about the new SL and Linden dollar

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Cathy Foil wrote:

 

Another reason for allowing only Premium Members to sell would be to help stop the practice of ripping mesh from games and other online sources and or for that matter reselling copybot items.  Since premium members have to give a credit card or bank account information people engaged in such practices won't because now their real life identities can be easily tracked down by authorities.  It won't stop it completely but it will sure keep it to a minimum.

---

Being premium doesn't give LL any more of an edge in tracking someone down in RL than free accounts that have payment information on file.  Marketplace now requires PIOF to open a new store.  Inworld most owners of in world shops would need to have PIOF to pay tiers on their in world store either directly to LL or to buy L's to pay an estate owner as well as to cash out their earnings.

Secondly, it is not LL's responsibility to track people down violators of IP rights in RL to prosecute or sue them.  That is the responsibility of the copyright owner that files the DMCA.  LL's only responsibility is to give you the accused's RL information if they file a counter claim.  A counter claim requires that the person filing it give RL information.

Many content creators on SL are not premium members.  I am not premium and I bet I have paid LL more than most Premium Members ever will in region tiers (you don't need to be premium to own an estate) and fees and I am not alone in this. 

Many people use the money they earn in selling things to pay tier and buy items from other residents.  It would have a significant negative effect on the economy to deny them the ability to sell things.

Having to be premium in order to sell things has been beaten to death on this forum over the years.  irihapeti is right in what she said about who is responsible for copybot and who rips people off.  Many premium members that want this just want to cut back on their competition, IMO, because they can't or don't want to compete in a open market.

 

[Charli Infinity]

---

Cathy Foil wrote:

Yes that scenario could happen but the percentage of people willing to rip textures for such a purpose is very very small.  They would have to find both shirts rezzed in world someplace to rip the textures.  Way too much trouble for the average buyer who is also willing rip textures to bother with.

Copybotters and texture rippers are only a problem if they can turn around and sell what they have stolen.  My proposal that in the new virtual world only "Premium Members" be allowed to sell on the marketplace or in world or give items to another resident would cut this down to a minimum.

Think about it.  If a copybotter or ripper can only use the items for themselves there is no real loss to the content creator since the person who is willing to use copybot or rip mesh most likely would never buy the item in the first place even if there was no such thing as copybot or ripper.  People who use copybot are lazy thieves and lazy thieves don't spend money for things.  I am not saying if they are caught they shouldn't be punished or banned from SL.  I am not saying it is OK to copybot or ripp mesh.

---

Omg...you are completely oblivious to the dark side of SL. Practically a noob. You don't know about the that forum that shall not be named.

No, copybotters and texture rippers and their community is certainly not a small percentage.

No, copybotters and texture rippers don't only cause problems when they sell. They are freaking giving out textures out for free. It's literally piracy. They are far more organized than what you are thinking. They are not petty thieves, they have a network and many reasons for copybotting and ripping than to just get the item, most are sociopathic and seek to troll and destroy creators which they dislike. They have their own viewer. They don't rip for themselves, they spread them and they are required to share what they have stolen to be a part of that gang. 

Banning does not work, they have numerous accounts and keep coming back. If you've created anything of real value you would have dealt with them and known this.

Not only have they stolen, they have become more brazen in recent years and claim what they have stolen as their own creation in RL and gotten the original creators to close shop. Every now and then there's news of another legitimate creator leaving because of the problem created by this gang.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Cathy Foil wrote:

Dresden are you as clueless as you appear to be?  If you knew anything about IMVU you know the owners of IMVU overly encourage or require very low poly mesh creation.  IMVU exchange rate is horrible and they have no in world building or script language.  Every mesh that has a different color for texture has to be uploaded separately in IMVU thus each variation cost a considerable amount of money to bring in world.  That is why overall there isn't as much higher quality items as compared SL.  It is not IMVU's full perm / Derivation system they have that makes the overall amount of high quality items lower in IMVU less than in SL.  

---

You are correct... I am pretty clueless where the creative process in IMVU is concerned.  Nevertheless, I still contend that your idea would definitely stifle creativity in SL and in LL's next VW as well.  Not only that, but I firmly believe that should LL set such restrictions, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

What I said is that the system in SL is encouraging of creativity... and, by that, I don't just mean in contrast to IMVU, but in contrast to just about any other platform out there at the moment.  One of SL's biggest draws for, at least amateur, content creators is the ability to make money off of creations with virtually no investment costs.  While not everyone takes such things into account, most reasonable people certainly do.  It's simply logical to expect that people would be more likely to invest their creative energy into something which might eventually garner them a monetary return on such an investment, rather than a simple pat on the back.

