PeterGray @ LL Responds to UCCSL RE: LL TOS Concerns

[Dartagan Shepherd]

Well, to add to what others are calling a conspiracy theory, what it does appear to be on the surface is that they want to produce games themselves. Going by some of the clues dropped at interviews, the hiring of more game (and unity) developers at LL, etc.

This would be a new low for LL, to create their own standalone games with our content (rather than creator apps) and to attempt to give us pennies on the dollar for that content, but given that  the conspiracy theories have turned out to be wholly or partially correct so far, it does make sense to me.

To do that, they would need near complete rights and to act as our agent, as they would to sell our content to other game developers, without needing our express permission or our participation by willing uploads to game developers on Desura.

I think so far we've successfully shown that it isn't just protectionism. Which means that no matter how you slice it they're grabbing for our rights first without telling us what they're going to do with them.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

I am far from convinced there isn't something else going on here.  If they wanted to act as agent and facilitate the ability for user to user sales of SL content to Desura, they don't need unlimited rights to do so.  They don't need them for MP, why would any other type of transaction be different. I should be able to choose which items that I created are sold to other platforms, set the price, and what terms are acceptable to me. They should be a lot more transparent and allow discussion and input with the creators, who, after all have the most to lose in all this.

A legal agent is not given carte blanche and is not free to act as they choose.  They have a fiduciary duty to the principal, in this case creators, to act in their best interests.  So far I see no evidence of this.

 

---

I've been saying this all along, that they don't need this "right to sell" in order for them to do what they have been doing all along.  Reselling implies that they have purchased from you. It changes their relationship with both the creator and the buyer.

So either something else is going on OR they just saw this as an additional level of protection from claims and other possible future probabilities.  What they obviously did not foresee was even if it offered them greater legal protection from claims, it was not going to protect them from the Court of Public Opinion.

Failing to define either in the TOS or other "Linden Lab Official" documents the purpose and intent of this claim allows them a carte blanche to take and use and sell our content. 

They need to do as Peter Grey said, reword the TOS, so that it explains clearly what everyone can expect.

[Pamela Galli]

I assume that if they are going to sell our stuff on Desura, that would mean, full perm. I can't even imagine how that would work. What about scripts, textures, etc? 

 

If LL is going to steal stuff, why don't they go out and steal mesh from the places people in SL steal theirs?  Would that be too much trouble?

[Trinity Yazimoto]

---

Dartagan Shepherd wrote:

Well, to add to what others are calling a conspiracy theory, what it does appear to be on the surface is that they want to produce games themselves. Going by some of the clues dropped at interviews, the hiring of more game (and unity) developers at LL, etc.

This would be a new low for LL, to create their own standalone games with our content (rather than creator apps) and to attempt to give us pennies on the dollar for that content, but given that  the conspiracy theories have turned out to be wholly or partially correct so far, it does make sense to me.

To do that, they would need near complete rights and to act as our agent, as they would to sell our content to other game developers, without needing our express permission or our participation by willing uploads to game developers on Desura.

I think so far we've successfully shown that it isn't just protectionism. Which means that no matter how you slice it they're grabbing for our rights first without telling us what they're going to do with them.

---

This !

Id like to say also, that althought the answer from Peter Gray, isnt for me an answer, its at least an answer for 2 categories of ppl.

1/ to all those who have told us it was useless to stand up because LL wont see us, id say, LL saw us..They know about us and im likely to think they saw the necessity to send an email in hope to calm us down.

2/ to all those who havent stoped to say that our content is crap and that noone in Desura will want them, it show that LL has a different point of view. They think our contents are worthy to be exploited there. 

Now the bad news is that they want to do it in a way we dont like. 

We came to them requesting a meeting in total humility and opened to negociation. They refused our propositon.

They say they will fix by themselves the TOS but here im really sorry, i cant trust them even one second. I can believe they are working on a rewording of the TOS but i have zero confidence in them for believing they will do it in a way that will satisfy the content creators.

