New ToS: theories can't be right

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

First, it is a benefit to all of us that LL's biggest concern be profit. [...]

---

This is where I will disagree with you Medhue. Were this a rational chain of events, a company that is focused on Profit would be a good thing indeed. But Linden Lab's actions are not rational nor are they promoting Profit.

---

Well, I can't really disagree with you there. In my view, corporations tend to lose track of who the most important actor is in the equation.

[Flea Yatsenko]

Firstoff, this is a great thread. I think I was one of the original people who came up with the idea that LL is making trouble for itself by claiming to own the stolen content from games that gets uploaded. 

Right now, if LL wants to remove stolen content from the grid, they have to wait for a DCMA from the owner of the IP. I've done this personally and I know friends who have done it, most of the time, companies DON'T care that people are stealing content in SL and they can't be bothered to write a DCMA.

However, the people who get hurt the most from this are actually the content creators and LL itself. As a content creator, I must now compete in situations where it can take me 40+ hours to finish something, which I would normally sell for a few thousand L$, with someone who is just stealing similar content and selling it for L$5.

So obviously, that does hurt content creators. But how does it hurt LL? LL takes a cut off of every sale. They want the more expensive, high quality stuff to sell. Stolen content has created a race to the bottom of prices. It hurts content creators and it hurts LL's profits off of marketplace as well.

In regards to removing stolen content, however. Before, LL would have to wait until the IP owner showed up and contacted them and filed a DCMA. LL can now go, "hey, we know where you got that from and you don't have the rights to upload this and resell it, we're removing it."

As for LL being silent on the issue and implying that LL is doing something big like selling.

LL never talks to us. This is nothing out of the ordinary.

With the old TOS, LL was completely handcuffed when it came to people reporting content. If they removed it without getting a DCMA, IIRC people were saying LL would actually get in trouble for it. That problem is now gone. LL owns it now and if they think it's stolen (or they want it gone for whatever reason), they can actually remove it because it's theirs and they're free to use their property how they want to.

It's a lot of power given to LL and I don't think I've seen this point made. It's up to LL to use this for good and not evil, but considering LL runs off of user generated content, I don't see them intentionally using this for evil.

 

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Flea Yatsenko wrote:

...

With the old TOS, LL was completely handcuffed when it came to people reporting content. If they removed it without getting a DCMA, IIRC people were saying LL would actually get in trouble for it.

That problem is now gone. LL owns it now and if they think it's stolen (or they want it gone for whatever reason), they can actually remove it because it's theirs and they're free to use their property how they want to.

It's a lot of power given to LL and I don't think I've seen this point made. It's up to LL to use this for good and not evil, but considering LL runs off of user generated content, I don't see them

intentionally

using this for evil. 

---

Just to clarify the wording... although I believe I know what you are saying....

LL does not technically "OWN" the content but they have 100% full rights to do with the content what ever they wish to do with the content - including their rights to delete any instances of the content on their servers at their discretion.

But I am not 100% convinced that this new power will in ANY WAY change or improve LL's motivation to clean up illegal uploaded content.  They are NOT the IP Owners of the content nor does their position change as to the enforcement of content ownership dispute and remove as requested by the owners of the IP. 

Since they do not own any of the content - just have full rights to it, if a dispute were to arise from the SL community that 10 or 20 residents say.... "LL... this content on MP is stolen content because I know the real owner - remove it", LL still is not in a position to legally arbitrate who actually owns the content.  This is still up to the IP owner to come forward formally and tell LL "I am the true owner and here is my DCMA instruction telling you to take actions on the SL grid on my behalf".

IF LL were to change their role, they in effect become the Virtual World DCMA.  I don't think LL wants this role.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Dartagan Shepherd]

Also, they didn't need to assume that they could act as our attorney.

All we've ever asked them for is to be swift and to remove content better. A simpler TOS stating that they can deactivate content pending investigation and that content is approved at their discretion would have done the trick. And then get back to removing what needs to be removed.

No one gets to play attorney for me without express approval by myself or my own attorney. That doesn't happen with the click of a button, ever.

[Rya Nitely]

---

Flea Yatsenko wrote:

 

With the old TOS, LL was completely handcuffed when it came to people reporting content. If they removed it without getting a DCMA, IIRC people were saying LL would actually get in trouble for it. That problem is now gone. LL owns it now and if they think it's stolen (or they want it gone for whatever reason), they can actually remove it because it's theirs and they're free to use their property how they want to.

