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

[LittleMe Jewell]

6 minutes ago, Lucille1959 said:

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.

 

Honestly, I wouldn't take any action if I was the land owner.  Who's to say for sure if the person selling these is not associated with the publisher in RL and has determined that SL is another way of selling the books.  I'm not saying that I believe that is the case here, but that is why LL needs a DCMA from the original creator.

 

[ItHadToComeToThis]

1 hour 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 (I'm mostly speaking music here, whole records, concerts, etc.)  

[Sammy Huntsman]

My suggestion for this, email the publisher. Have them look into this. Make sure you show them the evidence. So take a screenshot and stuff.

[FairreLilette]

18 minutes ago, ItHadToComeToThis said:

 

18 minutes ago, ItHadToComeToThis 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 (I'm mostly speaking music here, whole records, concerts, etc.)  

Are you saying I'm trying to dig myself out of a hole by comparing all the music videos, concerts, whole record albums and other things published on YouTube when the rights are owned by someone else?

I don't think so.  That's thievery.  

And, I just realized something in the name of YouTube and I get YouTube in a different light now.  YouTube was probably invented to be a site about "You" meaning yourself or me and your own or my own videos.  It was place to put our personal videos on and or our own musical performances on like a demo for example or our performance at a nightclub or a dance recital with families and their kids, or your kid's ball game, AND Uncle Bill's wedding too, BUT not for other copyrighted works by musical artists.  We don't own those publishing rights.  Most things on YouTube are not owned by the people who have a YouTube page.  There are a few good ones as Sony has their own channel for example but there aren't too many.

Something to think about.  I think we've all taken a lot of granted.   

Edited July 13, 2020 by FairreLilette

[ItHadToComeToThis]

How did you manage to quote me as saying something that I didn’t 😂😂. I just put up a meme, the quote is by someone else lmao

[Pixie Kobichenko]

2 hours 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.  

There are fair use laws in the USA.  Not sure at all how that works with use in other countries.  But basically bits and pieces of a song, or a book can be quoted or referred to, same as an image if the work’s owner is acknowledged & the reference isn’t the thing making money.   That’s an epigraph- Stephen King is famous for them preceding the start of a book.
 

& Think of scholarly works- those references are cited

 

But I know that’s a tricky line to cross, like with musicians sampling other songs for their beat.  I point to the infamous vanilla ice & queen debate:  

 

 

 

 

 

[Tari Landar]

15 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Are you saying I'm trying to dig myself out of a hole by comparing all the music videos, concerts, whole record albums and other things published on YouTube when the rights are owned by someone else?

I don't think so.  That's thievery.  

So..your thievery is okay, but the thievery others commit is not?

You already admit you've stolen and reproduced the works of others, simply because you "wanted" to. I'd say the hole image posted is pretty accurate here lol.

Why do you deflect every single time you're called out on something, usually long after digging the proverbial hole? Also, and not really for you to answer I suppose, why in the hell do people simply accept that as okay here when you do it, but not others? If most other posters behaved the way you do, far too often, they'd be blacklisted, or worse. But you seem to get away with not only being a jerk in the not that distant past to countless people (on the subject of mental health, among other areas of interest....many of us don't forget these things), but now you're also an admitted works thief....and you seem to expect that people will be okay with it, as long as you deflect to point out others' thievery too.

I just don't get it. I also don't think I'm alone in that thinking.

If it's thievery when others do it, it's thievery when you do too, regardless of "intent". 

[FairreLilette]

3 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

So..your thievery is okay, but the thievery others commit is not?

You already admit you've stolen and reproduced the works of others, simply because you "wanted" to. I'd say the hole image posted is pretty accurate here lol.

Why do you deflect every single time you're called out on something, usually long after digging the proverbial hole? Also, and not really for you to answer I suppose, why in the hell do people simply accept that as okay here when you do it, but not others? If most other posters behaved the way you do, far too often, they'd be blacklisted, or worse. But you seem to get away with not only being a jerk in the not that distant past to countless people (on the subject of mental health, among other areas of interest....many of us don't forget these things), but now you're also an admitted works thief....and you seem to expect that people will be okay with it, as long as you deflect to point out others' thievery too.

I just don't get it. I also don't think I'm alone in that thinking.

If it's thievery when others do it, it's thievery when you do too, regardless of "intent". 

I never said it was A-okay to share a few posters of a commemorative poster of Woodstock simply because it was a sharing experience.  I admitted it because I didn't know you for sure if one could upload it for personal use or non-monetary use and some items on FB are allowed for "historical reasons" which is a complicated thing so I thought perhaps here to as far as "historical"...and I asked it if was "ethical".  This is not something that I sell and was over a long time ago with a few posters given out.  

However, that doesn't negate how much the internet as a whole has/does take all these things "it shares" for granted, especially YouTube with the sharing of copyrighted material.   