 

---

Cathy Foil wrote:

I never suggested that creators for IMVU were less restricted than those in SL Dresden.  The only restrictions I have proposed is selling be limited to Premium Members only.  Free memberships should be able to create anything they want for themselves just not be permitted to sell it or transfer it to other residents.  This would not restrict creativity.

---

Perhaps you're right that it wouldn't restrict creativity for those already creatively inclined.  It's the people who didn't even realize that they could be creative until they gave it a try and, encouraged by the thought of being able to make a bit of money off of their work, decided to continue developing their creative skills with whom I'm concerned.

 

---

Cathy Foil wrote:

Now to be clear I am talking about this for the new virtual world Linden Lab is creating not for SL.  It is way too late in the game to change the rules for SL.

---

Unfortunately, I have no confidence that LL won't take this very approach (knowing how blindly ignorant they can be), but, as I stated above, should they be delusional enough to do so, they'd only be shooting themselves in the foot.

Ebbe has already stated that, within the new platform, LL intends to monetize content over the tier-based income upon which LL relies in SL (look it up).  Surely, they'd be cutting out a huge portion of their profits by implementing your ill-conceived suggestion.  They'd be stupid to place such restrictions on the selling of content, when every bit of content sold would mean revenue for them.

I fully support setting restrictions as to the way content is made and, yet, vehemently oppose restrictions upon who can create that content.  I may be clueless about some things, but I'm no idiot.

...Dres

[Cathy Foil]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

Cathy Foil wrote:

 

Another reason for allowing only Premium Members to sell would be to help stop the practice of ripping mesh from games and other online sources and or for that matter reselling copybot items.  Since premium members have to give a credit card or bank account information people engaged in such practices won't because now their real life identities can be easily tracked down by authorities.  It won't stop it completely but it will sure keep it to a minimum.

---

Being premium doesn't give LL any more of an edge in tracking someone down in RL than free accounts that have payment information on file.  Marketplace now requires PIOF to open a new store.  Inworld most owners of in world shops would need to have PIOF to pay tiers on their in world store either directly to LL or to buy L's to pay an estate owner as well as to cash out their earnings.

Cathy Foil response:

I don't know if you have read my earlier posts here but the ideas I have put forth are for the new virtual world LL is creating not for SL.  If free accounts can't sell then they can't cash out.  The payment on file information to buy linden dollars would not be necessary because those could be purchased on a secure website using a credit card or paypal.

You bring up a good point in that just having a payment information on file is probably not enough.  Though it looks like LL is headed in that direction in that even though I don't really make that much money in SL I was required by LL to fill out an on line document and a current photo ID not long ago.  Not a bad idea to require it of anyone who wants to sell.

Secondly, it is not LL's responsibility to track people down violators of IP rights in RL to prosecute or sue them.  That is the responsibility of the copyright owner that files the DMCA.  LL's only responsibility is to give you the accused's RL information if they file a counter claim.  A counter claim requires that the person filing it give RL information.

Cathy Foil response:

When did I say it was LL's responsibility?  

Many content creators on SL are not premium members.  I am not premium and I bet I have paid LL more than most Premium Members ever will in region tiers (you don't need to be premium to own an estate) and fees and I am not alone in this. 

Cathy Foil response:

That is nice.  Again I am talking about the new virtual world LL is creating.  New world means new rules.  It is possible that land will be free and no in world sales.  It might be where if you see something in world you like to buy you simply right mouse click on it and select buy and in a browser it takes you to a MarketPlace like sight to purchase it.  This would make the entire world basically a showroom.

Many people use the money they earn in selling things to pay tier and buy items from other residents.  It would have a significant negative effect on the economy to deny them the ability to sell things.

Cathy Foil response:

Again I am talking about the new virtual world LL is creating.  I have already stated that the ideas I have proposed are not for SL that it is too late in the game to change the rules for SL.

Having to be premium in order to sell things has been beaten to death on this forum over the years.  irihapeti

is right in what she said about who is responsible for copybot and who rips people off.  Many premium members that want this just want to cut back on their competition, IMO, because they can't or don't want to compete in a open market.

