Do people really care?

[Alicia Sautereau]

Most of the companies don`t care some idiot ripped it for secondlife, I stopped caring, let it all burn...

[Drake1 Nightfire]

I dont see why LL doesnt have something search the keywords for brand names..and flag those items. at the least it would be keyword spam. at the worst it would be copyright infringement.

[Ela Talaj]

Don't erect a strawman (even though it is Halloween ). The Forums are for everyone, "screamers" as well as doers. Poster Cincia Singh summarized it much better than I can in the aforementioned thread PeterGray @ LL Responds to UCCSL RE: LL TOS Concerns:

"It seems the most profitable concession would be selling tinfoil hats to SL creators/merchants who spend way more time anguishing about their intellectual property rights than producing intellectual property."

As for RL, to see what I meant go and buy an issue of the Washington Post.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

They've always been able to remove anything they want so that hasn't changed but they have no resource, nor inclination send staff on an investigation to hunt down a mesh object that just might exist somewhere else.

Example, say I were to import the coffee table from World of Tanks, you can't really expect LL to go off installing that game to learn how to play it just on the off chance that they'll encounter that coffee table.  This is just one example, merely claiming that the object IS the item it is described as is a world apart from proving the case and without that proof or original claim, it wouldn't be reasonable for LL to start taking things down on a belief that it might be.

The burden this would put on LL is too great.

---

They dont have to do that, just send a screen shot to the creators of the game and ask if they wish to file a DMCA. simple.

 

---

At the time the DMCA went into effect on eof the questions some Service Providers asked was whether they should be proactive and play policeman about content.

The general legal advise I was reading at that time was that no, they should not.

Because the DMCA was giving them "Safe Harbor," they were being treated as a neutral party.  Some legal experts felt that they potentially could put their Safe Harbor at risk if they played policeman.

Of course until it played out in a Court of Law we don't really know if this is true.  But what Service Provider would want to take that risk?

LL has warned against uploading illegal content.  They could go another step and do like You Tube does.  If you Upload something with a title similar to a protected song or movie, you get a warning that your content is at risk.  They however to the best of my knowledge do not remove content until they recieve a DMCA claim. 

 

But really, anything outside of word filters may not be practical.

Is it unlawful for me to say, "Inspired by Disney?"  Does that infringe trademark?  What about parody?

 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

They've always been able to remove anything they want so that hasn't changed but they have no resource, nor inclination send staff on an investigation to hunt down a mesh object that just might exist somewhere else.

Example, say I were to import the coffee table from World of Tanks, you can't really expect LL to go off installing that game to learn how to play it just on the off chance that they'll encounter that coffee table.  This is just one example, merely claiming that the object IS the item it is described as is a world apart from proving the case and without that proof or original claim, it wouldn't be reasonable for LL to start taking things down on a belief that it might be.

The burden this would put on LL is too great.

---

They dont have to do that, just send a screen shot to the creators of the game and ask if they wish to file a DMCA. simple.

 

---

At the time the DMCA went into effect on eof the questions some Service Providers asked was whether they should be proactive and play policeman about content.

The general legal advise I was reading at that time was that no, they should not.

Because the DMCA was giving them "Safe Harbor," they were being treated as a neutral party.  Some legal experts felt that they potentially could put their Safe Harbor at risk if they played policeman.

Of course until it played out in a Court of Law we don't really know if this is true.  But what Service Provider would want to take that risk?

LL has warned against uploading illegal content.  They could go another step and do like You Tube does.  If you Upload something with a title similar to a protected song or movie, you get a warning that your content is at risk.  They however to the best of my knowledge do not remove content until they recieve a DMCA claim. 

 

But really, anything outside of word filters may not be practical.

Is it unlawful for me to say, "Inspired by Disney?"  Does that infringe trademark?  What about parody?

 

---

yes, it is against the listing policies to use "inspired by"

"Be careful not to make comparisons to a brand name or say that your item is "like," "inspired by," or "based on" a brand name because this can be misleading and can lead to intellectual property infringement."

Don't nit pick the wording with me like you usually do. That is straight from the marketpllace listing policies. If you have a freaking issue with the wording take it up with LL.

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Dartagan Shepherd wrote:

Tried to suggest to them a partial solution before they implemented mesh and over the years which is to implement master accounts more rigidly.