[KanryDrago]

5 hours ago, Skell Dagger said:

So the artists are not entitled to expect to be paid for doing their job?

https://twitter.com/forexposure_txt

https://digitalsynopsis.com/design/free-work-for-exposure-clients-from-hell/

https://www.boredpanda.com/working-for-exposure-tweets/

Artists are entitled to be paid for doing their job however their whinging has so devalued copyright they can frankly go do one. Copyright was a contract to encourage creation. Life + 70 years does not encourage creation. You got greedy now no one cares. Thats not necessarily you personally but artisits in general. 15 years would be more than adequate but you wanted more. The companies you sold your copyrights too wanted more. It is now so one sided that frankly I don't have a care if anyone rips you off because you and your greedy cohorts have been pushing and pushing to the point where NO ONE CARES

[Odaks]

Very few people ever bother to see exactly what they are signing up to when they join organisations on the internet. Its just far to easy to click "agree" and get going.

@FairreLilette, you might find this a good place to start, as far as YouTube goes.  The blunt truth of copyright is spelled out here for all to see. "Fair Use" is also defined.

(This is the link for the UK version. I suspect other civilised countries will read similarly).

Here's the first few rungs of the ladder for your hole!

https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/policies/copyright/

[FairreLilette]

3 minutes ago, Odaks said:

Very few people ever bother to see exactly what they are signing up to when they join organisations on the internet. Its just far to easy to click "agree" and get going.

@FairreLilette, you might find this a good place to start, as far as YouTube goes.  The blunt truth of copyright is spelled out here for all to see. "Fair Use" is also defined.

(This is the link for the UK version. I suspect other civilised countries will read similarly).

Here's the first few rungs of the ladder for your hole!

https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/policies/copyright/

Thanks, that's very interesting and I didn't know that and I don't think it's that big a hole to have given out a few 50-year commemorative Woodstock posters but everyone makes mistakes.   

I'm not sure if fair use is attempting to extend into items which could be deemed "historical" but perhaps maybe only historical for teaching purposes.  I was reading about it a while back and I can't quite remember the specifics of it all and didn't bookmark it.  

Here's what fair use in video format is.  But, yes, copyrighted music is absolutely prohibited to place on YouTube if not the copyright holder.  That kind of sucks for the artists, doesn't it.  

I have the Bob Dylan and Jackson Browne channels on YouTube and I was wondering if they were really YouTube channels run by Dylan and Browne.   

But, as far as the OP coming across these books in SL, I agree with LittleMeJewel in that someone needs to make sure it ISN'T the book seller herself who has commissioned this work first.  

Fair Use is a U.S. law that allows the reuse of copyright-protected material under certain circumstances without getting permission from the copyright owner. However, Fair Use is determined on a case by case basis, and different countries have different rules about when it’s okay to use material without the copyright owner’s permission. In the U.S., works of commentary, criticism, research, teaching, or news reporting might be considered fair use, but it can depend on the situation.

 

The first rule of copyright

Creators should only upload videos that they have made or that they're authorized to use. That means they should not upload videos they didn't make, or use content in their videos that someone else owns the copyright to, such as music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programs, or videos made by other users, without necessary authorizations.

[Lucille1959]

7 hours ago, Odaks said:

Very few people ever bother to see exactly what they are signing up to when they join organisations on the internet. Its just far to easy to click "agree" and get going.

@FairreLilette, you might find this a good place to start, as far as YouTube goes.  The blunt truth of copyright is spelled out here for all to see. "Fair Use" is also defined.

(This is the link for the UK version. I suspect other civilised countries will read similarly).

Here's the first few rungs of the ladder for your hole!

https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/policies/copyright/

This was a good read

[Maitimo]

13 hours 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 a video or image on youtube or flickr  etc is fine because all you are doing is linking to the original.

Making a gif from someone else's photo or video and storing it on your computer or uploading it to your own flickr, or to a forum etc,  is illegal, unless the owner of the photo/video (meaning, the individual who originally made it) has explicitly given permission to do so.

[FairreLilette]

6 hours ago, Maitimo said:

Sharing a video or image on youtube or flickr  etc is fine because all you are doing is linking to the original.

Sure, it's a link but it still may be stolen and most likely is stolen and unauthorized publication of it, especially the music videos on YouTube.  Plus, the music on YouTube or a video on YouTube makes the people who have that channel with the stolen music money for every play.   So, you/me/we are even giving money to people for plays of music that isn't theirs in the first place.  Maybe people should start reporting DMCA's on YouTube if they are indeed free to file.  I thought you had to hire an attorney to file one of these DMCA claims.  

But, also I think there are a few legitimate channels on YouTube, Sony has one, and perhaps the Bob Dylan and Jackson Browne channel are really run by Dylan and Browne.  It would be better if the artist's themselves had their own YouTube channel in their name because they would receive some money per each play.  

