Do people really care?

[Rya Nitely]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

This is just a guess but I think 80% do care.  

---

I hope you're right

[Spica Inventor]

It's nice to see some honesty about why most people are so concerned about ripped mesh items being introduced into SL from foreign sources, and the real reason being that higher quality ripped items being introduced into SL essentially take market share away from pre existing SL merchants, in theory anyway.  However looking at the birds eye view, if mesh copyright violations serve to attract more people and therefore money into SL due to improved aesthetics, perhaps existing merchants are not being economically damaged afterall as they share in the economic advantages of a growing user base. Therefore it seems not to be about worshiping on the alter of IP rights afterall with many, it's much more about me me me and mine mine mine. :matte-motes-evil-invert::matte-motes-wink:

[Dresden Ceriano]

I knew I should have unsubscribed from this thread and not looked at it again, but since I didn't, let me reiterate by point.

 

---

Rya Nitely wrote:

I don't believe that I have personally attacked anyone

---

You said, "Dres, if you actually read my posts in this thread ( and not just the first one) you will see that this 'attack on people' was aimed at a specific merchant (I made that clear in two posts now, and this is the third)."  I fail to understand how anyone could read this statement and discern it to mean anything other than that you were attempting to attack one person... that, my friend, is a personal attack.

 

---

Rya Nitely also wrote:

I really don't know what makes you so sensitive about the whole subject.

---

I'm sensitive about the subject because, in answer to the question contained in your title, I do really care.

When I saw your OP, it seemed to me that you were more interested in pointing fingers than starting a constructive discussion on the matter.  It seemed almost as if you were placing yourself on a pedestal and having to fight to not be dragged down by the uncaring masses.  This, of course, is only my interpretation, which is subject to error from time to time.  If, as you claim, this was not your intent, I will simply have to take your word for it and move on to more enjoyable activities.

...Dres

[Rya Nitely]

To the person who IMed me inworld and accused me of cryptically trying to 'out ' people, let me repeat what I originally said. It was not my intention to be cryptic or to out anyone. 

' 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.'

' 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. '

And after this Dres pushed me to give more substance to my claims, but I wasn't trying to be cryptic or out people.

With all that I said in this thread, nobody would have the faintest idea who I was talking about, and even this very person might only suspect (and may not even be reading this thread at all). There are just too many merchants and too many threads to be able to narrow it down to any particular individual.

And Dres should look up the meaning of personal attack. My posts were not pointing directly at anyone or at any particular group of people. They were general enough as to not be personal - if anyone takes it personally then they need to question why they do.

[Dresden Ceriano]

Fine, Rya... go ahead and blame me for whatever backlash your own comments may have caused you.  The fact remains that you yourself were the one who stated that you were singling out a specific merchant... not me.  If lying to yourself makes you feel better about yourself, then knock yourself out.

...Dres *finally unsubscribes from this thread*

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

...Dres *finally unsubscribes from this thread*

---

... runs in and decorates Dres like a Christmas tree, six weeks early.

Cuz he'll never know.

 

 

;-)

[Medhue Simoni]

Gosh, I seriously hate this topic, hence why I didn't comment until now.

@Drongle = That's a great point!

I also like the Cingh quote.

 

Now, the reason I hate this topic is it is all speculation, and no proof at all. Just a big bag of assumptions leading people to a disgust in something, and agonizing over what should be done. When the post was originally posted, and only had 50 views, I read it and ran to the MP to see what this was all about.

What did I find? I found a bunch of stuff that takes all of an hour to model and texture, some maybe more. This is coming from some1 that doesn't model much, but even I could do most of it in a couple hours each. This is not a statement about the creators skill, or talent, but about saying that it is simple stuff to make when you do it on a regular basis. It's goofing off for an afternoon. I'm also not saying that the none of it was any good and didn't take days or weeks, or aren't great models.

Is it all stolen? I have no effing clue. I'm not a big gamer, and couldn't tell you if anything is from any game, except maybe Far Cry, and Hitman, cuase those games rock, lol.

Is any of it IP infringement? Well, here's the thing about IP infringement, you can't know until the creator says it is. It is up to the creator, not the government, or LL, or any1 else. So, by the very nature of those items in question being there and being sold, you would have to assume that none of it is IP infringement. Now, you can argue that a companies past history might show that they enforce their IP rigorously, hence leading to a logically conclusion that they would not be happy. Outside of that, you basically have nothing at all being done wrong here. If I was a game company, I wouldn't give a crap if people ripped stuff from my game, unless they were making a commercial game with it.

