Ciaran Laval Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Toysoldier is correct here, it's a license to use content that you purchase or a license to use content that you sell or give away, the terms of service 7.3 states this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Hird Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Ciaran Laval wrote: Toysoldier is correct here, it's a license to use content that you purchase or a license to use content that you sell or give away, the terms of service 7.3 states this. That has never been the question. The issue is the difinition of you, and you are the account holder - a RL person. An avatar is just a proxy of the RL person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Gavin Hird wrote: Ciaran Laval wrote: Toysoldier is correct here, it's a license to use content that you purchase or a license to use content that you sell or give away, the terms of service 7.3 states this. That has never been the question. The issue is the difinition of you, and you are the account holder - a RL person. An avatar is just a proxy of the RL person. So it would seem you're buying the licence for use in connection with a particular account that you hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Hird Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Innula Zenovka wrote: Gavin Hird wrote: Ciaran Laval wrote: Toysoldier is correct here, it's a license to use content that you purchase or a license to use content that you sell or give away, the terms of service 7.3 states this. That has never been the question. The issue is the difinition of you, and you are the account holder - a RL person. An avatar is just a proxy of the RL person. So it would seem you're buying the licence for use in connection with a particular account that you hold. That is what they try to make it out at, but the account (avatar) is just a proxy of the account holder. It is the account holder that is the subject of the law, which therefore also has the rights to use the licence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Gavin Hird wrote: Innula Zenovka wrote: Gavin Hird wrote: Ciaran Laval wrote: Toysoldier is correct here, it's a license to use content that you purchase or a license to use content that you sell or give away, the terms of service 7.3 states this. That has never been the question. The issue is the difinition of you, and you are the account holder - a RL person. An avatar is just a proxy of the RL person. So it would seem you're buying the licence for use in connection with a particular account that you hold. That is what they try to make it out at, but the account (avatar) is just a proxy of the account holder. It is the account holder that is the subject of the law, which therefore also has the rights to use the licence. No. Innula and my various alt accounts are all separate, though they all belong to me. I pay premium membership for some and not for others, so if I want to own mainland or access Premium Sandboxes or trade on the Lindex, I can only do it through certain accounts, and I certainly can't ask LL to send everyone's stipends to Innula (convenient though that would be). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Hird Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 As anything else that belongs to you, from a legal standpoint you are the owner (holder) of any licence that you have acquired via a proxy in the form of an account whether it is a bank account, a gmail account or an alt account in SecondLife. It is impossible to grant a license to you bank account. If anyone did, the licence would automatically have been granted to you, the owner of the account. If you purchase a license from Microsoft to use Office, the license is not granted to the paypal account you may have paid it with, but it is granted to you. The inventory of an alt account in SecondLife is just assets belonging to you, like money in your bank account is an asset beloning to you. You, the legal person, have the ownership of the assets, as you also have the full responsibility. You must not let the legal aspect be muddled by the fact that we in SecondLife tie virtual personas to accounts that you own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Gavin Hird wrote: As anything else that belongs to you, from a legal standpoint you are the owner (holder) of any licence that you have acquired via a proxy in the form of an account whether it is a bank account, a gmail account or an alt account in SecondLife. It is impossible to grant a license to you bank account. If anyone did, the licence would automatically have been granted to you, the owner of the account. If you purchase a license from Microsoft to use Office, the license is not granted to the paypal account you may have paid it with, but it is granted to you. The inventory of an alt account in SecondLife is just assets belonging to you, like money in your bank account is an asset beloning to you. You, the legal person, have the ownership of the assets, as you also have the full responsibility. You must not let the legal aspect be muddled by the fact that we in SecondLife tie virtual personas to accounts that you own. You're confusing an account as a means of payment with an account that you own. But, since you mention bank accounts, they provide a good example. I have several accounts in RL with the same bank. They all belong to me, as does the money in them, but the bank pay me, or not, interest at different rates, and allow me access to my money on different terms, depending on which of my accounts I've deposited my money in. I can't, in other words, say to the bank, "it's all my money, no matter which account it's in, so you should pay me the same rate of interest on it all, or allow me immediate access to it all". