Linden Lab Goes Copyright Nuts

[Callum Meriman]

2 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

They should put people like Strawberry Singh on the payroll

Hmm, I thought she was an ex-linden.

[Morgan Rosenstar]

11 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

That was back when there weren't more than 5000 people logging on. Today, it's more like 30,000 at a time.

Yes, I suppose that with 30k SLers logging in every day, LL would need to dedicate more employees. Not to mention how some users can quickly become unfriendly. I remember when Ebbe Linden invited the employees to log in more often... few weeks later he had to reinforce the ToS regarding the attitude toward LL employees, enough said.

[SpiritSparrow Skydancer]

13 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

That was back when there weren't more than 5000 people logging on. Today, it's more like 30,000 at a time.

 So what?? Not sure what your point is.  

[Nalates Urriah]

17 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

I think it's time the Lab institutionalized the FIC. They should put people like Strawberry Singh on the payroll, even if for some small amount. That way as company employees, they will not be guilty of improper use of the trademark, as they will be authorized to use it.

zOMG!!! That is WAY too rational an idea.

[Nalates Urriah]

On 12/16/2017 at 5:01 PM, MaggiJin said:

wait so this is a problem, but some guy can put up an entire store of actual ripped models from world of warcraft, league of legends, overwatch, shadow of mordor, starwars battlefront, ect and hes fine? LL doesn't care about blizzard/wb/riot/ea one day turning around and noticing they're allowing some guy to make money off their charactor models, but using their hand eye logo in a blog is bad? k just sayin thats a bit hypocritical there m8.

I understand your point. But, you have mis-framed the problem.

Copyright is simple in that the owner of a copyright is required to defend it. WoW and others have to notice and complain. It isn't Linden's obligation. Nor are they going to be held liable if a matter goes to court. Read the ToS. Those who uploaded are responsible and liable, both to WoW and LL.

The idea that a company or some company or agency will be a cop and enforce copyrights doesn't work. I have images that by default are copyrighted simply because I made them. I don't really care who uses them. So, if there were copyright police they would be trying to protect my stuff that I don't care about. I would have to be filing something to let them know it is OK to copy. The practical solution is what we have. It is efficient and the cost is allocated to those that use the protection rather than all of us paying for another screwed up government agency with no accountability or performance that most of us would never use.

[Nalates Urriah]

17 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

That was back when there weren't more than 5000 people logging on. Today, it's more like 30,000 at a time.

Some numbers... I track signed in numbers. My logger checks every 10 minutes.

The rate of sign ons is about 300 to 1500 per 10 minute period. The sign offs are running higher but generally the same range, but not at the same time. The minimum concurrent sign ins is 28,000 to 29,000 at 2 to 3 AM PT. The peak is about 2 to 3 PM PT at 45,000 to 49,000. 

One can sort of estimate the number signing in per day. But, I see no way to get a handle on unique sign ins per day, month, whatever.

At 1,000 in and a 1,000 out every 10 minutes it is going to take something like 5 to 8 hours for the population to completely change, based on just the math not actual behavior.

Considering the fact that we are spread across a huge VW it is surprising we ever see a Linden. Yet, I see Lindens every week, at least 6+/- and maybe more than a dozen. They aren't quite like Glytches. But, if you know where to find them, it's easy.

[Prokofy Neva]

@Nalates Urriah The reason I say "30,000" -- which is basically what you're saying -- is that there is a script that still reports that. Maybe it isn't accurate, but there it is.

I have no doubt that you know where to find the Lindens, Nalates. A shocking number of them are gone, however.

[Prokofy Neva]

On 12/22/2017 at 3:30 PM, Tarina Sewell said:

 So what?? Not sure what your point is.  

I don't know why this would be a hard concept: with 5,000 concurrent, a few Lindens go a long way, most don't need help. With 30,000, that's 6 times more people with many more problems, and thus more staff would be needed logically.

[SpiritSparrow Skydancer]

On 1/8/2018 at 9:53 PM, Prokofy Neva said:

I don't know why this would be a hard concept: with 5,000 concurrent, a few Lindens go a long way, most don't need help. With 30,000, that's 6 times more people with many more problems, and thus more staff would be needed logically.

??? months ago.. 

[Chase01]

On 12/16/2017 at 8:01 PM, MaggiJin said:

wait so this is a problem, but some guy can put up an entire store of actual ripped models from world of warcraft, league of legends, overwatch, shadow of mordor, starwars battlefront, ect and hes fine? LL doesn't care about blizzard/wb/riot/ea one day turning around and noticing they're allowing some guy to make money off their charactor models, but using their hand eye logo in a blog is bad? k just sayin thats a bit hypocritical there m8.

There is good reason why LL only does the minimum that is required for them to be compliant with copyright law. Do you know how much work it would take to vet all of the products being sold on the MP; not to mention the potential liability that may come as a result. Do you have any idea how much content in SL is in violation of copyright? Sure, there are original content creators on the grid, and some that do use 3rd party works have license to do so, but many do not.

For example, the tattoo market is riddled with infringed works. That picture you bought to decorate your home, the graphic on your t-shirt, nails or bag may even be suspect.

This kind of behavior is not just limited to lesser known brands.

 

 

[Callum Meriman]

On 12/23/2017 at 11:32 AM, Nalates Urriah said:

Copyright is simple in that the owner of a copyright is required to defend it.

Trademarks and trade dress need defense, copyright doesn't. It exists defended or not.

[Phil Deakins]

But copyright does require the one who has it to act against anyone who is using the stuff without permission. There are exceptions, such as what's called 'fair use' and 'derivative works' but they don't allow for the straight copying of the whole thing.