 

Cathy Foil response:

Just to make sure this is clear I am talking about I am talking about the new virtual world LL is creating.  I have no problem with competition or a free market.  All markets have rules, costs and restrictions that influence the economic viability of them even in SL and the current MarketPlace website.  

Again you must not have read all my earlier posts.  There are problems I see in SL market.  One being the way Full Perm works currently.  Two no RL costs to keep items from being sold for L$1 or even L$0.  Three stolen content being sold in SL with no real consequences to the perpetrators.

The new virtual world LL is creating gives LL a great opportunity to address issues like these that simply can't be implemented in SL. 

I love to hear your ideas Amethyst on how to make the new world LL is creating better or not have the same problems as SL.

---

 

[Cathy Foil]

If my ideas for the new virtual world LL is creating isn't going to help curb or minimize the copybot problem or this organized criminal group you speak of please put forth some of your own ideas as to how they can be dealt with in the new world.

HMM haven't created anything of real value?  I guess creating Maya plugins for SL or creating the first high heel shoe with a sculptie / prim foot in it, 5 months before Stiletto Moody mind you, couldn't be considered of anything of real value.

[Cathy Foil]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Cathy Foil wrote:

Dresden are you as clueless as you appear to be?  If you knew anything about IMVU you know the owners of IMVU overly encourage or require very low poly mesh creation.  IMVU exchange rate is horrible and they have no in world building or script language.  Every mesh that has a different color for texture has to be uploaded separately in IMVU thus each variation cost a considerable amount of money to bring in world.  That is why overall there isn't as much higher quality items as compared SL.  It is not IMVU's full perm / Derivation system they have that makes the overall amount of high quality items lower in IMVU less than in SL.  

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

You are correct... I am pretty clueless where the creative process in IMVU is concerned.  Nevertheless, I still contend that your idea would definitely stifle creativity in SL and in LL's next VW as well.  Not only that, but I firmly believe that should LL set such restrictions, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

 

My ideas can't stifle cretivity in SL because I am not proposing them for SL.  The only thing I am proposing restricting in the new VW is selling not creating.  Those who want to create and sell with free accounts will still be free to do so in SL.  I happen to respectfully dissagree that LL would not be shooting themselves in the foot.  Neither of us can say which one of us is correct till the idea has been tried in the new VW.

Man I wish LL would just give it a name already.  Kinda like saying "He who must not be named" instead of just Voldemort.

________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

What I said is that the system in SL is encouraging of creativity... and, by that, I don't just mean in contrast to IMVU, but in contrast to just about any other platform out there at the moment.  One of SL's biggest draws for, at least amateur, content creators is the ability to make money off of creations with virtually no investment costs.  While not everyone takes such things into account, most reasonable people certainly do.  It's simply logical to expect that people would be more likely to invest their creative energy into something which might eventually garner them a monetary return on such an investment, rather than a simple pat on the back.

________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Yes but again my ideas have been put forth for the NW LL is creating not SL.  I agree with you that yes indeed for SL what you put forth is one of the big draws for content creators in SL.  Hurray I must be a reasonable person! 

SL isn't going anyplace.  A reasonable person would realize that for those armature content creators who need a market to sell their creations for monetary gain to make it worth their while will still have one.

 

---

Cathy Foil wrote:

I never suggested that creators for IMVU were less restricted than those in SL Dresden.  The only restrictions I have proposed is selling be limited to Premium Members only.  Free memberships should be able to create anything they want for themselves just not be permitted to sell it or transfer it to other residents.  This would not restrict creativity.

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

 

Perhaps you're right that it wouldn't restrict creativity for those already creatively inclined.  It's the people who didn't even realize that they could be creative until they gave it a try and, encouraged by the thought of being able to make a bit of money off of their work, decided to continue developing their creative skills with whom I'm concerned.

 

________________________________________________________________________________________

 

That is great and SL will still be here for that .  It is great that you are concerned for them.  

 

---

Cathy Foil wrote:

Now to be clear I am talking about this for the new virtual world Linden Lab is creating not for SL.  It is way too late in the game to change the rules for SL.