 

 

---

It's a good theory, and worthy of consideration. But if so, they've done nothing to exercise this new power and it's been almost 2 months.

But this new ToS certainly does give them more power, otherwise why are we all so up in arms about it? I know they need a DMCA because I’ve heard it so often, but if the whole infrastructure belongs to them then surely they have some control over it. I just don't think they want to be bothered, or something would have been done about stolen content by now. If LL removed a sword that looks very much like a Skyrim sword, and the merchant complained then all LL would need say is show us the proof and we'll put it back.

They remove our stuff for using a word that makes them giggle, so I don’t get it.

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Flea Yatsenko wrote:

[...] 

they have to wait for a DCMA from the owner [...] write a DCMA. [...]

 

---

Just a small nit I need to pick at. The actual abbreviation is DMCA not DCMA. It stands for

• Digital
• Milennium
• Copyright
• Act

I know it doesn't seem like a big difference, but when searching for references to DMCA, those places where it is written as DCMA won't show up .. and that may cause something very vital to be missed. So please, everyone .. get the abbreviation right.

(quietly closes his nit picking toolset and returns to his seat ...)

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

---

Flea Yatsenko wrote:

[...] 

they have to wait for a DCMA from the owner [...] write a DCMA. [...]

 

---

Just a small nit I need to pick at. The actual abbreviation is DMCA not DCMA. It stands for

• D
  igital
• M
  ilennium
• C
  opyright
• A
  ct

I know it doesn't seem like a big difference, but when searching for references to DMCA, those places where it is written as DCMA won't show up .. and that may cause something very vital to be missed. So please, everyone .. get the abbreviation right.

(quietly closes his nit picking toolset and returns to his seat ...)

---

I understand picking nits - like my annoyance when I see someone pluralizing the name of the company that owns SL and then....

Redheads are generally not "quiet" about discontent. 

*Grins and waves to Darrius*

Edit: Picked a nit in my post

[Scooter Hollow]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

---

Flea Yatsenko wrote:

...

With the old TOS, LL was completely handcuffed when it came to people reporting content. If they removed it without getting a DCMA, IIRC people were saying LL would actually get in trouble for it.

That problem is now gone. LL owns it now and if they think it's stolen (or they want it gone for whatever reason), they can actually remove it because it's theirs and they're free to use their property how they want to.

It's a lot of power given to LL and I don't think I've seen this point made. It's up to LL to use this for good and not evil, but considering LL runs off of user generated content, I don't see them

intentionally

using this for evil. 

---

Just to clarify the wording... although I believe I know what you are saying....

LL does not technically "OWN" the content but they have 100% full rights to do with the content what ever they wish to do with the content - including their rights to delete any instances of the content on their servers at their discretion.

But I am not 100% convinced that this new power will in ANY WAY change or improve LL's motivation to clean up illegal uploaded content.  They are NOT the IP Owners of the content nor does their position change as to the enforcement of content ownership dispute and remove as requested by the owners of the IP. 

Since they do not own any of the content - just have full rights to it, if a dispute were to arise from the SL community that 10 or 20 residents say.... "LL... this content on MP is stolen content because I know the real owner - remove it", LL still is not in a position to legally arbitrate who actually owns the content.  This is still up to the IP owner to come forward formally and tell LL "I am the true owner and here is my DCMA instruction telling you to take actions on the SL grid on my behalf".

IF LL were to change their role, they in effect become the Virtual World DCMA.  I don't think LL wants this role.

Just my thoughts.

 

---

Correct, these changes don't affect their ability or willingness to enforce copyright laws in any way. They don't own anything, and the rights are non-exclusive (LL can do whatever they want with the content, but so can anyone else who's been given rights to the content).

 

I also strongly suspect LL can delete content at will whether someone asks them to or not, and always could. There's no guarantee that uploading something means you can access it forever.

 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

---

Flea Yatsenko wrote:

[...] 

they have to wait for a DCMA from the owner [...] write a DCMA. [...]

 

---

Just a small nit I need to pick at. The actual abbreviation is DMCA not DCMA. It stands for

• D
  igital
• M
  ilennium
• C
  opyright
• A
  ct

I know it doesn't seem like a big difference, but when searching for references to DMCA, those places where it is written as DCMA won't show up .. and that may cause something very vital to be missed. So please, everyone .. get the abbreviation right.

