TOS on sculptie maps make it impossible to use

[Josh Susanto]

"... in Content that you may use or modify"

"You" being the same "you" as in : "You retain".

As in: "not someone other than you".

If it is not that which "you may use or modify", because you have provided open permissions to persons other than you, then the sytax of the paragraph is such that the last conditional qualifier "that you may use or modify" is not met in the application of "you retain".

That is: if others may also use or modify, there is no warranty of retention by "you".

[Madeliefste Oh]

It is part of the tos (paragraph 7.1). So you refers to you, and only you, since it's the agreement between you and Linden Lab.

But paragraph 7.8 is even more clear about this subject:

7.8 You agree to respect the Intellectual Property Rights of other users, Linden Lab, and third parties.

You agree that you will not upload, publish, or submit to any part of the Service any Content that is protected by Intellectual Property Rights or otherwise subject to proprietary rights, including trade secret or privacy rights, unless you are the owner of such rights or have permission from the rightful owner to upload, publish, or submit the Content and to grant Linden Lab and users of the Service all of the license rights granted in these Terms of Service.

You acknowledge that the Content of the Service is provided or made available to you under license from Linden Lab and independent Content providers, including other users of the Service ("Content Providers"). You acknowledge and agree that except as expressly provided in this Agreement, the Intellectual Property Rights of Linden Lab and other Content Providers in their respective Content are not licensed to you by your mere use of the Service. You must obtain from the applicable Content Providers any necessary license rights in Content that you desire to use or access.

Linden Lab and other Content Providers may use the normal functionality of the Service, including the permissions system and the copy, modify, and transfer settings, to indicate how you may use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, or perform their respective Content solely In-World. You acknowledge and agree that the permissions system and other functionality of the Service do not grant you any license, consent, or permission to copy, modify, transfer, or use in any manner any Content outside the Service.

You agree that you will not copy, transfer, or distribute outside the Service any Content that contains any Linden In-World Content, in whole or in part or in modified or unmodified form, except as allowed by the Snapshot and Machinima Policy, or that infringes or violates any Intellectual Property Rights of Linden Lab, other Content Providers, or any third parties.

Linden Lab reserves the right, but is not obligated to use technological measures designed to prohibit the copying, transfer, or distribution of Content outside the Service when we in good faith believe that such copying, transfer, or distribution would or might violate the Intellectual Property Rights of our users, Linden Lab, or third parties.

You copy and use Content at your own risk. You are solely responsible and liable for your use, reproduction, distribution, modification, display, or performance of any Content in violation of any Intellectual Property Rights. You agree that Linden Lab will have no liability for, and you agree to defend, indemnify, and hold Linden Lab harmless for, any claims, losses or damages arising out of or in connection with your use, reproduction, distribution, modification, display, or performance of any Content.



[Josh Susanto]

Linden Lab and other Content Providers may use the normal functionality of the Service, including the permissions system and the copy, modify, and transfer settings, to indicate how you may use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, or perform their respective Content solely In-World. 

"Normal functionality"; a list which includes specific things, and without the standard boilerplate verbiage "but not limited to", which we could apply to notecards and other things, if said verbiage were also present. 

You acknowledge and agree that the permissions system and other functionality of the Service do not grant you any license, consent, or permission to copy, modify, transfer, or use in any manner any Content outside the Service. 

In other words, you get the permissions provided by the permissions system, but, while other rights are not explicitly restricted, they are also no explicitly granted and should therefore probably be treated as restricted in order to diligently avoid any possible legal exposures ( due to plausible ambiguity in 3rd or 4th party questions, for example). 
As other permissions are neither explicitly granted nor explicitly restricted, it implicitly falls upon users neither to try to encroach upon permissions provided by the "normal functionality", nor to circumvent limitations to permissions as not provided by the "normal functionality". 

Telling people they can't use the permissions present in the object provided to them is an attempt to supercede the authority of the permissions protocols, just as is copybotting. 

So telling someone not to use permissions you've already given them is not essentially different from attempted copybotting, even if the intended result is just the reverse of copybotting. 

Each of these behaviors treats the permissions system as irrelevant.

[CrashOV Uladstron]

Josh , you sell open source stuff, you gave up your IP rights. That's all nice but please leave us who wish to retain them alone.

Yeah LL will not do anything, we're all ecstatic about this, having people laugh in your face about using your work is as you can imagine, just peachy. Stop twisting the knife will you.:matte-motes-frown:

[Josh Susanto]

My own solution is partly my own way of confronting the real legal and practical limitations of the system as it actually exists.

Clicking your heels 3 times and repeating "there's no place like total product control" will not take you to the contractual and technical environment in which you wish to operate.

This, not that other place, is the real place, and you are stuck here with the rest of us.

Your failure to adapt is not my problem, and hardly a reason to mock or ridicule those of us who have chosen to adapt.

[Taury Barbee]

This is the most stupid conversation ever.  TOS on sculpts are the same as Textures. Sitting here arguing the point is needless.  It is pathetic that there are small minded self centered people in SL that there HAS to be a TOS on everything.  Shouldnt need to spell it out to every two bit loser that wants to manipulate the system due to their own greed.  Reselling FP is STEALING!  Why is this a constant issue???????  You dont go to a store in RL and pick something up without paying for it.  Why do people think you can do this in SL or any virtual reality place is beyond me.  I DO NOT MAKE full perm items due to the fact I am incapable of it.  I appreciate the fact that there are those that can do this.  I do NOT appreciate the few that make this a constant issue and end up hurting others like ME!  This constant subject just blows my mind.  If you create open source then thank you much appreciated.  I personally will treat you like everyone else and not sell or give away your products FP. 

