ToS Changes - why?

[Phil Deakins]

Here's another thought...

Some of the stuff that's been uploaded isn't the work of the SL creator. The SL creator has bought a license to use it (textures, for instance), so they are legally unable to assign all the rights that LL claim. If LL intends to sell, etc. that stuff, how will they do it legally? They can't, because they haven't received the legal rights to do it.

They have no way of differentiating between the uploads that are the work of the SL creators and those that are only under license. So the idea of LL changing the ToS so that they can do whatever they want with user content (e.g. sell the SL system with all the content, or sell items to desira game-makers) begins to seem a lot less likely because, together with the content where owners have not clicked to accept the new ToS, it is getting far too messy for LL to manage. I'm going off those ideas as being the reason behind the ToS changes. Or, if they are the reason for the change, then it can't work as LL intended; i.e. they got it wrong.

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

Pierre Salinger a celebrity?  Not in my book.  He was a jounalist.  

---

Was he famous / well-known? If he was, then he was a celebrity. What, "in your book" is a celebrity?

---

No, he was not famous.  He was a frustrated Democrat.  

---

You'd heard of him, and Maddy had heard of him. It sounds like he was famous over there.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

In this case, I actually think that 'many' people will stop.

---

And I don't.  Except for the emotional

few.

 

Like the 'many' democrat celebrities (4) who threatened to leave the U.S.

if former President Bush was re-elected.

 He was and they didn't... not one.  . 

 

---

Pierre Salinger

passed away in 2004, so he'll probably not take issue with you thinking he's not a celebrity. In 2000, Salinger told the Washington post "I don't want any more Bush Presidents. If Bush wins, I'm going to leave the country and spend the rest of my life in France." Bush won the election and Salinger moved to France, where he died four years later.

I look forward to your explanation of how "they didn't... not one" means "at least one did".

I wrote about the emotional promises celebrities made during the "re-election" of Bush, not the 1st Presidential election of Bush. 

The emotional "one" left in 2000. 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

In this case, I actually think that 'many' people will stop.

---

And I don't.  Except for the emotional

few.

 

Like the 'many' democrat celebrities (4) who threatened to leave the U.S. if former President Bush was re-elected.

 He was and they didn't... not one.  . 

 

---

Pierre Salinger

passed away in 2004, so he'll probably not take issue with you thinking he's not a celebrity. In 2000, Salinger told the Washington post "I don't want any more Bush Presidents. If Bush wins, I'm going to leave the country and spend the rest of my life in France." Bush won the election and Salinger moved to France, where he died four years later.

I look forward to your explanation of how "they didn't... not one" means "at least one did".

---

Oh, I did miss the "re-", although that could be due to the celebrity "I'll move out if he's elected" meme peaking in 2000, not 2004. The four celebrities you may be thinking of are actually only three,  Alec Baldwin, Eddie Vedder and Robert Altman. They all made their statements prior to the 2000 election. In 2004, I think the meme was succession of the blue states.

Now I await your list of four democrat celebrities who threatened to leave the US if Bush was re-elected in 2004. I think they should be more newsworthy than Pierre Salinger, as you don't consider him a celebrity.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

In this case, I actually think that 'many' people will stop.

---

And I don't.  Except for the emotional

few.

 

Like the 'many' democrat celebrities (4) who threatened to leave the U.S. if former President Bush was re-elected.

 He was and they didn't... not one.  . 

 

---

Pierre Salinger

passed away in 2004, so he'll probably not take issue with you thinking he's not a celebrity. In 2000, Salinger told the Washington post "I don't want any more Bush Presidents. If Bush wins, I'm going to leave the country and spend the rest of my life in France." Bush won the election and Salinger moved to France, where he died four years later.

I look forward to your explanation of how "they didn't... not one" means "at least one did".

---

Oh, I did miss the "re-", although that could be due to the celebrity "I'll move out if he's elected" meme peaking in 2000, not 2004. The four celebrities you may be thinking of are actually only three,  Alec Baldwin, Eddie Vedder and Robert Altman. They all made their statements prior to the 2000 election. In 2004, I think the meme was succession of the blue states.

Now I await your list of four democrat celebrities who threatened to leave the US if Bush was re-elected in 2004. I think they should be more newsworthy than Pierre Salinger, as you don't consider him a celebrity.

---

Maybe it was Snooki who was the fourth, I don't recall.

