Jump to content

Ripped meshes - How do we responsibly report MP breaches?


Maeve Balfour
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 4320 days.

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

Recommended Posts

LL can get the UUIDs from the items inworld; I gave them the location and pictures of each item.

Bottom line is DMCA says they must remove all infringing content; they remove it only from inworld and Marketplace and leave it in inventory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:


Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:


Jennifer Boyle wrote:

OTOH, if she had stolen items in her inventory that were not copies of (her) items the you had specifically identified, how could LL identify them?

That's exactly the point. You can't expect LL to go through someones entire inventory to compare the items to the original ones. They can (and I suppose will) act as soon as they have the UUID or name of the duplicate. Then they can simply look for that specific file and remove it.

Okay I don't know how I can say it more clearly than I have:  I provided LL with a UUID for each texture and sculpt map that I created. Anyone who thinks LL routinely removes stolen content from inventory has not been talking to merchants who have had content stolen. 

What purpose I would have for making this up I do not know.

Pam, while you're obviously well aware of (some of) the legalities, you seem to be lacking some understanding of the practical technicalities that make removals possible.  The copies don't necessarily have the same UUID's as the originals.  If the UUID's are different, LL has no way of automatically knowing which items, out of the countless thousands in somebody's inventory, might or might not be be copies of yours. 

The only way to make the determination would be to actually rez every item, and visually inspect them all.  That could take weeks of manpower for a medium sized inventory, or months for a large one.  It is not reasonable to expect any service provider to expend that kind of time and money on your behalf.  They do have a business to run.

Even if the requisite manpower were available, there's another obstacle potentially in the way.  This one is a legal issue.  Under the law, it's not the service provider's role to make any judgments whatsoever about what content does or does not infringe upon anyone's IP rights.  Their responsibility is to remove only what content has specifically been listed in a takedown notice, and/or to restore whatever content has been listed in a counter-notice, without prejudice.  If they were to actively go hunting for items not specifically listed in a proper notice, they'd then be have to play the the role of judge instead of service provider, making determinations of their own about what might be a copy of what.  That's not only beyond the scope of their responsibilities under the law, it also potentially could get them into legal trouble themselves.

 

It's perhaps easy to assume that there can and should be a 'paper trail' leading from copy to original, and it's tempting to think ill of LL for not following it.  In some cases, such a trail could potentially exist.  But in the majority of cases, it's just not possible.  I'll give a quick example to illustrate.

Let's say I make a sculpty.  I rez it, and then shift-drag it, so now there are two of them.  At this point, it's (theoretically) pretty easy for the system to know that one is a copy of the other.  The fact that the shift-drag process was used could technically be recorded, so we'd have it on record that Object B came into being as a direct copy of Object A.  So far, so good.  We know for a fact that B is a copy of A.

But now let's say I modify one of the copies.  Say I swap out the sculpt map for a different one, so the two objects now look nothing alike.  At this point the objects are absolutely NOT copies of each other.  So what about that record that says B is a copy of A?  What do we do about that?  It's no longer pertinent information.  B is not a copy of A right now, even though it did start out as one.  The 'paper trail' is now entirely useless.

With this simple example, we've very easily demonstrated that the mere fact that B happened to have come into existence by shift-drag from A does not in itself tell us that the two items are copies of each other.  It MIGHT tell us that, but it also might not.  Multiply that uncertainty by all the other ways that items can be made in SL, besides just shift-dragging, and the prospect of maintaining any trail from copy to original becomes all but impossible.

 

From everything you've written here about your experiences, it sounds like LL has been in full compliance with the law, and they've done their best, within all practical reason, to help you.  The problem lies not in their willingness to do the right thing, but in the hard fact that there really can be no technical way of determining what might be a copy of what, after the fact.  There's no such thing as a magic "remove all copies, no matter how they were made" button.  That's just not how it works.  It's important to understand that that's not a failing on LL's part in any way, nor it is a flaw in the SL system.  It's just the reality on the ground. 

I don't blame you for wanting a better solution.  I feel your frustration.  But like it or not, these things don't run on magic, and we do have to take the real practical limitations into consideration, before assigning fault where it doesn't necessarily belong. 

Uncomfortable as this may be for you to accept, LL's not at fault here.  Like the rest of us, they do what they can, and they don't do what's not possible.

 

You said you opted not to sue the thief, because he's in a different country.  I don't see why that should stop you.  We all agreed to abide by the laws of California when we signed up for SL, Italians included.  You're well within your rights to sue.  The thief likely won't show up, and you'll win by default.  You may have trouble collecting on any monetary damages you might be awarded, obviously, but at least you could potentially get the thief banned from SL.  That's what I'd seek to do.

 

 


Pamela Galli wrote:

LL can get the UUIDs from the items inworld; I gave them the location and pictures of each item.

 You're assuming the UUID's of all copies in inventory are the same as those of all the rezzed copies in-world.  That's not necessarily the case. 

 

 


Pamela Galli wrote:

 

Bottom line is DMCA says they must remove all infringing content; they remove it only from inworld and Marketplace and leave it in inventory.

 Actually, that's not quite accurate.  The law says the must remove all content identified in a properly filed takedown notice.  It does not say they must scour their system to hunt for anything that looks like it might be a copy, and take it upon themselces to remove every potential match.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are making my point, which is: If you provide a location and picture of the infringing content, LL will remove it inworld and on the Marketplace, but not from inventory. And the infringer is free to use it again. And again.

 

I don't  know what technical capabilities LL has, but I find it hard to believe that when shown an inworld object, they cannot get the UUID and find it in inventory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

The fact that I have no way of knowing is precisely the reason why I won't get involved. As Daniel pointed out, the IP owner may simply not care. It's none of my business to figure this out.

 If you don't want to get involved, that's fine. That's entirely up to you.

What I took issue with was not your level of involvement, but your suggestion that if the author of the work elects not to put the work in SL, then anyone and everyone else should automatically be free to do so. That's just all kinds of wrong.

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

I am familiar with that aspect of copyright, and it is one that I find highly unethical. I agree that the IP owner deserves to be compensated, but I reject the abuse of copyright as a censorship tool or as a means to control popular culture.