[Echo Charisma]

---

KittyCat Ninetails wrote:

actually I know of lots of textures where the texture makes the build.  But never are the tos that restrictive.  I, as you prob have guessed, am a little frustrated by these tos.

I find that I only buy sculptie maps now from either those creators who do not put those kind of restrictions on their product, or those I personally contact and get their approval to use copy/trans as permissions on a build I make with their product.

One problem I find is I have thousands (literally) of sculptie maps.  Some of them I purchased over 2 years ago.  I cannot (and do not even try) keep track of changing tos on items I already own.  So if I bought a sculptie from John and his tos at the time was that I could not give away or sell the map..and now his tos is that I cannot give away or sell the item I make from the map with copy/trans rights....do I have to worry about his new tos?  The chances that I kept his old tos notecard are somewhere between slim and none....and slim is on his way out of town.

I find myself rapidly coming to the conclusion that if I did not make it, I won't use it.  And since I spend a ton of money on sculptie maps and textures, and I am prob not alone on this conclusion, are the makers of maps not shooting themselves in the foot by making these restrictions?

---

The way this problem has been resolved in 3D marketplaces are universal EULAs.  And for building tools and sculpt maps, there needs to be a standard.  If a sculpt map creator can't work with the marketplace's EULA for similar items, then they need to find some other outlet for selling those items.  It protects everyone from these kinds of disputes because if you're familiar with the EULA for one item, you're familiar with them all, no "small print" that makes an expensive purchase useless for commerical builds.

A few standarized EULAs for different products: end user products, building items, etc, would prevent a lot of headaches for merchants, customers, and LL when there's a dispute.  If you agree to sell something on marketplace, you agree that the marketplace EULA for that category is binding.  If you sell the item inworld only, then you have the right to make up whatever EULA you want to make up, and buyer beware.

[Veronika Garzo]

TOS on sculptie maps and packs need a total review by Linden Labs.  There are many issues associated with the way they are presented and sold, in addition to the limatations imposed on what is primarily described as 'full permissions'.  I become increasingly frustrated with creators who wish to protect the integrity of their product, yet have no regard for their customer base in the way in which they market and sell them. 

I see several frustrating and questionable practices in the marketplace.  Firstly, often limitations are not stated at all in the sales pitch and you only discover how little you are allowed to do with them once the pack is opened.  One seller only alluded to the limitations on a texture within a pack of more than 100!  One might be forgiven for missing it entirely.  Either that or the terms are 'hidden' in the policies section in the sellers profile, a place many purchasers would not even think to look when shopping.  Further, when they feel inclined to change their terms of service, you have no way to prove how it was at the time of your purchase unless you have the foresight to make a copy of the listing for future reference.

Does anyone else feel that they are being ripped off by such practices and can anyone tell me why Linden Labs don't clean up the practices of those who are less than inclined to be clear about their policies. I feel it should be clear and openly displayed within a product listing.  With lists of revision dates to any terms they use to restrict useage, so as to defend those who purchased prior to it?  Is it legal to move the goal posts half way through a match?

[Veronika Garzo]

I could not agree more with this posting.  This is the answer to the issue and it would be very much appreciated if LL would give this some consideration.  This would very quickly clean up some very murky practices and unpleasant exchanges between sellers and buyers.  Further, I bet the threats to file DMCA and the time taken with upset sellers and residents would diminish significantly overnight!!!!  Such a logical and reasonable solution.  I do wonder though, what the makers of sculpts would think to your idea???  Now that would be worth a read!

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Veronika Garzo wrote:

TOS on sculptie maps and packs need a total review by Linden Labs.  There are many issues associated with the way they are presented and sold, in addition to the limatations imposed on what is primarily described as 'full permissions'.  I become increasingly frustrated with creators who wish to protect the integrity of their product, yet have no regard for their customer base in the way in which they market and sell them. 

I see several frustrating and questionable practices in the marketplace.  Firstly, often limitations are not stated at all in the sales pitch and you only discover how little you are allowed to do with them once the pack is opened.  One seller only alluded to the limitations on a texture within a pack of more than 100!  One might be forgiven for missing it entirely.  Either that or the terms are 'hidden' in the policies section in the sellers profile, a place many purchasers would not even think to look when shopping.  Further, when they feel inclined to change their terms of service, you have no way to prove how it was at the time of your purchase unless you have the foresight to make a copy of the listing for future reference.

Does anyone else feel that they are being ripped off by such practices and can anyone tell me why Linden Labs don't clean up the practices of those who are less than inclined to be clear about their policies. I feel it should be clear and openly displayed within a product listing.  With lists of revision dates to any terms they use to restrict useage, so as to defend those who purchased prior to it?  Is it legal to move the goal posts half way through a match?

---

So speaking as a creator / merchant of full perms Sculpty Map packs.... a few responses.

Based on your arguments, these would not be reasons for a LL review of TOS.  What needs to be re-considered is you as the buyer changing your practices when buying Sculpty Map packs or really any other content on SL that has and stated "Conditional Use" licensing associated to it.  This is not only Full Perm content (although this would be the most common type of content with this licensing), it can also be content whereby it is relatively easy use the content beyond the Creator's intent (i.e. I create art and sell it in SL with MOD TRANS permissions and I still have an "Agreement" included in my art).

