Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 98 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, RowanMinx said:

Yes, I know.   But my last statement was in reference to this quote

IMs do not fall into that category which is why they can be posted offsite.

As I said, I could have phrases it better

One more time.

I am NOT talking about the section you just quoted. I am talking about the one you posted and then you quoted it in your own post on page 2.

The one that DOES pertain to CONVERSATIONS which DO INCLUDE IMs . IMs ARE CONVERSATIONS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm going to be quite blunt: I've seen reviews of products on the MP where people complained that the item didn't fit their particular mesh body. For products which don't list that mesh body and

This is not a good faith attempt to raise standards. It's fashion creator mud slinging by proxy .. ALL OVER AGAIN.

I have objections to most of it. "Altered ad photos or that do not look like their ad". If I buy a RL dress with some supermodel in the ad, the dress will not look the same on me. In RL, designer

Posted Images

On 2/1/2021 at 12:33 PM, RowanMinx said:

Chat is specifically covered with this.

Chat is covered by terms of service.  I said that.  What is not is IMs offsite.  What is as per Molly's post is anything they see as property of LL.  Such as their name.  IM is NOT seen as copywrited, therefore can be used offsite.

Now, if I still haven't cleared up what I actually said yet, I'm sorry I'm if you've misunderstood.  

Edited by RowanMinx
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, RowanMinx said:

Chat is covered by terms of service.  I said that.  What is not is IMs offsite.  What is as per Molly's post is anything they see as property of LL.  Such as their name.  IM is NOT seen as copywrited, therefore can be used offsite.

Now, if I still haven't cleared up what I actually said yet, I'm sorry I'm if you've misunderstood.  

I haven't misunderstood. Not once I have said a single word about copyright. What I am talking about doesn't have anything to do with copyright. I know open chat and IMs can't be copyrighted. That is why I am not talking about that. I am talking about the fact that chat and IMs can NOT be shared WITHIN SL without permission from all involved in those conversations but that they can be shared outside of Linden Lab services/servers/forums/Marketplace/etc/etc/etc. Any website that Linden Lab does not pay for, Linden Lab does NOT have jurisdiction over. Conversations don't have anything to do with copyright. So why are you convinced I am wrong? It's been years and I forget who but LL has been to court a time or two over it and LL did not win.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

I haven't misunderstood. Not once I have said a single word about copyright. What I am talking about doesn't have anything to do with copyright. I know open chat and IMs can't be copyrighted. That is why I am not talking about that. I am talking about the fact that chat and IMs can NOT be shared WITHIN SL without permission from all involved in those conversations but that they can be shared outside of Linden Lab services/servers/forums/Marketplace/etc/etc/etc. Any website that Linden Lab does not pay for, Linden Lab does NOT have jurisdiction over. Conversations don't have anything to do with copyright. So why are you convinced I am wrong? It's been years and I forget who but LL has been to court a time or two over it and LL did not win.

That's what my post said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

By George I think she finally got it! 😊

You quoted my post and then went on as if saying what I posted was incorrect.

I was trying to explain to the OP why the person from SL secrets (now virtual secrets) was banned.  Not for posting IMs but for using SL in her website name.  I certainly know posting IMs inworld or on any LL owned forum or blog is against ToS

I apologize if I took want you said as disagreeing with what I originally posted.  But it came off that way to me.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, RowanMinx said:

You quoted my post and then went on as if saying what I posted was incorrect.

I was trying to explain to the OP why the person from SL secrets (now virtual secrets) was banned.  Not for posting IMs but for using SL in her website name.  I certainly know posting IMs inworld or on any LL owned forum or blog is against ToS

I apologize if I took want you said as disagreeing with what I originally posted.  But it came off that way to me.  

I understood it just fine, honestly. They broke the TOS for the name of it. Which is probably going to happen with this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, RowanMinx said:

You quoted my post and then went on as if saying what I posted was incorrect.

I was trying to explain to the OP why the person from SL secrets (now virtual secrets) was banned.  Not for posting IMs but for using SL in her website name.  I certainly know posting IMs inworld or on any LL owned forum or blog is against ToS

I apologize if I took want you said as disagreeing with what I originally posted.  But it came off that way to me.  

No, I was saying the same thing you were in regards to posting chat and IMs outside of SL. 

I never said a word about SLS/VS. Go back and re-read my posts if you need to. I never mentioned Kess or her site. Yes, I do know about it. No, I don't go there. I outgrew slambooks before they ever existed.

It was a misunderstanding so of course I accept and apologize for my own part in the misunderstanding. I'm sorry it came off that way to you. I admit my feathers were a bit ruffled yesterday but it had nothing to do with you, the thread or SL. Please accept my apology for that as well. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Becky Nosferatu said:

I understood it just fine, honestly. They broke the TOS for the name of it. Which is probably going to happen with this one.

lol I'm not sure what you understood now but yes, LL did change the TOS so they could force people to change website names years ago. They tried it on Cris and SLU but it didn't work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 98 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...