ToS Changes - why?

[Czari Zenovka]

I'm just tagging onto your post, Perrie, but this is a general comment, not specifically to you...

One of the things that has stuck in my mind is a comment made during the organizational meeting for content creators that I attended. Someone well known within the merchant/SL community (I am being very careful here due to the TOS on what can be reposted within a SL product) said that an ex-Linden hinted on the forum "across the street" that LL makes more money on breedables than tier.

I'll leave it at that so I'm not skating on thin ice but more was said in the meeting on this subject, the info is on various blogs if anyone wants to read the meeting log.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

here is the link to the article

Linden Lab Expresses Regret for Confusion Over New Draconian Terms of Service, Affirms Respect for SL Content Creators (But Were You Really Surprised?)

http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2013/09/linden-lab-tos-textures.html

 

i found this one linked from that one as well..it was interesting read..

 

Get Real: ToS Aside, Most Second Life Content Isn't Very Valuable Outside Second Life (Comments of the Week)

http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2013/09/second-life-content-tos.html#more

---

Wagner has always been a poor excuse of an apologist for LL.

If HE was to GET REAL about the letter LL sent him he would shred it to pieces over the subterfuge that is in it.

While it may be true that LL has no intent to sell for their own profit the intellectual property creators upload, it does not change the reality that under the new TOS that they can.

The great subterfuge in that letter is the statement that they need the right to 'sell' and/or 're-sell' in order (for SL) to function.

First of all, 'selling' and/or reselling other people's goods implies that they have purchased it first.  That has never been the case except in rare instances where they have bought specific content such as the Troobles for promotional purposes.

Secondly, they have never needed this right and don't need it in order to act as agents in the transaction.  Both In World and on the Market Place they are simply the delivery agent.  They are a Service provider.

 

---

i would say..just like in the past..if you want to know what really changed for second life in the TOS..

just look in the official sections of the KB like we always have done in the past..

we just did this like a month ago with some other change they made..

 

if the pages are not modified..then  it shoudl be clear which part in the TOS is referring to second life..

because they will say second life in there..where i didn't see it mentioned in the TOS..

they are both part of the TOS and both official..

 

they have a bunch of products clumped up together in one TOS and no brand names are given..

so if things changed for second life..it would be in there but also the ones that strictly pertain to second life will be in their official linden kb policies and FAQ's like always..

 

the only reason i put this guys article up there was to put up the only response i seen from LL

 

it wasn't to defend them or to do anything else but say..here is the only thing i ever found them saying about it..

 

i figure it's probably better than the nothing they gave us so far as far as hearing from them on it..

hehehehe

---

I was just stating my opinion of the blog post and letter.

One of my biggest complaints and criticisms of the new TOS is that SL is so unique in comparison to LL's other properties that in order to avoid confusion it really does need it's own separate TOS.

This is one thing that really could work against LL.  When an ambiguity or contradiction is found in a contract, generally speaking a Court will rule in favor of the weaker party who in this case would be us.  By lumping everything together LL increases the risk of this happening.  Which I guess, while potentially bad for LL, it is a good thing for us.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

---

I was just stating my opinion of the blog post and letter.

One of my biggest complaints and criticisms of the new TOS is that SL is so unique in comparison to LL's other properties that in order to avoid confusion it really does need it's own separate TOS.

This is one thing that really could work against LL.  When an ambiguity or contradiction is found in a contract, generally speaking a Court will rule in favor of the weaker party who in this case would be us.  By lumping everything together LL increases the risk of this happening.  Which I guess, while potentially bad for LL, it is a good thing for us.

---

i had actually said something similar a couple of posts ago as well hehehehe..

 

also i found this in the TOS

a link from the TOS to the KB

 

7.    INFRINGEMENT NOTIFICATIONS

We operate an intellectual property complaint process for complaints that User Content infringes another’s Intellectual Property Rights, the details of which are described below and, with respect to Second Life, in our Intellectual Property Policy.

which goes to a page last updated 

• 24 April 2012, at 16:47.

so they are still using the official KB..

now when i go to the Terms of service FAQ's i see this..

What is Linden Lab allowed to do with the content that I submit to Second Life?

