims 100% sponsored by LL are a means of encouraging Artists to bring in new content that falls into the realm of the new TOS.  I can't support that.
5. I am still a "member" of the UCCSL.

 

As for the current situation of the TOS and LL and UCCSL...

LL's continued "ignore their customers" I.P. rights TOS handling is not surpising at all.  It fits hand and glove to Rodvik's strategy he has been executing on of shutting down most of the LL - SL Residents communication and using SL simply as a cash cow of revenue for as long as it lasts while transforming LL into "yet another gaming company".  So, of course Rodvik does not want to compromise on the TOS he had written in August.

As such, how they are playing the UCCSL and the content creators and artists of SL whos rights LL has highjacked was to be expected.  Rodvik / Peter are playing the typical game of "if we tell the residents we are looking into it and then just put the issue to bed for several months, chances are the anger will go away and we wont have to do anything".

Although there seems to be some expected churn and conflict regarding the management and operation of the UCCSL, I think its quick growth and large membership alone are ONE of the SL content creator community's biggest weapons to motivate LL that just hopes this will all go away.  IF the UCCSL continues to apply formal and escalating pressure and they help keep the topic "topic of mind" in the media and the communities.

I was one of the initial members on the UCCSL founding board but I decided to leave this board because I felt I could have more effect at placing heat on LL in the media and community if I were freely allowed to speak and act on my own without impacting UCCSL strategies.  This is important what I am saying here because this holds true to ALL the other SL content creators and artists.  

Although it is important to be a voting member of the UCCSL to show formal support for their/our cause, we should not all sit quietly back now and expect that UCCSL alone will be able to motivate LL.  As we all know, LL Sr. Management has a mind like a dinosaur, VERY SLOW MOVING and LIMITED and REQUIRES A LOT OF STIMULUS IN ORDER TO REALIZE THEY NEED TO TAKE ACTION.  As such, LL only takes action if there is strong consistent intense multi-pronged, public media aware pressure applied to them.  It is the only reason Peter actually came out of his hole in October and played the "we have heard you response".

Therefore, since it has become clear (not surprisingly) that Peter Grey was only playing games with the UCCSL and the content creator community, the statements recently made from the UCCSL are good next steps.  It is up to each and every one of us to re-start our efforts to place heat back under LL.  Its time to start re-poking a the LL Dinosaur and sending letters to Rodvik and Peter.  Posting blogs how LL was only deceiving the SL creators and trying to lul us into sleep on the issue.  We need to defend against comments / statement from those that feel there is nothing wrong with the current TOS (like I heard on a recent cirtual world weekly radio hour).  We need to file documents with government agencies against LL's current TOS.

With or without UCCSL... the responsibility to make LL take action rests in each of our hands - not UCCSL.

So its a new year... time for a re-newed effort to get LL to fix the TOS.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Pierre Ceriano wrote:

Since the UCCSL decided, without consulting its base, to separate the debate on the TOS, I wonder about the future of the association. Several thinkingheads have already left. I was fired and muted yesterday because I gave my opinion, not about the TOS evolution, but on the principle of separating the debate.

What becomes a monument when one of its main pillar is shot by the owner ?

---

To me, it seems like an issue of an ego that's out of control, but I can only go by the notices that have been posted to the group and what little correspondence I've had with some of the key members, which isn't very much.  Let's just say that I'm not at all surprised that members have left nor that you were treated the way you were.

I find shifting the focus of the group away from the ToS issue very troubling.  Why change your objective, unless you know you've failed to accomplish the one you originally set out to do?  Seems a bit slight-of-handish to me.

Also, if you're going to put yourself in the position of being the main spokesperson for a group and undertake conducting negotiations for that group, telling the members of that group that what you say during those negotiations is private, is simply unacceptable.

...Dres

[Julia Hathor]

I'm responding because I was asked to.  

I suppose my heart left SL a long time ago as I came to the conclusion that creators would never be respected & would just be exploited.   The TOS change in August 2013 just made it all more concrete in my eyes & I didn't expect any changes (that were fair to creators) to ever come about.    Although I joined UCCSL & hoped that perhaps those who knew more about legalities then me might have a solution, I didn't have a lot of hope that things would change.