 

Again, you appear to be operating from a standpoint of entitlement, as if you feel you somehow deserve to have someone else's work, whether they want you to have it or not. And once again, I'll point out that that attitude is absolutely disgusting.  Have you no respect at all for anyone's wishes but your own?

I can't believe you had the gall to use the word "ethical" to defend your standpoint.  I'm not sure whether that's just laughable or if it's terribly sad.  Either way, where's your sense of ethics when it comes to the rights of creators?

The fact that you think it's about censorship is so bass-ackwards, it's ridiculous. It's not about controlling the masses, or some shadowy effort to shape pop culture from behind the scenes. It's simply about the fundamental right of each and every person in this life to be charge of his or her own destiny.  For creators, that absolutely means the right to determine whether, where, how, and by whom, their works get copied.  The fact that you're apparently not willing or able to see that is pretty awful.

 

In any case, if disagree with a law, any law, then the right thing to do is to petition your congressman, and try to get it changed. If that's not enough, then you always have the option to run for Congress yourself, and should you get elected, you can then draft any bill you want, and do your damnedest to get it signed into law. What you don't do is break the law, just because you don't think it suits you. You abide by the law, even if you disagree with it, until such time as you can succeed in implementing its change.  That's what it means to livie in a civilized society.

 

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

If you look around in SL, what do you see?

Quite obviously, the very subject we're discussing is what to do when "what you see", as you put it, is a stolen item that shouldn't be here to be seen in the first place. You sound like you're trying to say the mere fact that thieves have already committed theft is somehow in itself a justification for theft. That kid of circular logic is so childish, so self-serving, so pathetic.

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

You see a virtual replication of the real world, with some modifications.

Look, if you REALLY want to play the "replicate the real world" game, then let's play it, all the way. The real world has laws by which we all have to abide. Those same laws are just as applicable in SL. That includes intellectual property laws. With that in mind, let's take a look at each of your examples, and talk about how they work, under the law.

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

You see houses, furniture and clothes copied from the real world.

First of all, things like houses, furniture, and clothes are not copyrightable, so that's entirely a non-issue. Those are utilitarian items, not artworks, under the law.  This is why knock-off clothing, and knock-off furniture exists in the real world. Anyone can copy the design of a dress or a chair, or what have you, and there's no problem.

If a copyrighted work, or a trademark, happens to be embedded into a utilitarian item, then any copies of the item must be exclusive of the artwork.  For example, if T-shirt has a picture printed on it, you can copy the shirt itself all you like, but you cannot include the picture.

Second, it's crucially important to realize there is a distinct difference between a real item, and a piece of artwork depicting an item.  Everything in SL is artwork.  Thus, copyright law applies to all of it.

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

a virtual environment inspired by Neal Stephenson

There's a world of difference between "inspired by" and "copy of", in this context. Just because Neal Stephenson wrote a book about virtual worlds before virtual worlds really existed, doesn't mean in any way that virtual worlds are somehow copies of his work. The very notion is so silly, the English language lacks the words to describe the magnitude.

If someone were to create Snow Crash Land, or something, and include characters, settings, story lines, etc., from the book, that would of course be a problem (unless Neal says it's not). But that's not what SL is, obviously.  No one in their right mind could ever argue that SL is a copy of Stephenson's work, even if its creators did find some inspiration there.

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

with vampires inspired by Ann Rice

Anne Rice does not own vampires as a genre.  She did not invent them. No one person did. They've 'existed' for thousands and thousands of years, and are at least as old as written story telling itself, probably much older.  It happens that Rice's particular stories and characters have done much to help shape the modern state of the genre, but that has nothing to do with anything in this context.  

Once again, there's a tremendous difference between "inspired by" and "copy of".  If I make a vampire character with long hair, and a French sounding name, that doesn't necessarily mean I copied Anne Rice's work in any way.

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

Goreans inspired by John Norman

For the thrd time now, "inspired by" and "copy of" are not the same thing.  If someone happens to enjoy that particular role playing fantasy, or even adopts the Gorean lifestyle full time, that doesn't mean they've copied anything from Norman's work.  You can't copyright a lifestyle, or even an artistic style, only the actual works themselves.

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

cyberpunk inspired by Ridley Scott, William Gibson or Masamune Shiro,

And for the fourth time, "inspired by", "copy of", one of these thigns is not like the other.

I've done plenty of Blade Runner-esque works in my time.  None have been copies of anyone else's work.  Just because something looks like it plausibly could exist within the same universe as something else doesn't mean one is a copy of the other.  Again, no one owns style.

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

science fiction inspired by Gene Roddenberry or George Lucas.

Since you mentioned Roddenberry, let's talk Star Trek for a moment.  It's hardly any secret that I've done tons of Star Trek work in SL (and elsewhere), both in official and unofficial capacities.  The official stuff isn't really relevant in this context, since of course I had express permission for that, by the very nature of having been hired to do it.  As for the unofficial stuff, the Star Trek franchise is incredibly supportive of fan art.  With very few exceptions, they really don't care what you do, as long as you make it clear that your work is a fan production, and not try to pass it off as official.  (A lot of franchises could learn a thing or two from this policy.)

LucasArts has a somewhat similar take on fan productions, but they tend to be a bit unpredictable on what they decide to lay the smack down upon.  They'll do goofy things like sue a laser pointer company for making a device that almost kind of sort of maybe looks like a lightsaber, at the same time as they'll allow all manner of fan films, books, paintings, etc. to be produced.  There doesn't seem to be any particular rhyme or reason to what they will and won't allow.  But that's their prerogative.  They can manage their IP any way they want.

Because of this uncertainty, I tend to steer clear of making Star Wars content.  I've made plenty of stuff that looks like it could belong in the Star Wars universe.  I've designed and created entire builds that look they could have been levels in a Jedi Knight game.  But they weren't.  They were wholly original works.  As I've said a few times now, simply adopting a style is not the same thing as copying a work.  "Inspired by" and "copy of" are not the same thing.

