Toysoldier Thor Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Rival Destiny wrote: Nefertiti Nefarious wrote: Alts are merely multiple manifestations of the same LEGAL persona ... the real person behind the keyboard. They have no standing in law, they are not real persons, they cannot be sued for anything, and they cannot sign a binding contract. Only the human behind the alts can. A sale to Nefertiti Nefarious is really a sale to the person whose credit card pays for the stuff. Likewise, a sale to my Anonymous Alternate is also legally a sale to that real person, not a bunch of pixels. So prohibiting transfer among alts is a concept that you would have a very hard time enforcing legally ... all my alts are ME. And if I bought it, I would expect to be able to freely use it. This is my understanding also in regards to what the law defines as a legal entity. SL is a platform where real people do business with real money using our avies as our agents. We cannot circumvent the legal system by assigning legal rights to a virtual being that is in fact driven by a real person. This is yet another instance where you cannot separate rl from sl. So Rival, go on and read the rest of Nef's statement. Nef believes that her RL rights behind her avatar allows her the right to vioilate / negate the license / agreement rights set by the real life seller's avatar simply because she (the human) in her opinion is the actual buyer. She forgets that a usage agreement set by creator and selling IP rights owner can state ANYTHING it wants and if she purchases the creator's product - she has agreed to and is obliged contratually to this agreement (dont matter if the human or his/her agent is telling her). IF I am the seller and in my agreement for the widget I am selling it says :"by purchasing my full perm widget - the purchaser agree to never actually use the widget that was just bought for any purpose at all other than to sit in the purchaser's inventory".... then the RL human of the Avatar selling agent expressed his limited use agreement to any purchaser that made the decision to buy it. As such, Nef's avatar buys it and Nef is contractually obliged never to use the widget she just bought.... regardless if it was her avatar or her.... it amazing how many are trying to come up with ways around the creator's IP rights and agreements.... loopholes and rights that trump avatar agreements..... sigh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rival Destiny Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Toysoldier Thor wrote: Rival Destiny wrote: Nefertiti Nefarious wrote: Alts are merely multiple manifestations of the same LEGAL persona ... the real person behind the keyboard. They have no standing in law, they are not real persons, they cannot be sued for anything, and they cannot sign a binding contract. Only the human behind the alts can. A sale to Nefertiti Nefarious is really a sale to the person whose credit card pays for the stuff. Likewise, a sale to my Anonymous Alternate is also legally a sale to that real person, not a bunch of pixels. So prohibiting transfer among alts is a concept that you would have a very hard time enforcing legally ... all my alts are ME. And if I bought it, I would expect to be able to freely use it. This is my understanding also in regards to what the law defines as a legal entity. SL is a platform where real people do business with real money using our avies as our agents. We cannot circumvent the legal system by assigning legal rights to a virtual being that is in fact driven by a real person. This is yet another instance where you cannot separate rl from sl. So Rival, go on and read the rest of Nef's statement. Nef believes that her RL rights behind her avatar allows her the right to vioilate / negate the license / agreement rights set by the real life seller's avatar simply because she (the human) in her opinion is the actual buyer. She forgets that a usage agreement set by creator and selling IP rights owner can state ANYTHING it wants and if she purchases the creator's product - she has agreed to and is obliged contratually to this agreement (dont matter if the human or his/her agent is telling her). IF I am the seller and in my agreement for the widget I am selling it says :"by purchasing my full perm widget - the purchaser agree to never actually use the widget that was just bought for any purpose at all other than to sit in the purchaser's inventory".... then the RL human of the Avatar selling agent expressed his limited use agreement to any purchaser that made the decision to buy it. As such, Nef's avatar buys it and Nef is contractually obliged never to use the widget she just bought.... regardless if it was her avatar or her.... it amazing how many are trying to come up with ways around the creator's IP rights and agreements.... loopholes and rights that trump avatar agreements..... sigh I read the entire comment by Nef but I don't come away with the same interpretation as you. I don't see her saying anything about violating the license. She is simply defining who the legal party is - the human behind the avatar. This is a standard in contract law where a person uses an agent on their behalf. In sl, the agent is the avatar. You are the actual real life legal entity behind the agent. Any licensing of product on the marketplace falls to the flesh and blood person, not the pixel avatar. It's very simple really. If you wanted to take legal action against the purchaser of your textures because they violated your useage license, who would your real life lawyers haul into court? If the answer is your real life person you are correct. If the answer is your avatar, then you need to see a shrink cause the odds that the avatar will show up in court are slim to none. Nef has in no way, said that it is ok to violate a license agreement nor has she said that she does this. She simply has defined who's who legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Hird Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 The law governing this only knows about real persons, and any court would dismiss a lisencing, copyright or IP case based on virtual identities. Any purchase in SecondLife is between RL identities which operate via proxies. So the person holding the identity of proxy or proxies has whatever rights that has been granted through a lisence. Although the seller may not know the real identity of the proxy holder, in most cases there will be a credit card registration that would identify the proxy holder should a legal discovery process take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Galli Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 I have a Second Life account called Pamela Galli. The fact that an avatar is provided with the account is immaterial, esp since I do almost nothing with my avatar and most of the time don't even know where it is. My avatar is just a building tool, nothing more. So it seems beyond stating the obvious to say that the account's avatar doesn't have any rights. The avatar is a collection of pixels, nothing more, so no, of course pixels do not have rights or enter into agreements, and no one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. What that has to do with the fact that I purchase the right to use other people's content on this account, I do not know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Hird Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Toysoldier Thor wrote: She forgets that a usage agreement set by creator and selling IP rights owner can state ANYTHING it wants and if she purchases the creator's product - she has agreed to and is obliged contratually to this agreement (dont matter if the human or his/her agent is telling her). Yes, the usage agreement can state ANYTHING, but that does not make it a legal binding contract or lisence. In my country and in Europe, such contracts cannot bypass the law and the law's intention. If the contract/lisence bypass the law, it is the law that takes precendence. Many US software companies has found that under EU legislation their EULA's are null and void simply because they either don't satisfy the requirements of the law, or they are totally unreasonable and would not stand a chance facing EU's privacy, consumer or IP legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Jetaime Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 I've been following this discussion and in my opinion, licenses are between RL people not avatars. HOWEVER Toy is right in that the creator does not have access to RL information and has no way to verify that two avatars are the same RL person. To protect their IP rights they have a right to assume they are two people and there is no way you can prove that your alt is your alt without going to court unless the creator trusts you. (we all know that no one ever lies in SL, right? lol) LL will not prove this for you by letting the creator look at their records without a court order. In addition many licenses specifically state that you can not transfer an item you make using their full perm items to any other avatar unless it is either copy or transfer but not both. What the courts will do will of course depends on the country that has jurisdiction. This is also a very grey area. Just because the TOS says you 'may' file in your own country doesn't mean they have jurisdiction over me a US citizen. At the least, you would need the US authorities and LL cooperation to help to enforce any ruling in your favor. I as a US citizen can file an injunction in a US court and make a very strong case that your country has no jurisdiction over me because the transactions were made using a system owned by a US company and whose major components are based in the US. I am no lawyer but I do know that in the US, courts are not required, indeed forbidden, to take laws of other countries or rulings of their courts into account unless a treaty exists between the counties specifically requiring it. However, the whole question of jurisdiction is a question for a much larger forum than this and only can be answered by legal precedent, laws and treaties. The larger point is that we can argue for years here but it means nothing. All this going to court requires lawyers and a lot of time and money. Why would you take the risk of having your items taken down until its settled in court, which takes years, or to spend all the money defending yourself when the item in question only costs a few RL dollars? Standing on principle can be noble when it comes to larger issues but it also can make no sense when dealing with small matters. Common sense is that its certainly easier and cheaper to apply to the creator for permission if its not specifically granted in the license or buy another set if that is what the creator requires. I applaud the OP for doing this. Its not only the right thing to do IMO, but the most common sense approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Hird Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 A couple things to this discussion: The buyer does neither know the identity of the seller, so this is a two way thing. People often seem to infer that all merchants are in the US, but they could be anywhere in the world as could the buyers. So the only time US legislation might be involved in the transaction is for LL to be the payment and trading system provider. It is in essence a consumer to consumer (C2C) transaction and it could be governed by a random set of legislation I doubt any court would even touch this as a B2C or a B2B transaction unless the seller (B) had made full disclosure of their identity at the time of purchase. This is very seldom the case for goods and services traded in SecondLife. You are in essence making a blind purchase. Even if a coudt would see it as a B2C or a B2B transaction, the case would have