I will continue to draw down my business in SL.    Not because I don't believe in the dream that SL once was....because that is what has kept me (and so many other creators) here for so long...but because I won't help support a company that only views my hard work as 'exploitable' & does not treat me with even the smallest bit of respect.  I've moved on to another virtual world  & am quite happy creating for them.    I log into SL to support my loyal customers only and do not create new here.

In my opinion, UCCSL (through no fault of their own)  doesn't have a future because they are talking to a wall.

 

[Czari Zenovka]

My position is similar in most ways to that of Chic and Toy:

*Since the new TOS I have not uploaded any new content; my in world store remains closed (I closed it prior to the TOS issue, but had planned to re-open it with updated items and a new store layout)

*I may look into places like Kitely where I can sell items across multiple platforms

*I am no longer in the UCCSL group

*My activity in SL has gone back to being 90% social - relaxing, exploring SL again, etc.

[Thinkerer Melville]

 

Pierre Ceriano asked:

So today I'd like to know everyone's opinion :

• What is your position on the current revision of the TOS ?

  See:  

  • New Terms of Service for SL--grants LL the right to sell your work?

I have seen considerable interest in this subject; the page ciited has over 9000 visits since 9/30/13.  I have been updating it with new information and new links.    I have posted more than 10 additional articles on the subject and these are also getting attention.  My position is unchanged except for a an overoptimistic post of 10/28/13:

• Linden Lab is reworking the terms of service (TOS). Exchange of letters

After 2.5 months, I am not confident that LL really intends to make any significant change.

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

• What changes would you make to the TOS ?

  See

  • What changes does UCCSL want in the TOS?
• This is my attempt to state the changes I think are needed.  Not all of these are in the UCCSL letters.

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

• What other domains would you like to make proposals and what proposals ?

  Sry I don'[t understand what you mean by domains.  

   

• What is your position regarding the future of UCCSL ?

  I thiink UCCSL may perform a useful service if it can organize the varied creators in Second Life into a united collection of guilds.  I think, however, that the future of such an organizaton extends beyond Second Life into a more comprehensive collection of virtual worlds that includes the Hypergrid.   

  I do not see UCCSL as playing a major role in getting important changes in the TOS.  But I don't think any other organization will be more effecttive.  If LL could have easily accepted the desired changes, it would have already done so.  My video operations are my only work that would be affected by the TOS, and I have already moved  the operations that would be affected to Kitely, where I also   have much more space at a fraction of the cost..  

  Regarding TOS, I am posting a series of articles, based on the expectation that LL will make no substantive changes in current TOS.  These articles will consder possible actions by each major type of  content creator.   Here is the first article:

  • If you want to sell exclusive rights to your writing, don't put it on notecards in SL
• Selby Evans

[Dartagan Shepherd]

"What is your position on the current revision of the TOS ?"

My position is the same. Not creating anything unless at the very least it's reverted. The document is a perfect example of what happens when a company sells a dream that they don't mean, with utter disrespect for customers and their property.

"What changes would you make to the TOS ?"

Aside from at least reverting it completely as mentioned above, the only other changes I would make would be to print out copies, roll them up tightly, insert them into those responsible and to light the exposed end.

"What is your position regarding the future of UCCSL ?"

I don't know what their future holds. I do know that I owe them a debt for helping to stand up for creators who are truely wronged and kept legally disadvantaged by a greedy company and for that I will always be grateful.

Still waiting for a final word or action by LL for what should have taken no longer than a week. The longer they take the more my horizons are broadened.

 

 

 

 

 

[Chic Aeon]

As I read these few comments of where folks are I can't help but be a philosophical (at typical state for me which is sometimes comforting, sometimes escapist).

I can remember four or so months ago when this began. I honestly felt like someone had died. It was beyond betrayal.

