Phil Deakins

That sound like fun, Freya If it does searches on Google too quickly, Google will automatically prevent it from getting results. They have systems in place to prevent auto-searching when they can. I've even been stopped when searching by hand - when looking for something specific, I'd go through all the results pages quickly until I found it. My button presses must have been too quick and too regular and the auto-system kicked in. If I remember right, I had to do something that needed human eyes in order to continue. That happened a few times. I've written programmes that do auto-searches but I knew enough to write them so that they didn't do quick and regular searches, and they were never stopped by the system. One programme I wrote searched over 70 of the Google search IPs so I could see the results on the different datacentres - they do vary. They didn't have that many datacentres at that time but it was only by doing searches on them all that I came to realise that each datacentre could be accessed on several IPs.

LL does have some choice in that they can choose not to take ads from specific companies but, unless things have changed since I last looked some years ago, they can't choose not to take ads on certain topics, such as ads for other £D environments. If they spot an ad from a competing company, they can choose not to take ads from that company any more. They can't peruse ads in advance, and choose or reject some. They get what they are given and only then can they reject ads from specific companies. LL could and should reject ads from whoever is advertising as a download button and the one at the bottom. They may have done it already but what are the chances of LL being on top of things like that?

Excellent post, Trinity.

I didn't fully understand what your wrote but the textures you uploaded before the ToS change are still ok to use because you uploaded them under earlier versions of the ToS which didn't contain anything to prevent it. With the current ToS, we are prevented from uploading anything that we don't have all the rights to, so, yes, it has stopped people from buying limited rights to textures and uploading the textures. If people stay within the ToS, it will definitely change things for many creators, but that's what LL has done, and I assume that's what they intended to do.

I don't get any warnings about any of them. LL doesn't choose the ads. Google's AdSense system does. By "non-malicious", I meant that it's not a virus, it won't hurt anything, or anything like that. It will have arrived in my computer with an update to something and not just by visiting a malicious webpage. Oh. And the Andrews Sisters were wrong. Money is not the root of all evil. The *love* of money is

It seems that you didn't understand what I meant by the clear line. The line is between the stuff that LL can use freely and stuff that they run risks by using freely. That's all. Nothing more. What was uploaded before the ToS change hasn't suddenly become non-usable, because it was uploaded under earlier versions of the ToS which didn't state that a person who uploads to SL must have the all the new-ToS-listed rights to pass on to LL. So all is well with the world .

There isn't anyone or anything that's responsible for approving all the code that the interwebz works with. You might mean protocols. If you do, all browsers adhere to the internet's communications protocols.

I'm (almost) right with you there, Freya, but I'd write it a bit differently I was delighted when Netscape folded because, up until then (I wasn't on the web before IE was launched), we had to create webpages for the two main browsers (IE and NS), and, of course, for one or two back versions of each of them. That annoyed me, especially when NS went their own idiotic way with NS4. At that point, there was only IE that was worth catering for. It was the only browser in town that had more than a few users, and it could be rightly said that IE was 'the standard'. IE implemented some of the W3C recommendation differently to what W3C recommended, but IE was the standard because it was the only major browser. Other browsers came along and they ought to have done things in the 'standard' way but they didn't. In fact, W3C ought to have altered their recommendations to match the standards of the time. If either of those things had happened, then the need to do things for different browsers wouldn't have happened again. It's my guess that the anti-IE attitude got in the way even then. E.g. "Why should MS dictate things?" No browser implements all of the W3C recommendations, and if one browser implements something that other browsers don't, which is always the case, and the web designer wants to use that something, then pages have to be made that accommodate the various browsers. That's even if IE didn't exist. Of the browsers you mentioned, Opera has been around the longest and it still hasn't taken off, so there's never a need to mention it or cater for it I have no objections to MS including IE with Windows. Something has to be included or it would be a bit silly to sell an operating mass system without the ability to get on the web.

LOL. I *do* use the official viewer I think the anti-IE and anti-LL viewer attitudes are much more to do with a sort of bandwagon and nothing to do with sense or reality. Out of interest, everyone uses the LL viewer. A lot use a modified version of it, that's all.

