Jump to content

Bernie Shippe

Resident
  • Posts

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bernie Shippe

  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.
  14. Phil Deakins wrote: I didn't miss the point at all. There was a discussion about copying and I joined it. If you'd read my posts, you would have known that. Who did you say missed the point? you're replying to me and my point all along was really about modifying an item that i own. making a backup copy of the original plays into that so i'll concede that point.
  15. Phil Deakins wrote: Now you're being very silly. I never did want your money but I never had any reason to ban you. cool. Phil Deakins wrote: If you don't find exactly what you're looking for, you can't buy a no-mod item and modify it - not without breaking the ToS, that is, and risk being banned from SL. agreed.
  16. that's a mighty large graphic you got there. your message must be extra special important
  17. Phil Deakins wrote: I do like people owning my products. That's why I sell them. You've got it the wrong way round. It should be, "don't like something about the product? Don't buy it." naw, you've got it wrong. don't like something about the product (and nothing else comes as close to exactly what you want but you know how to fix it)? buy it and then mod it to fit your needs. in your world you don't get my money. in my world you do. but if you don't want my money, ban me. i'm ok with that.
  18. Phil Deakins wrote: Ok, you don't mind being a thief. I can't argue with that. As I said in the post that you quoted, if an item isn't exactly what you want (in this case, if it's no copy) don't buy it. It's perfectly simple. Or you could ask the seller to sell you a 'copy' version and perhaps offer more for it. But if you buy a 'no copy' item and circumvent the permisiions so that you can copy it, and then you do copy it, you're a thief. whoosh. totally missing the point. it's not about "copying"!
  19. Amethyst Jetaime wrote: You can rationalize all you want. You agreed to the TOS when you created your account and no matter what you think you can't now decide some of it doesn't apply to you. Copybot is banned from SL. If you use copybot or ANY copy tool that circumvents the permissions you are a thief and can be banned for it period. If you just want to make a copy of something that is legal to copy you can easily enough. There is no need to use copybot for any legitimate reason. If you don't like the fact that you can't mod something, don't buy it. Buy something that allows you to mod it. Merchants don't want you as a customer at all if you are not going to respect their user license and the permissoin system. ah yes, the easy road. "it"'s against the rules and if you do "it" (doesn't matter what "it" actually is) that makes you a horrible terrible person. i remind you that i said i don't use copybot or recommend that anyone do. all this is really just hypothetical what if i were to buy a car. it's copy, no mod, no trans. it looks great but drives poorly. as it is i can remove scripts but not add my own. say i figure out a way to bust perms with an exploit or whatever. i remove their scripts and add my own. now it looks great and drives great. i keep it all to myself never giving or selling it. am i a theif? am i a horrible person? to you and anyone else - if you think so, ban me from your store. you don't want me as a customer and i don't want you as a merchant. "win-win" but i tell you what. just keep thinking to yourself that bernie would use copybot if he could and that makes him a bad person. don't you dare think about the possibility that someone might use the program in a way that's not at all harmful to anyone. that requires too much work and imagination and creates confusion. just stick with against the rules equals bad. that will keep life simple for you.
  20. Dillon Levenque wrote: Bernie Shippe wrote: don't like people violating the permissions under which you sold your products? don't sell products to me. FIFY i'll grant you your ip rights. obviously, me buying your product doesn't automatically give me ownership of your designs and other ip. i'll also grant you certain copy restrictions because of the digital nature of second life. what i don't grant you is the right to tell me i can't mod, tweak, or in any way customize *my* item that *i* bought and that *i now own*. as far as i'm concerned, now you're infringing my rights as a consumer. law, tos, permissions system, eula - all be damned. so, to fify your fify - want to violate your customer's rights? don't sell products to me. i'd rather not support your business. btw, that doesn't mean i think all merchants who uncheck modify are infringing my rights. i know that no-mod is used to help stop copying.
  21. Phil Deakins wrote: Just a quick reply... If the desired colour/pattern isn't offered, don't buy it. It's not a justification for circumventing the permissions. Just out of interest... Some of my furniture is sold in fixed colours or fixed textures, and they are priced at a certain amount. I also do the same items in colour/texture-changing versions that are priced a little higher. if the color/pattern i want is offered in the color/texture changing version, i'd buy that one. if it's not (and i can't find a suitable product elsewhere), then i'd buy either the fixed or changing one depending on what interested me. then if i could break the perms i would to change it to what i wanted. don't like people owning your products? don't sell products. but, like i said before, i never used and never will use copybot since it's way too risky so it's all hypothetical.
  22. Phil Deakins wrote: You are totally wrong. If you were to copy something that you don't have permission to copy, you'd have two instances of the thing but you'd only have paid for one. That's theft. If you have two instances but you'd only paid for one, the seller will have lost a sale. I've always sold my furniture with the mod and transfer permissions, but never with the copy permission, and there is a very good reason for that. Many people rent out furnished homes and, if they could pay for one couch, for instance, and make copies to put in all their homes, I would have sold just one couch but the buyer would be using many of them. And that's not very fair, is it? If you bought a couch from me, made a copy of it and put one in each of two rooms, you'd be getting two for the price of one, and that wouldn't be very fair to me, would it? even though you didn't sell or give away either instance of the item. There are reasons why sellers set permissions on their stuff, and circumventing those permission is wrong and often theft. If you circumvent the permissions, and you end up with two copies of an item, even if one of them never leaves your inventory, you'd be a thief, and you'd deserve to be punished as a thief. If an item isn't exactly what you want, don't buy it. It's as simple as that. nope. there's a difference between multiple copies in inventory and multiple copies rezzed. i buy your couch. i break the perms. i keep a copy of the original because i don't trust LLs inventory and i want the original to go back to in case i mess something up. i make a copy and shrink and fudge with it to make it the way i want. i rez and use one instance. you think that makes me a theif. well good for you, but i frankly don't care.
  23. Staralien wrote: Personally, regardless of risking your account or not, it is really a matter of ethics, integrity, and honor. If you use any sort of copybot, then you clearly do not have any of those qualities. yeah it's "a matter of ethics, integrity, and honor." that doesn't mean everyone who uses or wants to use copybot lacks those qualities. that's a myth
×
×
  • Create New...