to be filed in the country of the offender. ... and what would the offence be? A RL identity sharing something he purchased with himself? If you want more control over who purchase from you, create a restricted group in-world and set up a vendor system that will only sell to group members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Thank you amethyst! At least someone on this thread is reading and listening and understands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 What Nef said in her posting and that Riven is refusing to acknowledge she stated and which seems to goin in harmony with Riven's initial posting that started this whole discussion is basically... Paraphrasing.... "Since I fully believe that under a court of law I - the Human - was the actual buyer from the seller in SL/MP I will rightly come to the conclusion that all products I buy from any seller in SL/MP is a product for ME the human and not my alts. As such I am fully entitled to use the sculpts textures etc. I bought from any seller among any of my alts - regardless if the Selling Alt states in the product license that I am not allowed to share the product among my alt". If you Riven and anyone else is now saying that the RL person behind the ALT that bought the product is allowed to ignore / violate the creator/seller's stated "Limited Use Agreement" which would state the buyer CANNOT TRANSFER CONTENT BETWEEN ALTs.... then this is a pretty sad situation in the SL community. Since the SL ALT is the agent of the RL person.... then when the SL SELLING ALT states clearly in the product's "limited use agreement" that "YOU CANNOT TRANSFER OR RESELL ANY CONTENT IN THIS PRODUCT AS STAND-ALONE ITEMS", I sure as heck better not see Nef buying my agent's products and transfering it to any of her other alts because of her interpretation of her god given rights as a human behind her buying alt. What is good for her (rl buyer behind her alts) is good for me (rl person stating my IP rights thru my alt). Nef IS NOT entitled to transfer any of my content to her other alts - regardless of who is the legal buyer - because my limited use agreement of the IP content I have rights to has stated to her that SHE CANNOT TRANSFER STAND-ALONE CONTENT SHE BOUGHT FROM ME. That is ME telling HER. And she she pays for and received my product - SHE (the human) has agreed to my terms of the purchase. Is anyone here debating this? So I will say this once again and fully endorse Amethyst's last posting..... dont make your own legal assumptions of what the seller said or didnt say and what rights you have if a SELLER didnt make a point in the agreement that you are not sure of. Do exactly what the OP of this thread has done...... Go back and confirm with the creator/seller on exactly what rights you have when you are not sure. This will avoid a lot of potential future hassle for you and the seller. DONT ASSUME TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT - CLARIFY THEM WITH THE SELLER. As for anyone above that posted the silly and obvious statement that a contract cant violate a local law - welll DUHH!!! Where did I say anything about a contract stated that violates a local law? What I said was that I can stipulate how my product that is being used can or cannot be used. I was using an extreme example in saying that if a IP Creator states something as silly as "if you buy this product you are agreeing to never use it and it can only sit in your inventory" then that is the agreement you agreed to by buying the creator's product. If you are silly enough to read the terms of use and still buy it - that is your fault. If you dont like the terms of the purchase agreement - then dont buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rival Destiny Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Toysoldier Thor wrote: What Nef said in her posting and that Riven is refusing to acknowledge she stated and which seems to goin in harmony with Riven's initial posting that started this whole discussion is basically... Paraphrasing.... "Since I fully believe that under a court of law I - the Human - was the actual buyer from the seller in SL/MP I will rightly come to the conclusion that all products I buy from any seller in SL/MP is a product for ME the human and not my alts. As such I am fully entitled to use the sculpts textures etc. I bought from any seller among any of my alts - regardless if the Selling Alt states in the product license that I am not allowed to share the product among my alt". If you Riven and anyone else is now saying that the RL person behind the ALT that bought the product is allowed to ignore / violate the creator/seller's stated "Limited Use Agreement" which would state the buyer CANNOT TRANSFER CONTENT BETWEEN ALTs.... then this is a pretty sad situation in the SL community. Since the SL ALT is the agent of the RL person.... then when the SL SELLING ALT states clearly in the product's "limited use agreement" that "YOU CANNOT TRANSFER OR RESELL ANY CONTENT IN THIS PRODUCT AS STAND-ALONE ITEMS", I sure as heck better not see Nef buying my agent's products and transfering it to any of her other alts because of her interpretation of her god given rights as a human behind her buying alt. What is good for her (rl buyer behind her alts) is good for me (rl person stating my IP rights thru my alt). Nef IS NOT entitled to transfer any of my content to her other alts - regardless of who is the legal buyer - because my limited use agreement of the IP content I have rights to has stated to her that SHE CANNOT TRANSFER STAND-ALONE CONTENT SHE BOUGHT FROM ME. That is ME telling HER. And she she pays for and received my product - SHE (the human) has agreed to my terms of the purchase. Is anyone here debating this? So I will say this once again and fully endorse Amethyst's last posting..... dont make your own legal assumptions of what the seller said or didnt say and what rights you have