Stolen intellectual property on Second Life. Harmless fun or an issue that needs to be addressed?

[AnnabelleApocalypse]

I have a hard time getting upset that a multimillion dollar corporation somewhere is losing a few pennies. I'm not advocating to ignore the law, but I'm sure the ones that wanted to enforce their IP could should they chose to pay some poor minimum wage admins to do the work.

So long as LL remain faithful to the DMCA rules, SL is safe.

Eventually "The Mouse" will own everything anyway and nobody will be able to make anything anymore, so why worry?

[Silent Mistwalker]

5 hours ago, Sid Nagy said:

No worries, everything has been discussed over here.
There are basically two possibilities:
Someone replies to an old thread and then we get the necro post ladadee ladadaa or someone makes a new thread and then we get the song that is played this time here.
One can't win that, just ignore or place a laugh reaction.

It was supposed to be funny so the laugh reaction would be appropriate. 🤐

[Lucia Nightfire]

I track stats for these ripped avatars along with unique created--for-SL avatars and all I can tell you is, "No one is making a living off or it." or "There's not much money being made."

It was different when mesh first came out, but the user dynamic has drastically changed since then with all the similar MMOs that exist now.

For all the avatars a particular "creator" offers, only a handful get bought/worn and it is rare for any one avatar sold by a more costly brand to be worn by more than one person.

The exception seems to be with game rips that have been modified for the 3D porn industry, having a specific or generic nude body included.

Most of the stores that offered those models were shut down by LL years ago and I haven't really seen anyone try to carry that torch again.

[Sid Nagy]

40 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

It was supposed to be funny so the laugh reaction would be appropriate. 🤐

Where is the VVO hug button when one needs it?

[Silent Mistwalker]

3 minutes ago, Sid Nagy said:

Where is the VVO hug button when one needs it?

I don't get it. VVO?

[Sid Nagy]

That other SL forum has a hug button (among a ton of other ones), and it is used a lot over there.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Sid Nagy

[Silent Mistwalker]

44 minutes ago, Sid Nagy said:

That other SL forum has a hug button (among a ton of other ones), and it is used a lot over there.

D'oh! I used to lurk over there. It's been so long I'd forgotten. 🥴

[HarrisonMcKenzie]

Copyright law is stupid anyways and is basically just a parody of itself at this point. You're never going to stop this kind of thing. I think that the focus needs to be on demonstrative damages, not on instances of irrelevance.

For example, let's say I want a Superman tee shirt. In real life, I can go to pretty much any store and buy one. 9999 times out of 10 000, this shirt would have been properly licensed, so it's all above board. In that one time, if I bought a shirt someone some on Etsy or eBay, am I really hurting DC/Warner? Has their brand (that they stole, but that's another matter entirely) been hurt by me advertising for them?

In SL, I can go to any number of stores and get a Superman shirt as well. It's technically not legal because the image hasn't been licensed, but here's the catch: it's never going to be. If DC/Warner wants to establish a presence in SL and sell Superman shirts rigged for child avatars of a specific size for less than pennies of net profit, then I'd buy one form them. But they haven't and won't. Someone somewhere is going to upload a Superman tee shirt texture, and DC/Warner has chosen not to do anything to stop it. And even if they did, is me wearing a Superman shirt in SL hurting anyone?

There's too much subjectivity to those statements, but things change if we start looking at copyright law with a need to demonstrate damages (the same way as most other laws work). You can just blanket say it's illegal, but it's not going to stop. Instead, DC/Warner could go after people who are actively damaging their company and brand. If you're pulling six figures selling Superman shirts in SL, then they might have a case. If you're actively damaging their brand somehow, sure. If you're uploading same-day comics and thus allowing people to bypass retail channels, absolutely hammer down on that. But none of that is what we're talking about. Even if someone is "profiting" from selling Superman shirts, they are almost certainly not actually making a profit, and the presence of such things isn't hurting DC/Warner in any way.

Same thing with Disney and all of the Disneylands in SL. Nobody is choosing those over an actual Disney Park in any demonstrable fashion. They're presence isn't impacting ticket sales, nor is it hurting Disney's brands. It's there for fun, and honestly might get people to go to a Disney Park so they can get the real experience or ride that ride they're nostalgic for again. As long as they aren't blatantly misrepresenting things, like saying they are the official digital presence of Disney Parks in SL, is it really a problem?

