Jump to content

NEW MAIL FROM THE UCCSL TO LINDEN LAB OFFICE AND PETER GRAY

Guest

By Guest,
in Merchants

 Share
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3552 days.

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

Recommended Posts

Medhue Simoni

Medhue Simoni

Posted
Posted

Freya Mokusei wrote:

I'm familiar with this issue, there's no need to repeat yourself. I know what 'perpetuity' means. I'm asking for clarification.

The UCCSL's position is this:-
Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

This is not about the copies but about the licence we have to give to LL on our creations. We want to give some limits to this licence and here, about the perpetuity of the licence.

 

LL's position (according to their comments on New World Notes and from Peter Gray) is that they need this licence (as it is currently written) to offer their services.

The limits you seem to be advocating will, at best, complicate the process. The limits might even specifically prevent LL from offering services that they currently provide, especially in the case of Account Recovery. How does limiting the Second Life platform (and tying up Linden staff time, determining Original vs. Copy) help us, as residents?

Saying that it's 'not impossible' doesn't really help either. I don't see how you plan to make this 'not impossible'.

Well, actually, LL's excuse is nonsensical. The products won't transfer easily from SL to any other platform. About the only thing that could easily transfer is mesh objects. As some1 that sells to almost every single 3D market, I understand than every market and every platform needs a specific type of content. They also need completely different contracts. It doesn't make any sense to have 1 TOS to rule all markets. Any of the creators can currently sell to any game developer right now, without any help from LL. This means we retain all rights, and we dictate the rights. If LL wants, they can easily help us without making any claims at all on our creations. The way I see it, if I allow LL to get involved, it will complicate things even more between me and my clients or customers. How could adding another party not complicate things more, especially when they are making claims on those actual products. All other 3D marketplaces have reasonable agreements. Why should LL be special?

If LL wants to sell us on something, they claim will greatly help us, then they have to actually express what they think this future will be like. They have to explain themselves, not just do and expect trust. We have no reason at all to believe anything they say. It is much more reasonable to assume their actions are short sighted, as it is not LL's rights that are being infringed. The best way to settle the fears of the merchants, would be to actually talk to them. LL doesn't want speculations, then that is easy to fix, and any normal person would understand this.

We, tho, have to deal with a corporation, which seemingly has more than 1 brain. So, 1 person's word means nothing at all. The only thing that means anything in a relationship with a corporation, is the contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toysoldier Thor

Toysoldier Thor

Posted
Posted

_____________________

From Trinity...

 

"The perpetuity of the license is somewhat acceptable for member creators as it applies to copies of works already sold and in other inventories until the account associated with that creator is terminated. The perpetuity clause is not acceptable however as it relates to creators’ personal inventories and their original works. We would like a limitation that would reflect that distinction."

We talk about a "distinction" between copy sold and our original. The copy sold can remain till the holder of the account delete also their account. Its licenced and not an original, so often has limited perms.

our original, is different and its always full perm. We ask LL they delete and stop their licence on our original if we close our account.

the first sentence says the perpetuity of the licence is acceptable as it applies to copy. Its not acceptable for our personal inventory and our original works. We just ask them they do the distinction between both kind of items.

____________________

 

Although I do know what the requested intent of the request in the letter to Peter was regarding this proposed change, even if LL would agree to this request in the TOS (which I suspect in all honesty they wont), it would have very limited value as to providing any added protection of our content as the original uploading creator of the "master" version of the content.

The problem is - as has been mentioned - even though there is a "1st edition" or "master" version of the content, it is extremely hard to distinguish which one it actually is.  Trinity, you brought up that the Master often is FULL PERMS but countless creator / merchants sell their content as full perms. 

I am one of them that sell Full Perm Landscape Sculpty Map Packs to my customers that are often master builders themselves and use my IP owned and uploaded content within their builds.  So once I sell them a pack, they now also have a full perms pack of my sculpt map textures.  The only difference is that mine would have the Creator and Owner as the same name and theirs wouldn't.

So that means the only way to determine what is the true master version of that object would be the date/time stamp of the object's creation on the SL Asset Server.  It would not be an easy task for LL to execute a Creator's request to remove all content in their inventory that they were the 1st creator AND the one that UPLOADED IT INTO SL. 

IF SL had additional properties added to all content that was only modifiable by the SL system upload module and it would only perform a ONE TIME stamping of the SL account that uploaded the content as well as the date and time that it was uploaded, THENNNN you would have a true identification of MASTER COPY OWNER.  These two properties would not be changeable by anyone after that.  I would personally love to see this feature added to SL's system for many reasons.  It would be a clear piece of evidence of WHO the real owner of the asset is even when the IP owner hands out full perms to others.  Could even be used in DMCA disputes - earliest timestamp of disputed master copies wins. :)

But, we do not have this so... its only wishful thinking.

Finally, even if LL could feasibly execute this request and identify and remove all uploaded IP content from an account holder that is leaving SL, since LL's TOS says they still have full rights to use what ever content is in their system, deleting the master is a moot point since LL has (don't care about who else has) countless other copies of your master uploaded copy.  They supposedly even have it in their backups.  So deleting your first version is irrelevant - they will just have rights to use any of the other copies in their system.

Therefore, although it is fine to express this request in the list of changes to the TOS for LL to consider, its not the one I personally care if they throw away as a consideration.

The most important change to me that better protects us creators and is the critical change LL must restore is the one that LIMITS INTENT OF ANY RIGHTS THEY HAVE TO OUR CONTENT.  If they are limited to using our content only for the operation and promotion of SL then I uneasily satisfied that they can for almost full shared rights to our content.

