Jump to content

Bernie Shippe

Resident
  • Content Count

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Bernie Shippe

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Pussycat Catnap wrote: Just because someone can get away with something does not make it right. unfortunately, there are people who can't distinguish between rules/laws and ethics/morality. they think - if it's against the rules then you are a bad person and must be shamed/punished - if it's not against the rules, then you are a fine upstanding citizen. carrry on! life is more complicated than that -lost on some
  2. logging info is NOT a tos violation that is NOT im sharing stop whining
  3. Lucretia Brandenburg wrote: From copybotters I've known, there are different reasons they do it. Some to rip off items and resell them as their own, some to use the items for themselves, others because they think it gives them power and boosts their egoes, some do it to "prove" they're smarter than others to get round safe guards against it, others because they think everything in SL be free and they will go on about the virtual economy and how offensive it is to pay for pixels. I don't think this question is stupid. and there's another reason for using copybot or other permissions breaking techniques sometimes you legitimately buy an object and it works just fine. then server changes happen. the creator leaves SL. and you're left with a product that no longer works. you know how to fix it but it's no-mod. so you do a little bit of this and a little bit of that and now you have a mod version. you fix it. use it only for yourself. and all is good. sadly, there are holier-than-thou types here who would cast you into the depths of you know where for doing so. it's rediculous.
  4. hey phil - It's hard to believe [you started a thread] to complain about [threads about ads]. To [you]... The [threads] are nobody's business but [the OP]'s. They are not your business and they are nothing to do with you, so get over it. If you don't like seeing them, you don't have to see them, so stop being so self-centred. Stop whining about them, and mind your own business.
  5. Perrie Juran wrote: So while there are some greedy sum-a-biatches out there, I still don't want to see my friends IP rights eroded by starting to add exceptions to the rules. Because where do the exceptions end? i don't think there's any chance that creators will have all their rights eroded away. not with companies like disney with deep pockets and herds of lawyers around. as far as where the exceptions end, i don't have it all written out. maybe it is complicated. i just believe that consumers should have more rights to use the things they purchased. it irks me to hear that orca got that suspension. things shouldn't be like that. Perrie Juran wrote: There used to be a gal who posted here that believed ALL music should be free. whoever thinks that way is an idiot.
  6. Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Your are entitled to try to change the law in RL by lobbying congress to do it. However, until it changes it remains the law. I think you would feel much different about it if you worked weeks, months or sometimes years creating something and someone came along and stole it from you by copybotting it. just so we're clear, i don't think it's ok to copybot someones hard work and then sell it as your own. i don't think it's ok to copybot someone's hard work so you can have it without paying for it. i think those are pretty lousy things to do to somebody.
  7. Amethyst Jetaime wrote: You don't know what fair use refers to in copyright law. It has a very specific meaning, none of which applies here. There are also four tests to determine fair use and the use must meet all four of them. No where in the law is personal use cited as a fair use. For your enlightment here is the law: 17 U.S.C. § 107 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. [2 ] The two other laws cited above deal with the specific rights the owner of a copyright has. Copybotting something for personal use is not a fair use and no court would accept it as a defense. Copybotting is stealing and stealing is morally wrong. "meaning the law - rules should change" imho of coarse.
  8. Perrie Juran wrote: And who gets to decide when it's ok to violate someone's IP? I guess we could write exceptions into the law. But then everyone would want exceptions to the exceptions. everyone is allowed to have an opinion on whether the law should change or stay the same. and we're allowed to have an opinion on how bad it is when someone does break the law.
  9. Amethyst Jetaime wrote: So it is OK to violate somoene's IP rights as long as you don't get caught? That's just a rationalization. It is NEVER ok. ok = right or wrong as in moral - ethical ip rights = rights granted to people by writen law - rules if so, my personal answer is - sometimes yes it's ok (moral - ethical) to violate someone's ip rights (as defined by law - rule). not all the time. just sometimes. meaning the law - rules should change. orca's situation would be an example.
  10. Orca Flotta wrote: I wouldn't resell it or anything, of course. Mhm, I used exactly that argument once ... got reported and subsequentely suspended for 3 days. Some creators even banned me from their sims after that. Afterall it wasn't too bad and gives me the fuzzy warm feeling of being a true anarchist. It was way back in the old times. All I did was combining 2 items that I both legally own (skin and tattoo) to save on clothing layers. So I wasn't really a bad girl. Anyway, it's against the TOS and copyright and intellectual property rights and whatnot so I got what I deserved. Funny enough the original creators of neither the skin nor the tat were amonst the ppl who banned me. My only mistake was to first ask around in forum and later even posting about the conspirational meeting I had with the copybotter. If you keep it quiet and don't brag about it you should be fine. it's a shame you got treated that way. technically you might have broke the tos or the law but as for as i'm concerned you didn't do anything wrong (morally, ethically) edit - also, op is talking about something different - copying something they never owned in the first place. that's not right.
  11. Madeline Blackbart wrote: It hink if it's trans it's possible but how honest it is I don't know... if it's no-copy/trans then it's perfectly fine to resell it when you're done with it. not dishonest at all.
  12. Clarissa Lowell wrote: It's against TOS. Should be end of the discussion there. Why wasn't it? when talking about advising people what to do, it should end there. it's one of those rare tos violations that ll seems to take seriously so don't do it. when talking about how *wrong* it is for people to use copybot, there's more to it than the tos and dmca. what about the case when the merchant has left the game? i buy a vehicle. copy, no mod, no trans. looks good. drives good. years go by. merchant leaves sl. server code changes. vehicle no longer drives good. it's unique and unreplaceable. assuming i could break the no mod and rescript it (and never give/sell my edited version), who does that hurt? the original merchant? no, they're long gone another merchant who sells something similar? no, they don't exist, the item is unique another merchant who can recreate the item? oh no, can't do that, that would violate the original merchant's ip so, if i could, i update the scripts myself. who specifically does that hurt and how specifically does that hurt? anyone, explain it to me. i'd really like to know. "it's against the law" that's not what i'm asking about.
  13. cool story bro. since i don't use copybot (never have never will) i have no way to do that so i have nothing to worry about.
×
×
  • Create New...