if a SELLER didnt make a point in the agreement that you are not sure of. Do exactly what the OP of this thread has done...... Go back and confirm with the creator/seller on exactly what rights you have when you are not sure. This will avoid a lot of potential future hassle for you and the seller. DONT ASSUME TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT - CLARIFY THEM WITH THE SELLER. As for anyone above that posted the silly and obvious statement that a contract cant violate a local law - welll DUHH!!! Where did I say anything about a contract stated that violates a local law? What I said was that I can stipulate how my product that is being used can or cannot be used. I was using an extreme example in saying that if a IP Creator states something as silly as "if you buy this product you are agreeing to never use it and it can only sit in your inventory" then that is the agreement you agreed to by buying the creator's product. If you are silly enough to read the terms of use and still buy it - that is your fault. If you dont like the terms of the purchase agreement - then dont buy it. Nef stated what she believed the facts to be and you have taken her words and turned it into what you believe to be her intent. As for myself, I have never said that I would violate a creator's license & Nef did not say that either. As for the license itself, the person who said you can put anything you like in it, but it's not necessarily going to hold up in a court of law, is bang on correct. Nobody is saying that the person is allowed to ignore, they are saying that if your license is poorly written, then someone may use your product for something you don't want them to. Think of an unlocked car and a purse sitting on the seat. Just beccause someone says that it would be easy to take that purse, does not mean that they are endorsing stealing. You see what I mean? As for your own terms of use on your products, if I were to purchase them in SL I would follow your license to the letter. If you said no alts, I would not pass them to my alts. Even if I legally could I would still not so so. Having said that, if you did not specify useage by alts, then I would consider it. And as I said to the OP earlier on in the thread - if you are worried or unsure of the legalities, you can always ask the seller/creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Rival Destiny wrote: As for the license itself, the person who said you can put anything you like in it, but it's not necessarily going to hold up in a court of law, is bang on correct. Nobody is saying that the person is allowed to ignore, they are saying that if your license is poorly written, then someone may use your product for something you don't want them to. Think of an unlocked car and a purse sitting on the seat. Just beccause someone says that it would be easy to take that purse, does not mean that they are endorsing stealing. You see what I mean? As for your own terms of use on your products, if I were to purchase them in SL I would follow your license to the letter. If you said no alts, I would not pass them to my alts. Even if I legally could I would still not so so. Having said that, if you did not specify useage by alts, then I would consider it. And as I said to the OP earlier on in the thread - if you are worried or unsure of the legalities, you can always ask the seller/creator. I know you would follow the seller's agreement but re-read Nef's posting. She said that since she - the human bought the content - she feels entitled to let all her alts have a copy of that content since she owns them all. This implies to me that even if the seller says she cant - she feels she can since she was the buyer and owns all her alts. That is what angers me. And as for the statement about whatever was written in the contract stands..... the responding poster took the point completely out of context. I didnt imply that a contract can dictate the violation of local laws. I was trying to say that in contract law... if I sell you something and in my agreement that you agree to I say something like you can buy my product but are not allowed to use it... that violates no laws. Its a silly agreement and a buyer would be stupid to agree to a contract that say I am buying a product I cannot use - but since it did not violate a law and was just a term of use... the buyer has to honor the contract they signed. The same holds true with a seller saying that content cant be shared among alts. Nef's posting indicated that she has the right to share any content she buys in SL among all her alts just because SHE the human bought it. Anyway... this thread is frustrating.... time to unsubscribe to it. Later all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madeliefste Oh Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 I don't study each and everyone's EULA or user license, but so far I have never seen one that explicite states that the license is for use of one single avatar. Most eulas en terms of use speak about YOU, without specifying who this you is, you the avatar or you the rl person. As long as the sold items is a virtual good sold to the end user, you ar not transfering any rl rights to someone. The legal aspects of these kind of sales are taken care of by the TOS. "(a) the term "Sell" means "to grant a User Content License in exchange for Linden dollars or other consideration in accordance with the Terms of Service," (b) the term "Buy" or "Purchase" means "to receive a User Content License in exchange for Linden dollars or other consideration in accordance with the Terms of Service," and © the terms "Buyer," "Seller," "Sale" and "Purchaser" and similar terms have corresponding meanings to their root terms. This includes User Content that may be Bought or Sold on the Second Life Marketplace web site." But when you sell full perms items, that comes with a user license or agreement, that is something different