Five months later I still have no faith in The Labs. They lost me long ago; fandom will not return. Still, I have done so much these last few months, ventured to many grids, enjoyed a couple in the longer term. I have met some great people that I never would have met had the the TOS remained in fairer mode.

There is no question in my mind that this was wrong and unfair -- and planned. But there has been an upside -- for me anyway.

We make our own roads. I hope those affected will find themselves on good journeys.

 

Edited for grammmmmmmar as I was so not awake when I posted this.

[Tari Landar]

I haven't much joined the conversation on this topic here, though I;ve discussed at length with others elsewhere, including inworld. I figured I'd answer this one though. If nothing else, it's an interesting discussion-at least for me-to read. Very long, as usual.

• What is your position on the current revision of the TOS ?

  I haven't changed my position since I saw the revision. I didn't much like it-like most. But for me, it wasn't, and isn't the dealbreaker it is for others. I know it's an extremely unpopular opinion, especially among creators. Which is why I haven't stated my thoughts on this whole thing here on the forums. Going against the grain isn't really something I enjoy, neither is being outcast because I do not share the same opinion on something that matters a great deal to others. Yes my work matters to me. Yes I love what I do. Yes I enjoy creating. Yes I DO understand why others feel the way they do. I AM sympathetic with all of their thoughts and feelings on the subject. I do not have to share those same feelings to fully understand where they are coming from, and why. I don't share the exact same opinions of feelings for a number of reasons. I've simply learned not to share those reasons, because they tend to come with a lot of backlash-which I've already felt numerous times. I don't believe any creator actually LIKES the changes. I don't like them either. I just do not share the same reasons as to why. I've also not let it affect my creations, my ability to create within sl, or my desire to create within sl. That's not to say I haven't thought about it-I have, extensively. As of now, the changes do not affect the reasons I create in the same manner they do others. I can respect the reasons others have. I really wish some people didn't simply assume that any creator who is not up in arms, is ignorant. I know I'm certainly not. Again, I don't like the changes, anymore than anyone else has. Not allowing them to affect the way I create, what I create, or even if I create, within the sl platform, is not me simply sitting idly by accepting the things I cannot change. There are a lot of things I cannot change in this world. There are a lot of things I do not like in this world. THat doesn't always mean I am just accepting that. Sometimes it means I work against the grain quietly. Sometimes it means the voice I use to express my opinions isn't quite as loud, or public as others. Sometimes it means I do what I can to not allow the things I dislike to affect me negatively, despite knowing that it's entirely possible they can. That's not acceptance in the least. That is reality, right now. If I want to be a creator in sl, right this moment, stopping because of TOS changes, is going to prevent that. Because I want to continue to create in sl(among other places), I can't just simply stop doing so. Again, it's not a popular choice, by any stretch. It has, in fact, angered a lot of people(that is something I do not understand, though I respect others' convictions). I also know it's not an opinion, or choice, others will understand. I do wish they'd respect it, but that is a pipe dream. I respect and understand why some have chosen to take another path. Whether or not we take the same path doesn't really matter. What matters, for me, is a mutual respect, even if a full understanding of one another(and our views) is simply not in the cards. I know other creators who feel the same, or similar. They're also afraid to dare say so-because sometimes, the backlash in doing so is just, well, frankly, horrendous. It is assumed we're all complacent, accepting of LL and anything they do, greedy(aka, we only care about the money we make), don't really care about creators and their rights, and all kinds of other nasty assumptions. I honestly don't believe creators who are continuing to create, despite the changes, fit any of those descriptions. Ok, maybe some do, but I don't believe the majority do. It's disheartening to see creators(and even non-creators) going after others-in discussions or otherwise-as if THEY are the criminal. When really, creators should be supporting creators. That IS after all exactly why a lot of people are up in arms(understandably) because the support for creators and their rights is all but non-existent in the new TOS changes. If we're going to demand LL support us-and I understand why we'd want that, of course-it doesn't do us very well to not support one another. I'm also pretty certain that's one of the base foundations of the UCCSL as well, is it not?(yes, simplified definition, but true nonetheless)

• What changes would you make to the TOS ?

