Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pamela Galli

Helping Copyright Infringers

Recommended Posts

This forum is a valuable resource for people trying to learn how to make mesh, from scratch, but also for people just trying to upload "free" stuff they have found on the internet.  It's not usually hard to tell the difference. 

If people want to give help to both, there is no law against it. I just hate to see such a valuable resource as this forum being used to help those who rip off people's work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do not worry . Everyone should do the right thing . Who does something like that is as to lose a great opportunity in SL , are often impulsive , but it is not right, nor has merit , if no art and energy involved , if not fun is better not to do, , someone smart takes the free stuff and use it as reference to model your own improved version with your own textures , applying his energy , his love , then that stuff if it has merit  then it likes and is well received by the community.
upload free stuff that does not generate income nothing , these people , make them this question is it worth losing a great oportuniti with SL in exchange for something that generates nothing income? learn blender and gimp is easy, free, and funny. :catwink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see where you're coming from Pamela, I've seen various threads lately that I personally wouldn't help the OP with, mainly because I'd feel like an accomplice in copyright theft because what they want help with, is not their own, original work.

It's all over the place lately though. Various of the weekly sales groups have merchants that don't seem to give a dang about copyright. Or on the largest known blog on SL that boasts about integrity...Store Sales are announced that don't mirror their tag line. There was a sale posted not too long ago, 50% off in a clothing store, so having some spare linden I went there and I was shocked. Most of the clothes they sold had a trademarked logo or art on it such as batman and hello kitty. Needless to say I was gone from that shop so fast.

Sorry to have taken this so off topic, but I feel like the copyright/trademark issue has been swept under the rug on more than just that one level. And helping those people will only worsen the problem I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:

This forum is a valuable resource for people trying to learn how to make mesh, from scratch, but also for people just trying to upload "free" stuff they have found on the internet.  It's not usually hard to tell the difference. 

If people want to give help to both, there is no law against it. I just hate to see such a valuable resource as this forum being used to help those who rip off people's work.

There is nothing you can really do to stop it other than to not offer help if you suspect the person specifically is stealing content and to continue to educate.

I saw this recently when some students for a class project asked for help on marketing their replica of a Tie Fighter from Star Wars.

Every one pointed out to them their (possible) infringement and no one offered them assistance.

(I was greatly surprised on May The Fourth (be with you) when a lot of places did Star Wars themed events at the amount of Star Wars items I saw.  I thought Disney was very aggressive about protecting their property / not allowing it in SL).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There just really needs to be one linden member who goes around the MP deleting inactive shops, removing copyrighted material etc. Its realllly easy to see it all if you're familiar with modern games and logos etc. I really don't understand why they don't pursue it. Ah well, at least I own all the rights to my models and won't get caught up in lawsuit. Speaking of law, when we had to file our tax, I'm surprised they didn't bother to be like "well what is he making money from" "oh I see. Models from ripped from a game...copyrighted t shirts..ah well..denied and banned"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


MIstahMoose wrote:

There just really needs to be one linden member who goes around the MP deleting inactive shops, removing copyrighted material etc. Its realllly easy to see it all if you're familiar with modern games and logos etc. I really don't understand why they don't pursue it. Ah well, at least I own all the rights to my models and won't get caught up in lawsuit. Speaking of law, when we had to file our tax, I'm surprised they didn't bother to be like "well what is he making money from" "oh I see. Models from ripped from a game...copyrighted t shirts..ah well..denied and banned"

How should any Linden know if the merchant has a license to sell these things, or not? It's up to the IP owner to take action against it, or not. It's nobody elses business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not much any of us can do to stem the flood of ripped mesh filling up SL -- but this thread is about whether or not we choose to help people learn to upload these "free" models. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I really don't understand why they don't pursue it"

I have always assumed it is because pursuing an active copyright filtering process would imply their acceptance of responsibility for all infringing content, and thus take them outside the safe harbor provision of the DMCA. That's not my own idea, but I can't remember where I first saw it. Maybe someone who, unlike myself, has the necessary legal knowledge can tell us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


arton Rotaru wrote:


MIstahMoose wrote:

There just really needs to be one linden member who goes around the MP deleting inactive shops, removing copyrighted material etc. Its realllly easy to see it all if you're familiar with modern games and logos etc. I really don't understand why they don't pursue it. Ah well, at least I own all the rights to my models and won't get caught up in lawsuit. Speaking of law, when we had to file our tax, I'm surprised they didn't bother to be like "well what is he making money from" "oh I see. Models from ripped from a game...copyrighted t shirts..ah well..denied and banned"

How should any Linden know if the merchant has a license to sell these things, or not? It's up to the IP owner to take action against it, or not. It's nobody elses business.