  But perhaps the "many" (4) is now the many, many 3. 

 

[Storm Clarence]

I think, in attempting to be politically correct, we should change the word MANy to WOMANy depending on the gender of the writer.  This change would also help us in determining the emotional hyperbole assigned to the word. 

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

The only way to keep LL from having something

is to never bring it into their realm in the first place.

---

Which is exactly what

many

content creators are doing until this is sorted out.  Especially those who sell original artwork from RL or even from photos they've taken in SL.  Same with authors. The artistic community stepped up to get the word out.

---

HYPERBOLE

 

---

 

The word was 'many'. Had it been written 'thousands of', or 'hundreds of', or even 'dozens of'', and if you knew otherwise—which you probably do not, any more than I do—you could call hyperbole.

 

'Many' is in the opinion of the writer. Might be four, might be four hundred. You're just trolling.

---

 

Hi Dillon

I'm beginning to really love the forum.  In a different thread Madelaine understood the writer to mean "defend" when the writer actually wrote "offend". 

 You, in this thread, understand the word "many" to actually mean "a few". 

And you call me a troll?   Go figure.

 

---

 

I wrote, " 'Many' is in the opinion of the writer.", a slight play on 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. At no time did I suggest that I understood the word many to actually mean 'a few'.

Yes, I call you a troll.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

Yes, I call you a troll.

---

Then thank you for feeding me.  I did wake up hungry today.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

In this case, I actually think that 'many' people will stop.

---

And I don't.  Except for the emotional

few.

 

Like the 'many' democrat celebrities (4) who threatened to leave the U.S. if former President Bush was re-elected.

 He was and they didn't... not one.  . 

 

---

Pierre Salinger

passed away in 2004, so he'll probably not take issue with you thinking he's not a celebrity. In 2000, Salinger told the Washington post "I don't want any more Bush Presidents. If Bush wins, I'm going to leave the country and spend the rest of my life in France." Bush won the election and Salinger moved to France, where he died four years later.

I look forward to your explanation of how "they didn't... not one" means "at least one did".

---

Oh, I did miss the "re-", although that could be due to the celebrity "I'll move out if he's elected" meme peaking in 2000, not 2004. The four celebrities you may be thinking of are actually only three,  Alec Baldwin, Eddie Vedder and Robert Altman. They all made their statements prior to the 2000 election. In 2004, I think the meme was succession of the blue states.

Now I await your list of four democrat celebrities who threatened to leave the US if Bush was re-elected in 2004. I think they should be more newsworthy than Pierre Salinger, as you don't consider him a celebrity.

---

Maybe it was Snooki who was the fourth, I don't recall.

  But perhaps the "many" (4) is now the many, many 3. 

 

---

You needn't wave your white flag so violently. Jersey Shore premiered five years after the 2004 election.

[RiftRaven]

---

Qie Niangao Wrote:

The thing is, the very same applies to other proposed explanations for the change. (E.g., were they to "sell content on Desura"  they'd first have to filter it for having no in-world representation -- perhaps by some other creator -- prior to the ToS change.  Good luck getting that right.)

For me to take seriously any explanation, it would have to make sense despite the intractable complexity of different licenses applying to different subsets of Second Life content, of tangled IP provenance going back a decade.

So far, the only theory I've seen that satisfies this criterion is the Lazy Lawyer Hypothesis -- a theory wholly supported by my experience with attorneys.

---

People should just forget the idea of Linden Lab selling User created content on Desura. I've been teaching my self "Mesh" 3D Modeling since 2005. I'm an expert, I know mesh intimately, and every visual trick you can apply to it like Normal Maps and how to bake them to perfection. I've been shaking my head at the unoptimized and clulessly created content for years! Cluless in how terribly unoptimized it is for 3d game rendering engines, but very talented in making it look pretty. The most horrific Second Life feature that still causes me to cry mysef to sleep at night LOL are "Sculpties". Just about the worst offender of unoptimized content creation, created in a desperate attempt at a better "Mesh" creation system, without importing foreign geometry. My point is, I think game developers who are privy to my skill set in "Mesh" making, would run faster than the RoadRunner at even the slightest glimpse ot Second Life, content.