All that said, I do care about my own IP, and not about what others decide to do with theirs. I especially don't give a crap if some1 rips some Skyrim character. As far as I know, the creator of the game is not in the business of selling Skyrim characters. I do care when some1 who is in the market of selling 3D content gets livelyhood ruined by some person who has no reguard for other's hard work and passion.

So, to sum this up, I see a bunch of pointing fingers but no evidence, beyond pure speculation, that anything there was illegal, nor a violation of any1's IP. I'm sure some of it might be, but again, there is no real evidence being presented, but mostly "I think this is ripped".  Plus, you can talk all you want about game content, I'm just not all that impressed with it. It's the same stuff I see everywhere. It's normal, not unique. Some are OK, but again, why rip content and sell it, when you can make something similar in a few hours, and do whatever you want to it.

Oh, and as a Libertarian, I do not believe IP is valid. So, I don't believe 1 person should be able to own a name, or an idea, or a word, or whatever. On the other hand, I do believe in copyright, because this is only an agreement between 2 people. As an independent creator, no law created by rich government cronies with the hands out, is going to protect my decision to create. What will protect me, is the risk of not getting my content if it is used in ways I don't approve of. It's not LL, or the US that tells me some1 is abusing the use of my creations, it's my customers.

[Rya Nitely]

Thanks for stepping in and setting it all straight, Medhue.

I hope others, like myself, who thought this was an issue and who were unnecessarily concerned will pay attention to your very clever post.

Nothing to see here folk - all of 9 pages of wasted words and time. 

Business as usual and all is well in the SL world.....regarding this subject, anyway.

What a relief, hey

I know I feel much much better now

[Sassy Romano]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

"All that said, I do care about my own IP"

"Oh, and as a Libertarian, I do not believe IP is valid."

---

Pick one, any one...

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

"All that said, I do care about my own IP"

"Oh, and as a Libertarian, I do not believe IP is valid."

---

Pick one, any one...

---

I explained this in my post. Copyright is the only part of IP that is logically valid. All other forms of IP are simply rich people using the government to protect their wealth. Look at the name in itself, Intellectual Property. Now, property rights are an essential part of having a free society. Without property rights, most of society and the division of labour would stop in it's tracks. The reason we have property rights is because 2 people can not use the same tool or appliance at the exact same time. Property rights keeps society civil.

Now, think about the term Intellectual Property again. It doesn't make any sense linguistically. This is because knowledge is not a rivalrus commodity. Millions of people can all use the same knowledge all at the same time. IP is a construct, created entirely by Government, and can only be enforced by government. The reality is, the rich established a way to keep all competition out of the market by having their buddies in government write illogical laws to protect them. In turn, by fooling average people into filing for patents, the largest corporations in the world can steal any idea they wish, with practically complete immunity. The laws are written to only benefit those which already have wealth.

Now, copyrights, which is also a play on words to imply the right to own ideas, is a more logical thought process, mostly because it doesn't need the Government to be enforced. How it is enforce by corporations is a whole other topic. The little guy tho, can easily enforce his "copyright" by choosing who he sells to, and having them agree to terms.

[Sassy Romano]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

 The little guy tho, can easily enforce his "copyright" by choosing who he sells to, and having them agree to terms.

---

and what if the other party breaks the terms of the agreement?  What recourse does the little guy have if not to progress legal action through the very same legal framework that you don't appear to support? (or did I misunderstand?)

[Teagan Tobias]

---

Spica Inventor wrote:

It's nice to see some honesty about why most people are so concerned about ripped mesh items being introduced into SL from foreign sources, and the real reason being that higher quality ripped items being introduced into SL essentially take market share away from pre existing SL merchants, in theory anyway.  However looking at the birds eye view, if mesh copyright violations serve to attract more people and therefore money into SL due to improved aesthetics,

perhaps existing merchants are not being economically damaged afterall as they share in the economic advantages of a growing user base

. Therefore it seems not to be about worshiping on the alter of IP rights afterall with many, it's much more about me me me and mine mine mine. :matte-motes-evil-invert::matte-motes-wink:

---

Would like to know what game your talking about, because the words “growing user base” can not be applied to SL, not even close.  Although the base may be growing some as people look and then run away, the numbers of users on line is dwindling. Can't sell to them if they don't stay around.