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Hird Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 That has to do with the interest they pay for the money in your account, but I can assure you they could not deny you, the owner, to withdraw your assets at any time. There might be a penalty on doing so (on the interest paid), but they could not deny it. So your example is compensation and cost for someone managing your assets. The ownership still is yours, the legal you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I was making a point about the status of various accounts -- they are clearly separate entities -- rather than the ownership of money they contain. Obviously that's different, because I do own my own money, as opposed to enjoying the use of it on a licence from someone for which I've paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Gavin Hird wrote: Innula Zenovka wrote: Gavin Hird wrote: Ciaran Laval wrote: Toysoldier is correct here, it's a license to use content that you purchase or a license to use content that you sell or give away, the terms of service 7.3 states this. That has never been the question. The issue is the difinition of you, and you are the account holder - a RL person. An avatar is just a proxy of the RL person. So it would seem you're buying the licence for use in connection with a particular account that you hold. That is what they try to make it out at, but the account (avatar) is just a proxy of the account holder. It is the account holder that is the subject of the law, which therefore also has the rights to use the licence. And here is where Gavin once again is trying to interpret the LL TOS that he agreed to when HIS LL ACCOUNT was registered with LL. He is trying to bend LL's TOS and most peoples reasonable understanding of the TOS as well as what most sellers of full perms understand. This is an agreement between accounts in a game that had rules that GAVIN the human agreed to. Now he is implying that LL is trying to deceive all of us in their TOS and in fact Gavin now is trying to dig for his only loopholes of logic in the TOS he signed up for and agreed to. Gavin.... your registered account in SL with LL is a contractually binding agreement you signed up for. and now you are looking for ways to bend or corrupt the TOS / agreement because you dont agree with what you signed up for. Your SL Account has USAGE RESTRICTIONS ... THAT YOU AGREED TO! Deal with it. The LL TOS makes for a reasonably understanding and assumption by most users of LL's service that there are usage restrictions between registered accounts. YOU the human shold not reasonably assume that you are entitled to have full access to my full perm IP among your other registered accounts simply because I might not have said so. LL TOS implies you agreed that you dont. So stop trying to find loopholes in an attempt to violate a IP creator's rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Innula Zenovka wrote: Gavin Hird wrote: As anything else that belongs to you, from a legal standpoint you are the owner (holder) of any licence that you have acquired via a proxy in the form of an account whether it is a bank account, a gmail account or an alt account in SecondLife. It is impossible to grant a license to you bank account. If anyone did, the licence would automatically have been granted to you, the owner of the account. If you purchase a license from Microsoft to use Office, the license is not granted to the paypal account you may have paid it with, but it is granted to you. The inventory of an alt account in SecondLife is just assets belonging to you, like money in your bank account is an asset beloning to you. You, the legal person, have the ownership of the assets, as you also have the full responsibility. You must not let the legal aspect be muddled by the fact that we in SecondLife tie virtual personas to accounts that you own. You're confusing an account as a means of payment with an account that you own. But, since you mention bank accounts, they provide a good example. I have several accounts in RL with the same bank. They all belong to me, as does the money in them, but the bank pay me, or not, interest at different rates, and allow me access to my money on different terms, depending on which of my accounts I've deposited my money in. I can't, in other words, say to the bank, "it's all my money, no matter which account it's in, so you should pay me the same rate of interest on it all, or allow me immediate access to it all". Good example! But Gavin will buck this. So lets use Gavin's own example he posted to me about his beloved Apple. He says that its not Apple usage agreements that allow the sharing Apple allows among devices yet then he goes on to say that Apple allows 5 registered devices as a limit. Hmmmm that is a law of the land ??? Sounds like that is an Apple usage agreement...... So Gavin... based on your understanding of law, I guess since all the devices I might own of Apples... since they are all mine - Apple cant tell me which devices I can and cant share with. Apple signed an agreement with ME not my devices. My devices are only agents of me. right?? Now watch how Gavin will spin this to be different. He is fully willing to spin that the LL USER ACCOUNTS he registered from EACH TIME he registered with LL for EACH ACCOUNT is does not count and all activities among all his accounts is applicable to the one human. But this does not hold true with Apple's per registered account / device. Gavin... you are right that you all agreements between you and LL are to YOU and not your Avatar accounts with LL, then why did EACH of your LL ALTS have to register for and agree to the terms LL set out for you before you logged in? Why Did LL not register YOU the human and allow you to simple add more accounts related to you? You know why, Because based on LL TOS and even generally most sellers agreements, the agreement is that your ACCOUNT operates independently and you are NOT entitled to transfer