I read the mail like i hear the song from Kaa the snake in the Book of the Jungle "Trusssssst me"..... I m prone to trust a snake when he sing me such song. 

If they didnt had anything bad in mind, why they dont come officially to tell us their plans in detail ? 

[Dartagan Shepherd]

It would mean "full perm" for Desura users, sure. And not only full perm but also in a format that can be exported and downloaded to the game developers computer. This is because Desura games can use any game engine and tools and the developers would get raw models, textures, etc.

Scripts are less likely because Desura developers use their own development tools with their own programming or scripting languages.

There is one other element that they're allowing with Desura which is crowdfunding. If they're going to use our content with Desura in some way, not only would Desura developers have to get models and textures full perm off of LL's systems, they would also be able to accept money from others (possibly also in L$) to fund their game as an investment.

They won't have to beg, borrow or steal (or pay for) content when they have us ... just hold our world and rights hostage and boil any contractual agreements down to the click of a button even though this hasn't been tested in court. I tend to think of this as legalized piracy.

[Anaiya Ahren]

---

BarcodeBrian wrote:

Excerpt from letter:

---

[...] focus For me, one of the most incredible aspects of SL is that people with very little graphic design knowledge have the opportunity to express their creative vision. an approach to address the concerns [...] without reverting to the prior wording.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

And there is the problem.

---

100%

 

Because by "wording" I don't think they mean they "wording".  I think they mean meaning.

I don't care what words they use so they long as they return the limitation they took out. 

 

As to the wording of their letter: "on whether there may be".   No empty assurance that they are looking into solutions or looking for solutions; they won't even assert that there is a way to approach this.  There may be one, they''ll look into that, although they make no claim that they are interested in implementing that approach if it's found.

So they are not looking coming up with a solution, or even looking for one.  Their focus is on the possibility of the existence of an approach, although they make no claims they intend to take it if they find it.

 

Oh and they won't be putting back the words whose only purpose was to limit LL to only be allowed to do anything and everything they needed to do with my content.  If they just want to help me voluntarily exploit my content on Desura then they don't need a TOS that gives them the right to do it involuntarily.

It's astounding that they are claiming this is about standardizing the TOS agreement boilerplate across services but have not immediately backed down when the show stopper implications were pointed out to them.  They are going through with that to standarize some forms? 

 

And what a way to go about standardizing forms.  I have entered many contracts governed by a standardized contract and in every case they were constructed for specificity of the use case.  If I sign a standarized contract to have my lawns mowed, I don't agree to the provider being allowed to throw a **bleep**-tail party at my home, any time they like, inviting whoever they want and putting on whatever entertainment they think best without recourse on my part, because it just so happens that the same company also owns a a business that arranges "full package" party deals.

[Catherine Cotton]

Its not just the Desura connection that Peter Gray has pointed out now,  no need for further speculation;  he made that intent from LL clear..  It also bothers me that there is a direct connection to the HighFidelity.io platform that Philip Rosendale is now working on.  As well as the new handheld console LL is working on. 

Again,  if LL had approched this from the point of asking instead of telling I would of been much more comfortable.  I wouldn't of necessarily agreed (no one can forcast what those terms would of been).  More so this final letter from Peter Gray I found to be dismissive of the SL community of creators as a whole. It did notihng to calm the situation,  I find that also alarming. 

[Spica Inventor]

It's obvious to me the reason why it took LL so long to give an official/unofficial rebuttal is because they had to come up with some (phony) rhetorically based generalized reason why the TOS was changed in the way that is was. In order for this propaganda to be most easily believed, it required an analysis for a period of time on what you guyz where speculating about on this subject to more easily reinforce your views with a deceptive smoke and mirrors based 'informal' letter when 'the analysis' was completed, and that would most likely be believed by the general SL audience. Of course Cowboy was here to sockpuppet it, being his job to do so.