[Rolig Loon]

Anyone with intellectual property has to balance several factors.  IP theft means a potential loss of income, but it can also mean free advertising and a boost to your fan base. Filing DCMA complaints can shut down thieves, but lawyers cost money and a heavy handed response can give you a bad reputation. A company like The Mouse can afford lawyers and has a pretty firm lock on a fan base, so they can lean toward chasing thieves. A small outfit or an individual artist doesn't have the time or money to chase down bad guys, and might lose more by trying than it gains by ignoring the problem. 

[animats]

Trademark seems to be more an issue. Trademarks have to be aggressively protected legally to avoid becoming generic terms. Escalator™, Kleenex™, Dumpster™, and Aspirin™ suffered that fate. If Harley-Davidson didn't work at brand protection, all big road bikes would be called Harleys.

You can't lose copyright by not enforcing it, so that's less critical.

[Maryanne Solo]

None of my 3d models come into SL or appear online anywhere.
They are the master files for jewellery items I get printed, modify/improve then mould and cast.
However...
I eagerly anticipate the most intense copyright brawl with certain symbols which I am sure Warner will try
and claim copyright ownership of at some stage in the future.
Their problem will be that I can trace my ancestry waaay back to when these symbols were created and they were
created by my own people.

Bring on the humiliating public massacre of your expensive legal team Warner. 😜 

[Crim Mip]

Consider that the variety of content is really SL's biggest asset. LL has zero incentive to actively search out IP violations, and in fact, can't if they want to be protected under common carrier status. They offer the legally specified DMCA process for IP owners (nobody else) to file claims. Now we know if a really big dog like Disney, Paramount, etc, waves a letter from their legal dept, LL will roll over like an attention starved puppy, but otherwise they don't really give a damn.

[kali Wylder]

I'm a bit ambivalent about property in general.  While I understand that we all live in this world where you need money for things, and you get money for things and so things get passed back and forth and profit is exchanged, I don't believe this is the best we can do.

I think there is way too much emphasis on the acquisition of things and it leads to a poorer quality of life for all.

That being given, don't touch my stuff!  But I wish I were not that way.  I wish it were more like burning man where the goal is to give things away to everyone. 

[Rolig Loon]

I can understand your sentiment and I agree with much of the reasoning behind it, Kali. The concept of ownership has been at the heart of much of the strife in the world since cave days, so it's very tempting to imagine that a world without it would be better off.  With specific reference to intellectual property, though, I think there is more in play than monetary value and legal title. 

When I create something, I have the pleasure of knowing that I have made something new and unique. Whether I sell it or have it displayed in a museum somewhere may be important, but the feeling of accomplishment in the creation is just as important. Yes, it's partly about recognition. It's especially satisfying to have other people recognize what I have done, perhaps give me a pat on the back.  Even if I never share my work beyond a circle of close friends, though, what counts is that personal knowledge that I have solved a challenge, found a new way to express an idea, or made something that is beautiful or useful. It is deeply hurtful for someone else to claim my creation as his own. Intellectual property theft strikes at the soul of creation.

[Luna Bliss]

46 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

I can understand your sentiment and I agree with much of the reasoning behind it, Kali. The concept of ownership has been at the heart of much of the strife in the world since cave days, so it's very tempting to imagine that a world without it would be better off.  With specific reference to intellectual property, though, I think there is more in play than monetary value and legal title. 

When I create something, I have the pleasure of knowing that I have made something new and unique. Whether I sell it or have it displayed in a museum somewhere may be important, but the feeling of accomplishment in the creation is just as important. Yes, it's partly about recognition. It's especially satisfying to have other people recognize what I have done, perhaps give me a pat on the back.  Even if I never share my work beyond a circle of close friends, though, what counts is that personal knowledge that I have solved a challenge, found a new way to express an idea, or made something that is beautiful or useful. It is deeply hurtful for someone else to claim my creation as his own. Intellectual property theft strikes at the soul of creation.