rights among accounts be default. Any BUYER that thinks their registered account by default can transfer content their alt bought between their REGISTERED accounts is the ones making poor assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Anaiya Arnold wrote: 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. Anaiya, As has been posted earlier... the full perm sellers had and still have a reasonable cause understanding that BY DEFAULT unless otherwise stipulated, the buyer of content should not assume the buy is between HUIMANS - its between REGISTERED LL ACCOUNTS that all humans have agreed to the LL TOS before each of their registered LL accounts were allowed to log into SL with. You and your Alts each operated independently by you. Of course you have the full rights as the human that registered each of these LL accounts, but you also agreed to the limitations that each of your accounts with LL has. You as a buyer of the full perm content should assume that you CANNOT transfer content to your other alts based on LL agreed terms and because how can any full perm seller reasonably control use of their IP usage when he / she has absolutely no way to confirm or even validate who all your alts are? HECK even LL doesnt know that all your Alts belong to you. So, how do you or Gavin or any others think it would hold up in court when the Seller takes you to court for this poor assumption of the LL TOS and the Seller's Usage agreement? And, last point on your content... its is really in the best interests of the BUYER of full perm content to buy this content from the seller with a 100% full agreement of the terms that the Buyer needs from the content. WHY? Because lets say you are a buyer of a pack of full perm textures from a Seller of these textures. The deal happens and you then spend 2 months making this amazing new creation and put this new creation onto MP and make 1000's of sales from this build. Then 1 year later the Seller notices that you seem to have violated one of his conditions of use of his full perm textures. He demands you STOP selling your products based on it and also he is furious and wants compensation from you - a portion of all your sales you made from this amazing build. He takes you to court over it. IF he loses, other than court fees all he loses is no access to the revenue he wanted from you and nothing else. IF he wins, courts shock you and side with the Seller (Gavin and Riven and Nef were wrong after all - ohh darn - why did I listen to them and that thread).... other than court fees you also lose your main product that was a hot seller, you also *owe the Seller actual $ penalties by paying his back a portion of the renenues that he demand. So.... let me ask you again.... who do you think is the party between the full perm seller and buyer that should be most interested in making sure the terms of use of the full perm content. Let me answer for you..... THE BUYER !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Hird Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Toysoldier Thor wrote: So stop trying to find loopholes in an attempt to violate a IP creator's rights. First of all I am not looking for loopholes to violate an IP creator's rights. It is a completely baseless insinuation! I also don't have any assets in my inventory created by you. They were deleted months ago. So you can stop that discussion right now! Just because there is a TOS does not mean it holds water when tested with the legal system. Both Microsoft and Apple has to warying degree found this out the hard way. To declare a licence that is not based in legal realities, is nothing but disengenious and only hurts the issuers own business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I am going to say this again..... If you - the buyer - are not clear and/or do not understand the conditions of use of full perm content that you are buying from a Seller...... DONT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS THAT PPL LIKE GAVIN ARE MAKING. Do not assume your entitlements are for the better when they are not expressly stipulated by the Seller. Go back to the Seller and ask them for confirmation of what the Seller understands. I would also ask the Seller to email you any clarifications he / she makes for you on terms of use that were not stated in his / her selling Usage Agreement. What the OP did and is doing is EXACTLY what all buyers of full perm content should be doing - specially when the content will be used for a larger build that will be sold itself. Protect your own interests by replacing Gavin assumptions with clear stated facts..... and for heavens sake.... dont make business decisions based on loopholes you think you found because the Seller and LL's TOS are not valid or can be legally violated. It avoid a lot of trouble for you in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Hird Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Toysoldier Thor wrote: Gavin... you are right that you all agreements between you and LL are to YOU and not your Avatar accounts with LL, then why did EACH of your LL ALTS have to register for and agree to the terms LL set out for you before you logged in? Why Did LL not register YOU the human and allow you to simple add more accounts related to you? Simply because the permission system in SecondLife is derived from the Unix permission system. I have previously posted to the extent how this could be reorganized to have a common asset store for a main account and alts. It takes a bit of system re-eenigneering to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Gavin Hird wrote: Toysoldier Thor wrote: So stop trying to find loopholes in an attempt to violate a IP creator's rights. First of all I am not looking for loopholes to violate an IP creator's rights. It is a completely baseless insinuation! I also don't have any assets in my inventory created by