Actually, LL can take down anything they want, DMCA or not.  They are under no obligation to host any content. A few years ago they did a thorough purge of anything mentioning any name brand, including anything that you even compared to a name brand. Like they took down a dress because I said in the description that it was "in the style of Dior".  Now their policy is that Dior can just file a DMCA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


MIstahMoose wrote:

There just really needs to be one linden member who goes around the MP deleting inactive shops, removing copyrighted material etc. Its realllly easy to see it all if you're familiar with modern games and logos etc. I really don't understand why they don't pursue it.


Then I suggest you do a quick search in these forums for Chosen Few and Copyright .

Here's one of many : http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Mesh/Stolen-mesh/m-p/1959077/highlight/true#M20405

From Chosen's message N°8:

"The bottom line is it's not LL's job to decide who might or might not be infringing.  That's what we have courts for.  LL's role, just like that of all service providers, is to remain neutral at all times, and comply with all legal notices they receive.  That's it."

Simple enough isn't it ?

 

I'm not even going to reply to people who are border line vigilantists , who decide others are guilty just because it suits them to do so. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty ?

This makes me so angry I'm not going to say any more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How should any Linden know if the merchant has a license to sell these things, or not? It's up to the IP owner to take action against it, or not. It's nobody elses business.

 

That is exactly correct. And also the content creator's responsibility is clearly expressed inside the SL Terms of Service:

"Linden Lab reserves the right, but is not obligated to use technological measures designed to prohibit the copying, transfer, or distribution of Content outside the Service when we in good faith believe that such copying, transfer, or distribution would or might violate the Intellectual Property Rights of our users, Linden Lab, or third parties.

You copy and use Content at your own risk. You are solely responsible and liable for your use, reproduction, distribution, modification, display, or performance of any Content in violation of any Intellectual Property Rights. You agree that Linden Lab will have no liability for, and you agree to defend, indemnify, and hold Linden Lab harmless for, any claims, losses or damages arising out of or in connection with your use, reproduction, distribution, modification, display, or performance of any Content."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LL is already outside Safe Harbor because it makes money off the infringing content on the MP.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq

 

Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?

 

Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above) and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions.

 

In order to facilitate the notification process in cases of infringement, ISPs which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service, must designate an agent that will receive the notices from copyright owners that its network contains material which infringes their intellectual property rights. The service provider must then notify the Copyright Office of the agent's name and address and make that information publicly available on its web site. [512©(2)]

 

Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512©(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512©(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)©]. The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512©(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said it yourself in the above post. Everybody has to sign the toss, to upload content. To LL, any content is legal in the first place. And again, how would they know if the merchant has a license to sell the alleged infringing content, or not.

They would have to check each and every piece of content 24/7, contact the IP owner and make sure the merchant has the appropiate rights, or not. How should that work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said earlier:

"There is not much any of us can do to stem the flood of ripped mesh filling up SL -- but this thread is about whether or not we choose to help people learn to upload these "free" models."

 

People should no doubt get the benefit of the doubt about whether what they need help with is their original content or not.  But if it is blatantly clear that someone with no skills whatsover is trying to figure out how to get some elaborate mesh they did not make in shape to get uploaded, then we each have a choice of whether to assist that effort or not.

 

LL's DMCA policies are another issue.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:

 

 Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512©(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512©(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)©].
The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512©(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].

Interesting question here.  If the fees, the Linden Dollar Game Tokens that LL 'charges' the Merchants simply go into the sink (are destroyed) are they gaining a Financial benefit? 

I know they do indirectly because they operate the Lindex.  But the Lindex is separate from the Marketplace.  (I have a suspicion that the Lindex is operated as a wholly owned subsidiary, a separate entity legally speaking, from SL.  I have no proof of this but it would make sense).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Pamela Galli wrote:

 

 Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512©(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512©(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)©].
The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512©(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].

Interesting question here.  If the fees, the Linden Dollar Game Tokens that LL 'charges' the Merchants simply go into the sink (are destroyed) are they gaining a Financial benefit? 

I know they do indirectly because they operate the Lindex.  But the Lindex is separate from the Marketplace.  (I have a suspicion that the Lindex is operated as a wholly owned subsidiary, a separate entity legally speaking, from SL.  I have no proof of this but it would make sense).