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Rya Nitely wrote:

Thanks for stepping in and setting it all straight, Medhue.

I hope others, like myself, who thought this was an issue and who were unnecessarily concerned will pay attention to your very clever post.

Nothing to see here folk - all of 9 pages of wasted words and time. 

Business as usual and all is well in the SL world.....regarding this subject, anyway.

What a relief, hey

I know I feel much much better now

---

If you ask me, threads like this are really more about dancing around people's insecurities. What exactly is the issue, even if they were ripped, which again has never been proven? If the issue is that some1 is selling something without permission, then contact the creator. If the issue is that people fear the content is better than their own, or affects the actual market, then state that concern, and talk about that.

The part that bothers me the most tho, is people or creators being accused of things that there is no proof for. There is much more harm to be done in falsely accusing others than the benefit of protecting some game company's ripped content.

[Drongle McMahon]

"The laws are written to only benefit those which already have wealth."

And their lawyers! How much do you think Apple and Samsung have spent on legal cost in the last few years?

[Rya Nitely]

No issue, didn't I just point out to you that you made yourself clear - no need to convince me.

There is absolutely no problem regarding ripped mesh, content theft or whatever in SL, as far as I am concerned anyway. Nobody need bother themselves about the subject any further.

So, why are you still here talking about it?

 

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

 The little guy tho, can easily enforce his "copyright" by choosing who he sells to, and having them agree to terms.

---

and what if the other party breaks the terms of the agreement?  What recourse does the little guy have if not to progress legal action through the very same legal framework that you don't appear to support? (or did I misunderstand?)

---

Well, court systems don't have to be handled by government. There are many systems online that are created to handle disputes. As a creator, I have many options. Obviously, the person infringing on our contract thinks my product has value. I could immediately cut him off, and every company he does business with. I could chose to use a court system to hold the person accountable to the contract. I could stop selling content altogether. I could change the way I sell items to better protect myself. I could inform the public and shame the person socially. Notice that there are also strict laws again libel, despite the actual right to free speech. Again, who writes the laws? The point is, I have many options, none of which have anything to do with federal laws. The reason I can sue some1, is because they agreed to a contract, not because they government created laws.

[Teagan Tobias]

Medhue Simoni said:

The reason I can sue some1, is because they agreed to a contract, not because they government created laws.

 

No, the laws are what give your contract bite. With no laws your only recourse to the contract would be your army against there army, or, brute force.  

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Teagan Tobias wrote:

Medhue Simoni said:

The reason I can sue some1, is because they agreed to a contract, not because they government created laws.

 

No, the laws are what give your contract bite. With no laws your only recourse to the contract would be your army against there army, or, brute force.  

---

I really should not need to point this out, but I just refuted all that in my last comment, the 1 you quote from. Why any free thinking person would assume that force is the only recourse, is beyond me. I certainly would not beat the crap out of every person that ever did me wrong, so why would I send some army to uphold a contract. The reason people try to uphold contracts is because they benefit in some way from the transaction. Simply by refusing to do business with them, the person that broke the contract is now in a worse position. This is logically obvious by the fact that they were transacting in the first place. The ultimate point of a contract is to establish under what condition both parties are willing to do business. The ultimate conclusion from a broken contract is the halting of exchange between the 2 parties. Not WAR.

The market is peace. It is voluntary cooperation. Anything created by the government is the opposite, and by it's very logic, not what the people want. If the people, in fact, actually wanted something, it would be produced by many, many people in the market.

[Magnet Homewood]

I will probably regret poking my nose into all but ... it's a big nose! Menhue, good luck stopping anybody from doing business with you as a punishment, on the Marketplace. Perhaps it's a small point to make, but the discussion was about SL and you claim it's one way to make them worse off.

[Teagan Tobias]

Let me correct your statement in a different way.

Medhue Simoni said:

The reason I can sue some1, is because they agreed to a contract, not because they government created laws.

The reason you can sue someone, is because they agreed to a contract, backed up by the laws the government created.

With no government and no laws, no, you can not sue someone. Why would they even talk to you?