  I would honestly, prefer them reverted back to where they were. While not perfect, it was most definitely better. Since Linden Lab cannot define precisely why they felt it needed changed in the first place, I don't see why they cannot be put back. That TOS change was unnecessary in every way I can tell. While I know TOS changes are necessary at times, as things grow, as things change..this one was not. So reverting back to where they were, should at the very least ease some minds, bring back some very wonderful creators, and at the very very least, put us back to where we were before this mess began. Whether or not it would succeed, I'm not certain. I am certain some folks would never return, regardless of what LL chooses to do(or not) to the TOS. I do believe for some that bridge is done and burned, and cannot be rebuilt. But I do not believe a majority of the people against this TOS, have gotten to that point. I believe it's a good first step. The second step, imo, would be to get people who really know what they're doing to sit down with LL(and their lawyers, of course) and get this whole mess truly sorted out. Get all parties protected, show support and belief in the creators of this magical world we call second life, and *possibly restore some faitht hat LL isn't just the money hungry monsterosity of a corporation they portray themselves to be sometimes. I think a very good TOS could be decided upon if there were willing minds, and hearts, for ALL parties involved(not just creators, not just LL and not just residents, but ALL parties-including future) in the entire process. Although I have little faith they'd be willing to do that at this point, it's still a nice pipe dream.

• What other domains would you like to make proposals and what proposals ?

  Sorry no real clue what exactly you mean by this one. Could you elaborate?

• What is your position regarding the future of UCCSL ?

  Right now, I'm not confident in the UCCSL at all. I belive the original vision is no longer there. I believe what often happens when multiple minds of the same mindset, yet with different goals and ideals(end result) come together, this happens. I believe it's gotten out of hand. I believe the original goal is being lost. I don't believe they are working for a better protection, let alone speaking for, all content creators of sl anymore. I believe that was a very good initial goal and I believe if they had stuck with it and not veered off that path, they'd have as much support as they did before. I do believe they could get back to that path, quite easily. I believe human involvement in anything is bound to cause problems like they've seen. I believe there are all kinds of reasons why we humans screw things up from time to time, and a l ot of them are emotionally driven(which is not always a bad thing). But I do believe the vision is not the same. I also believe the approach taken with folks, like myself, who also dislike the TOS(but maybe not for the same exact reasons) who are still creating content despite not liking the new TOS, is not very good. While I'd rather have an organization willing to speak for me, I'd rather not have one willing to attack me. We DO all(mostly) have the same dislike for the same thing. Whether our reasons are the same or not, doesn't matter. It shouldn't matter in this case. Support is support and I do not believe the UCCSL supports all content creators in the way they once said they do. I do know many of it's members support all content creators-regardless of their opinion on the change. But I also believe a small minority of people tend to speak for a group-and that's not always a good thing.Sometimes it is, but not in this case. How people are introduced to this problem, how they are presented a solution, how they are treated when discussing this problem, how their concerns(whatever they might be) are addressed, how they are left to feel when done discussing..are all things(among many others) that DO matter. They matter to everyone looking in, and everyone already on the inside. When you aren't loud enough to speak for yourself-and let's face it, some of us aren't-you don't want someone who thinks little of you to speak for you either. Which is, why I believe a lot of people are thinking a bit less of the UCCSL than they once did. Because that IS happening-whether anyone wants to admit it or not. It's very easy for humans to get a swollen ego when they feel they are doing something right. This goes double when they feel they are doing something right for more than just themselves. The problem is, not everyone can handle a swollen ego. I am NOT saying a swollen ego is a bad thing, because it's not. But how you handle it when you have one, is a bit important. When you want to represent anyone other than yourself(but even moreso in this case, it's a rather large population of people the UCCSL is supposed to represent) you need to be willing to not only accept that some of the people you represent aren't going to agree with everything you say(and their reasons aren't even that important), accept that there IS a shared dislike for something(in this case, the TOS) regardless of their reasons, and be willing to NOT look down on those you're choosing to represent. It seems a bit difficult for some. I understand why. I understand that not everyone will share the same feelings and will understand why other content creators aren't also up in arms. I DO get it. The problem is, not everyone at the UCCSL does get that. Some believe we should all be on the same page, we should all feel and think the same on this issue(and our reasons, all the same as well). It's not conducive to the cause, at all, to be in that mindset. That's why I'd have trouble allowing some people to "speak for me"-sorry lack of better term here, I know that's simplistic and dumbing it way down though-on this issue. I'm not certain they're actually speaking for me. I do believe that was the initial goal, and I do believe it can be the goal again. But I believe somewhere in this lack of communication from LL, that goal has been lost. For whatever reason, it doesn't quite feel the same as it did. I'm not certain exactly why. I can only speculate, and that might not be very nice of me because I may be way off the mark. But that's how it *feels*, that the objectives aren't the same they once were, not all content creators are actually being supported in all ways(despite the very base premise for the entire existence of UCCSL is a shared dislike even hatred in some cases f changes made), and some folks have simply lost their ability to understand and accept others as they come. I think a lot more discussions could be had, and a lot more understanding could be shared, if more were willing to do that. But I'm not convinced a lot of people in UCCSL are actually willing. I could be convinced of that, if I could see it. But what I see a LOT of is exactly what's already been pointed out-all the negative things that happen when a big group of humans get together and create a group for a cause. Human emotions can be wonderful things, but can also be horrible things at times. Which may be exactly where the problem began, I don't really know  though. I do know, it does not feel the same. It does not even read the same to others on the outside looking in, and it feels more like a clique than a group created for a cause to support all content creators and their rights. We have enough cliques in sl(the world over, really) we need less of that, and more banding together. Yes, together, a very powerful and important word. The whole together part is not the same, it has changed. It could be lack of communication from the lab that caused it, it could simply be human nature, or any million reasons in between. But I don't like the way it feels. I don't like that some content creators and people in UCCSL seem to either believe or just feel, as if they are better. I know, again, that's a very simplistic way to break it down. I also know it sounds a bit childish of me to say that. But I also know I'm not alone in that feeling, at all. I do know other content creators-especially those who feel as I do about continuing to create despite the changes made, feel as if they are not being accepted or supported by the UCCSL just as much as they aren't by LL. I'm not sure that part makes much sense, the way I worded it. I'm kind of rambling here now.