No doubt there are multiple real reasons why the TOS IP rights was changed, and they may have all been covered during previous posts by you people, but I am now convinced that none of the real reasons where to help creators and merchants in any way IMHO. Higher short term net profits and short term company value (meaning squeezing towels in the first and acquiring content rights for the second) has to be the real reason and which is typical stratagem for a company struggling with profitability due to too many bad decisions and a situation greatly aggravated by a lack of direct competition.

[Dartagan Shepherd]

Exactly. Trying to use one blanket ToS across multiple products has run other companies into investigation and dispute.

Even if they were trying to do this, there isn't a single product in their lineup that needs these kind of blanket rights to operate. Not SL, not Desura, Patterns, etc.

I don't think anyone is really falling for the "one ToS fits all" thing any longer after presenting some legal facts. That they refuse to revert the wording even at this stage is telling in itself.

If they're hoping for a longer term plan of chipping away at rights first and then implementing the plans later, I don't think that's going to help them much. The thing holding back a more serious level of protest and potential legal action at this point is that they haven't done anything "with" our content yet.

If they tried it would mean that we have even more grounds on which to act, which would actually be to our benefit if they go down that road.

But this little vague dance of theirs in the meantime... not working. And there's certainly nothing difficult about a ToS saying that the use of the content will not extend beyond the platform or application that it was uploaded to, other than to allow LL to advertise their products as a whole.

Treating customers like idiots is not a good idea. Neither is treating the business plans of a small company with a couple hundred employees as if they were national secrets. It makes "your world" look like a complete and utter lie, rather than a marketing slogan.

[nikita Jefferson]

As i am sure everyone noticed this Grey guy only said something because LL was contacted by registered mail by the UUCSL, if that hadn't happened they still would have said nothing.

All he did was say really nothing but just enough to appease and delay even more and leave everyone hanging .

So really we are no further ahead,

I wish more creators would put their products on more grids,i have spread out to other grids,i am absolutely disgusted with LL, i just hate to see them doing this to everyone.

[Medhue Simoni]

You know, the weird part is that their answers don't really make all that much sense. There's only 2 items that could port over to any game, and those are meshes and textures. Textures can be gotten by game developers just like people in SL get them. So, we are left with only meshes, which does not include rigged meshes. That's what all this is about, selling our object meshes? It's nonsensical. Maybe if people sold huge city building sets, or every tree in the world set, which some people do but not enough to supply every game dev's needs. Things for games really should be specially made and geared toward game devs. I'm sure many more SL creators would create for this other market, but that doesn't explain the TOS BS.

Even if LL made a Unity plugin that made all SL content work in Unity, SL creators would still have to create their products, or package them in a way that better caters to those game devs needs. If they are creating such a plugin for game engines, LL should have mentioned that a long time ago. This would be something to cheer, but I doubt that is what is happening. Basically, outside of creating some miracle Unity plugin, I don't understand at all how LL thinks SL assets can just port over into other games, outside of just object meshes.

Do they forget that we actually do make the stuff and understand how they work in game? For example, I know how to make a fully animated character for Unity. The fbx or dae files contain all the animations for that character. You can import an SL dae file into Unity, and get it to work, but it doesn't come with animations. Hmmm, I really should just release my Lycan Avatar for Unity devs. Sorry, sidetracked. My point is tho, that even if LL could sell our content, it would be much, much better for us to create the content specifically for those platforms, than just sell our SL assets as is.

Now, if LL wants to open another market that specifically sells to game devs, I'm all for it. That would be a great idea. Heck, all they gotta do is charge less than 50% commission, and they beat every1 else. But...... none of this compells me to be ok with giving LL unlimit rights over my creations. I don't need LL to sell my creations to game devs. I pay for services right now that are already do that quite successfully. I only need LL to focus on their core product. You know, the 1 that pays for salaries and that breakfast table.

[Rex Cronon]

I am sorry to say but the email from Mr. Peter seems to be insulting at the worst, and condescending at the best:(

He seems to think that we lack the necessary mental abilities to understand and/or to question the tos and the reasons behind its change.