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Unfortunately, I have no confidence that LL won't take this very approach (knowing how blindly ignorant they can be), but, as I stated above, should they be delusional enough to do so, they'd only be shooting themselves in the foot.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

You can't say that for certain if LL were to put my ideas into practice would be shooting themselves in the foot.  The best you can say is you don't think my ideas would be successful if the NW were to use them.  To claim that it would would mean you can see the future and that would be delusional.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Ebbe has already stated that, within the new platform, LL intends to monetize content over the tier-based income upon which LL relies in SL (look it up).  Surely, they'd be cutting out a huge portion of their profits by implementing your ill-conceived suggestion.  They'd be stupid to place such restrictions on the selling of content, when every bit of content sold would mean revenue for them.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

In the short term yes keeping free accounts from being able to sell in the NW would most likely mean less profit.

In the long term however more stable pricing, higher quality content, less stolen merchandise and less copybotting would make for a much more stable marketplace.

You may disagree with my ideas for how to achieve these things but surely you can't disagree that more stable prices, higher quality content, less stolen merchandise and less copybotting would be a bad thing?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

I fully support setting restrictions as to the way content is made and, yet, vehemently oppose restrictions upon who can create that content.  I may be clueless about some things, but I'm no idiot.

...Dres

---

 Then you should have no problems with my ideas for the NW.  I have not said free accounts should be restricted in their ability to create just restricted from selling or transferring / giving items to other accounts.  I have also made it clear that this would be for the NW and not SL.  Selling and creating are two separate things. 

While the ability to sell may be a modivation for some creators who other wise would not create it is by no means the only reason for all creators.  SL will always be here for those creators who need some sort financial reward for creating however small.

I don't think you are an idiot.  I only asked if you were clueless because you asked if I was insane.

[irihapeti]

can see that in your thinking you have moved from who can create to who can sell. So thats good

+

so now examine the proposition of who can sell

that a person may have to pay in some way to sell dont provide the answer to the proposition. By deduction (counter-example)

Suppose:

i am a creative. I buy addys and pay upload fees and sales commissions in L$. Pay my parcel rental in L$. What L$ I do get stays in the world and I spend it on stuff/events/experiences I dont make myself. I simply see it as a game. I just make stuff and roleplay in the game as a shopkeeper. If is successful then cool. I have more game tokens to spend. If not then oh! well. Is not a biggie. I do other things with my time

for me to do this then the proposition is that I must provide RL identification, yes? That the act of selling itself makes this something different from other forms of ingame activity

+

if so then how does selling product for ingame tokens make it any different from selling services for ingame tokens

say for example: DJs and live performers who plays the clubs. Club venue owners also who earn ingame tokens from this. Should they not also have to provide RL identification, as a method of ensuring that they as public venue providers and the performers also are paying the appropriate dues to the music copyright holders

should not also anyone using media to stream onto their parcels or onto prims. So that can ensure they also are observing IP and copyrights. Same also users who use and stream data from own servers to/from inworld

+

if the premise of the proposition was to be met then is immaterial whether or not LL get any fees or payments at all

all that would be required to meet the premise (and fulfil the proposition) is that anyone whose activity touches in any way on something that might touch on others IP must provide verifiable RL details before they can login

 

[Charli Infinity]

It was never the topic of this thread to discuss solutions to copybotting. It was you that brought up "the biggest problem I see in SL..." out of the bue and jacked this thread. but copybotting or just piracy is a difficult to control we all know that. There does not seem to be a solution and what you suggested is just another suggestion that is not very well thought out.

first in creating sculpt shoes and feet...wow such value. sorry never heard of you. other creators can do without your plugin. you have not created anything of value in world that people would want to steal. are you one of the people that like to comment first on youtube videos?

[Amethyst Jetaime]

I know you were talking about the new grid. I just don't agree with your "solutions" as they don't solve anything. 

I don't see any problem with the way full perm works now and apparently most people who sell full perm don't either or they wouldn't be selling things full perm.  Plus it's ok with me that people sell there stuff for 1L or give it for free.  LL won't do anything to stop that either, as they want some free content available to new people.

Even having a staff of experts check everything that is imported in SL for IP violations may cut down on the obvious stuff, but it won't stop it from happening.  No one can recognize everything that comes from another game as ripped off.  Even if that were possible, it would take a huge staff to do that with the rate things are imported into SL and is not economically feasible.  As I said before, it is not LL's job to do this anyway.  It is up to the person that owns the IP rights to enforce them. 

You haven't given any proof that requiring everyone to be premium to sell things is a solution at all since plenty of Premium Members are involved in ripping content already or see nothing wrong with passing full perm things to a friend.  There are also plenty of Premium members that make things that they sell for cheap or give away.