The “With no laws your only recourse to the contract would be your army against there army” is a dramatization of a lawless state, a state with no government and no laws. (and no lawsuits)

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Magnet Homewood wrote:

I will probably regret poking my nose into all but ... it's a big nose! Menhue, good luck stopping anybody from doing business with you as a punishment, on the Marketplace. Perhaps it's a small point to make, but the discussion was about SL and you claim it's one way to make them worse off.

---

Of course, I see your point, but I would not say that this point refutes anything I've said. I chose to do business in SL. It's not the only option I or any1 else has. We chose to do this because we see a benefit. If we were to be ripped and our stuff resold, we'd lose that benefit, and hence stop selling. These are all free decisions to be made. It's all about weighing the benefits and loses. People could easily rip any of our products. Why don't they all do it? Why don't half do it? Why don't 10% do it? I'll take a guess that many understand that if everything was free, few people would ever make anything new, and they appreciate and understand the work and talent it takes. As the internet should have shown, laws don't really stop anybody. The reality is, we all work together because we all understand that we benefit in some way or another.

To get back on topic. I'm actually for allowing any1 to publicly shame any business in an open forum. This would much better impact the IP issues. No1 would want that kind of attention. The shame alone would stop 90% of it. Yeah, you'd think this would be just crazy, but I think it is more akin to every business having a nuclear bomb. Few serious businesses would misuse it. Hey, I'm radical tho, lol.

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Teagan Tobias wrote:

Let me correct your statement in a different way.

Medhue Simoni said:

The reason I can sue some1, is because they agreed to a contract, not because they government created laws.

The reason you can sue someone, is because they agreed to a contract, backed up by the laws the government created.

With no government and no laws, no, you can not sue someone. Why would they even talk to you?

The “

With no laws your only recourse to the contract would be your army against there army

” is a dramatization of a lawless state, a state with no government and no laws. (and no lawsuits)

---

They might need your service. They might think that resolving the problem is worth the later benefits. They might want to resolve it because of their future projects, and how this breach of contract may hurt them. Heck, Comcast just sent me a plea to join back up with them, waving the dispute I had with them 10 years ago. They realised that because they wanted to charge me for BS, and I cancelled and refused to pay them, they lost 10 years worth of payments. No court necessary, and my life was not impacted at all. I could really give you thousands of reasons businesses settle. Let me know if you need more.

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

The little guy tho, can easily enforce his "copyright" by choosing who he sells to, and having them agree to terms.

---

and what if the other party breaks the terms of the agreement?  What recourse does the little guy have if not to progress legal action through the very same legal framework that you don't appear to support? (or did I misunderstand?)

---

For the life of me, I'm not able to find a way that Linden Lab CAN break the terms of the ToS. As it relates to our Intellectual Property and their responsibilities in handling, utilizing, distributing and exploiting it .. there are no limits on them whatsoever. Of course they aren't required to support it to anyone they sell, resell or license it to. No doubt they'll send the customer to the original creator should REAL support be needed. But other than that, they don't have any trip-wires to avoid.

And if some Legal Eagle shows up with writ-in-hand .. they'll pack him/her off to see the original IP Creator as the "True Guilty Party".

[Drongle McMahon]

"For the life of me, I'm not able to find a way that Linden Lab CAN break the terms of the ToS."

What about content that was made by people who have not accepted the new ToS? As long as they can exclude that, you may be right, but can they?

Whoops - out of context. Sorry.

 

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Drongle McMahon wrote:

"For the life of me, I'm not able to find a way that Linden Lab CAN break the terms of the ToS.

"

What about content that was made by people who have not accepted the new ToS? As long as they can exclude that, you may be right, but can they?

 

---

Oh, absolutely yes. All it takes is basic SQL query capabilities. They just do a select on the member tables selecting only those records that have accepted the new ToS. That field has to exist and be connectable to the member record so they know whether or not to demand you accept it any time you log in or try to use one of the web services that requires acceptance first.

Although ... hmmm ... it DOES require basic SQL syntax skills, and seeing as how they can't seem to do other basic things like: select product records on the SLM that have invalid keys to sub-tables, select product records that have cancelled enhancement ads, select member records that are less than 3 days old and are trying to start their 25th Topic in the last 10 minutes ...

Well .. maybe they can, maybe they can't ...