It's curious how LL will know how we want the tos to be changed, if LL wants us to stop talking about it.  Does LL employ telepaths than can read our minds?

[Rex Cronon]

There seems to be quite a few people that think that lsl scripts are useless outside sl.

Lsl script are NOT useless outside sl.

It's relatively easy to create a program that can convert those lsl scripts to actual java, c# or even c++ code.

Even a lsl interpreter wouldn't be that hard to write.

[Drongle McMahon]

Furthermore, the mechanisms used in software, including those used for breedable pets etc., can be patented independently of the language used. Section 2.3 of the ToS talks about IP, not just copyright. As the lawyers pointed out the "sell and resell" in that section is meaningless for copyright, but is not meaningless for patents. Patents are IP. Scripts get uploaded from the editor in the viewer. Discuss...

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Dartagan Shepherd wrote:

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.

---

(bolding mine)

[Dartagan Shepherd]

---

Drongle McMahon wrote:

Furthermore, the mechanisms used in software, including those used for breedable pets etc., can be patented independently of the language used. Section 2.3 of the ToS talks about IP, not just copyright. As the lawyers pointed out the "sell and resell" in that section is meaningless for copyright, but is not meaningless for patents. Patents are IP. Scripts get uploaded from the editor in the viewer. Discuss...

---

Replying to this and some things Medhue and Rex said.

Not trying to belittle scripts and programming. Those are in fact the most exploitable of the bunch in a way. Scripts and the applications made with them can fall under either copyright, or patent or both. Software licenses are basically copyright, the unique solution or invention can be patented.

There are also writings in the form of storylines, poetry, music and audio clips that fall under IP that are important to their creators. The musical works in particular LL may get bitten by, because there's plenty of case history in that industry.

Breedables are already a can of breedable worms. There's Ozimals vs Amaretto and you have Phil Rosedale and some ex-Lindens invested in some breedables in SL. Combine some of this with the new ToS and you have a royal mess.

But right, there's much more to this, and scripts are still up for potential abuse by this ToS as well.

 

[Phoebe Avro]

I think all of this is just another haibrained idea by LL just like buying banner adds on the MP for loads of money, it will be just as big a failure

[Storm Clarence]

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

---

Dartagan Shepherd wrote:

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.

---

(bolding mine)

 

---

Why not?  Why would you not want LL to act as your agent especially when they are capable of commercially exploiting other markets within their domain that are NOT so readily available to the whole?  Isn't this a win for producers of goods and product as well as LL? 

If your product has any real value then that is the value you will realize (less the LL vigorish, of course.)  

I read some posters to this thread writing that 'other' grids, e.g., Inworldz is the answer to your IP problems.  Imo, LL is offering other channels of distribution for product that have 10-100x the exposure of Inworldz. 

LL did not take away any IP rights from creators and producers, they did not say you no longer 'own' what you created--they just assigned themselves the same rights.... use 'our' environment to create and deploy and we (LL) now have other channels for commercial exploitation of that product.  

All the other talk on why they did not tell us sooner, or we didn't ask you to help us, or fixing MP first just reads a little puerile, imo.  Give LL an opportunity to rework the ToS as was asked of them. 

Everything I read coming from LL is that they want to make more money - don't creators and producers of product for LL's platforms share this interest?   As Dartagan wrote: most would!  Why does LL need to incorporate that wording under a different ToS? 

PS  Any wording LL issues will not please everyone.  It never has, it never will.  To those people perhaps Inworldz is the right answer-- for today, anyway. 

In the meantime, watermark or sign your product e.g., a creators logo or SL logo on the back cuff of my new mesh pants ain't gonna hurt me.  LL does not have rights to remove logo or alter the product...

[Magnet Homewood]

"LL does not have rights to remove logo or alter the product"

Yes it does, if you do not understand this, then read the TOS again.

