Erik Verity

I have seen four (I think that's the right number) different, updated versions of the TOS since joining, so even though I have already read first-hand a few things which are not easy to bring up for documentation, I will limit myself to current information only. I am sure I have read it in more direct wording than I will show here, but don't rule out someone else jumping in if they find something in an older TOS version or other documentation. Amethyst Jetaime wrote: [...] nor does it require the creator use the permission system at all. It only says that you MAY use it. It does not require a USER OF THE SERVICE to use the permissions system at all. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A USER TO BE A CREATOR EITHER. So no, you don't have to use the permissons system, but you don't have to be a creator either. But you are forbidden from trying to circumvent the software's functionality (hacking or otherwise) - which automatically includes the permissions system when content is created or uploaded, whether you set specific options or not. The software will not allow you to set both NO COPY and NO TRANSFER at the same time for a reason. There are legitimate and technical ways around this (e.g., object contents with different perms), but they don't overrule the basic intent of one or the other being allowed. So can a user be both a creator, and bypass the permissions system which requires an item to be either copy or trans? No: This agreement (the "Agreement" or the "Terms of Service") describes the terms on which Linden Research, Inc. ("Linden Lab") offer you access to its interactive entertainment products and services. The "Service" means all features, applications, content and downloads offered by Linden Lab, including its Websites, Servers, Linden Software, Linden Content, and User Content (as those terms are defined below). This offer is conditioned on your agreement to all of the terms and conditions contained in the Terms of Service, including the policies and terms linked to or otherwise referenced in this Agreement, all of which are hereby incorporated into this Agreement. Notice my bolding - The TOS includes abiding by the policies that it refers to, even though they are not included directly in the actual TOS. The permissions system includes policies and FAQs found elsewhere: Right of First Sale The right of first sale applies when an item is transferred without next owner copy. Since you are allowed to specify no derivative works by specifying next owner cannot modify, this right is interpreted as next owner can always transfer that single instance of the item to anyone else. This is a very direct set of statements. If you transfer an item that is not copiable, (and if you are a seller, you are tranferring an item when you sell it - the second statement makes it clear that this applies to creators), the receiver is entitled to the right of First Sale - including right to transfer that single copy. So yes, TOS does require that objects be either copy, trans, or both, but not both forbidden.

I agree that you might not be clear enough for me to know for sure exactly what you are implying, but I'm not sure it's possible to be too specific about how complicated sets of laws apply to individual cases in a forum for non-lawyers. Perrie Juran wrote: However, under First Sale Doctrine, you can not dictate pricing. This statement is too generic and vague to have any real meaning as is - if it were possible to narrow a summary down to this simple statement, then it is wrong - First Sale Doctrine protects an end user's rights to a product only - it has nothing to do with regulating commercial sales, including pricing. Perrie Juran wrote: We produced "demos' that were "lent" (and I know there are still some legal battles going on about this with demos that are sent to reviewers, dj's etc) to the stores for display purposes. They were custom made for this and had their own licensing terms. But we could not dictate to any one the sale price. You cannot dictate to an end user - who purchased a video for their personal use - what they can sell their personal (non-reproduceable) copy for. That's the only scenerio that the First Sale Doctrine covers. This sounds like a complicated legal question for good reason - there is a blatant attempt to blur the distinction between commercial use and end use. Pamela Galli wrote: If I am selling a license to use something I make, I can pretty much make it say whatever I like. And anyone is free to read it and either buy it or not. I think we agree on this.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: From what i have read of the DMCA laws, and have talked to my families lawyer about it, the DMCA laws are for stolen content. Meaning, content that was illegally acquired, not content that was purchased and then had the creator change their mind for whatever reason. Part of first paragraph from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act - read the bolded text: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. I'm not saying anyone can change their terms of your use after your purchase - but they can enforce the terms you purchased under. Drake1 Nightfire wrote: [...] and they CAN NOT tell you what to sell for. They can say not to give away full perm but nothing stricter than that. I still won't say an exact price can be mandated, but within ranges? Yes. What law are you referring to? Where is a law limiting a creator's usage agreement to a setting in Second Life software?