then selling virtual goods to the end user. You are not only selling the virtual item, you also allow people to make use of aspects of your IP rights. By allowing them to redistribute your work with limited permission or by allowing them to make derivative works. The whole point is now, who is this YOU that is named in almost every eula or user license? Though the actual sale takes place in a virtual world, what you are selling (apart from a virtual item on its own) is a RL right. You can sells this only to a RL person or other juristic person, but not to an avatar. Ofcourse you can make your eula so that it grands rights for use for just one single avatar. You can compare this with software licenses that allow you to install the software only on one single computer. But since most eula's / licenses didn't arrange anything of this kind, I think it is correct to see this YOU as you, the rl person. Quiet some eula's / licenses forbid the transfer of the full perms item to a third party. But must an alt be interpreted as a third party? I don't think so, it is just like the main avatar a pseudonym of the RL person, who has bought the right to resell your merchandise with limited permissions. Of couse, as a seller of full perms items it would be more profitable for me to sell my items to every alt of the buyer. But since it is not the avatar that I sold the user license but the RL person, who often puts a lot of his own creativity in the end product he offers, I'm not going to force my customers to buy a new license for every alt. I just doesn't seem fair to me. I might loose some sales from people who use alts for a second or third merchant, but on the other hand people might appreciate that I try to do business in a way that seems fair to me, and stay or become returning customers for this reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ciaran Laval Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Sassy Romano wrote: Ciaran Laval wrote: Sassy Romano wrote: Ciaran Laval wrote: Sassy Romano wrote: I don't understand the issue? You're not passing the texture to the alt full perm, you're passing YOUR creation full perm and the textures remain in the main inventory anyway. There's no need to send the alt the textures is there? If you send it full perm, you pretty much have sent the texture. How? You can't open the texture and save it to inventory or then download it or transfer it (the texture) to a third party. You can however get the texture UUID but NOT via script but through the viewer UI and then apply it via script but guess what, you can do that even if the alt or main has never bought the item and just sees it in world. So no, it's nothing like sending the texture full perm. You haven't been able to get the UUID that way for a while. How much do you want to bet with the latest LL official viewer? ooh I'm a gambling man Sassy, unless LL have made a big faux pas, you're piddling in the wind, we're talking the full uuid not the partial one you get in texture console right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Jetaime Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Gavin Hird wrote: A couple things to this discussion: The buyer does neither know the identity of the seller, so this is a two way thing. People often seem to infer that all merchants are in the US, but they could be anywhere in the world as could the buyers. So the only time US legislation might be involved in the transaction is for LL to be the payment and trading system provider. It is in essence a consumer to consumer (C2C) transaction and it could be governed by a random set of legislation I doubt any court would even touch this as a B2C or a B2B transaction unless the seller (B) had made full disclosure of their identity at the time of purchase. This is very seldom the case for goods and services traded in SecondLife. You are in essence making a blind purchase. Even if a coudt would see it as a B2C or a B2B transaction, the case would have to be filed in the country of the offender. ... and what would the offence be? A RL identity sharing something he purchased with himself? If you want more control over who purchase from you, create a restricted group in-world and set up a vendor system that will only sell to group members. 1. Just because you don't know the identity of the merchant, doesn't mean you don't have to abide by their license. In fact section 7.8 of the TOS which you agreed to abide by specifically says that "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." No where in the agreement does it state that two avatars that are alts are the same as one person. Identity only need be disclosed when it goes to RL court. 2. I used myself for an example of how gray the area of court jurisdiction was. I am a US citizen. I did not imply that all merchants were. Use any two countries in the example you would like, and it is still a grey area of what court has jurisdiction not only in ruling, but in the enforcement of the ruling. 3. In effect you are saying that you that a court of law would not hear a case concerning the license granted for example by Facebook, unless the names of al owners of Facebook are revealed at the time you agreed to abide by the license? This is not true at all. 4. Again it depends on what the law of the country you file in says. There have been many cases where a US citizen took a foreign citizen of company to court here in the US and won a judgment against them. I am sure this has happened in other countries too. If my license says you cannot pass the content to another avatar, then you can't. If you did the charge wouldn't be sharing with yourself, but that you violated my IP rights by failing to abide by my license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Hird Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 You in the TOS text refers to YOU the REAL LIFE PERSON reading this. So when YOU purchase something by proxy of your avatar, YOU have the right to use it. Any other construct will not hold water in any jurisdictial system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassy Romano Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Ciaran Laval wrote: ooh I'm a gambling man Sassy, unless LL have made a big faux pas, you're piddling in the wind, we're talking the full uuid not the partial one you get in texture console right? Ciaran, I only ever bet when i'm right and I don't need to take money from you. From the latest LL viewer...