To enable us to provide the Second Life experience to you, we need to be allowed to “use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform” content in Second Life, and you grant us a license to do so. We refer to that as the Service Content License and it is “solely for the purposes of providing and promoting” Second Life. You remain the intellectual property owner of any content you submit to Second Life – it is your content, not Linden Lab’s.

• This page was last modified on 10 August 2011, at 11:57.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

I'm just tagging onto your post, Perrie, but this is a general comment, not specifically to you...

One of the things that has stuck in my mind is a comment made during the organizational meeting for content creators that I attended. Someone well known within the merchant/SL community (I am being very careful here due to the TOS on what can be reposted within a SL product) said that an ex-Linden hinted on the forum "across the street" that LL makes more money on breedables than tier.

I'll leave it at that so I'm not skating on thin ice but more was said in the meeting on this subject, the info is on various blogs if anyone wants to read the meeting log.

---

Just tossing out some rough (rounded off)numbers here.

Tier at 300 a month = ~$74,000L

If LL's commission on the market place is 5%, to earn $74,000L would require $1,480,000L in sales.

So yes it is very very feasible that LL is grossing more than a few SIMs worth of tier in the breedable market when you start adding in all the food and other toys for them.

The numbers do get interesting.  To my knowledge sales volume for the Market is not published. How many shoes at $500L to $1000L a pop get sold? 

On the other hand, how much is LL losing due to how borky the Market Place is?  How much in sales are both they and the Merchants losing over this?  But I know that is a separate issue.

 

[Ceka Cianci]

 

really i am tired of trying to figure them out..

i never seen so much muddy freaking water in my life with a company..

i mean seriously..

 

they suck..i mean like government cheese suck!! 

lol

 

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

---

I was just stating my opinion of the blog post and letter.

One of my biggest complaints and criticisms of the new TOS is that SL is so unique in comparison to LL's other properties that in order to avoid confusion it really does need it's own separate TOS.

This is one thing that really could work against LL.  When an ambiguity or contradiction is found in a contract, generally speaking a Court will rule in favor of the weaker party who in this case would be us.  By lumping everything together LL increases the risk of this happening.  Which I guess, while potentially bad for LL, it is a good thing for us.

---

i had actually said something similar a couple of posts ago as well hehehehe..

 

also i found this in the TOS

a link from the TOS to the KB

 

7.    INFRINGEMENT NOTIFICATIONS

We operate an intellectual property complaint process for complaints that User Content infringes another’s Intellectual Property Rights, the details of which are described below and,

with respect to Second Life, in our 

Intellectual Property Policy

.

which goes to a page last updated 

• 24 April 2012, at 16:47.

so they are still using the official KB..

now when i go to the Terms of service FAQ's i see this..

What is Linden Lab allowed to do with the content that I submit to Second Life?

To enable us to provide the Second Life experience to you, we need to be allowed to “use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform” content in Second Life, and you grant us a license to do so. We refer to that as the Service Content License and it is “solely for the purposes of providing and promoting” Second Life. You remain the intellectual property owner of any content you submit to Second Life – it is your content, not Linden Lab’s.

• This page was last modified on 10 August 2011, at 11:57.

---

Well, in the new TOS, LL is still not claiming "ownership" per se, only "rights' to use your content.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

---

I was just stating my opinion of the blog post and letter.

One of my biggest complaints and criticisms of the new TOS is that SL is so unique in comparison to LL's other properties that in order to avoid confusion it really does need it's own separate TOS.

This is one thing that really could work against LL.  When an ambiguity or contradiction is found in a contract, generally speaking a Court will rule in favor of the weaker party who in this case would be us.  By lumping everything together LL increases the risk of this happening.  Which I guess, while potentially bad for LL, it is a good thing for us.

---

i had actually said something similar a couple of posts ago as well hehehehe..

 

also i found this in the TOS

a link from the TOS to the KB

 

7.    INFRINGEMENT NOTIFICATIONS

We operate an intellectual property complaint process for complaints that User Content infringes another’s Intellectual Property Rights, the details of which are described below and,

with respect to Second Life, in our 

Intellectual Property Policy

.

which goes to a page last updated 

• 24 April 2012, at 16:47.

so they are still using the official KB..

now when i go to the Terms of service FAQ's i see this..

What is Linden Lab allowed to do with the content that I submit to Second Life?

