Jump to content

PeterGray @ LL Responds to UCCSL RE: LL TOS Concerns


Toysoldier Thor
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2534 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Today. Kylie from the UCCSL has received an emailed response from Peter Gray of LL regarding the concerns that the UCCSL as well as several other sources of similar concern have been brought up to him and LL.

Here is his email response to Kylie of the UCCSL as was communicated to the UCCSL group recently:

Link to Peter Gray's Email Response in UCCSL Library

 

PeterGray to UCCSL.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The sentence in that response that both concerns me and somewhat confirms some speculation that content may be used for LL's other products is:

Accordingly, the revision to our Terms of Service was made in order to further extend the ability for content creators to commercially exploit their intellectual property through user-to-user transactions across Linden Lab's other products and services (including our distribution platform, Desura), not just within Second Life.

(Bolding mine)

I find "commercially exploit" a very curious phrase.  To me, "exploit" has a negative connotation.

Thank you for posting this, Toy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So my very first question is a simple one..

Why did LL have to waited 2 months in silence as a hell storm of anger was burning all around them from the creator community, causing such disruption, a lot of likely irreversable damages and loss to their reputation?

Why could they not have said this exact thing in early September - On their own LL / SL communty forums as a Formal Blog?  Was this that hard for them?

Now we know it was so they could commercialize the vast amuont of content into Desura.  But why they would not take a collaborative "Lets work as partners with the amazing content creators of SL to grow together" approach instead of this trust damaging sneak it in through the back door method.

Now that we know what their intent is.... I cant see why LL cannot add to the TOS ... an expanded LIMITED INTENT clause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no problem... the Merchant forum and threads have been the most active on the topic across the entire community... so it made sense to post it here for us to all digest and figure out what this means.

I am also a bit concerned what they mean but commercially exploit.  If they do this transparently AND with the exploitation being that of the CREATORS not LL... then I see this as a positive.  But, with LL Legal at the helm... I am concerned until I now see the next TOS.

BUT... I hope now that LL has explained the true reason for their TOS wording... that they see that they could easily re-insert an expanded LIMITATIONS OF INTENT so that it removes "we can do what ever we want with your content for what ever reason" spirit that the TOS has now.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Czari Zenovka wrote:

The sentence in that response that both concerns me and somewhat confirms some speculation that content may be used for LL's other products is:

Accordingly, the revision to our Terms of Service was made in order to further extend the ability for content creators to
commercially exploit
their intellectual property through user-to-user transactions across Linden Lab's other products and services (including our distribution platform, Desura), not just within Second Life.

(Bolding mine)

I find "commercially exploit" a very curious phrase.  To me, "exploit" has a negative connotation.

Thank you for posting this, Toy.

The way *I* read it, Miss Czari, is that this is so:  "<snip> CONTENT CREATORS to commercially exploit their intellectual property through user-to-user transactions across Linden Lab's other products and services <snip>"  Meaning that they are working on the ability for we merchants/content creators to sell in Desura (if we wish).  Which I find a good thing.  

The part that bothers ME is this: 

"...<snip> the concerns of Second Life content creators, specifically protecting content creators’

intellectual property ownership while permitting Linden Lab to, among other things, act

as an agent of content creators (such as yourselves), licensed to sell and re-sell such content."

So here we go with this sell, re-sell thing again.  I blink at this even though the lawyers in the UCCSL meeting stated that this is not something to worry about.  

 

On edit:  Unless this means that they have to have the rights to sell and re-sell to even be able to list our products on the Marketplace now. *shrugs* I'm all adrift over here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK maybe i should have only created this new thread and not posted a comment on the HUGE thread.

It would be more usefull if we all provide our comments on the letter HERE on this new thread as it directly relates to the Peter Gray response.  That way if LL is actually reading our imputs quietly - which they are good at doing - they can follow it more easily here....

Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my eyes, the main concern is that LL is making almost full rights claims to our content. Now, sure LL is a business and there is a certain amount of trust we need to give them. That said, LL is just a corporation, which are bought and sold, and can live forever. By claiming almost full rights to our work, LL is jeopardizing all of our futures. They may not choose to screw us, but if they sold the corporation and all it's assets, or they went bankrupt, our content would end up being in the hands of some1 else, who might not care. For this reason, I feel that SL's current TOS language is extremely dangerous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Medhue....