(quietly closes his nit picking toolset and returns to his seat ...)

---

I understand picking nits - like my annoyance when I see someone pluralizing the name of the company that owns SL and then....

Redheads are generally not "quiet" about discontent. 

*Grins and waves to Darrius*

Edit: Picked a nit in my post

---

Linden

Labs

[Arcy Halfpint]

U are wrong my friend, friend of mine got an email  from ferrari, because she named her coch like this '' something cound - version ferrari red''

 

another friend of  mine had to change tart clothing  to another name cuz apparetly a brand openned a  store in rl called TART a few  years after she started hers in sl inst that weird

 

anyway with all this if LL was acess to my work to distribute it, im not really into  TOS stuff, but ill just go to unity & eclipse and develop android games, less headaches then second life believe me

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

---

Flea Yatsenko wrote:

[...] 

they have to wait for a DCMA from the owner [...] write a DCMA. [...]

 

---

Just a small nit I need to pick at. The actual abbreviation is DMCA not DCMA. It stands for

• D
  igital
• M
  ilennium
• C
  opyright
• A
  ct

I know it doesn't seem like a big difference, but when searching for references to DMCA, those places where it is written as DCMA won't show up .. and that may cause something very vital to be missed. So please, everyone .. get the abbreviation right.

(quietly closes his nit picking toolset and returns to his seat ...)

---

I understand picking nits - like my annoyance when I see someone pluralizing the name of the company that owns SL and then....

Redheads are generally not "quiet" about discontent. 

*Grins and waves to Darrius*

Edit: Picked a nit in my post

---

Linden

Labs

---

I see what you did *Grins*

[Toysoldier Thor]

OK i will admit that I often refer to it as the DCMA as well....    me bad!

[Rya Nitely]

I don't get it since DMCA just rolls off the tongue easier. Weren't you people ever into the Village People?

'It's fun to stay at the DMCA

It's fun to stay at the DMCA

Doung Man there's no need to feel down....

 

OK time for my tablets 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Arcy Halfpint wrote:

U are wrong my friend, friend of mine got an email  from ferrari, because she named her coch like this '' something cound - version ferrari red'' 

another friend of  mine had to change tart clothing  to another name cuz apparetly a brand openned a  store in rl called TART a few  years after she started hers in sl

inst that weird

---

I'm wrong about what?

Both of the examples you stated are normal. TART no doubt has a trademark on the name and your friend mustn't use it, regardless of who was using it first. Ferrari is also a trade name and can't be used with their permission.

I was trading in SL as Prim Savers for years. Then someone else started up in the same field and using the same name. He applied for a trademark and I could have prevented him getting it, but I chose not to because I was already letting the business run down before he even started, and it would have cost me US$300. I eventually had to change my SL trading name when the mark was granted. Trademarks can't be used without the permission of the trademark owner, and who was using it first is irrelevant after the mark has been granted.

[Drongle McMahon]

So, has "LISavers" gone? Or maybe "LILO" ... oh no, that went long ago! "LOLI"?

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

OK i will admit that I often refer to it as the DCMA as well.... 

  me bad!

---

That's Darrius' gig - mine is Linden Lab/s! *Grins*

[Phil Deakins]

---

Drongle McMahon wrote:

So, has "LISavers" gone? Or maybe "LILO" ... oh no, that went long ago! "LOLI"?

---

hehe - neat thinking, Drongle

An interesting thing about the guy (legally) stealing my SL business name is that, as soon as he applied for the trademark, he asked LL to stop me using the name. He actually thought that an application carries weight in that respect. It doesn't, of course. As soon as he asked that of LL, LL informed me what he was doing, so I had the opportunity to prevent him getting the mark due to my long-time prior use. If he hadn't tried to jump the gun, I wouldn't have known. If I had chosen to prevent him getting the trademark, he wouldn't have got it, he would have had to change his SL business name when I got it instead, and he would also have been $300 out of pocket. And all because he tried to jump the gun. He was fortunate that I was already letting the business fade away.

As it turned out, his inworld store didn't last long. It disappeared years ago, whereas mine is still fading away and, when it no longer earns enough RL money to be worthwhile, it'll close. I don't think that's far away now.