The reason I say that the responsibility rests in your hands is because your buying power speaks larger than any imposed regulation.

So lets look at what I mean based on your concerns.

 

1. If a creator has a listing up in MP or at his store for - lets say Full Perm Sculpty Pack - and after a lot of shopping around you decide you really like this Merchants pack.  You look through the listing on MP and he doesnt make any mention of the terms/agreement/license.  Maybe he says that the Agreement is stated in a notecard in the pack. 

    

   Well regardless of the situation, if you really like the pack, you should contact the creator directly and ask what the agreement is and that you want him to send you a No-MOD / TRANSFER only Notecard from him of this agreement.  If he gives it to you and you agree to his terms, you have a copy of the license set in a state you received it from him that has him as the creator of the notecard and you with a non-changing single copy of the agreement.  You cannot give it to anyone else for them to pretend they had the agreement at that state as well.

2. Also, ask the Creator if this Notecard is also in the pack and in the state you just read.  He should say yes.
3. If the Creator was reachable and the Creator did give you this Agreement notecard and he said the same version of it is in the pack itself.... Then reward him and give him your business.
4. You might also be proactive and suggest to the Creator that he spell out his terms on the product listing or somewhere that is easy to access and read so that customers like you should not have to contact him in the future.  Remember that countless Creators / Merchants in SL are new to being both a creator and a merchant.  They may make awesome stuff but they are just starting to learn all the countless ropes of the business. 

    

   Dont assume all creators and merchants in SL are experienced SL business people.  In most cases they often are not.  BUT, they are also in most cases not out to screw you.  So, as a good SL Citizen and experienced shopper in SL - you might want to help the new Merchants out with your suggestions and advice.  Most will be more than happy to talk and listen to you and even implement your suggestions.

5. IF ON THE OTHER HAND, the creator's content listing shows no licensing info and you try to contact him and you get no response and/or you get a response but its more of non-transparent "I dont have a license" or "leave me alone" or "trust me and just buy it"......  here is where you wield the most power to regulate and change the creator's and merchants....  WALK AWAY and DONT GIVE HIM YOUR BUSINESS.  In fact, tell him that you are walking away because he could not provide you what you asked for.

If you feel you are being ripped off.... It is really more so because you were a buyer that did not take the time & effort when you were shopping to make a wise buying decision.  Dont buy anything from anyone that after you tried to get the information you needed to feel comfortable owning it, it was not provide.

That would be like going in to buy a car and knowing a warranty was important to you but the dealer didnt openly present it to you and you not asking the dealer to spell out the warranty and then going forward and buying the car anyway.  Then stating to all that "the government needs to step in and review the car dealer industry because I didnt understand the warranty of the car I bought until after I bought it".  Who's at fault in this situation and who had the ability to avoid this situation.

YOU HAVE THE POWER.....

USE IT ....  BUT USE IT WISELY AND FAIRLY.

 

• Reward the merchants that meet your needs and answer your questions
• Be willing to provide "customer's opinion and advice" to a merchant to help him grow
• Punish the merchants that are non-transparent and do not offer good PRE/POST Sales Service by not giving him your business.

That is my response to your concerns.

 

 

[Madeliefste Oh]

Veronika Garzo wrote:

TOS on sculptie maps and packs need a total review by Linden Labs.  There are many issues associated with the way they are presented and sold, in addition to the limatations imposed on what is primarily described as 'full permissions'.  I become increasingly frustrated with creators who wish to protect the integrity of their product, yet have no regard for their customer base in the way in which they market and sell them. 

I see several frustrating and questionable practices in the marketplace.  Firstly, often limitations are not stated at all in the sales pitch and you only discover how little you are allowed to do with them once the pack is opened.  One seller only alluded to the limitations on a texture within a pack of more than 100!  One might be forgiven for missing it entirely.  Either that or the terms are 'hidden' in the policies section in the sellers profile, a place many purchasers would not even think to look when shopping.  Further, when they feel inclined to change their terms of service, you have no way to prove how it was at the time of your purchase unless you have the foresight to make a copy of the listing for future reference.

Does anyone else feel that they are being ripped off by such practices and can anyone tell me why Linden Labs don't clean up the practices of those who are less than inclined to be clear about their policies. I feel it should be clear and openly displayed within a product listing.  With lists of revision dates to any terms they use to restrict useage, so as to defend those who purchased prior to it?  Is it legal to move the goal posts half way through a match?

---

I'm a sculpty and mesh maker and I fully agree with you. In my opinion the merchant has the obligation to make clear to his customers what the terms of use are that come with the item, before the buy is made. On het marketplace the eula must be in the listing. In in world shops the eula must be displayed on a place that is easy to find for the customer.

As the IP right holder of my items, I do not only put limitations on the use of my items, I also grand you certain rights as second creator. You as my customer must know what those rights are, because they are part of the deal we make, at the moment you buy the item. When I do not do my very best to make you as a customer aware of the conditions that come with the item before you buy it, I think I don't give you as my customer a fair deal.

I even doubt it is legal to make the terms of use only available after the item is bought. In rl a merchant is not going to get way with that.