Again don't get me wrong I'm a content creator, and I sypathise with Second Life content creators, and the stuff you see in Second Life is admired by me very much so, just some of the most amazing creations, but just thinking about how it performs in a rendering engine makes me cringe. And the only way for these (highly detailed "Mesh" objects) to perform well in a 3D Game Engine was if a creator, created first a High resolution object, then baked the normals to a Lower resolution version, which is the standard workflow. I know that wasn't the case, because there were no normal maps implimented yet, and I saw these objects over and over. That's why I waited untill now to become a Merchant in Second Life, but then LL pulled another >>> "LOL" lol and ruined all my plans, and to make it worse, even if I ignored the TOS (when, hell's, hell frezzes over) who's gonna buy my stuff, lately.

I spent I'm guessing now 2 and a half months on what I was hoping would the mesh avatar standard, I was gonna sell a phenominal development kit fot it too, but now who's gonna want to develop for it, NO ONE. Thanks for taking all my work and flushing it down the crapper LL!!! So getting to the whole point of this, what is LL gonna really make selling stuff on Desura, thats if they sell anything at all, while risking a lynching from SL residents, all while taking the Nickels and Dimes they'll be making from selling SL content on Desura, just to settle Law Suits. No no no nooo, they wanna sell the WHOLE ENCHILADA! lol, Second Life reached it's terrible two's years ago and stayed there, and the parents have had about all they can take so now there looking to sell their baby.

 P.S.

"If your such a "Mesh" expert RiftRaven, why aren't you developing for a videogame company?"

Well that was the plan. I live in ____ __, Has anyone heard of "____" they

were based here in ____ ___  just a couple miles away from were I live. They developed

the two expansions to _____.. and the Nuclear Powered Crap generator that was _____ 

Yeah they filed for bankruptcy back in May of this year and went up in smoke along with my Dreams 

of working for them. (somber kicking a pebble) Yeah.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

 

You needn't wave your white flag so violently....

---

That was my cocktail napkin.  Sorry, you once again misunderstood.  

 

 

 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

ok, so after doing a bit of digging it seems that LL has aquired Desura. So, they own it. Desura is a company based in australia. LL is based in Cali. What country has jurisdiction over a DMCA violation? Would a company based in another country have to follow the laws of their parent company?

Again though, I highly doubt they woud sell our creations on Desura. Even by accepting the ToS that does not make it a legal document. I did not "sign" it.  Even if they had an area for our avs names to be there it is still not MY name. I hold the legal rights to my creations, not Drake1 nightfire, but the person at the PC. LL does not have my signature anywhere. Nor do they have my permission to do anything with my creations.

[Qie Niangao]

---

RiftRaven wrote:

The most horrific Second Life feature that still causes me to cry mysef to sleep at night LOL are "Sculpties". Just about the worst offender of unoptimized content creation, created in a desperate attempt at a better "Mesh" creation system, without importing foreign geometry. 

---

A word in defense of sculpties. Well, not entirely, because I agree that they're just absurdly inefficient, from a basic 3D modelling standpoint, but SL isn't solely about 3D modelling.  In fact, to some of us, 3D models are a sort of background noise, the epiphenomena of Second Life, existing just to have a place in which to put interactive scripts. And for some of us who feel that way, the introduction of Mesh is the absolute nadir of Second Life content creation, inasmuch as Mesh violates the cardinal rule of SL objects, that any object can be transmogrified into any other object, under script control. Any hunk of Mesh, instead, is forever doomed to be nothing more than the Mesh it was originally.

Sculpties, however, are not nerfed in this way.

It didn't need to be this way, of course. It was just a disastrous design decision, and only one of many in SL's implementation history, but one that demonstrates just how far the platform has drifted from its original vision, toward the crippled gaming model. A pity.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

---

RiftRaven wrote:

The most horrific Second Life feature that still causes me to cry mysef to sleep at night LOL are "Sculpties". Just about the worst offender of unoptimized content creation, created in a desperate attempt at a better "Mesh" creation system, without importing foreign geometry. 

---

A word in defense of sculpties. Well, not entirely, because I agree that they're just absurdly inefficient, from a basic 3D modelling standpoint, but SL isn't solely about 3D modelling.  In fact, to some of us, 3D models are a sort of background noise, the epiphenomena of Second Life, existing just to have a place in which to put interactive scripts. And for some of us who feel that way, the introduction of Mesh is the absolute nadir of Second Life content creation, inasmuch as Mesh violates the cardinal rule of SL objects, that any object can be transmogrified into any other object, under script control. Any hunk of Mesh, instead, is forever doomed to be nothing more than the Mesh it was originally.