Meaning all your alts (and bots) must be under one master account. perhaps even a master account for the household.

From there they could have established a way to punish for avatars not under the same account, or punished entire accounts in some way for infractions.

Also combined with more of a RL agreement, rather than their farce of a test (that pretty much gives you the answers on a platter) needed to upload mesh, gives more of a deterrent to thieves.

Also more of a waiting period or requirements for uploading external assets, short of an approval process.

It would certainly go a ways toward the problem and make enforcement much less costly.

They can't stop it, but there's a whole lot they "can" do if they were willing. They don't appear to be more interested in theft than the bare minimum and to cover themselves.

---

This is exactly the cause I suggest for any escalation to the intensity of reactions from Customers of LL .. their predictable and repetitious behavior of bypassing methods that happen to be suggested by those same Customers.

Your idea would not only have been easy to implement (especially in the early days of designing the UI for Mesh), but would have had a large number of collateral benefits, all of which would contribute to their bottom line and improve Customer Relations. And yet LL's reaction was to do .. nothing.

After a while of watching a company sniff at excellent ideas then pass them by, you start to form the theory that the company has other motives than to reduce theft, increase customer satisfaction and save money. Perhaps it could be considered a "Conspiracy" theory as well, but is it really fictional when all the empirical evidence proves it to be true?

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

I dont see why LL doesnt have something search the keywords for brand names..and flag those items. at the least it would be keyword spam. at the worst it would be copyright infringement.

---

That would be a very simple technical solution that could be run periodically, even routinely and fully automatic. It would deactivate listings with trade names in the Keywords .. or any of the fields for that matter .. then leave the usual "Your listing was deactivated" notice on the Merchant homepage. It could even compare the trade name found against a database of Exceptions; merchants that had proven a right to use that specific trade name or trademark.

Merchants with deactivated listings would have to choose one of two options: Either 1)Provide paperwork showing they had a license to use the specific term, or 2)Remove the offending term from their listing.

Ahhh .. but then again it would require the Merchant be TOLD what trade name or trademark was in violation, and as we know from their method of changing the Maturity Rating of a listing, they simply refuse to tell Merchants anything that could be of benefit.

(Dangit! I thought that was an Aspirin! It was a Pessimism pill instead!)

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Ela Talaj wrote:

Don't erect a strawman (even though it is Halloween

). The Forums are for everyone, "screamers" as well as doers. Poster Cincia Singh summarized it much better than I can in the aforementioned thread PeterGray @ LL Responds to UCCSL RE: LL TOS Concerns:

"It seems the most profitable concession would be selling tinfoil hats to SL creators/merchants who spend way more time anguishing about their intellectual property rights than producing intellectual property."

As for RL, to see what I meant go and buy an issue of the Washington Post.

---

Tweren't my "strawman" Ela. I wasn't the one saying that the participants in the "Peter Gray @ LL Responds to UCCSL" thread were "screaming at the top of their lungs". From my POV, it would appear that a majority of those participating in that thread were among the population of "Doers", only being hampered by the fact that "doing something" to convince LL of their mistake is a challenging and difficult task, so it is taking a bit of discussion to determine what can be done .. and what might be most successful.

As for Cincia's theory though, I doubt that sellers of Tinfoil hats would be able to make a living as it seems the customer base is already at full saturation point .. everyone has a Tinfoil hat already. *grin*

[Perrie Juran]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

They've always been able to remove anything they want so that hasn't changed but they have no resource, nor inclination send staff on an investigation to hunt down a mesh object that just might exist somewhere else.

Example, say I were to import the coffee table from World of Tanks, you can't really expect LL to go off installing that game to learn how to play it just on the off chance that they'll encounter that coffee table.  This is just one example, merely claiming that the object IS the item it is described as is a world apart from proving the case and without that proof or original claim, it wouldn't be reasonable for LL to start taking things down on a belief that it might be.

The burden this would put on LL is too great.

---

They dont have to do that, just send a screen shot to the creators of the game and ask if they wish to file a DMCA. simple.

 

---

At the time the DMCA went into effect on eof the questions some Service Providers asked was whether they should be proactive and play policeman about content.

The general legal advise I was reading at that time was that no, they should not.

Because the DMCA was giving them "Safe Harbor," they were being treated as a neutral party.  Some legal experts felt that they potentially could put their Safe Harbor at risk if they played policeman.