 

---

Veronika Garzo wrote:

I could not agree more with this posting.  This is the answer to the issue and it would be very much appreciated if LL would give this some consideration.  This would very quickly clean up some very murky practices and unpleasant exchanges between sellers and buyers.  Further, I bet the threats to file DMCA and the time taken with upset sellers and residents would diminish significantly overnight!!!!  Such a logical and reasonable solution.  I do wonder though, what the makers of sculpts would think to your idea???  Now that would be worth a read!

---

I think the idea to have some standard eula's where a merchant can choose from is a good idea, and can be a big help for merchants. Most people just like to be creative and offer the fruits of their creative labour, without knowing much about IP rights. They are not going to study the law first before offering their merchandise. A standard eula that you can choose for will only be very handy.

But I think it must not be an obligation to use a standard eula that Linden Lab makes for everybody. Because it is not up to Linden Lab to decide what I do with my IP rights. There can always be exceptions necessairy for a merchant that are not provided in standard eula's.

I give an extreme example. Imagen we have a creator that has a store 'The Red Dress', where she sells only red dresses. One day she decides that she want to make her designs availabe as clothing templates for others to use in their work. But she want to keep the exclusive right to make red dresses for her own shop. So she comes with an eula that states that the buyer from the template can use the templates to make dresses in all colors except red. She makes this clear on her listings on the marketplace and in her shop.

Then it is not up to Linden Lab to decide this is not allowed. Linden Lab has nothing to do with it. It is a case between the buyer and the seller. When there is a buyer who can agree with the limitations this creator puts in her eula then the deal it between the both of them. The buyer has her own reasons to agree with the eula, it can be because the price is very attractive or it can be for example because she has a brand where she only sells black clothes. Linden Lab must simply stay out there. It is none of their business where two people (a seller and and a buyer) want to agree on.

 

 

 

 

[Veronika Garzo]

Whilst I thank you for such a comprehensive response to my concerns, I find your guidance and advice somewhat amazing!!  When buying a car one would expect transparency in respect of the warranty, cover and terms related to the sale to be presented in advance.  In rl we have consumer rights to defend us against unscrupulous practices.  When buying online, do you contact every seller  to demand to see or request terms of sale?  I think not!!!  Most in my experience are relatively transparent in their terms and actively encourage customers to read thoroughly prior to purchase.  I should not have to chase everyone round the block to establish what the terms of sale are.  

What I ask of Linden Labs is some uniformity to listing policy in order that customers can find terms in a reasonably visible and accessible location.  Further that those who purchase under one set of terms are not then confined by subsequent change made by sellers at a later date.  I do not expect to have to result to such extremes to make what should effectively be a simple and straightforward transaction.

Lets be clear here shall we!  This is not monopoly money we spend, its real transactions on a real website and the sellers who offer goods are bound by real laws to present their goods in an appropriate and legal fashion.  I would therefore presume as Lindens run this site that they too are bound to ensure fair trading practices on behalf of their user base.  Would sellers be quite so lackadaisical if they had to put their real name to the listing and face the consequences of less than legal selling practices in the very same real courts that are threatened for misuse of Terms?  Where are my rights of repercussion in this equasion?

I am astonished at the advice you give, frankly its ludicrous!!!!

[Toysoldier Thor]

Thanks Made.... Your suggestion is a reasonable option for LL to provide to the Creator / Merchants of SL regardless of the content they provide to the market (not sure why the OP picked on Sculpties).  If a creator/merchant wishes to use a common type of ULEA that LL has pre-authored, it would be a great Merchant tool for a them to consider using (almost like the Creative Commons options that art and photo website offer to members that they can opt in on.  But I am totally on board with you that this cannot be a mandatory obligation that LL imposes via TOS regulations upon the merchants.  Its not in their rights to do so.

As for Veronika's response to my advice to her....

Based on your postings, its clear the type of person you are in RL... You fall into the "I want the Government to wipe my butt for me and protect me because I dont want to be a well informed buyer / customer".  As such, I am not surprised that you are so astonished when it is suggested that you should be responsible to protect your own interests as a buyer.  I assume you have never heard of the famous saying "BUYER BEWARE".

As LL's TOS, an Made and others and myself have told told you.... the responsibility of IP rights for his/her content is that of the Creator to create and it would be wise of him to make his IP rights and instructions well known. BUT it is the responsibility of the BUYER / USER of the Creator's content to understand these rights and abide by them.  It is NOT LL's responsibility..  PERIOD.

Therefor, since the person that could get in trouble for violation of a Creator's content is the person that bought, has gained access to, and is the custodian of the Creator's content (i.e. the customer), then it would be well within your interest as a Buyer to make a well informed and wise decision on what you buy, what you decide not to buy, and to be fully aware what you agreeing to when you buy a creator's content.

I know this freaks you out Veronika and I am sorry that you are angry at me for telling you that the Government (i.e. LL and its TOS) is not there to wipe your butt when you buy something in RL or SL, but that is simply the way it is.

And to be frank about this... its not a difficult effort on your part as a buyer.  You as the buyer of SL content, Online ebay content, or products and services in RL have all the power.   If you as a buyer look at a SL Merchant's content and your questions or concerns on addressed or satisfied.... WALK AWAY AND DONT BUY THAT CONTENT.  Its as simple as that.

Merchants that refuse to tell their customers what the Usage Agreement will quickly go out of business when buyers like you pass them by and go to merchants that do provide you the information you need.