To enable us to provide the Second Life experience to you, we need to be allowed to “use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform” content in Second Life, and you grant us a license to do so. We refer to that as the Service Content License and it is “solely for the purposes of providing and promoting” Second Life. You remain the intellectual property owner of any content you submit to Second Life – it is your content, not Linden Lab’s.

• This page was last modified on 10 August 2011, at 11:57.

---

Well, in the new TOS, LL is still not claiming "ownership" per se, only "rights' to use your content.

---

ya but they have always had to do that..

they have so many different links that link to other links..

 

really i think they shoudl head off to washington and become congressmen..

they woudl fit right in there with all the confusion they give off and the time it takes to figure out if we are making a mistake by staying or going..investing or dumping..

 

just drop a pile in the middle of the road and let's see if they can figure it out crap..

 

really i don't care anymore..i think it's turned into like a mystery game for me..see if you can slove the puzzle that LL left you this time..

 

bleh..i need to go to bed i'm getting crabby and i have to work tonight lol

 

 

 

[RiftRaven]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

 

really i am tired of trying to figure them out..

i never seen so much muddy freaking water in my life with a company..

i mean seriously..

 

they suck..i mean like government cheese suck!! 

lol

 

 

---

So I edited my freaktarted FAIL!!! post to hopefully convey what I actually meant. Once again I apologize, and I'll try to be more careful of my postings. I'm not a seasoned writer, that should explain alot. Also I'm new to Second Life, and apparently my idea of a major player was something else.

Girl you just let yourself out of the "Ghetto Closet" with that govement cheese comment! :smileyvery-happy: lol And yeah Linden Lab is looking pretty bad right about now. 

[Qie Niangao]

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

One of the things that has stuck in my mind is a comment made during the organizational meeting for content creators that I attended. Someone well known within the merchant/SL community (I am being very careful here due to the TOS on what can be reposted within a SL product) said that an ex-Linden hinted on the forum "across the street" that LL makes more money on breedables than tier.

---

I can well imagine that someone in the merchant community might claim to have heard that, and may believe that they heard that, and may even have heard that. But it's hard to reconcile with the math of tier revenue compared to content sale commissions.

LL gets a 5% commission on Marketplace sales. Of the remainder, whatever the seller eventually cashes-out in US$s, LL takes another 3.5% LindeX fee. Plus, it must take some Marketplace promotion to convince folks to keep paying for breedables, so maybe another percent or so of sales. Round it all up and call it 10% of gross sales going to LL.

To match the tier generated by just one Estate sim, a breedable product would have to generate nine million L$s per year -- and I'm sure a handful of them do, but that's compared to thousands of sims.

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

---

RiftRaven wrote:

 

Every "Major" Player in Second Life is moving out, because of the new TOS. Players that had significant pull to sway the masses

.

---

And you know this how?

For one thing there isn't any SL user who has "significant pull to sway the masses".

And for another, who is a major player? The biggest of all is Anshe but she can't sway the masses, not even by pulling out. I suggest that what you perceive as "every major player" is nothing but a relatively few people who have either pulled out or have expressed an intention to pull out. I also suggest that those who go are not major players, simply because they don't make very much RL money from SL. Why do I suggest that? Because anyone who is making good RL money form SL would be really silly to cut it off on principle. The odd one or two may, and I even doubt that, but not many.

We simply don't know why LL has changed the ToS to what it is now. All we have are theories and thoughts. It may be that nothing will change other than the ToS, so anyone who makes plenty of RL money from SL would be very foolish to pull out and cut the money off, merely on the strength of theories and thoughts or principle.

Therefore, I don't accept that "

Every "Major" Player in Second Life is moving out, because of the new TOS.

"

 

---

Thank you.

The idea that anyone, or any one group of like-minded people, can 'sway the masses' in Second Life is ludicrous. I noticed when I last logged in that more than 49,500 other people were online. Of those, I'd guess some number that would fall way below the number after the comma cares about (or even knows the meaning of) the new TOS.

I do not mean to say this TOS change doesn't matter to those who use SL as a both a creation platform and a source of income. To those people it matters, and might matter a great deal. I don't know the answers to all of this and I won't until it's all been shaken out and explained to me in words of no more than four syllables.

I do mean to say I appreciate you pointing out the idiocy of RiftRaven's statement about 'the masses'.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

The idea that anyone... can 'sway the masses' in Second Life is ludicrous.