 

As I have mentioned a couple times in this thread already, I cannot see what LL Legal cannot re-insert a LIMITED INTENT clause back into the TOS.... even if it now extends to the operation and promotion of ALL LL products and services but for no other intent outside these as stated.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Marcus Hancroft wrote:

Yeah,  Toy Dude, I agree.  What's YOUR feelings on the sell, re-sell clause? 

Maybe I am naive but that does not concern me as much as the lack of LIMITED INTENT.  They might want to remove that clause as it was mentioned by the legal panel that the sell re-sell does not even make any sense.  Those statements are intended for patents... and TWO they arlready said earlier FOR WHAT EVER PURPOSES - this would naturally mean to include sell re-sell.  

I just want LL to strictly limit intent of all their rights they granted of our IP down to WHAT THEY NEED to operate and run their products and services.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Medhue Simoni wrote:

In my eyes, the main concern is that LL is making almost full rights claims to our content. Now, sure LL is a business and there is a certain amount of trust we need to give them. That said, LL is just a corporation, which are bought and sold, and can live forever. By claiming almost full rights to our work, LL is jeopardizing all of our futures. They may not choose to screw us, but if they sold the corporation and all it's assets, or they went bankrupt, our content would end up being in the hands of some1 else, who might not care. For this reason, I feel that SL's current TOS language is extremely dangerous.

Well then the only course of action that *I* can see because of this, Medhue, is to completely cease and desist all content creation in Second Life.  Right now, I'm not willing to stop, delete all my inventory, close my account, and send a DMCA takedown notice for all my previously sold content.  Is that the course of action you are advocating?

Link to post
Share on other sites


Czari Zenovka wrote:

The sentence in that response that both concerns me and somewhat confirms some speculation that content may be used for LL's other products is:

Accordingly, the revision to our Terms of Service was made in order to further extend the ability for content creators to
commercially exploit
their intellectual property through user-to-user transactions across Linden Lab's other products and services (including our distribution platform, Desura), not just within Second Life.

(Bolding mine)

I find "commercially exploit" a very curious phrase.  To me, "exploit" has a negative connotation.

Thank you for posting this, Toy.

Exploit here would be used as a legal term.  It can have both a positive and a negative connotation determined by context.  I do think in this context the positive connotation is meant and that really it is a good word in this case.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/exploit

Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Czari Zenovka wrote:

The sentence in that response that both concerns me and somewhat confirms some speculation that content may be used for LL's other products is:

Accordingly, the revision to our Terms of Service was made in order to further extend the ability for content creators to
commercially exploit
their intellectual property through user-to-user transactions across Linden Lab's other products and services (including our distribution platform, Desura), not just within Second Life.

(Bolding mine)

I find "commercially exploit" a very curious phrase.  To me, "exploit" has a negative connotation.

Thank you for posting this, Toy.

Exploit here would be used as a legal term.  It can have both a positive and a negative connotation determined by context. 
I do think in this context the positive connotation is meant and that really it is a good word in this case.


I agree, Perrie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reposting here what I wrote in replies in the "huge thread."

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

I don't understand your concern here.  Is it that LL now has it's fingers in more than one pie?

What is or would be wrong with them acting as an "Agent" as long as the content providers are remunerated? 

I myself am encouraged by this. 

"To that end, we are currently reviewing what changes could be made that would resolve  the concerns of Second Life content creators,"

I have myself maintained that since this happened that because SL is so unique that the TOS for it needs to be separate from the other properties.  This is one of the issues that comes up in the Legal Panel Discussion.  It's uniqueness sometimes can make it difficult to apply case law, that a Court's decision is needed to know how the laws should or do apply.

And while he has ruled out 'dialogue,' that should not stop us from providing input.

For instance, in the reworking of the Terms, a content creator should have the right to decide and mark their content whether it is only for use in SL or if it could be used in another of LL's property.  Similar to how Kitely handles their licensing.

Of course the letter could be nothing more than a lot of PR blow, but at least it isn't full of half truths or misstatements like the letter sent to certain Bloggers.

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

Oh, I full well know that the proof will be in the pudding.

Personally I'd rather be positive and vigilant than give a knee jerk (and I'm not accusing any one of this), "Oh more B.S. from LL." 

I'd be asking Peter Grey what kind of time frame they are looking at?  It will take some work for them to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Marcus! :)

I'm with you on being adrift...I'm just following developments, reading, and trying to organize the info into some sort of order/sense.  I honestly don't like the entire letter and agree with Medhue's comments.