Also, each buyer has potentially different planned needs for the Creator's content.  Sometimes they all fall easily into the hard set permissions of the content.  But for full perm content this is not as much the case.  I have sold full perm content for 2.5 years to well over a 1000 different customers.  99.99% of the time my customers never contact me.  Of course I do provide Usage Agreement info on my listing AND I ask customers to contact me before they buy if they have any questions.  but even when I have it spelled out - I do get the rare person that IMs me and asks for interpretation of my agreement.  This is a well informed Customer that wants to know his/her rights BEFORE they buy and I have no issues with this at all.

So, you can be all upset at the blunt message from me that the responsibility on protecting your interets fall in your lap... but thats the way it is.

And trust me when I tell you that LL will not even take a second to ponder the idea of setting addition TOS regulations to dictate how a Creator should protect his/her content or to take on the responsibility for you the Buyer.

 

[Veronika Garzo]

It is quite extraordinary how a challenge to bombastic ramblings reduces its author to vitriole and abuse.  Generally indicative of a lack of anything of substance to impart!!!  Then resorting to repeat the episode in order to hammer home a point that has already been taken apart and shown for the lack of value it contains.

I regret to inform that most sales are guided by either the FTC or other similar agencies around the world, not regretfully by a 'tin soldier' who obviously thinks he knows better!!!!!

 

 

[Toysoldier Thor]

OK...

Well you keep hoping that LL will some day be motivated to put in SL TOS regulations to protect you from all the evil Creator Merchants that are trying to "rip you off" and until LL comes to your rescue, you keep buying SL products without taking your own initiative to look out for your own interests.

Most SL shoppers - specially buyers of full perm building products - are fellow creator merchants that already have an awareness of the importance of Creator IP and how it could impact their planned use of this content.  They know that if their intent is to buy full perm content to be used as input to more complex builds for resale, to make sure to understand the creator's usage agreement.  If they find out the agreement is not workable for them or that one doesnt exist or that the creator doesnt want to provide it.... these customers will likely not buy from this creator.  Why?  Because they are actively looking out for their best interests and trying to avoid future potential problems with this creator ... and they dont want to be RIPPED OFF.

Strange how they dont seem to feel ripped off.

sounds more like you made a buying mistake in the past because of a confused or less than upstanding creator/merchant and now you want to scream at your perch how all us full perm sculpty creators are out to rip you off and LL should protect you from us evil creators.

Sorry you had a bad experience in the past.  so to protect you from future pain... try considering the advice I first gave you instead of getting all upset because I dont believe in your knee jerk reactionary solution of more LL regulations.

Good Luck in your future purchases.

[Innula Zenovka]

I've not read the whole thread, so forgive me if this workround has been suggested before.

The way I solve this is not to put anything other than a script in the item that dispenses goodies (my business partner and I often have our toys dispense props that we're unwilling to give out copy-transfer).

This script communicates, via llHttpRequest, with our in-world server, sending it the name of the item to give and the uuid of the avatar to whom to give it.   Then the server sends the avatar a no transfer copy of the item.   I use the method suggested in this example in the wiki.  I use llHttpRequest because it's so much faster than llEmail and I don't have to worry about my server prim's uuid changing.   

It sounds complicated, but it really isn't -- you'll probably need a scripter to help you set it up, but an experienced scripter shouldn't find it too difficult, particularly if they follow that example (which is where I found out how to do it).

[Madeliefste Oh]

Toy, you speak about the situation how it is now: LL does not do anything to protect a customer. So the consequense is that a customer must protect himself.

Veronika seems well aware about the current situation, she is unhappy with it, and wants more protection for the customer.

Actually I think it would be a good thing, to have a better customer protection in SL. We all know stories from people who did not get what they paid for. LL does not intervence in resident to resident disputes, so customers just have to take their loose. The only possibility they have to express their grief is leaving a bad review on the marketplace (when the item was bought there, when it was bought in world they have no place at all to show ithat they feel ripped off.)
Bad shopping experiences are not good for the economy as a whole. After a few frustrations about mis buys people might want to give up at spending money on virtual items at all.
So in general it would be good for both the shoppers and the serious sellers. In this context  'serious sellers' are people who are trying to build up a business in SL, in contrast to people who try to make some quick bucks with a scam.

Now specific for the situation where the buyer and the merchant are in the same unprotected 'full perms ship':
It is not only for the interest of the buyer  that the merchant makes his terms of use available before the buy, but also for the merchant himself. Because in the end the customer has more power to hurt the interest of the merchant, then the merchant has to hurt his customer.

Valid for law are the conditions that were announcened before the moment of buy. The moment of buy is the moment that the actual legal transaction takes place. At the moment the item changes of ownership and the user license becomes valid.
At this point buyers nor merchants are protected. The buyer can not be sure to receive what the merchant promises to deliver. And the merchant can not be sure that the buyer agrees on the eula, because there is nowhere any button or field that the buyer must activate to show his agreement.

Now lets go on with the situation that the thread started about. People are confronted with limitations only after they have bought the item, in the form of a notecard. Ofcourse I personally think that the buyer should respect the limitations of the original creator, even if they are announcing them in the most unhandy way. But it depends more on people ethics if they will do so, then on anything else.
Now what if a buyer thinks: I wipe the floor with your eula. At the moment I bought it, it was presented as full perms, without any further limitations, and I will stick to that. And he starts selling items with full perms, where the sculpties that he bought are included.
The merchant can, that is to say if the discovers at all, file a dmca against this customer. LL will delete the items then for about 14 days. When the customer files a counter dmca, LL will restore the content. Now when this customer is really convinced that right is on his site, why should he not file a counter dmca?
This brings the merchant in a position where he has to find a lawyer. This lawyer will very likely tell him that his case is very weak, because he only made his eula available after the item was bought.