Trademarks are simple. You've either successfully registered it or not. If you haven't, you don't have it, regardless of how long you've been using it. If you have a registered trademank, you have to act against anyone who uses it. (Applying for a trademark does not mean that you have it, so it can't be defended).

So, in both cases, defensive action does need to be taken by the owner.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Callum Meriman]

25 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

But copyright does require the one who has it to act against anyone who is using the stuff without permission.

No it doesn't. You can be lax on copyright for years and still hold it. 

Trade marks need defense, copyright doesn't. Copyright is not like a trademark at all. Copyright has a set period of time, in law, for which it is valid.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Callum Meriman

[LexxiXhan]

23 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

There are exceptions, such as what's called 'fair use' and 'derivative works'

Not in every country.. 

[Phil Deakins]

That's not what I meant. To stop other people from using your copyrighted stuff, you have to take action - defend it. Nobody can acquire the copyright as long as you can prove that it's yours. A common way of proving your copyright is to send the item to yourself via registered mail, and not open it when it arrives, so you have an unopenned, dated by the mail service, copy of it.

It's the same with trademakrs. Once registered, it's yours, but you do have take action (defend) against unauthorised use of it.

Neither takes care of itself.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[LexxiXhan]

4 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

You can be lax on copyright for years and still hold it.

Agreed. Here are some examples from UK law:

Type of work	How long copyright usually lasts
Written, dramatic, musical and artistic work	70 years after the author’s death
Sound and music recording	70 years from when it’s first published
Films	70 years after the death of the director, screenplay author and composer
Broadcasts	50 years from when it’s first broadcast
Layout of published editions of written, dramatic or musical works	25 years from when it’s first published

 

 

[Callum Meriman]

Just now, Phil Deakins said:

That's not what I meant. To stop other people from using your copyrighted stuff, you have to take action - defend it. Nobody can acquire the copyright as long as you can prove it's yours.

No you don't need to defend it. The copyright exists and is not destroyed.

The word defend is key here Phil. You need to defend your trademark or it is lost, you do not need to defend your copyright, it is defined term and cannot be lost through inaction.

You can choose to take action to protect your copyright.

[Phil Deakins]

2 minutes ago, LexxiXhan said:

Not in every country.. 

That I wouldn't know about.

[LexxiXhan]

There is no legal onus on the copyright holder to take legal action in order to maintain their copyright. They can throw a civil case at an infringer at any time for as long as the copyright lasts (as defined by the laws of that particular country).

[LexxiXhan]

So thinking about the ripped game-content example, the owners of that IP can wait as long as they like, simply logging reports and evidence, and will still have the choice to take legal action for many years to come. It is most likely not worth their time to do so unless the infringement is believed to be damaging their own sales, or the infringer is believed to be making a significant amount of money.

[Phil Deakins]

26 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

No you don't need to defend it. The copyright exists and is not destroyed.

I'm still not making myself clear enough, Callum. Here's an example of having to defend your copyright. If you write a song, I hear it, record it, and sell the records, keeping all money for myself - leaving you completely out of it - you have to defend your copyright - in court, if necessary. If you can't prove that you had the song before I did, you'd lose. In that example, I'd acquire the copyright to it, because I can prove when I had the song, and nobody can prove that they had it before me. It would be using the law to steal from you. You don't have to defend the copyright itself - not the right to have it - but you do have to defend when someone uses your work without permission.

 

26 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

The word defend is key here Phil.

That's probably it. I'm meaning to defend against anyone who uses your copyrighted work without authorisation. You're meaning to defend the ownhership of the copyright. Even then, it can be takien from if you don't take steps early on, as I demonstrated in the example.

 

26 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

You need to defend your trademark or it is lost.

How can it be lost? I'm not over-familiar with it. Perhaps trademarks are registered for a specific number of years, and the registration needs to be extended every n years. If that's the case, and you let it lapse, then it can be taken but, even then, your proveable prior use would win, and you'd be allowed to re-register it - IF you became aware that someone else had applied for it, of course.

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

14 minutes ago, LexxiXhan said:

There is no legal onus on the copyright holder to take legal action in order to maintain their copyright. They can throw a civil case at an infringer at any time for as long as the copyright lasts (as defined by the laws of that particular country).

A civil case is decided by law. It's just not initiated by the legal authorities. A judge in a civil case can't decide that one person will have the copyright when the other person has proved that s/he created it..

Edited March 3, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[LexxiXhan]

2 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

A civil case is decided by law. It's just not initiated by the legal authorities.

Agreed. It's up to the copyright holder to initiate a case in their own sweet time, and the case will then be decided in a court of law unless a settlement is made out of court.

[Callum Meriman]

1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

That's probably it. I'm meaning to defend against anyone who uses your copyrighted work without authorisation. You're meaning to defend the ownhership of the copyright. Even then, it can be takien from if you don't take steps early on, as I demonstrated in the example.

The original claim that copyright could be lost if you didn't defend it was by Nalates, so that is the way I was discussing it. You can prosecute/sue other people, but it's not required to defend your work to keep your copyright. Your copyright exists under law and can not be taken from you.

If another person makes a false/vexatious claim and tried to steal your copyright as their own, then you would show your work files and the dates of the work being published to a court of law. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

[Phil Deakins]

4 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

The original claim that copyright could be lost if you didn't defend it was by Nalates, so that is the way I was discussing it. You can prosecute/sue other people, but it's not required to defend your work to keep your copyright.

Ah. My mistake. I wasn't aware of Nalates claim. I was only responding what was written in the first post of yours that I replied to.

 

6 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

Your copyright exists under law and can not be taken from you.

Unless you have no way of proving it