New ToS: theories can't be right

[Phil Deakins]

It's been written that a possible reason for the ToS changes is so that LL can sell SL complete with content. Another suggested reason is so that LL can market items to desira game-makers. But I don't see how either of those can be true. There are two reason for my thinking.

1. A lot of content was made by people who have gone from SL and haven't clicked to accept the new ToS, so LL doesn't have any extra rights to those items.

2. Some SL creators buy a license to use some stuff (textures, for instance), and upload it. Regardless of whether or not those SL creators accept the new ToS, they don't have the legal right to give LL the rights that the ToS claim, and so LL doesn't have the legal right to do whatever they want with those uploads.

So, for LL to sell SL complete with content, or for them to pass stuff to desira game-makers, whether for money or not, they (LL) would need to be able to differentiate between stuff that is wholly owned by the SL creators, and not just under license, and also they'd need to differentiate between stuff where the ToS has been accepted and stuff where it hasn't.

It would be quite a task to differentiate everything that hasn't been 'accepted' but, leaving that aside, it is impossible for LL to know which uploaded stuff is under license and which isn't. Therefore they cannot legally use all the rights they claim on all user content. For that reason, it's my opinion that neither the idea of selling SL with content, nor passing items to desira game-makers is the reason for the ToS changes.

[Freya Mokusei]

A content grab is the least plausible explanation I've heard yet. Your reasoning here is fairly sound and placed in the present. I heard someone else mention the DMCA Safe Harbour provision also, which would probably (IANAL) prevent re-use or sale of uploaded assets directly by LL.

Yesterday I had a bunch of links that showed this to be historically true, too. LL put a lot of work into SL during the early days to ensure IP rights were secure - there's no way to magically 'undo' this simply for convenience.

--

I don't like speculating, especially when it comes to legal nonsense, but:-

I am curious as to why LL haven't quickly announced a retraction or an intent to retract the updated terms, and yet HAVE published an intent not to 'be evil'. I can only assume such terms are necessary for something far more important than user respect, and they're hoping that they can keep their legal heads down temporarily.

The takeover/sale/IPO possibility exists, is it possible that the ToS only spells out ownership in terms of SO-status, so that assets can be transferred to a new Service Operator without renegotiating each upload as a separate asset?

[Cerise Sorbet]

Yeah, the only practical use LL would have for the new setup is for leverage to sue a competing grid/service that tried to replicate SL regions wholesale, with multiple creators' stuff on it.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Cerise Sorbet wrote:

Yeah, the only practical use LL would have for the new setup is for leverage to sue a competing grid/service that tried to replicate SL regions wholesale, with multiple creators' stuff on it.

---

And how strong is that!  Very! 

They are actually 'protecting' the creators then.

 

 

[Dartagan Shepherd]

The newer mesh content is more a prize than the older content. However, as LL has also allowed themselves the right to derivative works, any content can be re-skinned to create new mesh including prim and sculptie builds, etc. And that process can be somewhat automated, depending on the content.

Desura may or may not be part of the plan, that's true. If you've been listening closely to the interviews and watching the hiring that LL is doing though, you'll see that they're building more games themselves, including some with Unity. So yes, I'd have to say that coupled with the CEO's comments about offering us "more ways to sell", that part of the plan is to use this content in other products and give creators less profit and take a bigger piece from the content in the future.

Letting us (or rather forcing us) to sell content beyond SL is our cookie for being good little content creators and signing away nearly all rights for the privilege.

A sale of SL is doubtful, but there's more to the plan here than LL protecting themselves. That we don't rate enough to be told the plan and have to guess beforehand what will be done with our content is further telling as to the motives.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

Heres a thought.. By stating they own everything in SL that gives them the legal ability to go after copybotters in RL.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Dartagan Shepherd wrote:

The newer mesh content is more a prize than the older content. However, as LL has also allowed themselves the right to derivative works, any content can be re-skinned to create new mesh including prim and sculptie builds, etc. And that process can be somewhat automated, depending on the content.

---

Not... really. LL aren't especially capable art-wise, but the content available in SL is so widely variable in terms of quality and efficiency that even with the raw data, they wouldn't be able to build any kind of congruent 'library' for use in other projects. Derivitive works could be scary if LL had infinite patience, skill and time, but they would save money by starting from scratch.

