Want to read something depressing?

[ChinRey]

11 hours ago, Chase01 said:

@Monti Messmer I know it is fairly common to compare RL to SL but it doesn't always compare in the same way apples to apples.

Second Life is still governed by real life laws though and I don't think U.S. laws are signficiantly different from the ones of civilized nations here: you do not own stolen goods, even if you bought it in good faith and had no reason to believe it was illegal.

So if the copyright holder demands that all illegal copies are deleted, Linden Lab has to comply or they would break the law themselves.

[Chase01]

They are governed by laws, and It is the right of the vendor to request the product be pulled from inventories and not just simply taken down. I don't dispute that. Thankfully—not all do and for the time being the practice isn't commonplace.

What I am saying is that if it was was common, it would have a negative effect on the market. Buyer confidence speaks to a users willingness to spend money into the platform. Call it "risk" as some do ... I'm fine with the label. But there is no denying that at some point the risk becomes greater then the reward, and buyers grow frustrated investing money into products only to have them taken away. You can be a supporter of creators and still be upset that you got burned on your purchase. That's what this is all about ...

I suggested LL reimburse those purchases. That would essentially fix the issue in question. But I'm realist.  They are a business and they are going weigh what is good for profitability and retention. When I said the current system, I was referring to the current state. As I said above, right now its not an issue because it isn't commonplace.

I bring up the point of saying "unbeknownst" (you call it good faith) not as an excuse, but because reasonable judgement might not prevent you from getting taken advantage of. In the last several years, multiple established and popular brands (mesh body creators) had their product called into question and were issued DMCA's. That could have been a nightmare for a lot of people had that product been yanked.

Pam offered an example from the RL to illustrate a point that if we were to purchase jewelry in RL that was stolen that we that wouldn't keep it just because it was paid for (isolated incident). I agree.  If I bought something that was stolen unbeknownst to me then of course I'd return it. That's not what this is about. This is about that situation happening over and over again (common).

I'd also suggest that it is not really a great example because but its not a similar comparison to what we're discussing here. To @Drake1 Nightfire point. If I bought it from the back of a van, or from a vendor on the side of the road in NYC then it's buyer beware and I might know what to expect. That is no different then purchasing product from a shady MP store. As a consumer in RL, I can make a lot of purchases with absolute confidence and most people would never encounter a situation as described and with commonality.

I am not saying its right for users to violate copyright, nor am I saying it is wrong to pull those items. I am however saying that doing so with frequency will affect buyers.

 

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by Chase01

[Paul Hexem]

The problem with bringing up RL laws on this is that people forget one important one.

"Facilitating the sale of stolen goods".

It's one thing to buy stolen stuff in a back alley and have to give it back. It's another when an established company is knowingly providing a platform for the selling stolen items en masse to their customers.

[Sim Myoo]

There's no copyright on RL furniture last time I checked.

[ChinRey]

10 hours ago, Sim Myoo said:

There's no copyright on RL furniture last time I checked.

 

Quote

Copyright law defines "useful articles" as those that have some function beyond their style or appearance, such as clothes, appliances and furniture. Original, creative designs of an artistic or imaginative nature incorporated into utilitarian objects can be protected by copyright law, but the underlying functional design of the object itself cannot be. A painted design or a bas-relief carving on the back of a chair is within the purview of copyright protection, but the fundamental practical design of a chair cannot be copyrighted. Copyright law does cover sculpture so, to the extent that a piece of furniture may constitute a unique sculptural configuration distinct from its useful function as a table or set of shelves, that sculptural aspect can be copyrighted. Some functional aspects of furniture design may qualify for patent protection rather than copyright.

(http://info.legalzoom.com/can-furniture-copyrighted-23904.html)

That sums up U.S. copyright laws as they are applied to furniture. European copyright laws tend to be a little bit stricter, I'm not sure about the rest of the world.

But then there is a question whether a digital model can be regarded as a "useful article" at all.