(and all the other TPV's based on the same code and it has been like this for ages). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ciaran Laval Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Well part of gambling is you lose some, that's pretty damn shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Gavin Hird wrote: You in the TOS text refers to YOU the REAL LIFE PERSON reading this. So when YOU purchase something by proxy of your avatar, YOU have the right to use it. Any other construct will not hold water in any jurisdictial system. So Gavin, What you are telling all of us is that YOU do not and will not respect the terms of service that you agreed to when you registered and signed into LL's SL nor will you respect the license agreement stated on MP place by the Creator of content in SL? Is that what you are saying. You have told me in the past that one of your Alts has bought my content. I am telling you now.... Gavin nor any of your other Alts in SL are entitle to a USAGE LICENSE to my content. Only the ALT that bought my product can use the content it bought. None of your other alts are entitled to it. Are you saying you are violating my agreement and have copied my content to your other alts? The LL TOS is very clear in any anyone's eyes except for those that are looking for loopholes and love to skirt the law with their own interpretations of the terms they signed up for. You did not buy my product... your avatar bought a license to use MY content of which I - the human behind my avatar told you explicitly you cannot share with your other avatars. I don't care what you think about your interpretation of the law. If you copied my content to your other alts... YOU - the human - are violating MY license to use. Its sad that you see licensing of SL product this way. I really thought based on your RL background with apple that you would consider IP rights to be something to be honored. I am also sad to see how many of my fellow merchants in this thread seem to have such little regard of other SL Merchant's content usage rights in their attempt to explain how they have rights in RL that circumvent both their agreed to obligations as a customer of LL's and their agreed to terms of use of products they bought from another SL member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Hird Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Fear not, I have no intention of using the one item bought from you as anything but inverntory filler. As for Apple, in good Apple tradition, you can share all content purchased on iTunes and in the Mac App store with all your devices and Macs without restrictions. Something to think of? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Gavin Hird wrote: Fear not, I have no intention of using the one item bought from you as anything but inverntory filler. As for Apple, in good Apple tradition, you can share all content purchased on iTunes and in the Mac App store with all your devices and Macs without restrictions. Something to think of? ;-) Ohh and how was I given that right Gavin by Apple? Was it through an Apple stated USAGE AGREEMENT or was it because I personally felt entitlted to use and share whatever I bought from Apple base on my own interpretation of the laws of the land? Since I am not an Apple user in any way but as you say that Apple ALLOWS (through their usage agreement that apple customers agreed to) customers to share content purchased on itunes... how can my Daughter share her itune song to my Android? Edit Add: As for how your purchasing alt uses my content - I dont care in the least as long as you abide by my lisencing agreement on how you are entitled to use it and that you honor the restrictions of how you can use it. If you want to let it just sit in your inventory as filler - fine by me. You are not hurting my feelings in the least as I know the quality of my product and I have countless customers including many of SL's top respected sim landscape designers that use my products and love it. What other SL merchants that are full perm creators should be nervous about is if the other alts of Gavin buy their content and realize Gavin's aparent disrespect of their stated Usage Agreements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madeliefste Oh Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Gavin Hird wrote: You in the TOS text refers to YOU the REAL LIFE PERSON reading this. So when YOU purchase something by proxy of your avatar, YOU have the right to use it. Any other construct will not hold water in any jurisdictial system. Ofcourse 'You' in the TOS text refers to the real person. You have to agree to the TOS prior to your first login.So basicly the avatar does not even exist, until you have agreed to the TOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madeliefste Oh Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Toysoldier Thor wrote: You did not buy my product... your avatar bought a license to use MY content of which I - the human behind my avatar told you explicitly you cannot share with your other avatars. I don't care what you think about your interpretation of the law. If you copied my content to your other alts... YOU - the human - are violating MY license to use. Did you check this with a lawyer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Read the TOS of LL on what constitutes content in SL - what it is and is not. It