Those are my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trinity Yazimoto

Trinity Yazimoto

Posted
Posted

Dartagan Shepherd wrote:

Pretty much the irony of it. You can't end a license of copies that to LL are indistinguishable from the original when it's perpetual and you can't grant a license with a contract that provides no boundaries.

And that was the purpose of our mail Dart, you totally got it.

A licence must have some limits. The mail is explaining the direction we would like to see going the licence asked by LL to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lexi Zelin

Lexi Zelin

Posted
Posted

You what I find cute? I put a reply yesterday to the thread where Peter Gray replied to UCCSL. Came back to check the forums maybe 30 minutes later and that thread is no where to be found without searching but it "was" at the TOP right after I replied hahahahha they moved it! LL you are so fuking shady it gives me legit heartburn. At this point I don't know who's a better content theif... Linden Lab or KingGoon. -.....................- 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Magnet Homewood

Magnet Homewood

Posted
Posted

It's about a month since the letter was sent, and I was wondering if there is any update.

I guess LL haven't responded, and all there is left to do is remind them that they were going to, which they can probably ignore too.

I suppose it they could be working on a re-wording, but I suspect it's more like they have forgotten all about it now and this will be the last we hear of it. Continue to upload and use SL, or leave it, choice is ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Drake1 Nightfire

Drake1 Nightfire

Posted
Posted

Magnet Homewood wrote:

It's about a month since the letter was sent, and I was wondering if there is any update.

I guess LL haven't responded, and all there is left to do is remind them that they were going to, which they can probably ignore too.

I suppose it they could be working on a re-wording, but I suspect it's more like they have forgotten all about it now and this will be the last we hear of it. Continue to upload and use SL, or leave it, choice is ours.

Unfortunately the reply was never posted here, it was posted in the group notices but since it is over 15 dasy ago it went poof. perhaps one of the group Mods has a copy and will post it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Medhue Simoni

Medhue Simoni

Posted
Posted

Storm Clarence wrote:

posted the response from Mr. Gray. 

 

You know, I'd love to have a VP job at LL, as it seriously seems like they don't do anything at all. It's obvious why LL has so many problems. As Oz pointed out in the last 3rd party group meeting, they didn't tackle deforming mesh clothing until the people became available. So, the VP's do nothing, and know nothing, and can't make a decision to address a problem that takes any knowledgable 3D person 15 minutes to decide, and maybe half a day to add new collision bones.

Here we are dealing with the TOS change, and LL has 8 people in upper management. Likely each 1 of them delays the process more, instead of making decisions in a timely manner. IMHO, it is glaringly obvious how a small team of developers can run circles around LL. They have no none 3D people standing in the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Storm Clarence

Storm Clarence

Posted
Posted

Medhue, a VP job in any company is good deal.  Mr. Gray is only the messenger and if we shoot the messenger then LL will just put another in his place.  I seem to be the only one (or the only one that writes about it) that understands the game being played out here. 

ToS changed by LL legal team.  They did not change the ToS on a whim; they were directed to do so.  What did the great legal minds of LL do, well, they cut and pasted verbiage from Mattel, Inc. Engineering forum ToS.    The LL legal team did not have an original thought/concept of their own--it took them all of 3 minutes to research and publish.  Pathetic.

It is very similar to Nancy Pelosi and Obamacare: "that people won’t appreciate how great the Democrat’s health plan is until after it passes." “You’ve heard about the controversies ... but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is the legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America,”  “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.”

Let's replace the words above using the LL legal team and the CEO:

"Hey boss Rodvik, how was your golf round this morning?  Btw, the board won’t appreciate how great the new TOS is until after users hit 'I AGREE'.  You’ve heard about the controversies ... but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is TOS for the future – not just about profits for corporate officers, but about a healthier VC base, but 'they' have to sign the TOS so that we can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.”

 

PS I laughed so hard writing the above, but try to tell me I am wrong.  The key word in Mr. Gray's response was 'some'.  Ostensibly LL is assessing the fallout before they re-address the verbiage.  Change will come, but I wouldn't hold your breath.  Imo, the legal team has played everyone for a fool, including their CEO.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Medhue Simoni

Medhue Simoni

Posted
Posted

Oh, I'm not demonizing Mr. Gray, but all of LL's management. At least with Mr. Gray, we see him doing something. What every1 else spends their time doing for every week's paycheck, I have no clue. LL is SL's own worst enemy. Every single reason for the decline of SL can be directly attributed to LL's terrible decisions. This isn't just unwarrented bashing. You can see it directly in the statistics after each boneheaded move. Yeah, some of these boneheaded moves are tiny, but over time, it grows and grows. I'm seriously debating just giving up my sim. I don't see the point in paying LL that much every month. They don't give me any reason to keep it.


Just look at these user group meetings. Before, we talked with the VPs. Now we talk to the developers, which might be good, but why isn't a VP there? So, we talk with developer, and they talk to upper management, again wasting more of the developer's time. It's nonsensical. We have developers going from meeting to meeting to meeting, instead of actually accomplishing something in a day.

They rarely correct any of the mistakes. I pointed out years ago that the search engine change was the single biggest reason for the initial decline. We went from a search engine that ranked every business in SL according to their keywords, how many object they had on their land with those keywords, and how large the parcel was, which was custom made for SL, to a totally leftist search engine that randomly positions merchants. It makes no sense at all, but somehow, people that make 6 figure paychecks can't figure out why this search engine sucks. How the heck does any1 find anything. Then, to counter this, LL added the destination guide, which is a joke all in itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3552 days.

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

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...