You actually have to go deeper into that 512©(1)(B) and 512(d)(2) to get the idea:

"A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider

 

 does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity

"

In LL case: service provider has the right, BUT has not the ability to control

==>so LL is on a safe side.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Jake Koronikov wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:


Pamela Galli wrote:

 

 Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512©(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512©(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)©].
The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512©(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].

Interesting question here.  If the fees, the Linden Dollar Game Tokens that LL 'charges' the Merchants simply go into the sink (are destroyed) are they gaining a Financial benefit? 

I know they do indirectly because they operate the Lindex.  But the Lindex is separate from the Marketplace.  (I have a suspicion that the Lindex is operated as a wholly owned subsidiary, a separate entity legally speaking, from SL.  I have no proof of this but it would make sense).

You actually have to go deeper into that 512©(1)(B) and 512(d)(2) to get the idea:

"
A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief
, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider,
if the service provider

 

 
does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity,
in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity

"

In LL case: service provider has the right, BUT
has not the ability to control

==>
so LL is on a safe side.

 

 

They may be double safe.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:

As I said earlier:

"There is not much any of us can do to stem the flood of ripped mesh filling up SL -- but this thread is about whether or not we choose to help people learn to upload these "free" models."

 

People should no doubt get the benefit of the doubt about whether what they need help with is their original content or not.  But if it is blatantly clear that someone with no skills whatsover is trying to figure out how to get some elaborate mesh they did not make in shape to get uploaded, then we each have a choice of whether to assist that effort or not.

 

LL's DMCA policies are another issue.  

 

I totally aggree with that.

However, I'm just tired of reading things like LL should easily remove "infringing content" on their own. I myself have notified game companys about "ripped" content from their games. They said thank you. But did they took any action against the content? No! So obviously they are OK with it. So it has to be OK for me, too. No matter how much I like it, or not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


They may be double safe. 
;)

Hehe, I agree. Propably even triple. I guess they have more than one clever lawyer who have investigated every possible scenario during all these years. And I think it is very okey. Would be disaster for their economy otherwise o.O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, there are generally no laws against helping someone. On the contrary, judgment based on presumption is a different matter entirely.

If you have a strong suspicion your creative projects are stolen, of course it's strongly recommend you take action against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many people said "well what if they have the license to sell" and sure that's fair. They should be required to submit it and have it reviewed to ensure its wholly legal. Sure we assume people are guilty but its not like the mp host any spot for them to show their licenses and god forbid some of them have a description for any of the ripped content they're selling for 25 linden. Its not even that content that really makes me mad. Its when I see people buy something from turbosquid and upload it here and sell it high priced because no one can identify it and know better except the users who are on turbo a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Its when I see people buy something from turbosquid and upload it here and sell it high priced because no one can identify it and know better except the users who are on turbo a lot."

As a creator I think I can say I'd very much appreciate it if someone notified me when they have a strong suspicion my creations are being abused (not to mention feeling annoyed about it happening in the first place). But I think that's really pretty much the only thing one can do in such a case. And then it's up to the creator to do something with that information. Such course of action would be justified. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a mesh builder I tend to glaze over when I hear about argmuments about copyright, not because I don't believe that theft is wrong - but because many of the "enforcers" tend to have little if any restraint and many more often are willing to step over the line to try and get a model banned, resorting to lying, harrasment and false complaints in the process.

 

In context a story that involved me and the first tank I created over a year ago was that I found myself under siege by people claiming it was ripped from WoT without making any effort to look and see if there was any diffrence between mine and the model that they claimed I was stealing, after I rebuffed them on the first go they fell silent only to start with posting reviews claiming theft and when I reported these to Linden and had them removed, I soon found myself targeted with paperthin arguments such as "well anything that looks nice must be stolen", "if you didn't steal from WoT, then you've stolen from somewhere else" to the amazing debating tactic of - "well your standing up for yourself - thats proof of guilt".

 

Thankfully in my case I was able to catch two of them out resorting to lying and harrasment and as off such Linden was able to step in and deal with it, but since then I've been of the opinion that people trying to "self-enforce" are just as bad as the people trying to steal.

 

Finally with regards to the argument about turbosquid as I plan to go into freelance wholesale myself someday (when work stop's treating me like slave labour and I can try for fortnightly builds - lol), I wouldn't care if people were to pay me and use my model in SL, the only issue for me would be overpricing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...