Of course until it played out in a Court of Law we don't really know if this is true.  But what Service Provider would want to take that risk?

LL has warned against uploading illegal content.  They could go another step and do like You Tube does.  If you Upload something with a title similar to a protected song or movie, you get a warning that your content is at risk.  They however to the best of my knowledge do not remove content until they recieve a DMCA claim. 

 

But really, anything outside of word filters may not be practical.

Is it unlawful for me to say, "Inspired by Disney?"  Does that infringe trademark?  What about parody?

 

---

yes, it is against the listing policies to use "inspired by"

"Be careful not to make comparisons to a brand name or say that your item is "like," "inspired by," or "based on" a brand name because this can be misleading and can lead to intellectual property infringement."

Don't nit pick the wording with me like you usually do. That is straight from the marketpllace listing policies. If you have a freaking issue with the wording take it up with LL.

---

I wasn't nit picking, nor would I pick your nits.  That's gross!

However, I did not know that recommendation off of the top of my head so I will say thank you for that.

 

 

[Darrius Gothly]

So maybe that's your answer Rya: People DO care, but feel largely incapable of suggesting, requiring, demanding or even threatening in order to get the problem fixed.

When trying to dance in tandem with a partner that neither listens nor talks, it becomes virtually impossible to do anything other than step on each other's toes.

[Chic Aeon]

LOL. OK I admit I skimmed the replies. I saw your post when it was first up but since I had nothing to say -- OMG, I said nothing (hard to believe but sometimes people keep quiet rather than blathering senselessly).

 

Here I what I have noticed THIS WEEK.

I have recieved more than normal the amount of copyright infringement goods. These are not "ripped" per se but they certainly go against the TOS - including ANY PAST TOS.

So what to do. Well writing to the folks that so obviously missed the part about trade names, copyrights of RL items et al does no good. Been there done that.

WE as consumers can't turn in the offenders, we need Coca Cola, Life Magazine (perhaps no longer around) et to file a DMCA.

I simply deleted the goods. Some were quite nice. HAD THE CONTENT CREATORS BEEN CREATIVE AND MADE THEIR OWN TEXTURES they would have been great to blog.

*There is lots wrong with our world.

*There has been a lot wrong for a long while.

*It does not appear to be getting better.

*Linden Lab does not appear to care at all.

THEY have the power. WE do not. The best that WE can do is be honest and not buy or promote illegal items.

I do my best to follow that path.

[BlackMagi Darkwatch]

I care about the amount of professional game assets but not as much as I care about making my own stuff even better.  Since the TOS change I have spent more time making my own textures so I can eventually use them in my own builds.  I have spent more time in Blender making high poly models so I can bake out the normal maps.  I can’t comment on “Some of the creator names I have seen should and do know better.”  I would like to think that in time professional game assets will have little or no value as we all move forward in the battle to compete. 

We can win this war with patience and learning  :matte-motes-big-grin-evil:

 

Black

[Rya Nitely]

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

So maybe that's your answer Rya: People DO care, but feel largely incapable of suggesting, requiring, demanding or even threatening in order to get the problem fixed.

When trying to dance in tandem with a partner that neither listens nor talks, it becomes virtually impossible to do anything other than step on each other's toes.

---

Let us settle with some people care, but 'do not have a strong opinion perhaps'.

The evidence is this -

Many people in SL are happy to use these items - both creators and customers - so either these people don't care or they don't know the items are stolen, or maybe they just don't want to know.

These stolen mesh items are very popular, and becoming more so everyday. You might not be aware of it because you don't go around inworld, you don't participate in hunts and expos, you don't explore popular sims ( I am assuming). I find it hard to believe that people are not aware of ripped mesh, especially merchants who should be more careful, and also the owners of popular locations in SL.

@ Chic, I think you would be more exposed to it because I have been involved in some expos and hunts where you were a blogger, and some of the ripped mesh items on display were owned by major sponsors.

But, as I said in my first post I'm not so concerned about it anymore. I just find it amusing now, especially when the item shows the name of a merchant from these forums where the subject has been discussed - so some people say they care but go ahead and use ripped mesh in their creations anyway. 