The "exploit" just keeps ringing in my ears; ie. a computer "hack" is often referred to as an exploit, to "exploit" something or someone is akin to "ripping them off," etc.

I just looked up the definition of "exploit" on Merriam-Webster and even the definition is confusing and could go either way:

2ex·ploit

transitive verb \ik-ˈsplit, ˈek-ˌ\

: to get value or use from (something)

: to use (someone or something) in a way that helps you unfairly

1
:  to make productive use of :  utilize <exploiting your talents> <exploit your opponent's weakness>
2
:  to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>
Link to post
Share on other sites


Czari Zenovka wrote:

The sentence in that response that both concerns me and somewhat confirms some speculation that content may be used for LL's other products is:

Accordingly, the revision to our Terms of Service was made in order to further extend the ability for content creators to
commercially exploit
their intellectual property through user-to-user transactions across Linden Lab's other products and services (including our distribution platform, Desura), not just within Second Life.


It concerns me too. It's a really nasty and unnecessary split infinitive.

© The Judge

Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Czari Zenovka wrote:

The sentence in that response that both concerns me and somewhat confirms some speculation that content may be used for LL's other products is:

Accordingly, the revision to our Terms of Service was made in order to further extend the ability for content creators to
commercially exploit
their intellectual property through user-to-user transactions across Linden Lab's other products and services (including our distribution platform, Desura), not just within Second Life.

(Bolding mine)

I find "commercially exploit" a very curious phrase.  To me, "exploit" has a negative connotation.

Thank you for posting this, Toy.

Exploit here would be used as a legal term.  It can have both a positive and a negative connotation determined by context.  I do think in this context the positive connotation is meant and that really it is a good word in this case.


*Makes note to read all comments prior to posting* 

You were ahead of me, Perrie. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites


Marcus Hancroft wrote:


Medhue Simoni wrote:

In my eyes, the main concern is that LL is making almost full rights claims to our content. Now, sure LL is a business and there is a certain amount of trust we need to give them. That said, LL is just a corporation, which are bought and sold, and can live forever. By claiming almost full rights to our work, LL is jeopardizing all of our futures. They may not choose to screw us, but if they sold the corporation and all it's assets, or they went bankrupt, our content would end up being in the hands of some1 else, who might not care. For this reason, I feel that SL's current TOS language is extremely dangerous.

Well then the only course of action that *I* can see because of this, Medhue, is to completely cease and desist all content creation in Second Life.  Right now, I'm not willing to stop, delete all my inventory, close my account, and send a DMCA takedown notice for all my previously sold content.  Is that the course of action you are advocating?

I'm advocating for LL to change the TOS to actually protect us from any of the future boneheaded LL decisions they may make. If they choose to stay the course and not change the TOS, I would not advise people, that make a living creating 3d stuff, to continue to upload content into SL. LL is putting our future at risk. You can argue that the risk is small, but you can't argue that the risk is not greater than it was.

I'm not sure if all our past uploads can be deleted from the grid, so it makes no sense, at this point, to remove everything and leave. I would never advise people to do that. As an artist in today's world, I have many options to spend my time creating for, and I'm going to create for the platforms that allow me to make the most, over time, on what I choose to create. I will not be creating for platforms that put at risk my future earnings on products that I create. There is a whole real world out there that SL and LL have nothing at all to do with, and I personally won't let SL, or LL interfere with my prospects outside of their network.

Link to post
Share on other sites


jujmental wrote:


Czari Zenovka wrote:

The sentence in that response that both concerns me and somewhat confirms some speculation that content may be used for LL's other products is:

Accordingly, the revision to our Terms of Service was made in order to further extend the ability for content creators to
commercially exploit
their intellectual property through user-to-user transactions across Linden Lab's other products and services (including our distribution platform, Desura), not just within Second Life.


It concerns me too. It's a really nasty and unnecessary split infinitive.

© The Judge

Does it sadden Hizzoner that the Oxford Dictionary no longer strictly treats split infinitives as a solecism, that they even go as far as encouraging their use?

 

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/split-infinitives

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This from Kylie Sabra (just posted on Google Docs) HERE makes a LOT of sense.  

"<snip> Bear in mind, this is a business, and they have no obligation to disclose their business plans. Therefore,

speculation about the whys and wherefores is not productive. The UCCSL will continue to assert

pressure on Linden Lab until we reach resolution."