 

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

And of course you see live events where musicians perform someone else's works.

Any musician who wants to publicly perform someone else's songs should first obtain license to do so.  It's pretty easy and painless process to do that.

On a side note, there is currently an effort in Washington to criminalize unauthorized digital performances.  Hopefully the proposed ideas won't become law.  They're seriously overboard.

 

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

All these things exist on the grid without proper licensing.

Again, you seem to be implying the mere fact thieves have already thieved is somehow a justification for theft.  That's beyond silly.

 

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

How many of them have you reported?

As I already said, whenever I encounter what looks to be an unauthorized copy of something, I take a minute to inform the rightful owner, as best I can.  Usually that just means firing off a quick E-mail to the contact address on the owner's website.  The owner can then choose to deal with it, or not deal with it, however they see fit.  My civic duty is done.

As for the answer to your question as worded, how many of the things you specifically mentioned have I so reported, the answer would be very few.  Most of what you listed were general stylistic choices, not copies of anything, and you can't copyright a style.  As I've said at least half a dozen times, "inspired by" does not necessarily mean "copy of".  It quite obviously would be pointless to report something that isn't a copy.

 

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

I don't want to live in a world where all culture is locked in and indefinitely controlled by corporations.

Neither would I.  Neither would anyone. But that's not at all what we're talking about.  The right of a creator to determine whether, how, where, and by whom, his or her works are copied does not constitute the locking of culture.  If anything, it's exactly the opposite.  These protections encourage creators to create.

As for the subject of corporations themselves, you seem to be implying that anything with that label must automatically be bad.  If that's indeed your stance, then I have to tell you it's a really childish outlook.  If I elect to incorporate my business tomorrow, it doesn't mean I'm no longer the same person I was yesterday.  It just means I do my taxes a little differently than I otherwise would, and I have certain liability protections that I otherwise would not.

 

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

Those laws are not democratic,

Of course they are democratic.  First of all, they were written by elected officials.  If you want them changed, you have the option to organize a campaign to see it done, just like every other citizen.  That's what living in a democracy means.

Second, and more importantly, democracy exists to safeguard the rights of every individual.  Some people, possibly yourself included, seem to think democracy is synonymous with mob rule, believing that whatever the majority of the public wants is what should happen, no matter whether it tramples on individual rights or not.  That outlook is entirely off the mark, and it's very, very dangerous.  It's the kind of thinking that spawns witch hunts, inquisitions, lynchings, even holocausts.  It's the most undemocratic mentality there is.

Because I live in a democracy, I know that the rule of law is here to safeguard my rights.  The law doesn't give me my rights; I already have them, simply because I'm a human being.  The law serves to stop others from trying to take my rights away.

Property owners in a democracy have the right to maintain control of their own property.  This includes intellectual property, as well as physical property.  My right to not have people copy my works is no different from my right to not have people trespassing on my land, or joyriding in my car, or looting my bank account, or what have you.  It's all the same thing.  What I own is what own, and no one has the right to take it without my permission.

The public doesn't have any right to take anything of mine, no matter how many of them might want it.  If I choose to distribute my stuff to the public, or just to some of the pubic, or not to anyone at all, that's my decision.  The law exists to protect that decision.

 

Of course, that's occasionally going to mean that something I might want, but which belongs to someone else, isn't going to become mine.  Disappointing as that may be sometimes, it's perfectly OK.  No matter how badly I might want a particular thing, having it is nowhere near as important as ensuring that the stuff that's already mine can't just be taken by someone else without my say so.

 

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

I'm not going to become instrumental in their enforcement by joining some kind of neighborhood watch

No one said you have to.  The topic here is what can be done by those who ARE interested in that kind of participation.  If you're not, that's up to you.  I just think we'd all appreciate it if you wouldn't try to promote the idea that people should just be able to take other people's property, without permission.  That's not only a bit off topic, it's just plain wrong.

 

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

The public is entitled to have the works anyway, because all works enter the public domain at some point.

Look, if you want to take my stuff 70 years after I die, have at it.  In the here and now, you're not entitled to anything that doesn't belong to you.

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

What copyright adds to the mix is the IP owner's entitlement to attribution and compensation for a limited period of time. That's not frightening; it's the original deal as written down in the U.S. constitution.

The limited period of time, under present law, is the author's lifetime plus 70 years.  So, kindly wait that long before you start ripping models and putting them in SL. and there will be no problem.  Taking stuff that belong to someone else NOW is a huge problem, and frankly you should be ashamed of yourself for arguing that it's in any way OK to do.

 

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

The whole idea was to encourage authors to release their works instead of locking them away. 

No, the idea was to see to it that if an author does choose to release a work, he or she can expect not to have it taken without his or her permission.  If an author chooses not to release something, that's his or her prerogative.

Either way, nobody gets to just take without permission.

 

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

Why else would the public grant such a right in the first place?

The public doesn't grant rights.  Human beings are born with them.  Our nation was founded on this principle, above all others.  (Albeit, by highly hypocritical slave owners, but the imperfections of the messengers don't diminish the validity of the message.)  As I said above, our laws exist to safeguard the rights that we already have.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Chosen Few wrote:


From everything you've written here about your experiences, it sounds like LL has been in full compliance with the law, and they've done their best, within all practical reason, to help you.  The problem lies not in their willingness to do the right thing, but in the hard fact that there really can be no technical way of determining what might be a copy of what, after the fact.  There's no such thing as a magic "remove all copies, no matter how they were made" button.  That's just not how it works.  It's important to understand that that's not a failing on LL's part in any way, nor it is a flaw in the SL system.  It's just the reality on the ground.

 Actually, that's not quite accurate.  The law says the must remove all content identified in a properly filed takedown notice.  It does not say they must scour their system to hunt for anything that looks like it might be a copy, and take it upon themselces to remove every potential match.

The problem is that a UUID is just an index number in their database, it does not uniquely identify the content.  To give a Hollywood example, a ripped copy of the film "Iron Man" is still a ripped copy if you change the file name to "Fe Man" (Fe is the chemical symbol for Iron, from the Latin "ferrum").  The way to identify copies is to use a "hash value".  That is a unique number generated from the content itself by a well known (in computer circles) process.  It is highly unlikely that any two sculpt maps will generate the same hash value.

Linden Lab could save itself a lot of effort and make Second Life more attractive to content creators if they add hash values for every asset in the asset database.  Then a DMCA claim could state "remove all content which duplicates the hash value of my item X, but has a different creator name", and it would be straightforward to call up the items that match, check if they are really duplicates, and then delete them.  They could also prevent the upload of copied items by comparing the hash value of a new upload against the values of already existing items.

Note this would not be perfect.  Two people who use the same open-source texture would get the same hash value on upload, and someone who slightly modifies an asset would get a different value.  But perfect is the enemy of "better than what we have now".  Identifying items by a numerical fingerprint of the content (a hash)  is better than identifying them with an arbitrary database index that bears no relation to the contents (a UUID).  And this does not have to affect existing uses of UUID's.  It just means creating a new table of hash values in their database.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:

You are making my point, which is: If you provide a location and picture of the infringing content, LL will remove it inworld and on the Marketplace, but not from inventory. And the infringer is free to use it again. And again.

Well, yes and no.  You initially made it sound like you believed it was LL's policy not to remove items from inventories, even if they know which items to remove.  That was the part I had a hard time believing. 

The technical matters that make it difficult to determine which item in an inventory might be a copy of an item in-world, are a slightly different subject.

 


Pamela Galli wrote:

I don't  know what technical capabilities LL has, but I find it hard to believe that when shown an inworld object, they cannot get the UUID and find it in inventory.

In some cases, it's reasonable to expect they'd be able to do that, but not in all cases.  Let's say I've got an item in my inventory, and I rez a copy of it in-world.  It would technically be possible to link the database entries between those two items, so a record exists, stating Item B (the in-world version) was rezzed as a copy of Item A (the inventory version).  But, just as with the previous example, let's say I now alter B, so it no longer looks anything like A.  The record stating that B is a copy of A is no longer valid.

With that in mind, it becomes pretty difficult to be certain of much of anything.  I wish there were practical solution to this conundrum as much as you do.  I'm sure LL would love it, too, if it were possible.

If you can think of a logical way through, please suggest it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


DanielRavenNest Noe wrote:

The way to identify copies is to use a "hash value".  That is a unique number generated from the content itself by a well known (in computer circles) process.  It is highly unlikely that any two sculpt maps will generate the same hash value.

Linden Lab could save itself a lot of effort and make Second Life more attractive to content creators if they add hash values for every asset in the asset database.  Then a DMCA claim could state "remove all content which duplicates the hash value of my item X, but has a different creator name", and it would be straightforward to call up the items that match, check if they are really duplicates, and then delete them.  They could also prevent the upload of copied items by comparing the hash value of a new upload against the values of already existing items.

Note this would not be perfect.  Two people who use the same open-source texture would get the same hash value on upload, and someone who slightly modifies an asset would get a different value.  But perfect is the enemy of "better than what we have now".  Identifying items by a numerical fingerprint of the content (a hash)  is better than identifying them with an arbitrary database index that bears no relation to the contents (a UUID).  And this does not have to affect existing uses of UUID's.  It just means creating a new table of hash values in their database.

I'm inclined to agree with you, Daniel, that this would be a good addition to the system.  However, as you well stated, it would be far from perfect.  It would only work for exact copies.  An imperfect copy is still a copy, and there wouldn't be any reliable way to allow for that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Chosen Few wrote:


Pamela Galli wrote:

You are making my point, which is: If you provide a location and picture of the infringing content, LL will remove it inworld and on the Marketplace, but not from inventory. And the infringer is free to use it again. And again.

Well, yes and no.  You initially made it sound like you believed it was LL's policy not to remove items from inventories, even if they know which items to remove.  That was the part I had a hard time believing. 

The technical matters that make it difficult to determine which item in an inventory might be a copy of an item in-world, are a slightly different subject.

 

Pamela Galli wrote:

I don't  know what technical capabilities LL has, but I find it hard to believe that when shown an inworld object, they cannot get the UUID and find it in inventory.

In some cases, it's reasonable to expect they'd be able to do that, but not in all cases.  Let's say I've got an item in my inventory, and I rez a copy of it in-world.  It would technically be possible to link the database entries between those two items, so a record exists, stating Item B (the in-world version) was rezzed as a copy of Item A (the inventory version).  But, just as with the previous example, let's say I now alter B, so it no longer looks anything like A.  The record stating that B is a copy of A is no longer valid.

With that in mind, it becomes pretty difficult to be certain of much of anything.  I wish there were practical solution to this conundrum as much as you do.  I'm sure LL would love it, too, if it were possible.

If you can think of a logical way through, please suggest it.

I am curious what cases you would consider it reasonable for them to remove something from inventory, if not, say, when the item is easily accessible inworld and is an exact copy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:

I am curious what cases you
would
consider it reasonable for them to remove something from inventory, if not, say, when the item is easily accessible inworld and is an exact copy.

Before I answer, let me first make sure I'm understanding you.  You're asking, if an item is not easily accessbile in world, and is not an exact copy, then would it be reasonable to expect LL to remove it from someone's inventory, is that correct?

I don't know what you're looking to hear in response.  All I can really say is they can't very well remove anything they don't know about. I don't like that any more than you do, but it is the reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Chosen Few wrote:


Pamela Galli wrote:

I am curious what cases you
would
consider it reasonable for them to remove something from inventory, if not, say, when the item is easily accessible inworld and is an exact copy.

Before I answer, let me first make sure I'm understanding you.  You're asking, if an item is not easily accessbile in world, and is not an exact copy, then would it be reasonable to expect LL to remove it from someone's inventory, is that correct?

I don't know what you're looking to hear in response.  All I can really say is they can't very well remove anything they don't know about. I don't like that any more than you do, but it is the reality.

I am asking if an item is, for example, 1) easily accessible inworld (location known, picture provided) and 2) is an exact copy, is it reasonable to assume that LL has the means to remove it from inventory.  If not, under what circumstances would LL have the ability to remove it, if any? You said, I believe, that some did exist, though.

 

Now, LL has said if I could provide the names that the infringer gave the things, they would remove them; I was able to do that with a couple of objects she had renamed, although most were just called Object -- but not the actual sculpt maps and textures.

 

I realize the any process would be time consuming, but the DMCA does not, as far as I have seen, exempt a provider from complying if it is. And given that I put almost $2000 a month in LL's pocket, I don't think it unreasonable for them to spend the time complying. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Chosen Few wrote:

What I took issue with was not your level of involvement, but your suggestion that if the author of the work elects not to put the work in SL, then anyone and everyone else should automatically be free to do so. That's just all kinds of wrong.

If the author chooses not to enforce his rights (by filing DMCA takedown notices), then anyone and everyone is free to put those works in SL. Not only is this not wrong, it's also perfectly legal.


Again, you appear to be operating from a standpoint of entitlement, as if you feel you somehow deserve to have someone else's work, whether they want you to have it or not.

If the work is released, then the public is entitled to have it, and the author is entitled to get compensated. If the public were not entitled to have it, then copyright would be pointless, because it would no longer "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".


I can't believe you had the gall to use the word "ethical" to defend your standpoint.  I'm not sure whether that's just laughable or if it's terribly sad.  Either way, where's your sense of ethics when it comes to the rights of creators?

I am defending the author's right to compensation. If an author makes content available on this platform, I will report illegal copies when I spot them. If an author refuses to make content available here, I refuse to support him. Where is your sense of ethics when it comes to the rights of consumers?


In any case, if disagree with a law, any law, then the right thing to do is to petition your congressman, and try to get it changed. If that's not enough, then you always have the option to run for Congress yourself, and should you get elected, you can then draft any bill you want, and do your damnedest to get it signed into law. What you don't do is break the law, just because you don't think it suits you. You abide by the law, even if you disagree with it, until such time as you can succeed in implementing its change.  That's what it means to livie in a civilized society.

I'll just put this here for your consideration: Wikileaks Leak Shows US Entertainment Industry Wrote Spain's New Copyright Law

Unfortunately, since I am not a U.S. citizen, petitioning a U.S. congressman is not an option for me.

However, by refusing to become an instrument, I am not breaking any law. The term you are looking for is "civil disobedience".


First of all, things like houses, furniture, and clothes are not copyrightable

They are. You obviously do not know the full extent of the laws you pretend to defend here. Again, some recent piece of information for your consideration: Apple claims rectangles, round corners and flat black screens are theirs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://marketplace.secondlife.com/stores/96174?search%5Bcategory_id%5D=&search%5Bcopy_permission%5D=0&search%5Bkeywords%5D=&search%5Blayout%5D=gallery&search%5Bmaturity%5D%5B%5D=General&search%5Bmaturity%5D%5B%5D=Moderate&search%5Bmodify_permission%5D=0&search%5Bpage%5D=2&search%5Bper_page%5D=96&search%5Bprice_high%5D=&search%5Bprice_low%5D=&search%5Bprim_count_high%5D=&search%5Bprim_count_low%5D=&search%5Bsort%5D=&search%5Bstore_id%5D=96174&search%5Btransfer_permission%5D=0

 

Friend out of impulse bought 2 aliens, after unpacking, the avi`s where just ripped directly from the game with default textures and some freebie 2007 ao
If a Linden actually is reading this, you will hear soon from a dozen movie/game publisher/IP holders as i`m declaring war against this guy

Rodvik Linden will be notified.

http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Unabated/187/203/1983 90% of all items there are ripped

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Alicia Sautereau wrote:

 

Friend out of impulse bought 2 aliens, after unpacking, the avi`s where just ripped directly from the game with default textures and some freebie 2007 ao

If a Linden actually is reading this, you will hear soon from a dozen movie/game publisher/IP holders as i`m declaring war against this guy

Rodvik Linden will be notified.

90% of all items there are ripped

Yep, that is a heck of a lot of stuff. And we are destined to see a lot more.  And if the IP holders file a DMCA, LL will remove things from Marketplace and inworld, but not from Inventory.  The infringer will be free to relist. If the IP holders want to continue filing DMCAs, LL will at some point perhaps delete the avi. Which will stop nothing.

 

That is what UGC in SL means in 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Masami: If an author makes content available on this platform, I will report illegal copies when I spot them. If an author refuses to make content available here, I refuse to support him. Where is your sense of ethics when it comes to the rights of consumers?

Wow, this is quite a statment. Consumers don't have any right whatsoever to own a creator's work outside of what the creator or the law stipulates. 

 

Someone the other day left me a bunch of all-caps messages asserting that I was ripping everyone off because my houses don't include all the furniture in the house. This person thinks he has some consumer right to buy a fully furnished home from me at the price he determines. Otherwise he thinks he is being defrauded.

 

I have heard your position too many times to think it would be worth the effort to say any more than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

If the author chooses not to enforce his rights (by filing DMCA takedown notices), then anyone and everyone
is
free to put those works in SL. Not only is this
not
wrong, it's also perfectly
legal
.

Absolutely not true, Masami.  Your seemingly deliberate, self-serving misinterpretation of the law, and of the basic principles upon which it stands, is really getting tiresome.  The old "better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" argument is ridiculous, and never works for anything.  It's pretty silly that you've decided to go that direction.

Fact:  All original works are automatically protected, as soon as they are created. 

Fact:  Anyone who violates that protection is breaking the law, and infringing upon the author's rights, by definition. 

Fact:  No one is legally free to take anything that belongs to someone else.  Until and unless the owner has explicitly said yes, the answer is always no.

Just because the technical means may exist to make something happen doesn't make it right.  I have the technical means to drive through a red light, but that doesn't mean it's legal to do so.  I also have the technical means to rob a bank, or murder someone, or do literally any other illegal thing on Earth.  These acts don't become legal just because I technically could perform them.  They all remain illegal, whether I do them or not.  The same is true of copyright protections.  The legal protections don't cease to exist just because it's technically feasible to violate them.

 

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

If the work is released, then the public is entitled to have it, and the author is entitled to get compensated.

No, the public is NOT entitled to have anything that belongs to an individual, ever.  If an author chooses to publish a work, then others are granted the privilege of access to the publication, under whatever terms the author has deemed appropriate. 

That's privilege, not entitlement.  Nobody gets to just take the work, simply because he or she wants it.  The work is the property of its owner, and only the owner is entitled to decide whether, where, how, and by whom the work may be copied..

 

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

If the public were not entitled to have it, then copyright would be pointless, because it would no longer "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

Your misinterpretation here is pretty staggering.  "Promoting the progress of the useful arts" doesn't mean taking away the rights of authors.  Exactly the opposite, it means PROTECTING the rights of authors.  If authors are denied the right to maintain control of their own property, then they have little reason to keep creating, and then there's no progress at all.  The question of what the general public is or isn't entitled to is not part of that equation, at least not in any immediate way.  I don't know why you'd think it would be.

Again, democracy is about safeguarding the rights of every individual.  The US Constitution was written specifically for that purpose.  Authors have the right to own their creations.  Owners have the right not to have their possessions taken by others without permission.  Copyright laws exist to protect those rights.

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

I am defending the author's right to compensation.

Aw gee, how big of you.

It's not just about compensation.  Compensation is merely a possible result, not a cause.  The fundamental principle is simply right of ownership.  If an owner of a thing doesn't want the thing to be available to others, then the thing is to remain unavailable.  It's entirely the owner's decision, and he or she can make that decision for any reason at all, or for no reason.  No one else gets to decide, "I think that person's property should have been made available over here, so I'm just gonna put it there myself."

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

 If an author makes content available on this platform, I will report illegal copies when I spot them. If an author refuses to make content available here, I refuse to support him.

You're under no obligation to support anyone at all.  But whether you agree with an author's decisions or not, you do have to abide by them.  It's not for you to decide on what platforms other people's works should be placed.  If an author doesn't want his or her works in SL, then those works don't get to be in SL.  It's a simple concept.

The fact that you might personally want the works is entirely irrelevant.  YOU'RE NOT THE OWNER, so you have no say in the matter.  End of story.

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

Where is
your
sense of ethics when it comes to the rights of consumers?

Rights of consumers?  Really? That's what you think is at stake here?  Come on.  Even you must realize just how ridiculous that sounds.

A consumer does not have the right to consume anything that belongs to someone else.  Just because you want something doesn't mean you have the right to have it.  If someone else owns it, it's thiers, not yours.  Only the owner has say in what becomes of it.

This entitlement attitude of yours is truly sickening.  It disgusts me more than I could possibly describe.

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

I'll just put this here for your consideration:

Your point is?  Nothing in that article has anything to do with anything we've been discussing here. 

It's also a pretty badly written article.  Shall we count the ways in which it fails: 

First, it's clearly very biased, as evidenced by its use of words like "reasonable" to describe things the author agrees with, and "no surprise" to introduce things the author doesn't like.  That's not journalism. 

Second, it does not cite any actual evidence for any of its claims. If you click on any of its links, you just end up reading similarly written articles, on the very same website.  There's not a single link to any source material, whatsoever  Again, that's not journalsim.  It's just the work of an opinionated author who likes to hear himself type.

Third, it doesn't even say what's in this new proposed law that the author implies is so bad.  It just says it's got to be a bad thing, for no other reason than what amounts to "because I said so". 

Add all that up, and it's among the worst articles I've ever read. If that's the kind of place you regularly go to get your information, Masami, it's no wonder you're so confused.

 

For the sake of argument, let's put the problems with the article aside for a moment, and assume everything in it is true.  Spain might be about to get a bad law.  Well, that's potentially unfortunate for the Spanish.  But since Spanish law is not what governs SL, there's no relevance to our discussion here.

But let's put even that aside. What can we say about the fact, if indeed it is a fact, that the US entertainment industry had some influence (the article doesn't say how much influence, or what kind) in the shaping of the bill.  What might that mean?

I'd say it means simply what we all already know, which is that there will always self-serving people in every industry who will seek to influence lawmakers to help give their particular businesses a leg up.  Sometimes, such people are granted too much influence, and we end up with badly written, ill considered bills that do not properly balance the rights of all who may be affected by them.  And sometimes, unfortunately, those bills actually become laws.  I don't agree with that any more than I agree with your "just take whatever you want" stance.

 

I get the sense that you're trying to imply your own position in favor of IP theft somehow serves as a counter-balance to over-reaching IP laws.  If that's indeed what you mean, then that is, again, a very childish outlook on the situation.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

Unfortunately, since I am not a U.S. citizen, petitioning a U.S. congressman is not an option for me.

Did you not just cite an article claiming that people from the US influenced Spain's lawmakers?  Assuming anything the article said was actually true, does that not also suggest that you could likewise influence US lawmakers, if you really, really wanted to?  Where there's a will, there's a way.

By virtue of being an SL user, you undoubtedly know lots of Americans.  Surely at least some of them are your friends.  If they're your friends, they probably share in your opinions on at least some things.  If you were so inclined, you could motivate them to peition their congressmen.

 

In any case, since you're not US citizen, maybe it would be best if you'd refrain from any further attempt at interpreting the US Constitution.  You've sufficiently demonstrated by now that you're really not good at it.  Perhaps you lack the cultural context to put it in its proper perspective.  There's nothing wrong with that, in itself.  I don't know a thing about the Spanish constitution, as I'm not a Spaniard.  The difference between you and me, though, is I'm not about to make a fool of myself by trying to pretend I do.

 

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

However, by refusing to become an instrument, I am not breaking any law. The term you are looking for is "civil disobedience".

If you take other people's works without their permission, you are breaking the law.  You haven't stated that you've actually done that, but you've certainly hinted at it.  You've said you think it's OK for everyone else to do it.  It's awfully hard to imagine that with that attitude, you wouldn't be doing it yourself.

Your pretense at "civil disobedience" is laughable at best.  Clearly, you just want to be able to take without asking, and you're throwing up what you hope will perceived as references to nobler principles, in order to make it look better.  Nobody's buying it.

You're not Gandhi, you're not Thoreau, you're not Rosa Parks.  You're not trying to end slavery, or free any people's from oppression, or bring end to any unjust wars.  You're simply trying to feel better about stealing other people's stuff.

 

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

They are. You obviously do not know the full extent of the laws you pretend to defend here.

Again, your misinterpretations are simply mindblowing.  Have you actually read the relevant laws, Masami?  It sure doesn't sound like it.  I can promise you I have.  I've been in business for almost 20 years now, and I do most of my own legal work.  Trust me; I'm well schooled in this stuff.  I have to be.  You, quite obviously, are not.  I'd encourage you to read up.

Fact:  utilitarian items like houses, clothing, and furniture are not recognized under the law as artistic works, and thus are not subject to copyright protections.

If you were previously ignorant of that fact, that's fine.  No one can be expected to know everything.  But now that it's been pointed out, your stubborn refusal to accept it as truth only makes you look sillier and sillier with each volley.

There was an excellent lecture at TED last year about this very subject, with respect to the fashion industry.  Toward the end, the speaker touches on other types of items besides clothing, including furniture and houses.  I'd highly recommend you watch  it.  While I disagree a little bit with some of the speaker's conclusions, she has an excellent command of the facts, and presents them exceedingly well.

 

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

Again, some recent piece of information for your consideration:

Again, your point is?

Are you trying to say that just because Apple might have made an outlandish claim (which that company does all the time, by the way), somehow the law is now different than it was five minutes ago?

There are two very important things to point out here.  First of all, the author of that article is taking some liberties with his assessment that Apple is somehow trying to claim ownership of rectangles and such.  If you actually read the article, instead of just the headline (and if you've been following the story itself, which I have been, off and on, for quite a while now), you'd know that what actually happened was Apple was asked to submit possible design changes for certain Samsung products that Apple alleges infringe on some of its patents.  As was to be expected, Apple's suggestions essentially were that the Samsung products should be as different looking as possible from the Apple ones, which among other things, meant avoiding rectangular shapes with rounded corners.  The notion that that somehow means Apple believes it owns rectangles and rounded corners is simply commentary from the author, nothing more.  To my knowledge, Apple has never tried to patent the rectangle.

The word "patent" brings us to the second point.  The case the article talks about is a patent case, not a copyright case.  Patents and copyrights are entirely different things, and the laws regarding each are totally different subjects.  Thus, the case has absolutely no bearing on anything we've been discussing here.  Whatever the outcome, it's 100% irrelevant to they subject of copyright.

The fact that you'd bring up a patent case in the middle of a copyright discussion only serves to underscore how out of your depth you are on all this.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:

I am asking if an item is, for example, 1) easily accessible inworld (location known, picture provided) and 2) is an exact copy, is it reasonable to assume that LL has the means to remove it from inventory.  If not, under what circumstances would LL have the ability to remove it, if any? You said, I believe, that some did exist, though.

Thanks for clarifying, Pam.  All I meant to imply is that such means COULD potentially be put in place.  I don't know if they actually do have it or not.

My earlier point was mostly about the infeasibility of that kind of thing, since it can so easily be invalidated.

 

 


Pamela Galli wrote:

Now, LL has said if I could provide the names that the infringer gave the things, they would remove them; I was able to do that with a couple of objects she had renamed, although most were just called Object -- but not the actual sculpt maps and textures.

That goes right along with what I was saying.  If they know about a specific item, they'll nuke it.  But if they don't know about it, they simply can't.

 

 


Pamela Galli wrote:

I realize the any process would be time consuming, but the DMCA does not, as far as I have seen, exempt a provider from complying if it is.

They are required to remove any materials listed in a takedown notice, whether or not it's time consuming.  However, there are two things in the law that you might be less than thrilled about:

 

  • The copyright owner is required to provide information sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the infringing materials.
  • Providers have no duty to proactively seek out infringing materials themselves.

With that in mind, everything you've described so far about LL's process sounds to be in full compliance with the law.  It's just unfortunate that the law just isn't particularly well set up to account for how an inventory system like SL's has to work.  There's obviously no way at all for you, the copyright holder, to peer into the infringer's inventory.  Therefore, you cannot be of any direct help to LL in locating any inventoried copies of your stuff. 

As for LL themselves, even though they're not required to go looking, I'm inclined to believe they would, if it were feasible.  The fact that they offered to delete items by name suggests they do want to do whatever they actually can.  It's just a difficult situation.

 


Pamela Galli wrote:

And given that I put almost $2000 a month in LL's pocket, I don't think it unreasonable for them to spend the time complying.

It's not unreasonable to expect them to spend whatever time is required to comply with the law, no.  But when they've done exactly that, and it's not enough in your view, what else is reasonable to expect of them?  I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to make an employee spend weeks or months examining every item in an inventory, when that employee has a regular job to do, no matter how much I  might be spending on SL.

If I could think of any reasonable way of finding all copies, I'd feel differently about it, of course.  But I just don't think there is one. 

If you were to sue the infringer, you could perhaps gain access to the inventory under subpoena, and then you, or your investigator, could go through it.  Short of that, I'm not sure what other options could exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Chosen Few wrote:

Fact:  utilitarian items like houses, clothing, and furniture are not recognized under the law as artistic works, and thus are not subject to copyright protections.

 When people say this, I'm never actually sure what point is being made.   Is it that, under US law, the original architect can't stop someone from making a representation in SL of a building he's designed in RL?     

What confuses me is that, I'd have thought, at least, that if I make a representation of the building, my representation of it is subject to copyright protections, isn't it?   That is, I can stop people making copies of my model of the building, though I can't, of course, stop them from making their own representation of the RL original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:


Chosen Few wrote:

Fact:  utilitarian items like houses, clothing, and furniture are not recognized under the law as artistic works, and thus are not subject to copyright protections.

 When people say this, I'm never actually sure what point is being made.   Is it that, under US law, the original architect can't stop someone from making a representation in SL of a building he's designed in RL?     

Simply put, yes, that's what it means.  If you want to replicate a RL building in SL, you can.

That's not to say architectural works do not enjoy some copyright protections, though.  They do.  An architect, just like any other artist, has the exclusive right to display, reproduce, distribute, or otherwise prepare work based on his or her original deisgn.  However, that exclusivity does not apply to the constructed building itself, once it's been built.  Assuming the building is ordinarily visible from a public place, it effectively becomes a part of that very same public space.  Anyone is then free to photograph it, or make a painting of it, or make a sculpture of it, or make a 3D model of it, or what have you.

It gets slightly more complicated when it comes to artistic aspects of a building that could potentially exist separately from the functional aspects.  There are various legal tests that can be applied toward the determination of what is sculptural and what is functional in this context.  I alluded to this concept earlier when I talked about copying a T-shirt, without copying the picture printed on it.  Perhaps I should have included an architectural example as well.

The protections for architectural works are mostly in place for protection from other architects.  If you design a building, and then I copy your design for my own buidling, we've likely got a problem.  That's not the same thing, though, as your having designed a building that's already been built, and then I produce a piece of artwork that includes a representation of that particular piece of scenery. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chosen: I've been quietly following this thread after my initial couple of posts. I'd like to thank you for your valuable and extensive knowledge in regards to copyright laws / protections etc. Much of it I already knew and understood (mostly good old commonsense, really), but after reading your replies throughout this thread, I have also learned quite a bit more, especially the deeper, more detailed aspects of it all.

I sincerely appreciate your input. Thank you for your insights.  :matte-motes-smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:

Consumers don't have any right whatsoever to own a creator's work outside of what the creator or the law stipulates.

That's right, and the law just happens to stipulate a lot of limitations and exceptions to copyright: the Betamax case, the Audio Home Recording Act, the first-sale doctrine, and fair use, just to name a few. All of these serve the purpose of balancing the interests of IP owners vs. the public interest.

Whether or not a "ripped" mesh in Second Life constitutes fair use depends on several things: Did the infringer remodel the object or upload a verbatim copy? Does he distribute it or keep it for personal use? Does he make a significant profit from redistribution? Is the object substantial or just a small piece of a much larger work (e.g. a character from a movie)?

All these questions will have to be answered in court. Fact is, there have been valid cases of fair use involving verbatim copies and even commercial use. So excuse me if I give people the benefit of the doubt rather than labeling them "thieves" just because they uploaded a mesh that looks familiar.

A while ago in some group chat (I don't remember if it was "Mesh Dev" or "Blender Users"), there was someone complaining about the impending deluge of freebie meshes in Second Life. The person was in particular concerned about free models of real world cars and helicopters, because those would jeopardize his own car and helicopter business in SL. So I asked him why he felt entitled to make money with cars and helicopters that represent real world designs created by someone else. I remember there was some discussion about copyrightability of real world objects.

Why am I bringing this up? Just recently, in a strange coincidence, videogame producer Electronic Arts was sued by Textron, the parent company of Bell Helicopter, for recreating their aircraft designs in the game "Battlefield 3". You can read more about it here.

As previously shown by the example of Apple vs. Samsung, trademark law can now be applied to pretty much anything, including generic things such as rounded corners on a tablet computer. So no matter what we create for SL, there is always a risk of IP violation. Contrary to what Chosen Few believes, architecture, furniture and clothing have been subject to IP disputes. These things directly affect your and my business as well. All it takes is someone looking hard enough and reporting what they find. History shows that if there is money to be made from a lawsuit, someone will sue, even if the claims are ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Chosen Few wrote:

Fact:  All original works are automatically protected, as soon as they are created. 

Correct. I never said or implied anything to the contrary.


Fact:  Anyone who violates that protection is breaking the law, and infringing upon the author's rights, by definition. 

Fact:  No one is legally free to take anything that belongs to someone else.  Until and unless the owner has explicitly said yes, the answer is always no.

Wrong. See my previous reply to Pamela.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting subject and a very complicated one aswell. I'm the last person who'd like to lecture you on copyrights (on architecture or anything else), but I do think you forgot a vital part.

Since, as you say, the building becomes part of the public environment once constructed, we can say the front facade or visible part of that building is no longer protected from graphical reproduction, which (probably?) includes 3d models. The interior of that building however, a critical part of architecture, is not always part of the public space and can therefor not always be reproduced as far as I know. The parts of the building not visible from the street are somewhere in the middle I'd like to think.

There's also the fact that the copyright law you describe is the US one. My "wiki knowledge" tells me in other countries the law is quite different and does include entire buildings. Any idea how this affects "building" or "representing" in a program like SL which falls under US law?

Here in the Netherlands, it is allowed to make a pictures of a building. It is allowed to distribute or even sell these pictures. However it is absolutely not allowed if the building is the main picture. You can't make posters, you can't use it for the cover of a book. So projecting this on 3d modelling, you'd have to build a whole lot more than just the building in order to make it legal I'd say.

A nice example I found is from a lecture I stumbled across. It's about a bridge built by a Dutch architect (yes that can be considered architecture aswell in some cases!). The city cannot sell t-shirts with just the bridge on it, however they are allowed to use it when the t-shirt has the entire skyline of the city represented.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Chosen Few wrote:

Fact:  utilitarian items like houses, clothing, and furniture are not recognized under the law as artistic works, and thus are not subject to copyright protections.

If you were previously ignorant of that fact, that's fine.  No one can be expected to know everything.  But now that it's been pointed out, your stubborn refusal to accept it as truth only makes you look sillier and sillier with each volley.

Copyright in architecture in the United States

Courts Clarify Copyright and Trademark Rights in Furniture Cases

Your increasingly condescending tone barely hides the fact that you seem to know very little about the topic at hand.

By the way, housing and furniture in virtual worlds serve no utility. If you rebuild such a real-world object as a mesh, you do so for no purpose other than to copy its design. It's naive to believe that an architect's copyright to the original blueprint weighs less than your right to its faithful reproduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 4320 days.

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

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...