I think you've described that so well!  Much better than me when I tried to one time years ago.
It can feel, depending on how much you've learned and invested yourself in a particular piece of creation, like your very soul has been stolen.

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 hour ago, kali Wylder said:

I'm a bit ambivalent about property in general.  While I understand that we all live in this world where you need money for things, and you get money for things and so things get passed back and forth and profit is exchanged, I don't believe this is the best we can do.

I think there is way too much emphasis on the acquisition of things and it leads to a poorer quality of life for all.

That being given, don't touch my stuff!  But I wish I were not that way.  I wish it were more like burning man where the goal is to give things away to everyone. 

 

We call them potlatches.

Quote

The “Giveaway” is one of the most special ceremonies as it involves having the strength to be totally unselfish and totally giving. At times, it is one of the most difficult things to do, but it always reaps the greatest rewards. As the expression goes, “It is better to give than to receive”.

 

http://www.sgibnl.ca/mide-wiigwas-the-giveaway/

Quote

a huge ceremony in which a family literally gives away everything they own to the tribal community.  In return, the community gives back to the family, thus ensuring that they have what they need.  The lesson being that, when you give, you receive, and the circle of life is as it should be. 

https://www.johntwohawks.com/blog/the-giveaway

Edited April 23, 2022 by Silent Mistwalker

[Prokofy Neva]

Twice I have had the bad experience of being told by checkers at Fantasy Faire that some element of a Surprise Egg or build that I had made contained copyrighted material. And I was puzzled because I buy things from the MP or from Shutterstock, etc.; I save their licenses and follow them carefully. But there's no guarantee that someone selling something on the MP has in fact the right to the item they are selling.

The problem is, I'm old. So while a cat looks vaguely familiar, I don't realize that it's a famous cartoon with numerous iphone and chat stickers. Or an exotic princess is actually some anime character.  I think, oh, how creative -- but the creativity actually comes from outside of SL. I haven't had a TV for 25 years plus as I said I'm old and I don't keep up.

So now if something looks "too good to be true," I ask the creator point blank if they were "inspired by" a cartoon character or anime or meme, i.e. did they copy it. And some have honestly told me they did swipe it and I should leave it out of FF especially where they are very meticulous -- so I had to start over with an intricate egg that had those copyrighted items. I'm happy to support copyright; it's the lifeblood of e-commerce. I condemn Creative Commons because it encourages "sharing" by brow-beating authors into giving up copyright claims for commerce, in the false claim that this helps them get more sales as it gives them visibility -- even as it contains no license that says "copy this if you pay me money". 

While you can file DMCA takedown notices to Linden Lab, and I have done this in support of builders I have hired whose entire works were swiped on rogue griefer viewers, when you spot a copyright infringement on the MP, you CANNOT abuse report it. That seems wild to me. So I can see that meme cat or that anime princess, for example, but I can't report it UNLESS it's my own content. The RL owner of that intellectual property has to come forward and bother with Second Life to try to make it stick (and some RL furniture designers have done so). In the old days, Lindens would return Coca Cola cans to Lost & Found -- they didn't want the Big Businesses they were attempting to lure into SL to think their brand wasn't safe. Now, it's hard to pursue unless you as an author wish to reveal your RL name and fax the DMCA to the Lindens.

To be sure, you can leave a comment in the reviews, but the Lindens have now restricted reviews or comments only to those who purchase them and it's all too easy for merchants to delete the entry and start over to get rid of bad reviews. The Lindens explicitly say on the template for abuse reports that they only accept complaints about copyright from the owners of the IP. So this discourages good citizens, like other features of the platform and the forums.

[Prokofy Neva]

On 4/18/2022 at 12:41 PM, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

Copyright law is stupid anyways and is basically just a parody of itself at this point. You're never going to stop this kind of thing. I think that the focus needs to be on demonstrative damages, not on instances of irrelevance.

For example, let's say I want a Superman tee shirt. In real life, I can go to pretty much any store and buy one. 9999 times out of 10 000, this shirt would have been properly licensed, so it's all above board. In that one time, if I bought a shirt someone some on Etsy or eBay, am I really hurting DC/Warner? Has their brand (that they stole, but that's another matter entirely) been hurt by me advertising for them?

