Someone is selling many pirated children's books in Second Life

[Lindal Kidd]

No difference.

Sharing stuff on FB, and in SL, is done ALL the time.  I do it myself.  It's one of the things that's chipping away at copyright and intellectual property rights.  This is one of those, "It's wrong, but wow, EVERYBODY's doing it" situations.

We are probably going to have to find some better way of defining IP rights pretty soon.

[Orwar]

1 hour ago, FairreLilette said:

I said you all be the ethics committee here because I am done with the issue.

   This isn't an ethical conundrum, it's breach of copyright law.

   You being uninformed and trying to reason against those, as well as the SL TOS, is just .. Entertaining.

   Please, go on.

[FairreLilette]

3 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

No difference.

Sharing stuff on FB, and in SL, is done ALL the time.  I do it myself.  It's one of the things that's chipping away at copyright and intellectual property rights.  This is one of those, "It's wrong, but wow, EVERYBODY's doing it" situations.

We are probably going to have to find some better way of defining IP rights pretty soon.

What about sharing all these videos here on the forum plus making gifs without people's permission and all these kinds of things shared on this forum?  Is that right?  I guess it's not.  

Edited July 13, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Tari Landar]

1 hour ago, FairreLilette said:

Yes, I gave out commerative Woodstock posters in 3D for FREE to users in SL, I admitted it.  And, I don't think it is that big of a deal.   

 

You EVER take something I have made, or something someone I know has made or created, and decide you get to choose its worth and are therefore free to GIVE it away, because "it's no big deal"....without express permission to do so.....

I'm gna do more than figuratively smack you with a rolled up newspaper.

W...T....actual....F

That's not your ***** to just give away. I won't sugarcoat that either. You also don't get to pick the battles others choose to defend their work.

I can't imagine you were all that successful at being a "dealer" of anything, unless you worked for a landscaper and peddled manure door to door. 

 

 

 

[Lindal Kidd]

5 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

What about sharing all these video's here on the forum plus making gifs without people's permission and all these kinds of things shared on this forum?  Is that right?  I guess it's not. 

Nope. 

I'm guilty too.  I mean, look at all those images I've posted in the "Make Us Laugh!" thread.  You'll see attribution text on some of them.  At least, I don't use images that have a watermark all over them, like Shutterstock's.  That's no excuse though.  Nor is the excuse that "It's only a forum that a few people visit", or the excuse that "I didn't profit from it."  Or the one that "I found them on the Internet with Google Search".  All true, but none are valid.

Guilty, guilty, guilty.

I'm just figuring that my violations are small enough that nobody will notice and slap me with a lawsuit.  But they could.

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Lindal Kidd

[LittleMe Jewell]

15 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

It's not the same comparison.  

An equal comparison is sharing on FB or sharing here in SL because neither are tangible.

What is the difference?  

EDIT:  And, there is a whole music thread of sharing videos without people's permission.  Is that right?  

It is exactly the same thing -- the amount of money makes no difference as to whether or not it is theft.  Digital or RL, theft is theft, whether of a candy bar or a copyrighted item.

 

The music videos posted - the ones I've seen - are links directly to the original content, so that is not any sort of infringement.  Infringement would be downloading the music video to you own website and linking to that.

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by LittleMe Jewell

[Tari Landar]

7 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

What about sharing all these videos here on the forum plus making gifs without people's permission and all these kinds of things shared on this forum?  Is that right?  I guess it's not.  

Sharing of videos is a right granted to users of youtube(for example) by those creating the videos or owning the rights to the video contents. For the videos for which the owners/creators/content owners do not grant rights, the ability to share is turned off. You should really actually read, or better yet, create (like videos, and content both rl and sl) things more often. You'd have a far greater understanding of views and bits of knowledge that don't exist within your own mind. 