  Bottom line, I support all content creators in and out of sl, and I support their rights. I support the UCCSL, despite not always agreeing that they're truly going in the best direction, at the moment. I actually still support LL as well. Which may sound extremely odd, but I do believe even content creators still support LL in some ways or they wouldn't be here. You don't like to like them, to support them. You don't have to like what they do, to support them. In one way, or another, we are ALL supporters of them. Even simply posting on the forums, adds you to that group. That may be one point where my opinion greatly differs from the majority, but it's not a point I intend to back off. I don't like a lot of what they do, but I am still here, and I do still support them. That applies to both UCCSL and LL. And no, I'm not comparing the two. I will continue to create content. I will continue to talk about the issue(s) with others. I will continue to enjoy sl to the best of my ability. I will continue to help and support others-content creators and others alike. I will continue to send folks to the UCCSL when I feel the need to. I will continue to be cautiously, and oddly, optomistic that, at some point, changes will be made. Now whether those changes favor what I want, or not, is yet to be determined. It's an oddly optomistic outlook not very many share. I can't even explain why *I* have it, to be honest. LL certainly doesn't have a reputation that would suggest I should. But I do. So that's where I sit.

[Commodity123456]

Hey it's me, the new Luna Bliss.

Apropos?

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Commodity123456 wrote:

Hey it's me, the new Luna Bliss.

Apropos?

---

Oooo, Luna...like it!

Did you close your store in SL?  It was one of my favorite sims going back to 2007.

[Luna Bliss]

Thanks..glad you like my new name..and liked my store

I'm still here...chugging away...my store too though it has gone through too many transformations to count since '07.

[Trinity Yazimoto]

Well I’m going to add my 2 cents to the convo here and try to contribute to the reflection started here.