In SL, I can go to any number of stores and get a Superman shirt as well. It's technically not legal because the image hasn't been licensed, but here's the catch: it's never going to be. If DC/Warner wants to establish a presence in SL and sell Superman shirts rigged for child avatars of a specific size for less than pennies of net profit, then I'd buy one form them. But they haven't and won't. Someone somewhere is going to upload a Superman tee shirt texture, and DC/Warner has chosen not to do anything to stop it. And even if they did, is me wearing a Superman shirt in SL hurting anyone?

There's too much subjectivity to those statements, but things change if we start looking at copyright law with a need to demonstrate damages (the same way as most other laws work). You can just blanket say it's illegal, but it's not going to stop. Instead, DC/Warner could go after people who are actively damaging their company and brand. If you're pulling six figures selling Superman shirts in SL, then they might have a case. If you're actively damaging their brand somehow, sure. If you're uploading same-day comics and thus allowing people to bypass retail channels, absolutely hammer down on that. But none of that is what we're talking about. Even if someone is "profiting" from selling Superman shirts, they are almost certainly not actually making a profit, and the presence of such things isn't hurting DC/Warner in any way.

Same thing with Disney and all of the Disneylands in SL. Nobody is choosing those over an actual Disney Park in any demonstrable fashion. They're presence isn't impacting ticket sales, nor is it hurting Disney's brands. It's there for fun, and honestly might get people to go to a Disney Park so they can get the real experience or ride that ride they're nostalgic for again. As long as they aren't blatantly misrepresenting things, like saying they are the official digital presence of Disney Parks in SL, is it really a problem?

You're not in a position to judge the damages based solely on your own experience buying one t-shirt because you don't know how many t-shirts have been sold with stolen IP.

And it is a basic principle of law that if you don't defend your rights in one instance, then you can't expect to do it across the board. For example, in some states, if you don't pace your land and mark its borders and keep it up annually, someone can put a claim on it. The rule of law should obtain on the Internet as in RL; the analogue hole is not an excuse for anarchy. Each time someone steals the image, the brand is in fact diluted and it's important to defend it. Damages are determined not by outsiders who want cheap or free content, but by the IP creators who lost the business.

BTW there is a Disney Park replica in SL and it's even praised by Lindens but I don't see that they are licensed by Disney.

[Prokofy Neva]

On 4/23/2022 at 10:01 AM, Rolig Loon said:

I can understand your sentiment and I agree with much of the reasoning behind it, Kali. The concept of ownership has been at the heart of much of the strife in the world since cave days, so it's very tempting to imagine that a world without it would be better off.  With specific reference to intellectual property, though, I think there is more in play than monetary value and legal title. 

When I create something, I have the pleasure of knowing that I have made something new and unique. Whether I sell it or have it displayed in a museum somewhere may be important, but the feeling of accomplishment in the creation is just as important. Yes, it's partly about recognition. It's especially satisfying to have other people recognize what I have done, perhaps give me a pat on the back.  Even if I never share my work beyond a circle of close friends, though, what counts is that personal knowledge that I have solved a challenge, found a new way to express an idea, or made something that is beautiful or useful. It is deeply hurtful for someone else to claim my creation as his own. Intellectual property theft strikes at the soul of creation.

Ownership and private property are the basis for privacy, freedom, and rights.

If you want to elevate "intellectual property" above the other kinds of properties by invoking some spiritual or emotional value, surely you will realize that this is very subjective, and you run into the problem that some will judge certain IP as too inferior to protect as it is not sublime.

In the days of the cavemen, maybe there weren't deeds to property, but the disputes were settled by violence and it wasn't the bucolic scene you imagine or there wouldn't be so many skeletons dug up with axe marks in the skull.

Every society that achieves any kind of lasting endurance, e.g. not the Soviet Union, has respect for private property. Privacy and freedom are not secured by encryption.

[Prokofy Neva]

On 4/23/2022 at 11:12 AM, Silent Mistwalker said:

 

We call them potlatches.

 

http://www.sgibnl.ca/mide-wiigwas-the-giveaway/

https://www.johntwohawks.com/blog/the-giveaway

I guess there'd be no reason to have ban rights or security orbs on any SL property then, as everyone should be in "give" mode, especially when they are offline.