(and that. surprisingly, is not a knock on you, just pointing out the level of ignorance is likely to wind you up in some trouble some day, and pretending ignorance is an excuse, is, well...not gonna fly, anywhere in the world)

 

ETA: the vast majority of images and even videos one might find on the internet, come with an expressed, often times quite specific, desire and granted right to be shared. Most were never intended to bring profit of any sort for their owner(s)/creator(s), which is just one, of many reasons why they are shared as frequently as they are. Your argument holds absolutely no water, whatsoever. It's just not a good comparison.

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Tari Landar

[FairreLilette]

11 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

You also don't get to pick the battles others choose to defend their work.

What?  I don't understand your whole sentence.  

I said "pick your battles" when I saw some covers of books and I thought it would cost hundreds of dollars for a person to file a DMCA on that.  

What do you mean by "defend their work"?  

And, by "pick you battles" I also mean I am not going to report everyone who has posters up in their club or anything.  I'm just not going to do that.  If someone else wants to, they can.  But, if I see something that looks very suspicious of interrupting someone's livelihood, I will report it.  

I didn't know this person had made the whole book.  

 

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Orwar]

11 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

What about sharing all these videos here on the forum plus making gifs without people's permission and all these kinds of things shared on this forum?  Is that right?  I guess it's not.  

   Unless you yourself open a Disney media and produce a gif from it to use in your own product branding or advertisement ... It's rather unlikely. Gifs are generally around 2 seconds of video, a fraction of the 90+ minutes of movie or series they come from, that's nowhere near the same thing as photocopying books to distribute them electronically.

   No one's going to sit down and try to watch a double feature film in 2 second snipets, without sound, in extremely low resolution. 

2 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

And, by "pick you battles" I also mean I am not going to report everyone who has posters up in their club or anything.  I'm just not going to do that.  If someone else wants to, they can.  But, if I see something that looks very suspicious, I will report it.  

   Well, you can't, unless you're the copyright holder of the graphic content in the poster. Also, it's not the club breaking the law, nor the person who purchased the posters - it's the person who uploaded the textures into SL who broke the copyright, and who is liable to be hit by a DMCA.

Edited July 13, 2020 by Orwar
Graphical? Graphic. Graphite?

[Paladin Tyran]

https://www.quora.com/Copyright-Infringement-How-do-authors-feel-when-people-pirate-their-books

[Sammy Huntsman]

I don't know it is against the law. that is technically theft. It is technically someone's intellectual property. They are making a profit off of something that is not their's and didn't get permission or access to sell in SL. And it is part of the TOS. I don't know why people don't look at it as theft. That would be like someone taking the Louis Vuitton Pattern and Font and plopping it on a bag and selling it as they created it. It is wrong and they should be called out for it.

[BirdieGallo]

44 minutes ago, BirdieGallo said:

Its not just a cover! The books are scripted to turn pages!!! IT contains the full book, illustrations... even dedications! A lot of work has gone into pirating these books to look like real books. 

 

Just want you all to know once again this is more than just covers.... This is a total recreation of the book. You click it and the pages turn. Someone went to a lot of effort to do this. And they think that they should get the money for that effort of piracy.

[Colt Leeder]

Sadly, with the internet meme as so-called "fair-usage" a great many have little if any understanding of copyright laws in their country let alone the international arena. Bottom line is unless you created it or it is in the public domain then it should not be uploaded.

Sadly the enforcement of such theft can only be done by resorting to filing a DMCA take down request which is of course a USA process and so probably not going to happen for a great many creative individuals who reside elsewhere.

[Sammy Huntsman]

Just now, Rowdy Rover said:

Sadly, with the internet meme as so-called "fair-usage" a great many have little if any understanding of copyright laws in their country let alone the international arena. Bottom line is unless you created it or it is in the public domain then it should not be uploaded.

Sadly the enforcement of such theft can only be done by resorting to filing a DMCA take down request which is of course a USA process and so probably not going to happen for a great many creative individuals who reside elsewhere.

