Shared Media abuse?

[Kitty Barnett]

This shouldn't be that new: someone could put the URL in their profile, a prim with a llLoadURL, or in their web tab, or put a link on the forums here, etc...

Even though the content is hosted outside of LL's reach, the originating "link" is still located somewhere inside of SL (or the site) so it "should" stay AR'able (and actionable) all the same in my opinion.

---

If someone decorated the outside of their house in a PG sim with web-porn-on-a-prim the "but it's on the web and not in SL!" wouldn't make any difference either .

[Kitty Barnett]

This shouldn't be that new: someone could put the URL in their profile, a prim with a llLoadURL, or in their web tab, or put a link on the forums here, etc...

Even though the content is hosted outside of LL's reach, the originating "link" is still located somewhere inside of SL (or the site) so it "should" stay AR'able (and actionable) all the same in my opinion.

---

If someone decorated the outside of their house in a PG sim with web-porn-on-a-prim the "but it's on the web and not in SL!" wouldn't make any difference either .

[Suella Ember]

As Kitty says, while the hosted content is outside of LL's reach, i would assume that the object in-world would be AR'able if it is breaking one of the ToS.

[Cheetah Hammerer]

i'd have to agree and also possibly argue that since shared media almost undoubtedly would require someone be logged onto SL to view it that the stance technicality resides on even further shaky footing regardless of who technically is hosting the content in the end.

to reiterate:

say someone does this, starts showing everyone they can the video (or whatever it winds up being), you (probably at least) literally can't view it outside of SL, so the fact that the content's ability to be able to be partaken of resides wholly inside SL the organization providing the hosting is quite totally irrelevant, because the content resides entirely within SL itself.

now, it can be argued that it could be viewed easily outside of SL, it may be a case by case decision of the person posting/hosting it, i'm really not sure however.

 

edit: actually... nevermind most of that, i just re-read and i was a bit off base the first time around, wondering where i got the video aspect from now actually... o_0

teach me to post at 3am in the morning

[Cinnamon Lohner]

Seems pretty simple to me.  If I can take a picture of it in my viewer, then its inworld and it can be ARed, be it a disclosure or an indecency offense.

--Cinn

[DR Dahlgren]

I agree with the above, though I am not a lawyer. If I can see it inworld, like a sign, then I can AR it. To me this would be no different than playing a sexually explicit video on a TV in a PG area. While it is hosted off grid, it is viewed on grid and therefore something I can AR.

____________________

[Elmo Clarity]

How about we throw another wrinkle in the mix and see how this could get out of control....

The argument is that because the URL is posted in game, the person who posted the URL is held responsible.

But what if the link is to like a Facebook or MySpace home page and the negative comment/info is posted by someone else, but then shows up in the link outside the control of the first person.  Should that person be held responsible for the comment posted by someone else?

Personally, I think it would have to be dealt with on a case by case situation.

[Baeric Constantine]

That could have been done with various internal browsers prior to Version 2.0, and it would not be a violation as the server upon which the data resides does not belong to Linden Research.

[Clint Maggs]

Thank you all.

It seems the general consensus is to AR the object that the questionable content is placed on.  Be it a texture, media, or now shared media.

 

 

 

...How does one post at 3am?   Depends on where you live.  But coffee helps a lot. 

[Clint Maggs]

Elmo.Clarity wrote:

 

How about we throw another wrinkle in the mix and see how this could get out of control....

The argument is that because the URL is posted in game, the person who posted the URL is held responsible.

But what if the link is to like a Facebook or MySpace home page and the negative comment/info is posted by someone else, but then shows up in the link outside the control of the first person.  Should that person be held responsible for the comment posted by someone else?

Personally, I think it would have to be dealt with on a case by case situation.

That is a good point.  The idea of it being case by case would certainly be in order in cases like that.

[Cheetah Hammerer]

with a lot more errors, less eloquence and a bit more off topic.