My original post was sparked by what I saw - the prominence of ripped mesh in Halloween displays. Games tend towards the gory, so it’s not surprising. Of course people are going to buy and display these items because they look so horridly impressive. My partner and I played ‘name the game’ when we went around looking at the Halloween displays. It amused us for an entire evening.

 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

OzwellWayfarer wrote:

I still don't see how this is a solution. What you are proposing is anyone could come along, flag an item, say “this is from the sims” and then its up to LL to go find out if that's true?

Sorry, but that is very wishful thinking IMHO.

---

If i remember correctly, this was exactly the way it worked when it was Xsrteet. There were a lot less ripped and copied items on Xstreet as compared to now.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

I would hope that the staff at LL would be able to find the original creators as easily as we can. I have sent emails with screen shots and urls to several game companies. There is no reason LL could not do the same. Personally i think a message from them would carry more weight than one from a gamer.

@ Freya Hells yes i think LL should spen the time and man power going through the MP. ITS THEIR SERVICE! They should police it.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

You know more about this coding stuff than most, would it be impossible for LL to code exactly which viewers can access SL and block the rest? If so... that would stop the copybotters, wouldn't it?

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

@ Freya Hells yes i think LL should spen the time and man power going through the MP. ITS THEIR SERVICE! They should police it.

---

Good luck with that.

Until the service operator gives a damn about this stuff, I think it's going to be impossible to get any kind of majority to care about these ToS concerns and/or the ripping of content. The situation is probably ideal, because that creates a cycle that pads service operators pockets while letting them skirt responsibility. There's no financial incentive for the service operator to do any policing under the current model (DMCA Safe Harbour actually helps prevent policing after-the-fact), and they're fine with all the negative effects to both their reputation and the SL userbase (apparently).

End users (consumers, etc) find value in infringing content (it sells). I don't know why, but this is the reality. Together with service operators reticence (promoting a cultural value of 'so what?') to perform policing or regulation I can perfectly understand peoples' refusal or apathy to mobilise. These same end users who buy cheap, ripped or infringing content also see bonuses from doing so.

So in order to get LL to police the MP, it'd be necessary to break this cycle. This is the most obvious path that LL would have to take in order to accomplish this:-

EITHER the service operator would have to stop profiting from global MP sales (removing the reward for laziness) OR end users would have to see the value removed from their infringing purchases (countering the userbase's complicity/apathy by punishing these users). Whichever method they chose, it would - at present - have to happen at the same time that they voluntarily remove themselves from the DMCA Safe Harbour status (making themselves responsible for what they make available for sale, and enabling the policing to take place).

(Personally, I think just about anything is more likely than this happening.)

 

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

If so... that would stop the copybotters, wouldn't it?

---

Tried, failed. Predictable as anything. Look back to 2011 or so.

All it did was make it harder to detect rogue viewers. LL can't win this arms race by trying to close the gates.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

If so... that would stop the copybotters, wouldn't it?

---

Tried, failed. Predictable as anything. Look back to 2011 or so.

All it did was make it harder to detect rogue viewers. LL can't win this arms race by trying to close the gates.

---

I don't remember them ever locking SL to a few specific viewers... Ever.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

I don't remember them ever locking SL to a few specific viewers... Ever.

---

Because they didn't. This wouldn't have any benefit to SL but it would have massive costs - it's impossible to make the SL userbase aware of changes like this and the chaos/bad press/general noise and support requirements of doing this greatly outweighs its ability to prevent infringement.

This direction detracts from the thread-at-large (again). It doesn't work to do this because rogue viewers nowadays deliberately hide their traces. I can't post more SEC-related information on this forum without unacceptable risks - I don't want to give clues to how it can be done, for obvious reasons.

In short, the issue is the same with preventing any other kind of software piracy by using DRM, or preventing access to physical buildings by using complex locks. Criminals will always know how to break the codes or force the lock - typically these measures only slow down decent people who can't use their applications or media in the ways that they wish.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

I don't remember them ever locking SL to a few specific viewers... Ever.

---

Because they didn't. This wouldn't have any benefit to SL but it would have massive costs - it's impossible to make the SL userbase aware of changes like this.

This direction detracts from the thread-at-large (again). It doesn't work to do this because rogue viewers nowadays deliberately hide their traces. I can't post more SEC-related information on this forum without unacceptable risks - I don't want to give clues to how it can be done, for obvious reasons.