So... I see enough advantage for a better protection of the customer, apart from that I'm a customer myself sometimes as well. A trustworth climate at the market is good for both customers and merchants.  
The only problem is I don't see how to reach that. LL can hardly handle her own customer service, let alone that they must  solve all complaints from shoppers about merchants. When the solution cannot be done in code, don't expect a solution from the lab.
The merchants community as a whole? That is an unorganisable body. When someone only oppers the idea of for example a better business bureau, the handfull of merchants that are active in the forums roll over each other before the idea is good and well discussed. And that are only about 30 from the 70.000 The merchants community is simply too large to become a self organisation that strives for better customer protection and service.

The shopping audience as a whole? Even more unorganisable.

So, who are we going to get to do this job?

[Toysoldier Thor]

Made, you started your post by saying I was talking about a TODAY situation (i.e. I was being a realist).

You say she was suggesting a future  (i.e. wishful thinking).

Then you could see how her idea would be a good idea...  (ponderin her wishful thinking).

Then your last couple paragraphs explained all the reasons that brought us back to .... TODAY... the current situation with your admission that the wish for a better world in SL's market is not realistic.

So answer to your last question in your post....  "Who are we going to get to do the job?"

THE CUSTOMER being active and diligent in how he/she shops and buys....

THE CUSTOMER rewarding those SL merchants that perform best practices and offer the Agreement and help customers

THE CUSTOMER that punishes neglectful Merchants that do not believe in customer service by not buying their products.

Funny how your post actually drew the line of this thread as a full circle back to "Today".

[Veronika Garzo]

Madelaine spells out clearly the issues that arise continuously with SLX transactions and the efforts required on the part of LL to address the complexities and confusion that are presented on a daily basis. LL own a website and allow merchants to sell their wares on it.  They are responsible in law to put in place all reasonable protection for both buyer and merchant. In doing so, this minimises the conflict and the many hours spent trying to resolve the issues that arise as a result of the many and abstract presentations of products and the associated licenses.  It would be so easy for the page structure to offer a place for terms, conditions etc as other comparable sites do.  Giving merchants a clear pathway to show what the limitations/licensing conditions are on a product, and customers a place to see clearly what they are buying in an open and upfront market.  

This is not rocket science, its the law and set to preserve and enhance the seller/buyer relationship, not to cause both to feel they are being abused.

 

GENERAL OFFERS AND CLAIMS
PRODUCTS AND SERVICES

The Federal Trade Commission Act allows the FTC to act in the interest of all consumers to prevent deceptive and unfair acts or practices. In interpreting Section 5 of the Act, the Commission has determined that a representation, omission or practice is deceptive if it is likely to:

• mislead consumers and 
• affect consumers' behavior or decisions about the product or service.

In addition, an act or practice is unfair if the injury it causes, or is likely to cause, is:

• substantial
• not outweighed by other benefits and
• not reasonably avoidable.

The FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive advertising in any medium. That is, advertising must tell the truth and not mislead consumers. A claim can be misleading if relevant information is left out or if the claim implies something that's not true.

It goes further and spells out clearly the responsibilities of website owners:-

Advertising agencies or website designers are responsible for reviewing the information used to substantiate ad claims. They may not simply rely on an advertiser's assurance that the claims are substantiated. In determining whether an ad agency should be held liable, the FTC looks at the extent of the agency's participation in the preparation of the challenged ad, and whether the agency knew or should have known that the ad included false or deceptive claims.

Lets suppose for a moment that I pay for my purchase with paypal, not lindens from my SL account. I conclude that the purchase information and sale contravenes the above.  I then file a claim with Paypal for the reversal of this transaction or go to my bank and seek a reversal from them.  Then what?  LL has a legal responsibility because they are making money from each and every transaction and are the providers of what is quite obviously not a site that many would consider 'safe' or fair.  Perhaps if more customers excercised their legal rights and this became the norm, they might sit up and listen!

This fixation with ToS from Linden Labs is infuriating, they don't set the law, they are governed by it like the rest of us! Perhaps a review from the FTC's legal dept, might make for a fairer platform for all parties concerned.  This issue is bad for all of us and many honest traders such as Madelaine lose business through the less scrupulous practices of others. This is easily resolved, so why perpetuate a system that clearly does not meet the needs of either honest merchants or their customers?  

 

[Veronika Garzo]

Having viewed your store in SLX, I note a basic set of licensing terms published within the item description.  You also state the following;-

The contents of this pack have additional usage conditions to provide both flexibility to the buyer but also protect the creator's intellectual capital. If you wish to see a copy of the included license in this pack or you have any questions as to these terms prior to purchasing, please contact Toysoldier Thor.

This is precisely the kind of practice that causes the problems in the first instance.  Perhaps you would like to show us the content of this notecard so we may see what the difference is between that and what you give in the listing? I guess we should at least give your credit for encouraging prospective customers to contact you to find out, most don't! However, what I fail to understand is why you don't just set out the entire story within the listing?  If there is no space you could include a link to allow preview of the entire license and make the buying experience simple for the purchaser.  We don't all live in the USA and finding merchants to exchange information can be a protracted and arduous affair.  