Perrie Juran wrote: Guess again. It is illegal. Go read the First Sale Doctrine and Rulings. (I posted a link to a good summary) I stand by what I posted, while pointing out that "dictate" is too harsh a requirement to blanketly be legal. The First Sale Doctrine purposely excludes every case other than the true end user. I suggest you read from your wiki page again if you think it said something different. Apples: Erik Verity wrote: [...] buy one personal object that is trans and no copy, for your personal use any way you wish - sell it, give it away - you won't still have it to do it again; Oranges: Erik Verity wrote: [...] purchase a building product that has full ABILITIES / CAPABILITIES for custom, commercial reproduction. The First Sale Doctrine applies in the exact same sense of purchasing a single product for your personal use. It seems to go pretty far out of the way to make a clear distinction between the same apples and oranges I referred to. There is no regulation there that has anything at all to do with products sold specifically for reproduction and remarketing. Perrie Juran wrote: The way the manufacturers control pricing is through INCENTIVES. For example, on Movie DVD's, there is something called MAP, Minimum Advertised Price. It is the lowest price that you are allowed to advertise and get co-op ad dollars from the studios. That is one of the reasons you will see ads that read, "priced so low we can't print it." Minimum Advertised Price and Incentives can be regulated by laws to prevent one party from injuring another (e.g., you can't just force someone to operate at a loss), but they themselves are not laws; they are marketing techniques. Perrie Juran wrote: To retain their license to do business under say McD's or KFC's name, they agree to certain rules. If they violate those rules, McD's or KFC will come and tear down their signs. Because they are allowed to protect the integrity, quality, reputation, image, etc. of their own works. They can also protect their customer interests (you, or other resellers/remanufacturers, etc.) with their agreements limiting their customers from overly-aggressive predatory practices against each other. Content creators can require you to agree to certain rules too if you wish to do business using their products; break the creator's rules for remarketing their products in SL, and they can come tear down your signs too. Perrie Juran wrote: But once that product leaves the manufactures hand and is in mine, I can do anything and everything I durn well feel like doing with it. And the manufacturer has no say or control. You're talking about apples here, not oranges. While there might be legal exceptions to a minimum price rule (to accomodate different tax rates, local laws or zoning, bankruptcy liquidation, or whatever), I have not yet seen one that blanketly forbids minimum pricing requirements.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: It is illegal in the US for a manufacturer to dictate what a distributor or re-seller can charge for the end product. [. . .] it IS illegal for a creator to dictate what anyone can re-sell their items for. No, it is not, and no, it is not. I'm not even saying dictate, although close to it is good enough, especially minimium. Franchises especially, operate within required sale price ranges. Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Just like if someone bought a couch that was transferable, they could sell it for what ever they wanted to.. even at a loss. It's apples and oranges - buy one personal object that is trans and no copy, for your personal use any way you wish - sell it, give it away - you won't still have it to do it again; or purchase a building product that has full ABILITIES / CAPABILITIES for custom, commercial reproduction. Drake1 Nightfire wrote: If i buy your kit, full perm, what gives you the right to tell me what i can and can't do with it? The law; SL TOS, and my EULA ( or ToU). FULL PERM does not mean you bought something without restrictions on what you are authorized to do with it, it means you bought it without restrictions on your ability to copy, modify, and transfer to make customization possible. Just because LL named this a Permissions system doesn't mean you can define what it means by what they named it - its meaning has been fully described in writing - and it seems to me that Capabilities would have been a better choice for the name of the system. Choose whatever name you want to call it, but SL TOS requires you to discover and abide by a creator's agreement even when you purchase full perm.

Price Control is too generic a term to simply say it's illegal; the laws are too complex too suggest that it's illegal for anyone to simply set a minimum price - and it is perfectly legal and reasonable in a lot of cases. Why should a creator allow any single buyer to kill all of their own future sales when no one else could use their products to make a profit? If all mesh creators agreed to never sell their (even competing) products below a certain level, that could be against anti-trust laws. For one manufacturer to require their distributors to have a minimum price may be perfectly legal and rational. LL TOS requires products to be sold with either copy or trans (or both) allowed, but not both forbidden. This is what is referred to when they state that we cannot try to override their permissions system. Even Permissions is misnamed for what its description implies - Abilities might have been a better choice. You often buy things from a creator with the ability to do things with it that you don't necessarily have the permission to do. The TOS acknowledges that many things will be sold full perm solely to allow builders to be able to use them in their builds without being allowed to redistribute them with the same permissions. Since LL TOS also require buyers to abide by creator terms, where is the example of a creator's terms superseding LL TOS?