---

Take that back!

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

The idea that anyone... can 'sway the masses' in Second Life is ludicrous.

---

Take that back!

---

I meant, "...unless they forgot to wear their tinfoil hats."

[RiftRaven]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

---

RiftRaven wrote:

 

Every "Major" Player in Second Life is moving out, because of the new TOS. Players that had significant pull to sway the masses

.

---

And you know this how?

For one thing there isn't any SL user who has "significant pull to sway the masses".

And for another, who is a major player? The biggest of all is Anshe but she can't sway the masses, not even by pulling out. I suggest that what you perceive as "every major player" is nothing but a relatively few people who have either pulled out or have expressed an intention to pull out. I also suggest that those who go are not major players, simply because they don't make very much RL money from SL. Why do I suggest that? Because anyone who is making good RL money form SL would be really silly to cut it off on principle. The odd one or two may, and I even doubt that, but not many.

We simply don't know why LL has changed the ToS to what it is now. All we have are theories and thoughts. It may be that nothing will change other than the ToS, so anyone who makes plenty of RL money from SL would be very foolish to pull out and cut the money off, merely on the strength of theories and thoughts or principle.

Therefore, I don't accept that "

Every "Major" Player in Second Life is moving out, because of the new TOS.

"

 

---

Thank you.

The idea that anyone, or any one group of like-minded people, can 'sway the masses' in Second Life is ludicrous. I noticed when I last logged in that more than 49,500 other people were online. Of those, I'd guess some number that would fall way below the number after the comma cares about (or even knows the meaning of) the new TOS.

I do not mean to say this TOS change doesn't matter to those who use SL as a both a creation platform and a source of income. To those people it matters, and might matter a great deal. I don't know the answers to all of this and I won't until it's all been shaken out and explained to me in words of no more than four syllables.

I do mean to say I appreciate you pointing out the idiocy of RiftRaven's statement about 'the masses'.

---

I too appreciate someone pointing out the idiocy of RiftRavens's post, Thank You! Ohh! Looks like he caught on to what people were saying cause he edited his post! I've heard his idiocy knows no bounds. Oh my! lol

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

RiftRaven wrote:

I've heard his idiocy knows no bounds. Oh my! lol

---

The same has been said about me.

Isn't it nice to know the sky's the limit!

;-)

[RiftRaven]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

Thank you.

The idea that anyone, or any one group of like-minded people, can 'sway the masses' in Second Life is ludicrous. I noticed when I last logged in that more than 49,500 other people were online. Of those, I'd guess some number that would fall way below the number after the comma cares about (or even knows the meaning of) the new TOS.

I do not mean to say this TOS change doesn't matter to those who use SL as a both a creation platform and a source of income. To those people it matters, and might matter a great deal. I don't know the answers to all of this and I won't until it's all been shaken out and explained to me in words of no more than four syllables.

I do mean to say I appreciate you pointing out the idiocy of RiftRaven's statement about 'the masses'.

---

You mean the kind of idiocy where everyone carelessly clicks a Draconian Terms Of Service, agreement box, without carefully reading it, and then ONLY when a supplier of 3rd party Textures reads it for them, everyone starts to worry? Right. That kind of idiocy. 

 

@Madelaine McMasters

    Yes it is! :smileyhappy:

[Ceka Cianci]

---

RiftRaven wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

 

really i am tired of trying to figure them out..

i never seen so much muddy freaking water in my life with a company..

i mean seriously..

 

they suck..i mean like government cheese suck!! 

lol

 

 

---

So I edited my freaktarted 

FAIL!!!

post to hopefully convey what I actually meant. Once again I apologize, and I'll try to be more careful of my postings. I'm not a seasoned writer, that should explain alot. Also I'm new to Second Life, and apparently my idea of a major player was something else.

Girl you just let yourself out of the "Ghetto Closet" with that govement cheese comment! :smileyvery-happy:

lol And yeah Linden Lab is looking pretty bad right about now. 