To start, I must mention that I resigned from my roles in the UCCSL on December the 23th, after an “amazing” discussion with the group owner and it became clear in my mind that I don’t want to betray what I am, and support an organization that has become nothing but an authoritarian one.

I’m not going into details here, I’ve explained everything in a Notecard to the group that I sent before taking myself out of all my roles, and the Notecard has been published in Danko Whitfield’s blog.

I definitively left the group, some days ago, after its owner sent me back the hippogroups terminals (without a single word, not even for asking the lists of members), so I thought that i could now recover my freedom and leave.

 

• ““What is your position on the current revision of the TOS ?”

 My position hasn’t changed. I really don’t like the idea that a company took the right to use my work, mod it, sell it, resell it etc, without even giving me credits and attribution for that and above all FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE. Even if it’s possible they have no intention to steal smth right now, the simple fact they can is a problem for me, and no one can know what will be tomorrow and who will decide at LL.

Peter Gray said they were working on a new version of the TOS. Imho, that was said just to keep ppl quiet. And even if they change it, I don’t have a lot of hopes on the fact it will be really better.

They say they want to act as our agent in Desura… But I don’t want to sell anything in Desura, I don’t want them as agent.. and if I want to sell in Desura, I can open an account there and do the job myself. I don’t need them and I think I’m entitled to choose who work for me, or with me. This doesn’t give them the right to claim the license they are currently claiming on my works.

 

• “What changes would you make to the TOS ?”

Well this is a vast question, because honestly I would already made changes on the TOS before august lol.

But well, for now, the more important for me is that they take out this damn “for whatever purpose” for the license. I don’t want them doing anything they want with my works for “whatever purpose”. It’s ok for me for the needs of the service but not for whatever purpose.

I could add a lot of other demands, but if they fix the “whatever purpose” I’ll be happy.

 

• “What other domains would you like to make proposals and what proposals ?”

Well as I said, if I was asked the list would be long. But well, for example, if we upload smth and we don’t share it with anyone, as soon as we delete it from our inventory, I’d like it to disappear from LL servers as well.. This practice exist already on other websites and it could be done easily here too.

Also, if they come to use our works for their own purpose, it would be fair to credit the creators and even ask permission too. I’m thinking here when they use some works for promotional use.

 

• “What is your position regarding the future of UCCSL ?”

 

Well, on this one I could write a book probably, but I’m not sure it would be really interesting to read.

My opinion is that the group was born from the collective wish to fight against the new TOS and make LL change them. Today this goal is only one among others that seem to be more important to the leadership.

When I see its forbidden to talk about the TOS in the group chat and that another group was created for this single purpose, I’m a bit dumbstruck. And even more when I see on the other group profile this :

“The ToS cuts deeply and it is terribly personal and emotional.  I understand that some simply must hash and re-hash it. This is the forum for that.

 

Reserve the UCCSL chat for positive and creative interactions.

 

THE CONVERSATIONS IN THIS FORM ARE NOT NECESSARILY COMPLIANT WITH THE ROLE OF THE UCCSL OR A REFLECTION OF ITS PURPOSE OR OPINIONS”

 

So it seems clear that discussing about the TOS is just hashing and re-hashing. That it can’t be positive interactions… and that it won’t reflect the group opinion.

 

I’m even more puzzled when I see a notice saying that “Use of UCCSL chat for discussion of ToS or the shortcomings of LL is not permitted and will result in immediate loss of chat privileges in that group, without warning or discussion.”

 

When I read that, I have zero regret to have left.. I’m just wondering how I could stay blind so long. And I think, ppl will leave one after one, after they’ll have to deal with the eternal “if you don’t like it you can leave” answer.

I don’t need any seal or a group for babbling between creators, I have already other groups for this purpose. I don’t need a new one.

If ppl accept such operating, that’s fine for them. To each their own. On my side, I’m not going to accept that someone else decides for me. We are already too much confronted to that in RL, my SL is not for that.

 

Sorry, it was longer than I wanted. :smileyhappy: