So why is it LL doesn't listen to numerous residents about an obvious copybotter?

[Dahlia Endsleigh]

So my question is, if numerous residents file an AR about a known copybotter that is obvious, why does the creator have to be involved? Why will they not do anything if there is firm proof from the residents submitting the AR's? The reason I ask is that I submitted an AR against the seller, creator and the live model that was in the inworld store for copybotting Truths hair. I sent a notecard to Truth in hopes he would look into the matter (I supplied him with a link to the marketplace, the names and a SURL to her inworld store) I guess I could see them seeing it as a "resident dispute" but then again, I can't. Anyone have any insight on this?

 (edited to remove full name :))

Thanks in advance!

 

 

Edit: Only because I for the life of me cannot figure out how to reply to a question/answer lol. Yes the live model did say that the owner of the store got permission from him, which is super unlikely! She was rather rude in IMing me about it too. I couldn't see him letting sell something he created (granted it was older versions of his hairs) for just 10l unless she did pay him a hefty fee... I did want to believe it for a second, but all the hair is offered in one color, and the different variations of the styles and the limitations of the colors suggest it was not him selling them to her full perm.

 

Edit 2: Yes I did report all parties involved because she was well of age to know that the hairs in question were around for sometime. It is the same as ARing a person wearing copybotted items inworld. I have heard of avi's being banned for owning copied material in their inventory. I wasn't trying to be rude to the model, but how do I know it was just the seller on an alt, or a friend of hers that well knew that the hair wasn't copied? Wouldn't you AR me if you saw me wearing an obviously copybotted outfit? Wouldn't it also be suspicious if the creator was so great at manipulating prims and sculpts, but only offered one color each on each hair, would that not raise your suspicions?

 

Edit 3: Yes I did send a notecard to the creator I know is the true creator with all the information. I have never heard of a well know designer selling their creations as full perm to be sold elsewhere, when they still offer the same styles in their own stores at a higher price. I initially saw it on the marketplace, and went to her inworld store to see the "work"  (I really wish I could just reply instead of the edits lol) Side note, even if she did have permission, why is the creator different than the seller?

[Ariel Vuissent]

Because it's possible that this person has permission to sell the hair. The only one who can say with absolute certainty that they do not is the original creator, Truth Hawks. It's possible, slimly possible, that Truth Hawks has for some reason given this person permission to sell these hairs, and only Truth can say otherwise.

Of course, I'm 99.99999999% sure that Truth DIDN'T give anyone permission to distribute his content, but he's the only one who can say so. It is currently, legally the responsiblity of the copyright/IP holder to protect his or her own content.

[Cinnamon Lohner]

You ARed a model at a shop??  Some poor 99%er trying to make an honest living and you ABUSE REPORTED her!?!?!

Can you imagine the chatter on the group IMs if LL started banning live models at clothing stores who unknowingly model a copybotted item?  The world would come unglued!

AFAIK unknowinly wearing or buying a copybotted item is not against the TOS. When an item is identified as such,  LL has a process for removing the item from people's inventories and notifying them of the event.  They don't take the people out back and have them de-pixelized.

--Cinn

 

[Lindal Kidd]

Let me understand this.  You were in some store OTHER than Truth, and you found that they were selling copybotted versions of Truth hair for $L10 each?

While you CAN submit an AR for this, it's unlikely that LL will take action on it.  A notecard to Truth Hawks with the names of the suspected copybotters, and the landmark of that store, is a much better step to take.  As the creator, Truth can file a DMCA takedown notice against the copybotters, and by law LL is required to take action.

And, just possibly, these people have Truth's permission to sell these styles.  Truth, among others, is very generous in letting her older creations out into the public domain.