you. They were deleted months ago. So you can stop that discussion right now! Just because there is a TOS does not mean it holds water when tested with the legal system. Both Microsoft and Apple has to warying degree found this out the hard way. To declare a licence that is not based in legal realities, is nothing but disengenious and only hurts the issuers own business. Gavin I am not talking about my content you bought from me... I am talking about your poor assumptions you are making and how you are trying to find legal loopholes in the LL TOS you agreed to and the Seller's agreements that were posted to you before you bought. You say you are not looking for loopholes in any of the agreements and then you say what I highlight in red. Anyone that creates and rests their business operations based on misunderstood and non-legal tested assumptions of the stated TOS is operating their business dangerously. They might be right and that is great... but the risk to their business if they are wrong is huge. By making the assumptions you are making and by making statements that LL"s TOS that you agreed to not holding water and can be proven wrong in court.... this is FINDING LOOPHOLES in my eyes Gavin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Its too bad LL never posts here. I would love if a person from LL Legal Team would chirp in and set the record straight on what rights a person's many Alts have vs not have. How do they see Gavin's statements that LL's TOS does not hold water and that Gavin can do what he feels he is entitlted to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Hird Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Large sections of LL's TOS does not hold water meeting European legilsation when it comes to privacy and consumer legislation. This is fairly common for US companies. Both Facebook and Google are in for it right now with the EU. The same is most likely the case for IP rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Gavin Hird wrote: Toysoldier Thor wrote: Gavin... you are right that you all agreements between you and LL are to YOU and not your Avatar accounts with LL, then why did EACH of your LL ALTS have to register for and agree to the terms LL set out for you before you logged in? Why Did LL not register YOU the human and allow you to simple add more accounts related to you? Simply because the permission system in SecondLife is derived from the Unix permission system. I have previously posted to the extent how this could be reorganized to have a common asset store for a main account and alts. It takes a bit of system re-eenigneering to do it. That is not the reason Gavin. LOL nice dreamsing. Simply because of a technical reason. Cough cough. Come on Gavin. Get real. It has NOTHNG TO DO WITH Technical limits. Many LL customers want full anonymity. They would not register them as a fully disclosed human even if it were offered. Most users would still create multiple human accounts that are fake. IT has to do with the fact that in this virtual world, LL wants the Registered Account to be the entity that all LL TOS relates to.... If a human wants to have mulitple registered accounts, that is fine but each of them still have to abide by the TOS. stop coming up with these dreamed up ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Hird Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 The reason is, at the bottom of it, rooted in technical limitations that can't be mended without major re-engineering of the asset system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Gavin Hird wrote: The reason is, at the bottom of it, rooted in technical limitations that can't be mended without major re-engineering of the asset system. OK Gavin... Prove it. Show me evnidence from LL that this was the reason? It has nothing to do with your idea. All your "this is the fact - deal with it posting" wont change that. If this was actually the reason (which its not) and LL actually was stupid enough to deploy the Mc Gavin solution - SL would never have been as successful as it was. because so many ppl would not have registered knowing that their RL account was fully disclosed. You sure come up with some grandious idea. Anyway.. you are going on a tangent. This does not change the facts. LL registers each of your accounts that YOU agree to each time. The TOS is based on these rules and it would be in your best interests to abide by them instead of trying to make arguments how they can be proven to be invalid.... and for what purpose Gavin??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Hird Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 LOL - you keep making insinuations that has no base in fact! :-)) What I say is this: To declare a license that is not based in legal realities don't give you any protection whatsoever, but only hurt your business. The same goes for TOS. Ask Microsoft if they enjoyed paying 1.8 billion Euro in fines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Gavin Hird wrote: LOL - you keep making insinuations that has no base in fact! :-)) What I say is this: To declare a license that is not based in legal realities don't give you any protection whatsoever, but only hurt your business. The same goes for TOS. Ask Microsoft if they enjoyed paying 1.8 billion Euro in fines. I have seen your debates with others that disgree with you and I know that you will not admit you are wrong on the advice you are trying to suggest to others....i.e. a smart business practice for SL Account Buyers is to ASSUME YOUR LEGAL ENTITLEMENTS instead of confirming them with the Seller and abiding by them. So... my message stands with everyone else reading the thread.... You can run your SL business the way Gavin suggests you do .... ie. run your SL business on shifting sands of unknown - unproven legal actions floating over your head.... Or... you can assume the least level of