Gadget Portal wrote: Doesn't work. The function was designed (someone at LL didn't think this through) not to trigger collision events. Since you seem convinced its a script using keyframed motion - the object this script is in ITSELF won't get a collision event, which is hard to call an oversight since one of its purposes is not to overburden the simulator - to be an alternative to physical objects. From the wiki: Collisions with other nonphysical or keyframed objects will be ignored (no script events will fire and collision processing will not occur). Collisions with physical objects will be computed and reported, but the keyframed object will be unaffected by those collisions. (The physical object will be affected, however.) That suggests to me that the limit is only for itself. Also, collisions with avatars can distort its own path. I haven't tested myself, and not inwold now, but I have an idea that even though it will move an avatar standing on a platform of an object using this function, I'm not sure it is capable of pushing an avatar. I do know that even a moving platform that is using keyframed motion will not affect an avatar that is flying or hovering. Start flying while in an elevator moving you using this function and you will suddenly find it broken. You might want to test before deciding this function is being used this way, although I don't see a need to analyze the griefing method that bad from a user's point of view.

Sei Lisa wrote: Someone's made an excellent point here: https://my.secondlife.com/auryn.beorn/posts/520d328ff40e20000200045b Ian Undercroft points to Section 2.2 which states: [...] Additional terms may apply to certain elements of the Service (“Additional Terms”); these terms are available where such separate elements are made available on the Websites. If there is any contradiction between any Additional Terms and these Terms of Service, then the Additional Terms shall take precedence only in relation to that particular element of the Service. For examples of such Additional Terms, please see Section 12 below. It seems quite clear that the Maturity Ratings policy (which is contained in Section 12 and therefore it obviously counts as Additional Terms under Section 2.2) directly contradicts section 6.1(vi) when it says: "Maturity ratings designate the type of content and behavior allowed in a region [...]" Edit: I should not have obviated this: the Maturity Ratings policy also states: "The Adult designation applies to Second Life regions that host, conduct, or display content that is sexually explicit, intensely violent, or depicts illicit drug use." End edit. Therefore, according to Section 2.2, the Maturity Ratings policy overrides Section 6.1(vi) at least for inworld. Made that point here in this thread too, 2 pages back.

I didn't even catch it in the state entry - that does solve that problem. I stand corrected there. ETA: Declaring it TRUE at the top also works, and I can accept it as a style preference also. I saw it discussed in a group chat a few months back and it seemed bytecode savings was the reasoning for it. That's the main reason I would disagree with - if the saving were needed, that wouldn't make enough difference to guarantee anything. (I personally prefer a simple toggle = !toggle one time at the end of the conditions.)

You both read into that something that isn't there. Their choice of wording might not have been the best, but I see it as: They might have a sim crossing fix almost complete when you suggest an identical solution. Why should they owe you anything for it? And . . . No soliciting, salespersons of any type or telemarketers, please. Specific sentences you both quoted there: Linden Lab employs a staff of designers to develop new ideas and Linden Lab solicits and receives product idea submissions from professional inventors with whom it has business relationships. Any Unsolicited Ideas and Materials you post on or send to us via the Service are deemed User Content and licensed to us as set forth above. . . . your Unsolicited Ideas and Materials, and anything else submitted by you will be treated as non-confidential and non-proprietary User Content – regardless of whether you mark them “confidential”, “proprietary”, or the like. Linden Lab’s receipt of your Unsolicited Ideas and Materials is not an admission by Linden Lab of their novelty, priority, or originality, and it does not impair Linden Lab’s right to contest existing or future intellectual property rights relating to your Unsolicited Ideas and Materials.

I'm guessing you mean the land group. Add another parameter set: PRIM_MEDIA_PERMS_INTERACT, PRIM_MEDIA_PERM_GROUP (or PRIM_MEDIA_PERM_ANYONE). Also, if trying to avoid extra clicks, the if(toggle = !toggle) doesn't make much sense - The miniscule bytecode savings is not worth the loss of readability alone and it will not work on a first click after compile or reset. That tiny savings is also completely lost and overshadowed by using a user function instead of inline code.

That would be a laggy and ineffective way (sensors have a limited range) of trying to do something you can do better using estate management tools already available in the viewer. I would think it might be easier to not get pushing data from the viewer than you might realize. A relog will clear it, for one thing. If disabling pushing stops it, that would prove it. You would need to restrict who can deed objects to group also, since that is a way around it. I don't see any real gain trying to analyze scripting functions that might be used either - use the land management controls and contact support if you need to. Sitting will stop you from being pushed. llKeyframedMotion is probably the weakest function for greifing anyway; it won't affect an avatar that is flying or hovering either.

You always could drop it to them. Nobody's profile disclosure claiming that they don't agree to the TOS is a replacement for it. Nobody's profile is a contract that anyone has to agree to, and never was. I would go so far as to say you always could AR a profile that claimed they were not going to honor the TOS - it was proof in writing that they intended to violate it.