is moreso a License to Use. If a customer wants to challenge my understanding of their rights to my own IP of the content I created and am selling to others to use.... then let them take the issue to court. Honestly Made, I am really getting sick of this response from so many on these threads of .."did you take it to a lawyer". If I went running to a lawyer every time I had to interpret a situation about my SL business, my SL business would be bankrupt in the first few hours talking to a lawyer. Maybe your SL business makes thousands of RL $ a month and can have a lawyer on retainer to protect your lucrative SL main business, but I cant. Its not feasible. But I do think I know enough about my rights to feel good if and when an SL resident decides they want to knowingly violate my IP rights. I also can observe best practices from other creators in similar roles to me and read all that is available on the Internet. Let me turn this around on you Made... how many SL customer of your Full Perms sculpties that use it to make new selling creations went to a lawyer to confirm what they are and are not entitlted to when interpreting their business arrangement with you and your content? Since you keep bring up this question / challenge - how many times have you gone to your lawyer about your SL business? If the way I am protecting my content in SL is wrong - then wow - there is a whollleeeeee lot of SL Creator/Merchants that are doing it wrong and can be take advantage of by those in SL that are looking for loopholes to violate our rights. Not all us SL Creators are running an SL business to the extent that you must be doing where you can have a lawyer on retainer. LOL so I will follow your exposed practices on protecting your IP (as well as countless other content creators in SL) who do have the $ and lawyers on call. Oooops... I am already doing that. At the end of the day, unless you are full time dedicated IP content creator in SL and your main income is from the content you create and sell on SL (which is sounds like you are), the truth is - and most of us know this - most SL full perm content creators are 99% vunerable to even the slightest risks and attacks from copybotters, customers that think like Gavin, LL's weak levels of protection of our content, etc. Most of us SL Merchants make far to little from our created content to effectively protect our content. If a customer wants to violate our USAGE AGREEMENT, most know that in reality, there is little we can do to stop them. We simply have to trust and hope that most fellow SL Residents are honest law abiding customers and have a respect for the content we create to the level that they will honor our agreements. We can file a DCMAs on violators but we know often that is like doing #1 in the ocean. So... long winded answer to your question Made.... NO And when you ask me this question in the future again as a challenge to my understanding of my rights and the laws of the land.... you will get the same answer again. Hope that settles this re-occurnig question from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaiya Arnold Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Personally I've never needed to use a full perm item with another account, but I would not be judging someone who does so in instances where there is no indication they should not. If sellers want full perm content restricted to a single avatar, then they need to explicate this rather than expect everyone else to guess as much. It does no one any favours to pretend otherwise and in fact risks misinforming a full perm seller who might decide to rely on such an assumption based on reading such inaccurate advice. Anyone who wants to restrict use to one avatar should explicate this clearly in their license and preferably before the sale unless they are willng to refund the purchase. It's not something that it is reasonable to expect others to guess when the expectation of non-sharing between avatars relies on a wholly inaccurate assumption to begin with. There cannot be sales between avatars anymore than there can be sales between chairs, or bootstraps. It's very important that full perm sellers understand that they need to stipulate rather than assume non-sharing between a single persons' avatars if they wish such a restriction to limit sharing between a single person's avatars. Otherwise, even with the best will in the world, some people are going to fail to guess the intended restriction and will end up sharing between their alts contrary to the content creator's wishes, without ever realizing the content creator did not want them to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Hird Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 First of all Apple's usage agreements are based on the law, and not personal opinions that have no bearing in the law and cannot be enforced. Therefore Apple's usage agreements are specific to the country of residence of the customer. It means that all content are not available everywhere. Secondly they are based on RL persons, and RL persons only. The usage agreement allows each individual to register up to 5 devices per account (Mac, PC, iPhone, iPad, iPod in any mix), where content and applications purchased on the account can be downloaded and shared as needed. Further you are allowed to share and sync content for up to 5 accounts on a device. When it comes to iTunes Plus products (which essentially are all music in the iTunes store), these are DRM free, and can be copied for reasonable usage (non profit.) Sharing an AAC file of music you bought on ITMS with your daughter would be reasonable usage (sharing in family). For the full terms in your country, you'd need to check their terms, but as you see, they are fairly liberal because it makes it easier to do business and it increase sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
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