I highly doubt any one inside of LL would recommend this course of action. All the hassle of dealing with creating AND entering very shaky legal territory (as demonstrated in LL vs. Bragg, their ToS doesn't protect them from court action)? Makes no sense for a company that creates primarily 'cultivated' community products. Look at other examples of content-grabbing (Instagram, Pinterest, others in less recent memory), they immediately alienate their playerbase.

[Alicia Sautereau]

By stating they own everything, it`s their stolen content ^^

[Drake1 Nightfire]

if they own it all, then copybotters are stealing from LL.

[Alicia Sautereau]

and there is the loophole, original creator can sue LL directly instead of going the dmca way.
The tos works one way or the other, but not both

To be honest, I`m thinking to contact a few giant companies again that ignored my findings of infringement, maybe going after a tiny little fish wasn`t worth the effort, but now that the content is owned by a big company the game changes.

[Phoebe Avro]

So LL now own all the ripped Skyrim content on the MP ^^  i am sure Bethesda would be interested in that, now there is some one worth taking to court for compensation!

 

I hope LL have plenty of staff to start policing the content in SL and on the MP!

[RiftRaven]

---

Alicia Sautereau wrote:

and there is the loophole, original creator can sue LL directly instead of going the dmca way.

The tos works one way or the other, but not both

To be honest, I`m thinking to contact a few giant companies again that ignored my findings of infringement, maybe going after a tiny little fish wasn`t worth the effort, but now that the content is owned by a big company the game changes.

---

 

---

Phoebe Avro wrote:

So LL now own all the ripped Skyrim content on the MP ^^  i am sure Bethesda would be interested in that, now there is some one worth taking to court for compensation!

 

I hope LL have plenty of staff to start policing the content in SL and on the MP!

---

 Oh wow! I had not thought about this. I am LOOOVING! the double edged Sword you guys have just forged for Linden Lab. Well played!

[Phil Deakins]

---

Phoebe Avro wrote:

So LL now own all the ripped Skyrim content on the MP ^^  i am sure Bethesda would be interested in that, now there is some one worth taking to court for compensation!

---

No. They don't claim ownership of it all. They claim all the rights the owners have except actual ownership.

[Dartagan Shepherd]

The TOS also puts all the liability back on the user, for what rights they have to what they upload or contribute. This new agreement does however, increase LL's liability because they're more vested in the works. Especially if they expand their usage and handling of the product.

If they ever do use content in multiple products, they will increase their liability further.

[Alicia Sautereau]

If you have stolen content in your warehouse and claim in court you have the right to re/sell stolen content, do you think they`ll let you walk away when you have it written in word and in your possession? I`m pretty sure you will get a hefty fine or jail time.

Every one just looked at it from their own personal point and not the other way, I`m really curious what a lawyer would say of a third party with the new ToS.
LL knows about ALOT of violations from wich you can be damn sure the uploader has no rights of reselling.

[Phil Deakins]

I didn't say anything about stolen content. I merely stated that the ToS claims all the rights there are except actual ownership.

There was no need to change the ToS because of stolen content "in the warehouse". Changing the ToS makes no difference at all to that situation.

[Alicia Sautereau]

Alright, you`re right about that, but the blank claim on everything sure makes it stinks from all sides as they are knowingly keep stolen content inworld and on the marketplace.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Alicia Sautereau wrote:

Alright, you`re right about that, but the blank claim on everything sure makes it stinks from all sides as they are knowingly keep stolen content inworld and on the marketplace.

---

Define "KNOWINGLY."

[Dartagan Shepherd]

Knowingly:

Commerce team that reads the forum every day reading posts complaining about stolen goods.

Employees that remove some of the reported content, that understand the scope of the problem.

Anyone accepting DMCA's that understand it's a regular thing.

Employees that attempted better control over the situation with a now outdated commerce roadmap. Probably no longer found.

Legal team that needs to deal with the occassional issue.

Any employee that remembers Stroker's lawsuit about LL being negligent in this regard.

Anyone who takes the time to browse the marketplace looking for violations and IP abuse.

Any employee in the mesh beta, looking at plenty of examples of mesh that came from elsewhere.

Anyone at LL not living under a virtual rock.

 

[Toysoldier Thor]

We have to assume with the emonous and growing pressure from the SL Content Creators that shows no sign of dying, the spread of blogs and reviews of LL's TOS hi-jack, the content libraries that are banning SL..... and yet LL still is staying completely quite ..... THEY HAVE SOME BIG PLANS and their plans hinge on this TOS Change.

Its completely naive for anyone to believe LL's informal non-official posted excuse as THE REASON behind the TOS Change.  If this was the only reason, they would not be so stupid to let the SL brand continue to be destroyed in the industry and among creators and not correct the TOS or use their Formal SL Blogs to defend themselves.