---

oh i let myself out of that closet years ago here lol

but it's been years since we've had to eat any of that  block of joy and crackers that just kept on giving..

bleck!!

hehehehe

 

 

[RiftRaven]

I was just teasin with that, I'm a joker and... highly educated in the delicate art of idiocy. lol I used to eat some of that cheese, they used to give them away at the local FireStation, where I lived. Kinda have some fond memories of that actualy. There were so many happy people there. :smileyhappy: But it dosen't mean I'm ghetto or anything. :smileylol:

P.S.

"Block of Joy"

Exactly. lol

[Alicia Sautereau]

---

RiftRaven wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

Thank you.

The idea that anyone, or any one group of like-minded people, can 'sway the masses' in Second Life is ludicrous. I noticed when I last logged in that more than 49,500 other people were online. Of those, I'd guess some number that would fall way below the number after the comma cares about (or even knows the meaning of) the new TOS.

I do not mean to say this TOS change doesn't matter to those who use SL as a both a creation platform and a source of income. To those people it matters, and might matter a great deal. I don't know the answers to all of this and I won't until it's all been shaken out and explained to me in words of no more than four syllables.

I do mean to say I appreciate you pointing out the idiocy of RiftRaven's statement about 'the masses'.

---

You mean the kind of idiocy where everyone carelessly clicks a Draconian Terms Of Service, agreement box, without carefully reading it, and then ONLY when a supplier of 3rd party Textures reads it for them, everyone starts to worry? Right. That kind of idiocy.

 

 

@Madelaine McMasters

    Yes it is! :smileyhappy:

---

Because most of us can`t read that pile of crap and don`t understand lawyer language untill some one rips it all apart into manageable pieces

I`m dutch and can understand quite abit, but put a ToS size pile of text infront of my eyes and my brain simply craps out.

Funny that this thread came alive and the one in the merchant suddently died lol

[Dillon Levenque]

---

RiftRaven wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

Thank you.

The idea that anyone, or any one group of like-minded people, can 'sway the masses' in Second Life is ludicrous. I noticed when I last logged in that more than 49,500 other people were online. Of those, I'd guess some number that would fall way below the number after the comma cares about (or even knows the meaning of) the new TOS.

I do not mean to say this TOS change doesn't matter to those who use SL as a both a creation platform and a source of income. To those people it matters, and might matter a great deal. I don't know the answers to all of this and I won't until it's all been shaken out and explained to me in words of no more than four syllables.

I do mean to say I appreciate you pointing out the idiocy of RiftRaven's statement about 'the masses'.

---

You mean the kind of idiocy where everyone carelessly clicks a Draconian Terms Of Service, agreement box, without carefully reading it, and then ONLY when a supplier of 3rd party Textures reads it for them, everyone starts to worry? Right. That kind of idiocy.

 

:

---

 

No, I don't.

I mean the kind of idiocy where someone claims that 'the masses' of Second Life will be swayed by the opinion of one important person or a group of important persons.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

RiftRaven wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

Thank you.

The idea that anyone, or any one group of like-minded people, can 'sway the masses' in Second Life is ludicrous. I noticed when I last logged in that more than 49,500 other people were online. Of those, I'd guess some number that would fall way below the number after the comma cares about (or even knows the meaning of) the new TOS.

I do not mean to say this TOS change doesn't matter to those who use SL as a both a creation platform and a source of income. To those people it matters, and might matter a great deal. I don't know the answers to all of this and I won't until it's all been shaken out and explained to me in words of no more than four syllables.

I do mean to say I appreciate you pointing out the idiocy of RiftRaven's statement about 'the masses'.

---

You mean the kind of idiocy where everyone carelessly clicks a Draconian Terms Of Service, agreement box, without carefully reading it, and then ONLY when a supplier of 3rd party Textures reads it for them, everyone starts to worry? Right. That kind of idiocy.

 

:

---

 

No, I don't.

I mean the kind of idiocy where someone claims that 'the masses' of Second Life will be swayed by the opinion of one important person or a group of important persons.

---

If we think of idiocy as a relative term, somewhere like three sigmas below the mean, then blindly accepting license terms and terms of service wouldn't qualify. Most of us do it. We can't all be three sigmas below the mean!

And the error that Riftraven made has been acknowledged and corrected. So he's no longer an idiot, he's an ex-idiot. But, like all of us, he's still a potential idiot.

Let's hear it for untapped human potential!

;-)

[RiftRaven]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

No, I don't.

I mean the kind of idiocy where someone claims that 'the masses' of Second Life will be swayed by the opinion of one important person or a group of important persons.