---

Voicing theories on how LL could fix this shows that we do care.. how is that against the thread? You a a big ball of negativity. You said they tried locking SL and failed and then said they never tried it.. so which is it?

Stopping copybotters would have a huge benefit to the users of SL. and it could be done. Restrict SL to the official viewer.

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

If so... that would stop the copybotters, wouldn't it?

---

Tried, failed. Predictable as anything. Look back to 2011 or so.

All it did was make it harder to detect rogue viewers. LL can't win this arms race by trying to close the gates.

---

I don't remember them ever locking SL to a few specific viewers... Ever.

---

There is a bit of information sent to the SL Login Service at the very start of the login process that identifies the type of Viewer being used. This is how Linden Lab determines the popularity of specific Viewers. It was used in the past to warn people using Viewers that were dropped from the TPV.

But the problem with using this bit of info to block Copybot Viewers is that those Viewers simply identify as some authorized and legitimate Viewer instead. This makes it totally useless to use the declared Viewer Type to log and block Copybot Viewers.

If LL were to try and use some sort of "fingerprint" in the communication between Viewer and Server, it's important to realize that the entirety of the "conversation" between the Viewer and SL Servers is controlled by code provided by LL themselves. Yes, TPV Developers can have different types of conversations than the basic LL Viewer does, but the way they "talk" and the construction of what they say must follow the same rules for every Viewer in existence. This prevents the LL Servers from detecting a rogue or pirate Viewer.

In order to do what Copybot Viewers do, that does not require anything special in the type of conversation had. Copybot Viewers can get every bit of information and detail they need to Copybot in-world objects simply by being within draw distance. Any details that might not necessarily be communicated are so irrelevant that they can be replaced by stock values or made-up info anyway.

[Teagan Tobias]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

I would hope that the staff at LL would be able to find the original creators as easily as we can. I have sent emails with screen shots and urls to several game companies. There is no reason LL could not do the same. Personally i think a message from them would carry more weight than one from a gamer.

@ Freya Hells yes i think LL should spen the time and man power going through the MP.

ITS THEIR SERVICE! They should police it.

---

I did Bold.

I think this is part of the reason for the new ToS, the burden has been taken off LL, they do not need to spend the time and money to police the service.  All you can do is screen shot and e-mail to original creator with CC to LL. After that there is nothing you can do.

[Freya Mokusei]

Thanks for the elucidation, Darrius. You've a way with words and a patience that I can't match here.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Rya Nitely wrote:

OK the ToS is a huge sore spot with many.

But let's for a minute - just a minute please then back as you were - talk about Mesh RIPS. 

Halloween is turning out to be the biggest Mesh RIP Horror show. And to tell you the truth, I am starting to join the ranks of non carers. Some of the creator names I have seen should and do know better. People can hide behind the 'Oh, I didn't know' ripped Halloween mask all they like but, NO... you're not that dumb. And these beautiful objects are being displayed on the most well known sims in SL.

Ok, there has been one or two drops of concern on the subject among the flood of ToS concerns - and kudos to those voices for raising it.

But here is the sad news - most people love it. They buy it, they put it in their creations, they display sims full of the stuff - and yes it looks amazing.

OK, enough from me. Just thought I'd talk my mind. Now RIP me to shreds if you like - with your 'RIPPED from some game' scary scythe.

I'm off to work. Happy Halloween all - go see those sims - SL is looking amazingly spectacular lately. Mesh has raised the quality 1000%.

---

Who are you to say what any creator should or does know?  You may have this vast expanse of knowledge concerning what items have been ripped from which games, but have you considered that these creators, of whom you speak, may not be such avid gamers as you, yourself, seem to be?

How can you suggest that they don't care about ripped content, when in reality, they probably have no inclination that the content they're using might have been ripped?  It's simply not their, nor any other users' responsibility to be that knowledgeable about things on other platforms.

I, for example, have not seen one mesh item in any of the many Halloween displays which I've seen in SL, that I would recognize as having been ripped from some other game, because, guess what... I'm not a gamer.  And yet, that doesn't mean that I don't care.

If you were to suggest that the fact that I bought a full perm mesh object to use in one of my creations that, unbeknownst to me, happened to be ripped from some other platform, equates to my not caring about ripped content, your suggestion would be complete BS.  Which is exactly the content of the post to which I've replied.

...Dres

--||-