To me.. as I said way back in the beginning of this thread... they have bigger plans and they need this full access to our cantent as part of their plan.

What is mind boggling to me... is if Captain Rodvik and his LL Content Hi-Jacking LL Management Pirates are building a new business model - like an indie game developer platform using our content - whereby a critical compoment of the model is to hi-jack our content based on a TOS that seems to have more legal weaknesses in it than swiss cheese...

What a DANGEROUS BUSINESS MODEL for any investor to be brave enough to invest in.

As soon as they attempt to hi-jack our content for this Desura platform or what ever it is... I would guess the class action suits will begin to fly as well as DCMAs and other crippling IP Protecting retaliation.

So does Captain Rodvik have that much nerve to build a new business model for LL based on a flawed TOS ??

Really?

[Phil Deakins]

---

Alicia Sautereau wrote:

Alright, you`re right about that, but

the blank claim on everything sure makes it stinks from all sides

as

they are knowingly keep stolen content inworld and on the marketplace.

---

I can't do anything but agree with that.

That's also true although I can't criticise them for now knowing exactly which items are stolen. The best that a company like LL can do is respond to reports of stolen items.

[Myrddin Janus]

it has been my experience that unlike the entertainment industry, Linden Labs  do care about the rights of content creators, so I very much doubt they are wording the TOS to enable themselves to lay claim to the creative license of it's residents - it goes against what they have so far shown themselves to stand for.  Possibly they are considering selling SL, and the current TOS is to facilitate transfer of content, or maybe they have done it so in cases of copyright infingement against residents, they can pursue litigation on our behalf.   Frankly, after six years in Second Life, I have learned to trust Linden Labs.  I might not agree with all their decisions, but i do trust them.

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Myrddin Janus wrote:

it has been my experience that unlike the entertainment industry,

Linden Labs

 do care about the rights of content creators, so I very much doubt they are wording the TOS to enable themselves to lay claim to the creative license of it's residents - it goes against what they have so far shown themselves to stand for.  Possibly they are considering selling SL, and the current TOS is to facilitate transfer of content, or maybe they have done it so in cases of copyright infingement against residents, they can pursue litigation on our behalf.   Frankly, after six years in Second Life, I have learned to trust

Linden Labs

.  I might not agree with all their decisions, but i do trust them.

---

(Bolding mine)

 

The name of the company is:

[nikita Jefferson]

Answer one question, why would LL FORCE everyone to agree to the TOS without question, why would they FORCE everyone to turn over ( content creators) all rights to their creations from Aug. to LL to do with as they please or never have access to your creations on SL ever again  unless you agree to the TOS.

If LL was so honest as you say then why, in your own words do you think they would go to all the trouble of their legal team painstakingly making up a bullet  ( they think ) proof TOS.

Just wondering

[Perrie Juran]

---

Dartagan Shepherd wrote:

Knowingly:

 

Commerce team that reads the forum every day reading posts complaining about stolen goods.

Employees that remove some of the reported content, that understand the scope of the problem.

Anyone accepting DMCA's that understand it's a regular thing.

Employees that attempted better control over the situation with a now outdated commerce roadmap. Probably no longer found.

Legal team that needs to deal with the occassional issue.

Any employee that remembers Stroker's lawsuit about LL being negligent in this regard.

Anyone who takes the time to browse the marketplace looking for violations and IP abuse.

Any employee in the mesh beta, looking at plenty of examples of mesh that came from elsewhere.

Anyone at LL not living under a virtual rock.

 

---

Yes, Linden Lab is AWARE that illegal content gets uploaded on their Service.

But the only way that they KNOW that any given item is illegal is if the rightful owner files a DCMA.  Otherwise any opinion they may have is an ASSUMPTION.

But here is a funny thing too.  Just because they receive a DCMA that does not prove ownership to Linden Lab.  A DCMA is a CLAIM by a person.  It is not PROOF of ownership.

By agreeing to the TOS, you warrant to Linden Lab that you have the necessary rights to upload that content.  LL can not play "policeman" in this.  It is the legally acceptable and really the only practical way the system can work.  Otherwise LL would need to require that you provide proof of ownership or sufficient rights for every single upload to Second Life.

It may be a weak point in the Law.  But LL has to accept on its face value as true, your implied statement that you have the right to upload that item, because you have already agreed in the TOS that those will be the only things you upload.