Sculpties, however, are not nerfed in this way.

It didn't need to be this way, of course. It was just a disastrous design decision, and only one of many in SL's implementation history, but one that demonstrates just how far the platform has drifted from its original vision, toward the crippled gaming model. A pity.

---

I share this view. As a kid, the building blocks of my play world the scraps of cloth from Mom's basket (textures) and bits of wood from Dad's workshop (prims). While my friends were playing with toys that were so remarkably lifelike you couldn't tear your imagination free of the ideas baked into them, I was free to imagine my little clumps of wood and fabric were anything I pleased.

I'm hardly a seasoned scripter, but the most fun I have is in manipulating a few prims to tell a story with a simple combination of shape, texture and animation. I'll send you an example.

;-)

ETA: One of the most compelling advantages I saw for SL when I arrived was the accessibility of creation. I've greatly enjoyed the work of others, and I've enjoyed seeing the pleasure people get from creating. It's infectious. I worry that the stratification of creation into the haves and have nots will decrease the diversity of expression here. I hope I'm wrong. Yes there's a lot of prim junk laying about SL, but I've found a lot of gems as well.

[Trinity Yazimoto]

To answer Drake's objection about the fact what LL is doing is not legal and so they wont tempt anything, im going to quote Darrius in one of his recent blog post : http://www.dgp4sl.com/wp/2013/09/tosing-my-hat-in-the-ring/#more-2115

This in particular : 

"The first purpose is to absolutely and with no confusion define who is the responsible party in any dispute. The language in paragraph 2 states very clearly that it’s you and not Linden Lab. So if there are any legal disputes over any content uploaded to Second Life, the only one that CAN be sued is you.

The second purpose is to help deflect lawsuits. Not only does it make it very unprofitable to sue over ownership rights (because it’s you, the piss-poor individual creator and uploader and not the cash rich Linden Lab) but it also means that trying to pierce that language is going to be a lot more expensive in terms of lawyer time and billing, so any possible complainant must have a damn good (and profitable) case before they will attempt to sue. In this respect, the language serves to provide you a tiny bit of protection, but very very little."

Furthermore, its also a way for them to cover they ass, if they have to resell something that you dont really own... TOS says now that you must have full rights on what you upload in order to give them full (and excessive) licence. If you don't own full rights on what you upload and they sell it.. you ll be the one sued. because you agreed with the TOS so you contracted the fact you will only upload items that you own fully.

As i said to Drake already, i live in France, my english is not perfect, i cant afford a lawyer and on top i cant say to my RL boss "sorry ! i have to prepare my defense against LL stealing my creations, so i wont be able to be at my RL work for some days or week. Thank you"

If LL come to steal my contents, i will only have my eyes for crying. Nothing more. And like me, there are a lot of creators in the same situation.

On top, maybe due to my militant experience; i dont believe in individual actions when its about to fight against moral entities, but only on class-actions. That's why i joined the group of creators contents against the new TOS and since ive stopped creating for now, i ll give my time to add my contributions and efforts in this.

[Trinity Yazimoto]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

While you were writing your post, I was reading a blog post from one of the links that Trinity posted, and I came up with the same thought - what about assets that were uploaded by people who haven't accepted the new ToS. Then I wrote about it before I saw your post, Qie. The difference is, that the thought wasn't created in my brain. It was prompted by something I read. You still the man!

As for retroactive assets, I tend to disagree with you. I re-read the section and it says, "...

all or any portion  of your User Content ...

" and "

You agree that the license includes the right to copy, analyze and use any of your Content as Linden Lab may deem necessary ...

". It doesn't mention anything about "from now on". It's just "any of your content". So, imo, it is retroactive.

That said, I can't see that LL would win in a case where someone had to agree with the ToS in order to get at his/her content and (try to) remove it, or just not log in any more and turn away from the content. That would be too forced for a court to uphold, imo. In any case, turning away and not accepting the new ToS would not give LL any more rights than they had before the new ToS, so the content would be safe - except the user wouldn't be able to get at it.

---

I do believe they can parse what they can sell or not. I dont know about retroactivity of the TOS or not. I want to believe the TOS are applying only to what is uploaded after the new TOS implementation. But yes, we can not be even sure of that. 