Frankly, most would seek an alternative seller and do as u suggest, vote with their feet!!

[Toysoldier Thor]

I summarize the main intent of my usage agreement to the potential buyer since the notecard agreement is much longer to deal with interpretations and most LL distribution systems did not have a convenient way of making large formats of this information easily available without it dominating the entire limited space to actually focus on the product itself.

And as you pointed out yourself, I openly invite any potential customer to contact me for more information or to ask questions or to address any concerns they might have prior to deciding if they wish to buy.  And ultimately, if I cannot satisfy their concerns then they do have their full right to just not agree to buy my product.

I can tell you in the 3 years I have been selling content inworld and xstreet and MP... I think I can count on one hand the number of times a customer has ever contacted me to even ask further questions or ask to clarify the usage agreement message that I provide in my listings.  AND... I will tell you that of those 3 or 4 times, NOT ONCE has anyone said "you usage agreement is too vague for me to understand" or "I think you should openly post the entire agreement on your listing".

So... I run my business based on demands that would improve the satisfaction of my customer's experience.  Other than you generally posting here that all sculpty merchants need regulation because we are here to rip you off, I generally dont make major changes to my business operation or start a lot of effort restructuring all my inworld and MP listings and marketing because of 1 person that has a general sore spot on how all merchants should be more regulated.

What I have in place clearly is more then acceptable - as clearly has been proven by my actual customer experience.

If you are a potential customer of mine and you IM me and ask for what ever information you have for a specific product (as different products have different usage agreements - its not a STORE POLICY), then please IM me and I would be happy to provide you further clarification and even a copy of the agreement in question.

 

I dont see a whole hord of your fellow customers on these forums posting here in strong agreement with you that the full perm sculpty industry is in bad need of LL reform and added controls.  If that were true then maybe you could get LL to see the light and have LL mandate new controls.

PS - you are right we dont all live in the US... I am one of them.
PPS - If you feel what I provide you is not good enough for you - the sure - dont buy from me.  The good part is that I have a ton of other customers that love my product and have never expressed any concern for my usage agreement or how I present it prior to them selling.  MY agreement is very common for full perm items and the summary pretty much already spells out the general intent.

[Toysoldier Thor]

You seem to believe and are infuriated by others throwing the LL TOS in your face.  The LL TOS does not override any federal regulations - if it did then LL would be hauled to court for promoting and operating an environment that violates the laws of the land they run their business in.

TOS is LL's interpretation and local expansion upon any and all Government laws they must abide by themselves.  It does not contradict it.  But, TOS is the final layer of rules that Merchants of the MP service must abide by.  As such, the responsibility and authority of how a merchant operates a store on MP and even inworld is purely dictated by LL's TOS.

So stop getting so upset about semantics of LL TOS vs Federal laws.  In fact LL TOS has more universal level playing field enforecement then a US federal law.  Since I am Canadian, US Federal law has no direct meaning to me but I must abide by LL TOS or else I cannot sell on MP.

Does that make more sense.

As for your example on using paypal to buy MP goods and executing your right to get a refund if you could prove you have been ripped off by an evil merchant in SL.  I guess you could follow that practice - specially if you could prove to PayPal that you actually were decieved by a merchant on LL's MP and you want your $3US back.  and it would give you an added sense of control for you and make you feel better when shopping in SL.   But, a few things to point out with that strategy:

 

1. Buying products with Real $ accounts will inflate your costs of shopping since LL charges about 30% more for a REAL $ account transaction then a $Linden purchase.
2. You still need to prove to PayPal that you were duped.  This means writing them and opening up a transaction dispute.  Then PayPal needs to contact the Merchant to get their side of the story (I have gone through this with PayPal as a buyer wanting $ back from an online reseller).  Then finally PayPal will make a decision.  All this for $3US?  Really?
3. Pertaining to point #2... who does PayPal contact and how?  Does Paypal set up a SL Avatar account so they can IM the merchant?  Does Paypal delegate the investigation over to LL?  We all know how long LL takes to settle disputes. 
4. Since you bought full perms virtual content... not actual physical product that you can return and not retain a copy of - how do you honestly return the content you bought from the Merchant if the $ is refunded?  The Merchant is entitled to his/her content back but you know full well that with full perm there is no way to assure that you have no access to a remaining copy of it.  By you getting your refund - the sale transacation has been reversed an the corresponding userage agreement between the IP holder and you the buyer has ended.
5. Finally, related to point 4, how will you remove all other instances of the licensed content you yourself created with this merchant's licensed content and distributed to all your customers?  Your creations that were built and resold to others with his/her creation in it is now in violation of his IP rights - as stated in another federal law.  So now YOU are in violation of a law unless you can get all your customers to delete their copies of your builds with his/her content in it.
   
   In fact by you cancelling the transaction and ending your rights to his IP, you have just done him a big favor.  He can now take you to court for damages and seek to get a portion of all revenue you made from all sales of your content with his IP content in it.  So.... do you want to do this?

So you see... nothing is black and white Veronika....

The best solution is to be a wise and full aware buyer and try to encourage good practice of being a merchant by rewarding good merchants with your business and punish bad merchants by not giving them your business. 

And I will repeat myself again... SL is loaded with a lot of non-business types as merchants.  Most just want to be creators and would like to make a bit of $ on the side for what they created.  Dont pre-judge everyone that they are out to screw you.  Take the time to IM them and educate them with what you would like to see them do regarding usage agreements.  If they hear it enough times - they will change their operations.