As far as offering my own ideas, that isn't possible for me to do at this time since we don't know what LL's economic model is going to be and how the world will be structured.  

The only thing that I do know is that Ebee said they were going to try to give us inworld creation tools much better than we have now and everyone will be able to create content with them and that LL considers the content creators and their primary customer on the new grid.

[LlazarusLlong]

I have reread everything that Ebbe and his PR mouthpieces have said about SL2 and I can't find anywhere where he commits to making the new product available for free, even in part, as SL is now.

So how much is migration going to cost?

To say nothing of the higher levels of subscription that are bound to be imposed.

[irihapeti]

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

 

 

To say nothing of the higher levels of subscription that are bound to be imposed.

---

agree

if the new world revenue stream is to be less reliant on tiers then diversification

[Vivienne Schell]

"They have also made it very clear that this new virtual world, while very similar in many ways to SL, will be a its own product."

No, by making nothing very clear they made very clear that there will be almost no similarities. It makes no sense at all to release something like a "Third Life" anyway, and this will not be their purpose. Forget about "SL 2", it will not happen.

The Lab wants "Mainstream", the big dollar, gazillions of happily paying users and Silicon Valley top notch status. This can´t be achieved by an anarchist user sandbox conception as Second Life ever was - so they obviously think.

[Vivienne Schell]

 

"As I said before, it is not LL's job to do this anyway.  It is up to the person that owns the IP rights to enforce them. "

Linden Lab only gets away with the supposed to be "Safe Harbor" status because Second Life has been removed from public attention over the past years. Once they come up with something "newer, bigger, greater", which will be in the focus of international  media attention it absoluteyly will be their job to keep this thingy clean. Otherwise some judge will close it  down before the first 10,000 of the wished 10 million users dropped into the place.

 

[Qie Niangao]

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

 Linden Lab only gets away with the supposed to be "Safe Harbor" status because Second Life has been removed from public attention over the past years. Once they come up with something "newer, bigger, greater", which will be in the focus of international  media attention it absoluteyly will be their job to keep this thingy clean. Otherwise some judge will close it  down before the first 10,000 of the wished 10 million users dropped into the place. 

---

I'm not sure what you mean. If you're talking about the Lab being unacceptably slow to act on its DMCA duties, that may be correct; I don't have solid evidence one way or another. But if "keep this thingy clean" means doing anything other than acting according to DMCA, that isn't going to happen. And the result will be the same IP quagmire we see on every online platform, notably including the one with the most public attention of all, Facebook.

Or maybe you mean that they do a bit too much, beyond what DMCA Safe Harbor really allows. I've heard some worrisome suggestions that they may try to delay response in some cases of blatantly false claims from competitors' alt accounts. Not just blindly following-through according to statute would seem LL's worst risk (and the worst flaw in DMCA).

[Vivienne Schell]

There are different ways to draw some red lines for object importers. One of them is what they did lately, iimposing some cash out limits (600 US dollars a year, any more requires IRS tax form and ID card copy). This certainly helps in some way. - in Second Life.

But for the "new" thingy it might become inavoidable to license off-world content creation to real persons with a real ID exclusively - IF they are serious about "Mainstream". It´s what almost every serious and broadly known game platform does if it allows mods. Only this can prevent the rippers, IP thieves and "who cares?" crowd from taling over - as they did with the glorious Second Life "Mesh Revolution".

"Safe Harbor" is not an option.

[Qie Niangao]

Admittedly, I have no idea what other games do, but if they're doing something other than what's required to retain DMCA Safe Harbor, why are they doing that? I mean, it can't be about being "mainstream" or not -- god knows none of them are a tenth as mainstream as Facebook or Tumblr or any of the other networks where you can't swing a lolcat without hitting purloined images (and logos, and IP of all kinds).

So is there somewhere I can educate myself on why these game platforms would risk losing Safe Harbor?

Or... maybe I'm misunderstanding, and they're just taking precautions to make it less burdensome to maintain Safe Harbor, perhaps by restricting the sheer volume and diversity of user-generated content?

Perhaps... something like YouTube's "Content ID" scanning? That's been really controversial (and often abused) but it's a measure that could theoretically have a virtual world analogue.

[Bobbie Faulds]

It would be nice if LL actually looked at the DMCA claims. As the one filled against the Belleza mesh body shows, when Tricky went to fight it, turns out the person named as filing it didn't have and had never had an SL account and had no idea what SL was. The body was then allowed back. Just a simple fact check would have shown it was a false filing and saved everyone time and money.