But i still think that selling on Desura is the plan. Content stolen ? not a pb, they covered their ass with the tos and the one who will be sued is the creator not LL.

and how will they parse what can be sold or not ?

the answer is imho here : 

"

“Parsing millions of things called “object” to sell one item is beyond their abilities.”

 

This is a quote from Honour in a recent blog post on the subject, and I’m inclined to say that it is a statement of desperation at best. Trying to justify why they are unable from a technical standpoint is the last refuge of denial. While I respect Honour’s thoughts on the matter, I have to differ on opinions here.

 

The only way that sentence could possibly be true is if you omit the elephant in the room and arguably the largest component of Second Life itself: Marketplace.

 

This is exactly what Marketplace was built and designed for. To parse millions of things and allow people to sell one item of interest. The most important content deemed “worth” selling is already parsed and categorized thanks to you, the community. Making a copy of Marketplace as a system and repurposing it as an Indie Developer content service for Desura would entail flipping a couple of content permission switches and readjusting the percentages in favor of Linden Lab.

 

As seen with recent viewers, it’s perfectly feasible to export content as a Collada model and even with the textures – so long as you have full permissions on the item. But then, who controls the master switch for content permissions, eh?

 

This puts Linden Lab squarely in the realm of the biggest Copy-Botter outfit in Second Life."

quoted from Will Burns blog post (link posted before).

Of course, i hope im wrong.. i really hope im wrong. But for now, its only a hope and not something i can take in consideration as something sure.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

---

RiftRaven wrote:

The most horrific Second Life feature that still causes me to cry mysef to sleep at night LOL are "Sculpties". Just about the worst offender of unoptimized content creation, created in a desperate attempt at a better "Mesh" creation system, without importing foreign geometry. 

---

A word in defense of sculpties. Well, not entirely, because I agree that they're just absurdly inefficient, from a basic 3D modelling standpoint, but SL isn't solely about 3D modelling.  In fact, to some of us, 3D models are a sort of background noise, the epiphenomena of Second Life, existing just to have a place in which to put interactive scripts. And for some of us who feel that way, the introduction of Mesh is the absolute nadir of Second Life content creation, inasmuch as Mesh violates the cardinal rule of SL objects, that any object can be transmogrified into any other object, under script control. Any hunk of Mesh, instead, is forever doomed to be nothing more than the Mesh it was originally.

Sculpties, however, are not nerfed in this way.

It didn't need to be this way, of course. It was just a disastrous design decision, and only one of many in SL's implementation history, but one that demonstrates just how far the platform has drifted from its original vision, toward the crippled gaming model. A pity.

---

I know we are deviating from the topic on hand but I want to add my two cents here.

Working with prims, working with sculpties and working with 'mesh' each have their own learning curves.

Give me half an hour with someone and I can basically teach them how to torture a prim into any shape they want.  Try doing that with sculpties or mesh.

With prims, any one can log in and Your World, Your Imagination is at their fingertips.

This is not true for sculpties and mesh.

Some of the most beautiful SIMs in SL were built simply out of prims.

I agree with you, SL has drifted.....actually in my opinion it is being driven from its original vision.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Give me half an hour with someone and I can basically teach them how to

torture a prim

into any shape they want.  Try doing that with sculpties or mesh.

---

I have to challenge that statement

My understanding of torturing a prim is not taking a prim and reshaping it in the Edit box. It's reshaping the prim in ways that the Edit box does not allow. Not all reshaping options are available to all prims. Some prim shapes are missing some options. Torturing a prim is applying the missing options to it.

My question therefore is, do you mean torturing a prim, or do you mean reshaping it with its available Edit box options?

[Perrie Juran]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Give me half an hour with someone and I can basically teach them how to

torture a prim

into any shape they want.  Try doing that with sculpties or mesh.

---

I have to challenge that statement

My understanding of torturing a prim is not taking a prim and reshaping it in the Edit box. It's reshaping the prim in ways that the Edit box does not allow. Not all reshaping options are available to all prims. Some prim shapes are missing some options. Torturing a prim is applying the missing options to it.

My question therefore is, do you mean torturing a prim, or do you mean reshaping it with its available Edit box options?

---

Torturing is my tongue in cheek way of saying "reshaping." 

When I started messing with prims I used to joke that there were warrants for my arrest on a hundred SIMs for "unusual cruelty to a prim."