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Felis Darwin wrote: Yes, I've seen it. The problem is that Section 6.3 is a separate section which does not modify Section 6.1. In fact, the top of Section 6.3 even starts, "In addition to the rules set forth in Sections 6.1 and 6.2". In addition to, not in modification of. Because of the wording both sections are in effect and do not modify each other. Thus, sexually explicit content is technically a bannable offense under the current TOS wording. By the same token Section 6.1 refers to harrassing and violating peoples rights and therefore you can't use sexually explicit or violent material to do that. That does not mean it can't be used in ways not intended to harass someone. 6.3 refers to general rules of conduct, so it is allowed in the properly rated regions. You don't change the meaning of a sentence by focusing on the last few words. The beginning of the sentence says you will not post or transmit prohibited Content. The following part lists some things that are included. It doesn't give a green light to prohibited Content if the content isn't illegal, harassing or violating any person's rights. Putting it more simply: It does mean you can't post or transmit the list of prohibited Content even if it's not used in ways intended to harrass someone. I give you an example to clarrify. The TOS are generalized to apply to all LL services. Suppose a user of a non-SL service posts some sexually explicit content. Further suppose they did it in a way that was legal and didn't harras or violate any person's rights. Clearly that posting is intended to be prohibited by TOS 6.1. 6.3 is additional rules of conduct that apply to Second Life users. It is not general rules of conduct. It is not something that applies in place of 6.1. Although that may have been the intent. 6.1 You will not post or transmit prohibited Content, including any Content that is illegal, harassing or violates any person's rights. It looks to me like it DOES apply in place of that; except for the heading, bolding is mine: 2.2 Linden Lab grants you certain licenses to access and use the Service while you are in compliance with the Terms of Service; Additional terms may apply. Linden Lab hereby grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicenseable, limited, personal, revocable license to access and use the Service on a personal computer, mobile phone or other wireless or internet-enabled device (each an “Internet Device”) as set forth in these Terms of Service and expressly conditioned upon you and each of your Accounts remaining active, in good standing, and in compliance with these Terms of Service. Additional terms may apply to certain elements of the Service (“Additional Terms”); these terms are available where such separate elements are made available on the Websites. If there is any contradiction between any Additional Terms and these Terms of Service, then the Additional Terms shall take precedence only in relation to that particular element of the Service. For examples of such Additional Terms, please see Section 12 below. Included in Section 12: 12. RELATED POLICIES The following related policies are incorporated by reference in and made part of this Agreement, and provide Additional Terms, conditions and guidelines regarding the Service. • Linden Lab Privacy Policy • Intellectual Property Policy • Second Life Brand Center • Second Life Trademark Guidelines • Snapshot and Machinima Policy • Second Life Fee Schedule • Second Life Billing Policy • Second Life Marketplace Fee and Listing Policies • Community Standards • Second Life Mainland Policies • Gambling Policy • Banking Policy • Age Play Policy • Maturity Ratings • Policy on Third-Party Viewers Notice Maturity Ratings are included in these "Additional Terms".

Section 2.2 allows for contradictions between the Terms and Additional Terms - saying that the Additional Terms will apply in those cases. Might want to see if adult content in adult areas doesn't fall under that classification.

I don't see where a feature request in the jira can be defined as an unsolicited idea or material for products or services. The jira actually has a "feature request" subject heading for entry classification - this suggests both 1) There is a distinction between these definitions, and 2) a feature request, as one of the subject options for posting a user submitted jira, is to an extent solicited. I'm not even sure if asking for a changelog is necessarily either; it may be simply a request to communicate responsibly.

My understanding is that estate bans actually do not work that well all of the time and you should use Parcel bans if you are having that problem. I know that means a ban entry for each parcel in the region, but that's what it takes to make it more dependable.

Where was I condescending? To say that so many are not aware of the procedures or the law (or even to disagree with anything in itself), is not talking down to anyone. How does being a creator equate to being aware of the legal procedures? If everyone were aware of them, then why is it still being asked for LL to be combating copybotters? They are only required to follow the procedures to protect themselves from being in violation of IP rights infringement. If they are not following the procedures, then creators can go after them for infringing IP rights as well as anyone else. I don't think LL is necesarily following the spirit of the law in all cases from the start (note my post about TOS changelog in another section of this forum); I think they are as for DMCA protection, but whether I am wrong or right about that doesn't even matter. The point is: they are either protected from actions creators can take against IP infringement, or they are not. If they are following the procedures that enable creators to take actions, they are protected. If they are not following them, they are not protected. Either way, they are not required (nor should they be expected) to be enforcing anyone else's IP rights. If a creator has sent them a DMCA Takedown notice and they have not complied, then the creator needs to go after LL because they will have forfeited their own protection through non-compliance. They don't have the option of "whenever they get around to it" either; everywhere you find details about the procedures seem to agree that they need to take action within about 24 hours. If nothing is happening in any particular case, it is the creator that is not doing anything about it.