[Drongle McMahon]

"LL does not have rights to remove logo or alter the product"

Why not? Don't you have to waive moral rights (including attribution) and allow them full rights to derivative works? What is to stop them altering the product then?

[Storm Clarence]

---

Drongle McMahon wrote:

"LL does not have rights to remove logo or alter the product"

Why not? Don't you have to waive moral rights (including attribution) and allow them full rights to derivative works? What is to stop them altering the product then?

---

I don't think they do, but IANAL.  What will stop them from altering product: human resource! 

[Magnet Homewood]

This is perhaps what a lot of people don't seem to understand about this new TOS. It is not just about porting your prims and textures over, it is about being able to use your ideas and change them however they want too.

They can: "use, copy, record, distribute, reproduce, disclose, sell, re-sell, sublicense (through multiple levels), modify, display, publicly perform, transmit, publish, broadcast, translate, make derivative works of, and otherwise exploit in any manner whatsoever, all or any portion of your User Content (and derivative works thereof), for any purpose whatsoever in all formats, on or through any media, software, formula, or medium now known or hereafter developed, and with any technology or devices now known or hereafter developed". (From Section 2.3) Bolded to make sure some people see it lol

[Perrie Juran]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Drongle McMahon wrote:

"LL does not have rights to remove logo or alter the product"

Why not? Don't you have to waive moral rights (including attribution) and allow them full rights to derivative works? What is to stop them altering the product then?

---

I don't think they do, but IANAL.  What will stop them from altering product: human resource! 

---

If they are confident that it will make them money, they will devote the resources to it.

 

ETA, and this is just meant in general here, not as a specific response to you.  The SL economy may be an economy based on micro-transactions, but all those transactions add up to a lot of Real Money.  How many real dollars did Rodvik say traded hands in SL?  It sure was not peanuts.  So I am not so fast to discount the value of SL content.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Magnet Homewood wrote:

This is perhaps what a lot of people don't seem to understand about this new TOS. It is not just about porting your prims and textures over, it is about being able to use your ideas and change them however they want too.

They can: "

use, copy, record, distribute, reproduce, disclose, sell, re-sell, sublicense (through multiple levels),

modif

y, display, publicly perform, transmit, publish, broadcast, translate,

make derivative works of

, and otherwise exploit in any manner whatsoever, all or any portion of your User Content (and derivative works thereof), for any purpose whatsoever in all formats, on or through any media, software, formula, or medium now known or hereafter developed, and with any technology or devices now known or hereafter developed

". (From Section 2.3) Bolded to make sure some people see it lol

---

I'm not really sure where most of the wording above differs from prior releases of the ToS. 

This kinda reminds me a little of MSFT and IBM.  As long as the IP owner retains full right of ownership as MS did--and they purchased thier IP rights to DOS--both entities can win.  IBM thought it was all about the hardware, MS thought the software.  Both hated each other, but were so long in bed together.  They needed each other, and both got very fat in the process. 

If you don't watermark or sign your objects it makes it so much easier for real 'pirates' (not the imagined one) to steal IP. 

PS Most people don't understand the ToS, a lot more than just a lot!  I don't even think the lawyers understand what they cut and paste into a legal document and call their own!  See Thinkerers blog for some examples.  The LL legal team did exactly that. They will find some new wording, but be prepared to live together as partners in this adventure.  Or don't hit "I Agree".

 

 

[Storm Clarence]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Drongle McMahon wrote:

"LL does not have rights to remove logo or alter the product"

Why not? Don't you have to waive moral rights (including attribution) and allow them full rights to derivative works? What is to stop them altering the product then?

---

I don't think they do, but IANAL.  What will stop them from altering product: human resource! 

---

If they are confident that it will make them money, they will devote the resources to it.

 

 

---

There comes a point of diminishing return or zero-negative ROI.  It is better, wiser, and more lucrative to divide the returns equitably with the producers/originators/creators (whatever title you want identify with.)

I think LL's CPA's are a hell of a lot smarter than LL's legal team.  Just sayin'.