Fair usage only works if you are using clips or examples, not taking a whole dang book. Lol. That is not fair usage, that is blatant theft.

[Lillith Hapmouche]

Did someone mention Disney?

Gachas at L$ 50. "Books" starting at L$ 100, a couple of L$ 125 and others for L$ 150.

Quoting from the owner's profile, a 13 years old account:

Quote

Co-Owner of SL's premiere children's book store ❤️ Winners of 2011 SL Kid's Choice for Best Toy Store, and Kids Business Award for Most Community Involved Store.

 

1 hour ago, Lindal Kidd said:

No one is saying you are horrible, Fairre! 

Need volunteers?

 

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I'm so gonna rip... borrow that for personal use. 😜

 

Plus:

[Amina Sopwith]

The covers aren't exempt. An illustrator will have drawn them. In some cases, as in the Eric Carle books I see there, the illustrator is also the author. 

[Lillith Hapmouche]

Does Dream Seeker Estates listen to such complaints concerning their tenants?

[FairreLilette]

24 minutes ago, Orwar said:

Unless you yourself open a Disney media and produce a gif from it to use in your own product branding or advertisement ... It's rather unlikely. Gifs are generally around 2 seconds of video, a fraction of the 90+ minutes of movie or series they come from, that's nowhere near the same thing as photocopying books to distribute them electronically.

   No one's going to sit down and try to watch a double feature film in 2 second snipets, without sound, in extremely low resolution. 

 

I thought it wasn't that big of a deal WHEN I only saw covers and thought it would cost hundreds of dollars to file a DMCA.  I thought an attorney had to file it and attorneys cost a lot of money.

I didn't know it was a whole book.  But, even with the covers, if it doesn't cost hundreds of dollars to hire an attorney and file, I understand it now.  

As far as gif's though, they are all over the internet.   That's stealing then too.  

[Sammy Huntsman]

3 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

 

I thought it wasn't that big of a deal WHEN I only saw covers and thought it would cost hundreds of dollars to file a DMCA.  I thought an attorney had to file it and attorneys cost a lot of money.

I didn't know it was a whole book.  But, even with the covers, if it doesn't cost hundreds of dollars to hire an attorney and file, I understand it now.  

As far as gif's though, they are all over the internet.   That's stealing then too.  

No you can file a DMCA if you own the intellectual property. But yes that is stealing.

 

[Lillith Hapmouche]

Theft. Trademark and copyright violation [+]

[Sammy Huntsman]

2 minutes ago, Lillith Hapmouche said:

Theft. Trademark and copyright violation [+]

It's still theft. It's called intellectual property theft.

[FairreLilette]

1 hour ago, halebore Aeon said:

It's still theft. It's called intellectual property theft.

And, as far as videos go, most people don't actually have the right to share it.  They think they do under some kind of thing called "file sharing" that's been debated for the past 20 or so years, but in actuality I don't really think they do have the right to publish someone else's IP or other digital content property on YouTube (I'm mostly speaking music here, whole records, concerts, etc.)  

Edited July 13, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Lillith Hapmouche]

9 minutes ago, halebore Aeon said:

It's called intellectual property theft.

Ahh, now we're talking...

[Sammy Huntsman]

1 minute ago, FairreLilette said:

And, as far as videos go, most people don't actually have the right to share it.  They think they do under some kind of thing called "file sharing" that's been debated for the past 20 or so years, but in actuality I don't really think they do have the right to publish someone else's IP or other digital content property on YouTube.  

There is a difference between blatantly ripping a movie from a torrent site. That is theft, and sharing it with people. And taking a clip from say a YouTube video and using it in your video to review said video That is called fair use.

[Lucille1959]

1 hour ago, Lillith Hapmouche said:

Does Dream Seeker Estates listen to such complaints concerning their tenants?

I was curious, and the answer is no. Personally as a land owner who rented out places I would be worried about not enforcing the LL TOS.... sounds like a nightmare of problems later if you don't comply.

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Lucille1959