 

All the "what does this mean? what are they doing with that?" conversation isn't getting us anywhere.  To my fellow merchants/creators...if you haven't joined the UCCSL group, please do so at once!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading exploit as "sell". Which is fine, that LL wants to give us ways to sell to game developers. At least they did make their intent known in a roundabout way.

Note to LL: This never had to be a secret and in fact batting around the possible plans would have been received positively. You think too much of yourselves and too little of us with the hush-hush act and that shows.

No conspiracy theory after all.

As far as acting as our agent, that's precisely what we don't want you to do.

If you want (you as well as us) to profit from joint content, then just give us options to upload to Desura. Many of us would. Put that under a separate TOS that we're sure limits game developers from exploiting our content beyond their games.

Don't merge the marketplace or in-world content in one mixed bag. First, the marketplace is still too buggy for your reputation and us to rely on for a mega market.

Secondly unless you're willing to change land impact in SL, it's not "very" compatible with game modeling where simpler rules apply ... low poly with good UV's is well, low poly with good UV's. Land impact requires more mesh hoops and unknown calculations than standard low poly game modelling.

Keep them separate and under our upload control, so that we choose to which LL product we participate in and upload to. I think we're willing to support you in this, but not the path you're trying to choose for us. You do not need blanket rights or to act as our agent and you know this.

Keeping us out of this loop is what lost you some customers in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldnt agree more Dart!

These business plans seem to be far from a secret based on LL's moves around Desura and communications out from it to the indie developer community and then this TOS that changed 90 degrees in line with a move to see SL content on Desura.  Does LL think we are all a bunch of idiots or that we won't think about how LL's actions might impact us as users / content creators?

I hate to break the bad new to you LL, but all business with visibility of interest to the market will be analyzed to death by industry experts and others in the related industry with a vest stakeholder position.  LL surely has the right to develop business plans in secret... but they should not be so naive to think that until they publically release their secret plans that everyone with any vested interests in their future actions are going to sit with their thumbs up their butt and patiently wait for them to tell all.  This is bad business practice on our part if we are not making our own plans in prep for a bad move on a business partner's part.

The big players like Apple, Google, Facebook, and infinately more have their future actions speculated ALL THE TIME. So, LL get over it... Maybe consider it a compliment that you are big enough that the industry even cares what  you might be doing next.

So Rodvik & Peter... any future plans LL is making will be of great interest to the huge community of SL content creators that make RL $ from your services... and can just as easy are at risk from your plans.  In fact, when your secret plans include an arbitrary decision that involves OUR CONTENT WE CREATED without informing us... then you would be quite naive to think or expect that we will NOT try to figure out what you are up.

Therefore you can deal with us critical content creators that now seems more aparent are part of your expansion plans, in two ways.  

You can work transparently and collapboratively with US KEY PARTNERS in your plans where we would likely become your largest partnering allie and have proven countless times in the past we would be your most loyal promoters of your plans - if you develop an open and fair agreement with us...

OR...

You can do has you have been doing now and try your hardest to keep the obvious a secret and stay utterly silent for months on end as you let the anger and rumours and frustration build within and out past your critical content creating partners.  This will potentially poison any plans you were making since you proved that it was more important to stay quiet while damage was being done to your creator base and LL's reputation and even its potential new business plans at Desura.

From your letter is seems that you were finally forced to come out of your hole to address the angered mob that clearly was not calming down.  When you suggest that you dont wish to come to the table and openly solicit feedback from us but would once again go into hiding until you THINK you have a solution we might like, it sadly shows you dont wish to have an open healthy partnership with a critical user base you need.

I personally think your strategy and handling on this whole TOS issue was very poorly handled and I also believe that taking the secret "hand your law down to your partners from the mountain" approach is a bad strategy when you are making business plans that clearly involves healthy active participation from us.

Let just hope your smarter and your plan works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excerpt from letter:


[...] focus on whether there may be an approach to address the concerns [...] without reverting to the prior wording.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

And there is the problem. I am pretty sure the majority of complaints specifically insist on reverting the wording to what it was.

This looks like a belligerent refusal in guise of a compromise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All they need to do with the ToS is to change it back to limited use but add a clause of some sort that all content can be sold through desura with permissions/restrictions set (for example, the perms used when uploading to the marketplace)

Think something like this would fix it all along with an option some where to restrict sales to SL or desura.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...