[Veronika Garzo]

Yet another diatribe, and still no sight of your full license permissions!  Do you really think reiterating your vitriole over and over again does anything to assist this situation?  I guess it's a great way to shut a topic down, just so other parties don't have to be subjected to paragraph after paragraph of your opinionated, repetitive and abusive dross.  Really a shame you cannot manage to discuss the matter without resorting to aggression and spitting fire at me on a personal level. 

[Toysoldier Thor]

First of all, my business is not on trial here.  If you are truly a customer or potential customer of mine and you have questions, do what my product listings suggest you do... contact me directly inworld.

Stange how you your postings of "bring ripped off" and anger at LL and the pull perms creators and merchants is percieved by you to be postings of common sense reasonable posted commentary but my responses to your weak thought out concepts is deemed by you to be "diatribe" and "vitriole".  Is this how you feel you will win over debate of your concepts?

Here is an idea... instead of flinging no-value posted statements attacking the poster.... why dont you focus on the content I am responding to you.

Answer my comments on if it is still wise to shop by PayPal.

Answer my responses that explains why LL TOS is not something to be dismissed.

Answer my question to you on if you are prepared to be counter sued by the IP creator that you must have made $L / $US revenue from by using his/her content as part of your re-selling products.

You must be a content creator and reseller of products that includes products from us full perms sculpty creators because no other customer would have any issues with the usage agreements of our content and that the terms might have changed out from under you.  The only possible customer of ours that would be so deeply concerned is on that has bought out content and made 10 - 100 times even more revenue from it than the 1 sale we got from you.

If you are a re-builder and re-seller of our sculpty products then shame on you for not looking out for your own interests if you planned to make your own revenue from our content.  I would not consider your relationship with us full perm sculpty makers to be a Business - to - EndCustomer relation.... it is a Business to Business relationship.

As such, YOU as a fellow business should be more aware than any end-customer that only intends to use our products for personal use.  YOU as a fellow SL business should know the impacts of making a poor decision of entering into a relationship with another creator where your intent is to resell his/her content to others.  It impacts your business and even legal standing BIG TIME if you dont make a wise fully-aware decision.

Why? because if there is a dispute later.... the content creator is the IP rights hold and if it ever went to court, you might get your $3 or $5 US back from the Creator for the sale he made from you but you will be legally liable to pay him back a portion of each sale you made with his content.

Who do you think should have the greatest incentive to ensure his/her rights to the seller's content than a reseller of than creator's content?  YOU.

So if we are here to expose intents... the question goes to you.... Are you a buyer of other creator's full perms content for the intent of building more complex content and reselling that content? 

Are you ranting about this topic because in your past (I assume recently) you got burned by a ful perms sculpty creator (you seemed to focus on our category when there are several other full perm content creators that would have the same issue) and it is now impact the validity of the content you are selling on the market because of this poor agreement you initially got into with this creator?  If so I am assuming you would not be posting using your actual Merchant account.  That might not be a wise thing to do if this was the case.

Something is the root cause to your anger and it must be a big issue.

 

[Cherry Charlesworth]

I find the tone of your posts at the very least abusive. Is it not possible to open a debate about inadequacies of certain merchants without subjecting one to personal abuse. One would hate to think its pure bullying, to keep people from voicing their opinions. From the preceding posts Veronika mooted her concerns about certain merchants not putting their TOS in their market place postings. However anyone appearing to agree with this seems to have been intimidated and now refrains from comment. The point seems to have been made and each is entitled to their own opinions without constantly having others strong feelings thrust on them over and over again.

 

We are all at liberty to quote each Country's consumer rights, but do we actually know what is enforceable? probably not. If you are a responsible merchant then it is your duty to care and understand. It is illegal not to display TOS at point of sale in any country, it is not for the buyer to determine them before purchase. Feel free to quote “caveat emptor” but the buyer has rights in what ever country you wish to quote. This is fact.

 

Veronika makes an interesting point about cancelling a transaction, this is very acceptable to our credit card companies and also paypal. They are far more interested in their clients, I am able to cancel my transactions at any time if I believe I have been fraudulently sold goods. LL will certainly act if transactions are withdrawn.

 

It would seem that there do not appear to be any supporters of your abusive and repetitive posts, one would question whether anyone who can be bothered to read the posts, would dare attempt to present their own opinions.

 

The original post by Veronika was her expressing her dissatisfaction with certain merchants on the market place not clearly displaying their TOS. Or in fact changing it at a whim to suit themselves. How can items purchased several years ago now be subject to new TOS? TOS is not retrospective.

 

Points to be noted:

Do they own the copyright of their products? – Not proven until DMCA successfully tried in a court of law.

Do they pay tax on their earnings from SL etc – Dictating to customers and threatening behaviour might be inadviseable as inviting attention and/or prosecution does open the floodgates to scrutiny over their business interests and tax status.

Should they display their TOS at point of sale – Totally

 

The tax one is such fun, one would presume most of the Merchants on SLX do not declare their hard earned income. For them to file against a purchaser when you sell commercially, might open a whole new can of worms for those creators who do not declare their earnings and hide behind their avatar name. Filing in Court has to be done with real names. Therefore to invite speculation over their selling practices maybe inadvisable unless they want their tax departments scrutinising their business practices. This is a whole new topic. How many actually declare.

 

Its a dangerous game to play.

 

I will now wait with eager anticipation to read responses.