I'm not so sure that was false information. What was requested in one sense really was a feature request. The final response in that jira would have been correct if it had simply refused the request whether the reason was because of an internal company policy or not - nobody asked for LL to change their policy there; I doubt anyone but LL employees are/were even aware of any such policy. I can see three different scenerios for TOS changes: 1) preceding a new TOS with at least an abbreviated description of its change from a previous; 2) providing a new TOS without describing changes separately (without any apparent reason); and 3) providing a new TOS while any brief description of changes are not supplied by reason of a company's policy. Number three sounds a lot to me like any lawyer with minimal experience could prove a blatant attempt to defraud masses of users under many circumstances, especially when the agreement is thousands of words long. Not only is it time for some reasonable legislation to limit lengths, legalese, and immediacy of changes taking effect for standard terms to be agreed upon by average users who cannot be expected to have advanced legal training, it is time to see if some methods in use already might be illegal under present laws. It says a lot when the extra steps have been taken to make sure that disclosures of changes in terms are not readily available. ETA: Ok, looking at this TOS, I can see where there is enough of a difference to require a complete reading, and maybe that should have been pointed out. I still see a problem with any policy forbidding any way of describing a small change to a large TOS as that jira suggests.

Would it be that hard to have the hose be an invisible part of the attachment that connects to the object instead of the other way around? (Possibly with a texture that offsets from from a complete alpha transparancy to the visible hose)?

Programming classes in universities and colleges always warn that specific companies, corporations, etc. (business interests and groups) will almost always have their own rules and guidelines which do not have to agree with any one particular style or international standard. They are free to do this and to an extent should; they have code that has to be read and contributed by multiple sources. It is wrong to take any organization's or company's standards or rules and define it as a right or wrong way for everybody unless it is an international standards organization, which MISRA is not. It is also realized that the use of brackets for a single line code block in these cases is a good habit, simply for reducing errors when editing. That alone is the only real benefit - readability in this case really is a matter of taste. I often leave out the brackets for a single line in cases where I simply need more of a script I'm working on to fit in the page view without a lot of scrolling. In that sense, leaving them OFF is more readable to me - they double the verticle space needed to read the script and a simple indented line is easy to recognize. Most of the time, I will edit a script in the end to include the brackets. I don't like to have them included in some cases of single lines and leave them out in others - inconsistency in a script's style is what would be wrong. ETA: The same textbooks that warn against editing errors when the brackets are left off continue to print multiple code examples throughout with the brackets left off. ETA again: While being a standards organization for software for the auto industry, not for a programming language by itself, it is more correct to identify MISRA as a business interest organization than a standards committee.

I can't say anything for or against any specific merchant's terms, especially this case in particular. It does sound to me like this one might be as you both say, because I believe SL TOS (or rules of MP) do regulate how you can respond or react to a reviews made in good faith. (Don't hold me to that - I haven't searched for that particular info.) I will say that you did agree to obtain a merchant's terms for their product usage before purchase - second paragraph of section 2.7: You acknowledge that the Content of the Service is provided or made available to you under license from Linden Lab and independent Content providers, including other users of the Service ("Content Providers"). 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.

You might be interested in the method of appending some rlv folder names with (nostrip). http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Toy_Wylie/RLV_nostrip

I'm pretty sure that inability was recently changed - you should now be able to return encroaching objects when it did not used to be possible. http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Parcel_encroachment

I have to admit I was entertained a little when I woke up to see the extras here and the jump up did kind of scream for a do-while. The last exchange does make me wonder though - while the wiki does recommend using the bit-wise not specifically for changing a -1 to 0 for a fast comparison, why does it say nothing about comparing to 0 always being faster and more efficient than comparing to any other integer value? I know that's the case in other languages and might make a lot of code easier to read and write, even when a comparison to another value might be more accurate yet unnecessary. /me returns to the subject in an attempt to bypass retribution If there had been code at the end of the function which needed to be executed at the end of all conditions except 1 (or a minority of them), a return command would then be appropriate inside that excepted condition. ETA: I know that sounded complicated without an example but I'm not that much awake yet.