---

I did apologize. I went back and corrected it to more accurately reflect what I was wanting to say. Idiotic? Yes! Totally! I did also state that I wasn't a seasoned writer, so I don't have an absolute understanding of the english language. I often go back several times to edit a post, so that it conveys what I'm trying to say, and even then it still doesn't say what I want it to say. 

But I was puzzled why you would say that, it sort of seemed like a personal attack, even after I had apologized. Even after having admitted, I was wrong in doing so. It would be nice if it was like that with Linden Lab too, wouldn't it. "The people who do idiotic things" (not my words). 

Idiocy has been the story of my life, and making light of situations my sort of survival mechanism, so I didn't mean anything about what I later posted. Sorry if my idiocy has no place here. I did also mention I would be more careful of my future posts. What can I do, but live and learn. 

P.S.

I've made a fool of myself a countless number of times, but I'm not gonna cash in my chips

and become a hopeless schmoe because ot that.

[RiftRaven]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

If we think of idiocy as a relative term, somewhere like three sigmas below the mean, then blindly accepting license terms and terms of service wouldn't qualify. Most of us do it. We can't all be three sigmas below the mean!

And the error that Riftraven made has been acknowledged and corrected. So he's no longer an idiot, he's an ex-idiot. But, like all of us, he's still a potential idiot.

Let's hear it for untapped human potential!

;-)

---

Thank you... I think. :smileyvery-happy:

[Phil Deakins]

Dillon replied to my brown-text post before she read that you'd realised and corrected your mistake. She would have been catching up in the thread, saw something, and responded to it. She wouldn't have been aware of your correction until later, and only then if she'd continued to read through the thread.

[Qie Niangao]

It took a little over twelve hours for Bryn's blog post to get the obligatory spam from an unwitting shill an artist operating in Another Virtual World. Wonder what took them so long.

And the ToS issue as a whole has now reached critical mass for crazies. That, too, was predictable.

One might think this would be a good time for the Lab to pull back to more defensible territory. They could do that, of course: simply craft a ToS that expresses what they really want to be able to do with the SL product, rather than one that lets them decide all that on the fly for any of their products, mix-and-match, claiming all rights just in case.

Reminds me of the furore over Google's grand unified privacy policy, which eventually died down. Unfortunately, the SL ToS seems worse than any standard-issue boilerplate, apparently the union of every claim of IP rights ever written into a ToS. And LL doesn't even pretend to "do no evil" -- although, again, I'm convinced that this particular evil just doesn't pay well enough to stir the Lab to action. I have enormous faith in Linden lethargy. I'm pretty sure that's what got us into this mess, and it's what protects us from any actual consequences.

It's hard to guess whether the Lab will back down. They clearly farted around -- that lethargy thing, you know -- hoping reaction would just die down. So far that hasn't really worked out, but after so much time has passed, making the sensible change would take even more effort, initiative, and an actual will to succeed. Does that sound like the Linden character to you?

[Phil Deakins]

I don't remember Google's grand unified privacy policy but on the subject of Google >>>

I've just finished reading 'The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy' part 1. I've never read it before. I saw that the word Googleplex was mentioned in it. But it was written very many years before Google was ever thought of, and yet Google calls their building the Googleplex. So I'm wondering if they took that from Hitchhiker's or if Hitchhiker's was updated since Google came along. The printing of the book I read post-dates Google. The Google founders intended to call the engine Googol (a 1 with 100 zeros after it) but they spelt it wrong. That's true. I reckon they lifted the word Googleplex from Hitchhiker's.

You have enormous faith in LL's lethargy. Someone posted earlier that they have faith in LL's incompetence (it might have been Maddy). I agree with both of you, and I have done for years, plus I have enormous faith in their total disinterest in users so I'm not expecting them to think, "Heck, we've upset our users. We'd better put it right." I expect them to think, "We've upset our users. So what?" and leave it at that.

I'll be surprised if LL actually makes use of their new rights in ways that the users don't want. They could only safely do it with stuff that is uploaded post new ToS, so they need to wait a while anyway. My recommendation to everyone who uploads their own stuff is to carry on as normal because, if LL does eventually use it for gain, the users wouldn't have had that gain anyway, so they won't lose anything.