Edited July 14, 2020 by FairreLilette

[AyelaNewLife]

1 hour ago, FairreLilette said:

Sure, it's a link but it still may be stolen and most likely is stolen and unauthorized publication of it, especially the music videos on YouTube.  Plus, the music on YouTube or a video on YouTube makes the people who have that channel with the stolen music money for every play.   So, you/me/we are even giving money to people for plays of music that isn't theirs in the first place.  Maybe people should start reporting DMCA's on YouTube if they are indeed free to file.  I thought you had to hire an attorney to file one of these DMCA claims.  

But, also I think there are a few legitimate channels on YouTube, Sony has one, and perhaps the Bob Dylan and Jackson Browne channel are really run by Dylan and Browne.  It would be better if the artist's themselves had their own YouTube channel in their name because they would receive some money per each play.  

With every word you post you continue you demonstrate your significant ignorance about this topic. It's quite remarkable.

[Lindal Kidd]

5 hours ago, AyelaNewLife said:

With every word you post you continue you demonstrate your significant ignorance about this topic. It's quite remarkable.

Don't be too hard on Fairre.  While the basic concept of copyright is simple, as in so many things the devil is in the details.  This is why we have so many well-compensated copyright attorneys!  (And, in a slightly different part of the thread, I agree with Kanry that the US copyright laws have been modified to the benefit of large corporations.  Specifically Disney; they were terrified that they were about to lose their copyright on Mickey Mouse and did some heavy lobbying to get the laws changed.)

[JanuarySwan]

3 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Specifically Disney; they were terrified that they were about to lose their copyright on Mickey Mouse and did some heavy lobbying to get the laws changed.)

The internet is a cesspool of ripped off, unauthorized use of digital content, especially YouTube and social media.

In regards to these books, they look so professionally done, I'm wondering too if the writer herself might have allowed these.   It's a very cute idea and I hope it all gets sorted out.

As far as Disney though, what laws changed?

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by JanuarySwan

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

The only thing that needs to be done about this is contact each of the authors or publishing companies and then inform them what is being done so they can file a request for it to be removed to LL.  Starting a thread here on the forums about it was kind of pointless, since no body here on the forums can do anything about it really. Not even the moderators.

LL will not act on any of it until a formal request has been sent in by the original creators of the items in question.

[Lindal Kidd]

7 hours ago, JanuarySwan said:

As far as Disney though, what laws changed?

The length of a copyright.  See here for some history: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/determining-length-of-copyright-protection-29483.html

[Orwar]

7 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

The length of a copyright.

   In addition to this, Disney are infamous for defending their copyright very strictly, not holding any punches against private persons infringing on their material. 

   Also, here's an interesting read on Disney and their lobbying: https://lucentem.com/2018/12/05/disney-vs-the-public-domain-how-mickey-mouse-continues-to-protect-his-copyright/

[Lillith Hapmouche]

Looks like the place might cease to exist sooner or later:

Quote

Storytime Cancelled

Our weekly storytime is canceled for now. Thank you so much for joining us, we've loved sharing so many wonderful stories with our friends and their families ❤️

Quote

Our Last Book ❤️

We need your help to make our last book!

For 10 years, Spronkwing's has brought the joy of storytime to SL families. We've helped to facilitate countless bonding moments for thousands of people in our community. For our last book, we'd like to gather these memories in a keepsake album.

Please send your photos to Sprinkle (Lola Freenote) of moments enjoyed with your families and our beloved books. Bedtime stories, campfire stories, if it involved a book, we want to see it.

Thank you, lov

 

[Pixie Kobichenko]

Just thinking back over news in the past- if any of those books were Disney property & they find out- you can bet there will be intervening on their part.  Right or wrong, they don’t allow their likeness-property used at all w/o proper licensing.  There was a situation with a child who had passed away who loved Spider-Man.  The family asked Disney for rights to have a Spider-Man tombstone & they said nope.  
https://nypost.com/2019/07/06/disney-denies-dads-request-to-put-spider-man-on-4-year-old-sons-grave/

The family put up a temporary one, & it had to be removed.

https://insidethemagic.net/2019/07/spider-man-grave-stone-removed/

Edited July 15, 2020 by Pixie Kobichenko

[Drake1 Nightfire]

On 7/13/2020 at 3:10 PM, 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 (I'm mostly speaking music here, whole records, concerts, etc.)  

most of those videos on Youtube are put there by the publishers... 

ETA to clarify for @Love Zhaoying the publishers have the legal ability to post music videos on Youtube of the bands they rep. IE this video, uploaded by Lil Nas X.

 

Edited July 22, 2020 by Drake1 Nightfire

[Rathgrith027]

On 7/13/2020 at 3:54 PM, Lucille1959 said:

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.

 

I have to side with the DreamSeeker Estates people. They're not obliged to enforce copyright on their land. That's Linden Lab's job and they won't do ***** unless a DMCA is filed.

Also, to annoy every uptight person in this thread, as someone who's researched it for years - "Copyright law is a joke."

Edited July 22, 2020 by Rathgrith027