understood LL and Sell agreement entitlements and then confirm increased entitlements up from this position based on getting stated confirmation of what you are entitled to - and as such you remove any doubts and risks to your SL business. In the end.... between LL's TOS, the Creator's Selling EULA, and you the Buyer... the party in this triangle with the least amount of control / protection is the Buyer. As such, as the Buyer of full perm content in SL... protect yourself and dont make assumptions like Gavin is making and dont go into a business operation where the willingness to take things to court to prove that LL or the Sellers agreements that you agreed to in both circumstances are invalid is an operating principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Hird Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 My only advice is for merchants "NOT to declare a license that is not rooted in legal realities". ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madeliefste Oh Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Toysoldier Thor wrote: 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? I have no idea how many how many of my customers have contacted a lawyer to have a look at my user license. I guess none, since I never had a conflict with a costumer about the interpretation of my terms of use. (There have been violations a few times and filing DMCA's helped to stop the abuse, I don't see those as conflicts about interpretation). I myself have consulted a laywer once about my user license. I also asked him if it is possible to transfer my IP rights to my avatar. (Since the beginning of my full perms business I mark my designs with © Madeliefste Oh, and at a certain moment I thought that maybe I was cutting in my own meat by putting the copyright notice on my avatar name, in stead of my RL name). The answer was: No, an avatar can not be the holder of your IP rights. Actually the copyright notice has no legal meaning anymore (since 1979). You as the creator are automated the copyright holder whether you sign your designs with a notice or not. (Still a copyright notice is not a complete waist, it's a sign to show you care about your IP rights.) But he did not see a problem with the notice '© Madeliefste Oh', because of two reasons: your avatar can been seen as a pseudonym, the pseudonym you are known by within Second Life. Since my RL identity is known by LL, it is legal for me to sell a license under pseudonym. Apart from that you can see 'Madeliefste Oh' as a trade name. (You can have several trade names, and they don't have to be the same as your official business name). It is legally correct to use your trade name when doing business. Toysoldier Thor wrote: 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. I don't know how you protect your content exactly, so I cannot say if it is right or wrong. In your marketplace listings you speak about a license, that people can ask you to give a copy of, prior to buying the product. When you state cleary in this license that the permissions you grand to your customer may only be used by the purchasing avatar, I guess you are all safe. You have the full right to limited the use of your products to one single avatar. The question of the OP was actually 'why do people in some cases limited the use to one single avatar? ' What comes up in this thread is not so much about creators rights, those are clear in this case. The question is how consumers rights must be interpreted in the case a license does not limited the use of a product to only the avatar that brought the product. As much as an avatar cannot be the copyright holder, because an avatar is no juristic person, an avatar can neither be the owner of a license, because also a license can only be held by a juristic person. (A license is not a virtual product). Like I said in an earlier post, at the time I made my user licenses I thought I was doing business from avatar to avatar. So in my idea my avatar sold the license to somebody elses avatar. Later it became clear to me that this construction has no legal ground. My understanding of what I'm doing when I sell a license is that I grand a RL person (or business, or foundation or whatever other juristic identity) certain rights that occur out of my IP rights. When I want to limit the use of my products to just one single avatar or one single SL account, I must change my user license. It will be valid for the products I'm going to sell with my new user licenses, but not with the ones I have already sold. For me the few extra sales to alts are not worth the trouble of going to change all my product listings on the marketplace, change all user licenses in boxes, hang the new conditions in my shop and so on, apart from the trouble of dealing with two sort of user licenses. I simply think: I have to do with one person. The system SL uses for commerce has its limitations, and can be right in the way for merchants. The limitation to one single shop per avatar on the marketplace is such an example, working with alts is a work around to be able to put your merchandise in different shops. But in the end it is the same single person who makea a profit from selling derivative products based on my creations, whether he sells it under avatar name A or avatar name B. It is the same creator. Why should I let this person pay twice, while other creators who have just one shop only pay once? I did not find an argument for it, that seems reasonable or fair to me. Toysoldier Thor wrote: 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. It can happen that you run into a lawyer specialised in IP rights on the internet that is willing to give advise for free. Make use of that, when it happens And: No, I'm not a full time SL creator, I have a RL job as well (for as long as it lasts, which is not very long anymore). 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