[Phil Deakins]

To be honest, I've no idea how to torture prims. I read about it many years ago but I didn't try to hold it in my memory. I don't even know if it's still possible.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

To be honest, I've no idea how to torture prims. I read about it many years ago but I didn't try to hold it in my memory. I don't even know if it's still possible.

---

Prim torture has come to mean (I think) getting unexpected shapes from simple prims, either by playing with all the edit options in the Edit window directly, or by doing a few tricks that sneak past the SL code. Here's my go-to page for straight up torture...

http://ayumicassini.blogspot.com/2009/07/ultimate-guide-to-prim-twisting.html

There are also ways of setting parameters on a prim, then changing the shape to one which hasn't got those parameters. I don't think that page contains any of those, but I remember reading instructions for doing so on a billboard at Fermi years ago.

 

[Phil Deakins]

Thank you, Maddy. I've either seen that page before or one very much like it. It's about creating unusual shapes in the normal way.

I wonder if torturing was the method in your second paragraph - setting the parameters for a prim that will take them and then changing the shape to one that won't take those parameters.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

@ Maddy:

So, according to LL, the answer to my question is that LL changed the ToS so that all their products can use the same ToS. Is that right?

I am not familiar with any of LL's other products so tell me please, are any of their other products such that users upload stuff to them? If so, are any of the products that users can upload stuff to such that it's necessary for LL to have the degree of rights over the uploaded stuff that's described in the new ToS? I.e do those products make it necessary for LL to have all those rights?

As I said, I'm not familiar with the other products but I strongly doubt that having all those rights is actually necessary. But, if it really is necessary for one or more of their products, then they shouldn't have applied it to SL. But they did apply it to SL, and they knew exactly what they were doing. It's easy to own up to being "ham-fisted", because it doesn't change the ToS. It changes nothing.

If none of the other products are such that users can upload stuff to them, or, if they can upload but it's not actually necessary for the product for LL to have all those rights over other people's uploaded stuff, then there was no need to change that part of the ToS at all, and LL saying that it's to use one ToS for all products is just an attempt at hiding the real reason for the change, imo.

I don't believe that it's necessary for LL to have the degree of rights over people's uploaded work that they grabbed in the new ToS, but I'm open to be persuaded otherwise.

 

General comment:

Doing it the way they've done it is totally unscrupulous, imo. One day the ToS says one thing, and those who upload their own work are content with things. The next day the ToS changes so that those who have work already uploaded can't get at it without agreeing to give up their rights. They uploaded under one

mutual

 agreement and suddenly they find the agreement has been changed unilaterally and, unless they accept it, they can't get at their stuff. How unscrupulous is that?

 

---

I don't know how their other games work, nor do I believe they're having much success with them. Creatorverse is available from the App Store but seems to have little interest. It's been in the store for a year and has garnered a whole 50 reviews during that time. There are school children who've done better in the App Store ;-)

LL ads for Creatorvers suggest that people can trade creations (no mention of economics), but I see no mention of uploading from the outside world.

I won't argue with the apparently unscrupulous nature of the changes to the ToS, but I'm still gonna hang on to my belief (it is just that, I'm hardly certain) that LL's cluelessness is comprehensive enough to cover it! I've yet to find an angle here in which the repercussions for being evil are less than those for being ignorant.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Thank you, Maddy. I've either seen that page before or one very much like it. It's about creating unusual shapes in the normal way.

I wonder if torturing was the method in your second paragraph - setting the parameters for a prim that will take them and then changing the shape to one that won't take those parameters.

---

Yep, my first understanding of "torture" was the tricky use of shape changing via the Edit window to carry parameters into things which didn't have them. Since then I've come to think that if you look at a prim and say "Oooh, how'd they do that?!", it's been tortured.

;-)

[Phil Deakins]

This is a reply to your second to last post above this one

I've arrived at a conclusion since I posted the one to which you replied. I am now of the opinion that the ideas of LL setting things up to sell SL complete with content, and LL wanting to sell or pass content to any of their other products, don't hold water. The reason being that LL would not only have to differentiate between assets that have had the ToS accepted and those that have not - difficult enough - but they'd also have to differentiate between assets that are not owned by the uploaders but are used under license, and that's totally impossible to do. I.e. the uploaders of assets that are under license do not have the legal right to grant LL all the rights in the ToS, so LL can't have the legal right to include them with a sale of SL or pass them to people using other programmes. I may be wrong, of course, but I'm now leaning more towards your idea of things.