From this term "potlach" came "pot-luck" i.e. anything you happened to have at hand, simple to make usually, but delicious, that you would bring to a church supper. The expectation was that enough people would bring "a dish to pass" that everyone would have a full dinner. There isn't the idea that anyone takes anything home, however. 

[Silent Mistwalker]

6 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

I guess there'd be no reason to have ban rights or security orbs on any SL property then, as everyone should be in "give" mode, especially when they are offline.

From this term "potlach" came "pot-luck" i.e. anything you happened to have at hand, simple to make usually, but delicious, that you would bring to a church supper. The expectation was that enough people would bring "a dish to pass" that everyone would have a full dinner. There isn't the idea that anyone takes anything home, however. 

I was not even remotely suggesting anything like a potlaTch (correct spelling) be tried in SL.  You completely missed the point of what a potlatch is about and how that relates to people.

There are times when it is better to keep your ignorance to yourself rather than advertising it.

[Rolig Loon]

6 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

The RL owner of that intellectual property has to come forward and bother with Second Life to try to make it stick (and some RL furniture designers have done so).

Yes, that's true. It's not something that Linden Lab has any control over. DMCA is a federal law. Under it, only a person who claims ownership of stolen intellectual property may file a takedown claim.  If LL receives a takedown claim, they must remove the offending item unless there is a legally-filed counterclaim.  If anyone else files a claim, it is invalid.  I suspect that LL's lawyers have advised them -- possibly as a result of actual legal action, but who knows? -- that they cannot preemptively remove an item because of suspected IP theft unless they have a DMCA claim. Not being a lawyer myself, I can only guess that they would risk legal accusations that they were acting arbitrarily and capriciously if they decided to remove things that they just thought were stolen.  Sadly, the law can sometimes make it hard to do what appears to be the obvious right thing.

[Prokofy Neva]

2 hours ago, Rolig Loon said:

Yes, that's true. It's not something that Linden Lab has any control over. DMCA is a federal law. Under it, only a person who claims ownership of stolen intellectual property may file a takedown claim.  If LL receives a takedown claim, they must remove the offending item unless there is a legally-filed counterclaim.  If anyone else files a claim, it is invalid.  I suspect that LL's lawyers have advised them -- possibly as a result of actual legal action, but who knows? -- that they cannot preemptively remove an item because of suspected IP theft unless they have a DMCA claim. Not being a lawyer myself, I can only guess that they would risk legal accusations that they were acting arbitrarily and capriciously if they decided to remove things that they just thought were stolen.  Sadly, the law can sometimes make it hard to do what appears to be the obvious right thing.

Federal law does not apply evenly and is not self-executing in Second Life -- it's a private company with a private membership platform. So it can establish any rules it likes. And if it likes, it can accept abuse reports on copyright infraction and act on them, the way it can act on its forums if someone singles out a company for criticism by name.

If there are lawyers out there advising, say, YouTube, that they "can't" pre-emptively remove content, then they must be out of a job because YouTube, owned by Google, even has algorithms that pre-emptively remove content when there is a copyright claim, even when it is specious. For example, Russian operatives routinely file reports of "copyright abuse" about any video with real news and footage of the war in Ukraine. The DNR will claim dashcam videos of Russian tank convoys are "violating copyright". 

After all, the federal law of the First Amendment doesn't apply, either. No one is going to accuse a private company of "acting capriciously" as right of association often trumps right of freedom of speech (see the original Boy Scouts of America case where the Boy Scouts ultimately changed its anti-gay position under social pressure, but not through court action).

I imagine the Lindens just want a way to turn off the firehose that would result if they accepted any claim. There is always war especially among divas over hair and shapes and everything else about who copied whom.

 

[Lindal Kidd]

4 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

it's a private company with a private membership platform. So it can establish any rules it likes.

No. No, it really can't.

There's a wide range of policies that LL could implement, sure. But contravening the dictates of federal law? Nope.

[Solar Legion]

Copyright and the DMCA have a rather specific setup and Linden Lab is operating exactly as it should to maintain its current status. Alphabet/Google/YouTube are also within these operational parameters as they do not take any action outside of what has been dictated to them or from DMCA requests.