[Vivienne Schell]

Many reasons, Qui. One of the most important is "Public Image". Imagine a 3D world based on - or substantiallly reliant on - ripped off from whatever game, turbosquid, DAZ or other SL typical rip sources. Do you think that the media attention will be a positive one? Mainstream needs media attention, in a straight out positive way. At least in the beginning. Linden Lab cannot risk another "Looted Life" anti-campaign. #

No one really cares about Second Life anymore, and that´s why Linden Lab and most rippers, thieves and license violators get away with this - meanwhile-  breathtaking pile of balant IP right violations. Safe harbor or not - and safe harbor isn´t as safe as many here suggest. Not at all. Why do you think the Lab removed these "Avatar" thingies BEFORE Cameron thought of filing a DMCA and then sue LL into hell?

 

 

 

[Cerise Sorbet]

---

Bobbie Faulds wrote:

It would be nice if LL actually looked at the DMCA claims. As the one filled against the Belleza mesh body shows, when Tricky went to fight it, turns out the person named as filing it didn't have and had never had an SL account and had no idea what SL was. The body was then allowed back. Just a simple fact check would have shown it was a false filing and saved everyone time and money.

---

This is a flaw in OCILLA that was never adequately addressed by US lawmakers. Proof of identity is not one of the requirements to make a notification "effective", and bigger fish than LL (most notably Google) have been rebuffed on attempts to require it.

Notifications are supposedly make under penalty of perjury, but this only comes in after the fact. This part has shown itself to have no teeth, because a takedown notification is only a statement that the filer believes an item infringes. That is a notoriously difficult thing to disprove.

[Qie Niangao]

I guess, but again, the volume of IP infringement in Second Life or any other current or future game is minuscule compared to the steady stream of ripped content that flows through Facebook and the like constantly, day after day. I'm not sure if it isn't just that LL (and other games?) have much worse public relations departments.

Also, note that Cameron couldn't sue for infringement unless / until he could demonstrate that LL failed to respond to DMCA notices. That's how any content distributors can survive at all.

[Vivienne Schell]

Nevertheless Linden Lab performed a pre-emptive strike regarding "Avatar" for some valid reasons. Which proves that "Safe HArbor" is only sooooo "safe", otherwise...who cares?

And you cannot really compare something as BIG and established as Facebook to Linden Lab and their survival project for which they do not even have a name yet. Different pair of shoes.

Apart from that: There a numerous truly BIG lawyer associations making BIG money with prosecuting IP right violations. Try to post a Getty image on your personal website and you´ll certainly get an unpleasant mail within a few weeks.

[Cerise Sorbet]

"Avatar" content could be taken down without involving DMCA because trademarks were involved. Trademarks fall under different laws with different standards and different processes. Most notably there is nothing like "safe harbor" for trademarks. There is a fair dealing principle for trademarks, but it does not work the same way as copyright "fair use" and involves a whole different list of tests.

[Vivienne Schell]

Basically Linden Lab COULD take down whatever content they want to take down for no reason at all.

 

[Cathy Foil]

I understand your logic and reasoning but you are taking my proposal farther than I said.  It is if there was a very busy that was very dangerous and I had voiced the idea the speed limit be lowered by 5 miles per hour to make it safer.  You then say why 5? Why not 10 or 20 miles a hour lower or why not close the street that would make it totally safe? As a counter argument against my idea.

While the over all  questioning of lowering the speed limit effectiveness to help make the busy dangerous road safer is valid taking what was originally  proposed farther than the 5 miles per hour lower is not a valid or fair argument against the idea.

My original idea to limit who can sell and transfer objects from one account to another that is it.  I never said or suggested in the new virtual world that the ability to create should be limit.  Others responded to my ideas and misunderstood and had thought my idea was to limit who could create so I responded and corrected their mistaken belief.

Getting paid to do a job such as DJing isn't selling therefore my idea doesn't come into play in this situation.  Nor does it come into play in any of the other examples you have put forth.  My proposal was to limit the ability to sell items in world or on the Marketplace and the ability to transfer objects from one account to another account to premium members only. 

[Cerise Sorbet]

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

Basically Linden Lab COULD take down whatever content they want to take down for no reason at all. 

---

They could do that, but with a loss of legal protections that would drain their bank book and put them out of business in a short time