I can't disagree with anything you wrote, Ceka. The first V2 did just what you said it did, and so on. I thought so highly of the V3 when it came out that I started a thread in praise of it. After a while they 'improved' it so that I couldn't stay logged in for more than a few seconds - and I wasn't the only one affected by that. But they dealt with it and I use the LL V3 for my main avatar now. Perhaps the TPVs were slow getting to the V3 because they don't create their own viewers. They modify LL's viewer, that all, and maybe LL didn't release the V3 code so quickly.

If it is the XXS bit, you could perhaps change it to read something like:- 5 sizes, from large to extra-extra-small

UPDATE: As a result of some discussion the General Discussion forum, I have now added a little to my thoughts in the first post. I still believe that what I wrote in the first post is valid but now I believe it's only valid up to the point when the new ToS was published. Anything uploaded to SL after that must, of course, have been uploaded by people who accepted the new ToS, and so LL can use that stuff as though they have full rights over it, without any need for them to differentiate between that which is only licensed and never came with full rights, and that which came with full rights. It states very clearly in the new ToS (section 1.3 I think) that we can only upload stuff over which we have all the rights that are listed in the new ToS. So, if someone still buys a limited license for, say, a texture, then they effectively lie to LL by uploading it. That's regardless of whether or not the texture seller says it can be used in SL. The lie is that they do have all the rights over it that are listed in the new ToS. But LL has no way of knowing one way or the other, so they have to take the user's word for it. In that case, although LL could be made to remove all instances of the texture, and perhaps pay something to the rightful owner commensurate with what money LL made from it, they wouldn't be liable for damages, imo.

You may be right about that side of the pond, Qie. OR there may be a misunderstanding between us. I think a misunderstanding is the more likely. When I say "liable", I don't mean that the possessor of the stolen item would be able to keep the item. It would have to be returned to its rightful owner, of course. I meant that the one in possession of it, who had no way of knowing that it was stolen, couldn't be charged with a criminal offense. In this case, it wouldn't be criminal but it still applies. If LL uses an item in ways that need full rights but they didn't have full rights, then the rightful owner could have it returned (all instances completely removed), of course, plus some financial deal according to how much LL made from it. BUT, and this is the main bit, the rightful owner would not be able to claim damages on top because there was no way for LL to know that they didn't have full rights. In fact, LL had effectively been told that they *did* have full rights They had been effectively lied to. The uploader (s/he who gave away something that was not his/hers to give away) is the one who could be held liable for damages. Like you, I'm not a lawyer, etc., etc. So all of that is just my current opinion. Note: I wonder if the uploading process now includes a confirmation by the uploader that s/he has full rights. E.g. "By uploading this file you confirm that you have full rights to it" - stuff like that.

I think I have a slightly different view to you, Qie. I feel certain LL could not get away with exercising full rights over content that was uploaded before the new ToS came into force if the content was only under license. After the new ToS came into force is very different, imo. The fact of possessing something that was stolen does not mean that you are at fault and can be blamed. If there is no way that you could have known the thing was stolen then I don't believe you can be held liable. LL has stated very clearly in the new ToS that we can only upload things that we have all the listed rights to, and that excludes the limited rights that are granted to someone who buys a license for the item. If I go ahead and buy a limited rights license for, say, a texture, and I upload it into SL, I effectively tell LL that I have all the rights to the texture and I can give LL all the rights to it. The fact those rights weren't mine to give, makes me responsible and liable, and the fact that LL specifically said that I must not do that means that LL is not liable, imo. Also, bearing in mind that the SL system is such that LL cannot ascertain whether or not an uploader has full rights, either during the upload or after it, I feel sure that LL could not be held liable for exercising full right over anything that is uploaded after the new ToS came into force. They could not acquire full rights, of course, but they couldn't be held liable if they used the item in ways that required full rights, imo. ETA: The publication of the new ToS drew a very clear and very black line. LL would run risks if they exercised full rights over anything that was uploaded before they were published. And LL would run no risks at all by exercising full rights over anything that is uploaded after they were published. That's my current view.

Yes, there are a number of ways by which LL can reliably exercise the new rights over only content that is uploaded after the new ToS. It may well be that they intend using user content as though it is their own but they can only do it reliably and legally with that which is uploaded after the new ToS came into force. If anything is uploaded after that, the uploaders have accepted the ToS and, if they don't have full rights to what they upload, it's their responsibility and not LL's. They would have effectively lied to LL about what rights they have, so LL would not be liable.

It's all ben a bit strange lately. Suddenly, the ads would start to show. I've seen it before but it's ben happening more lately. I have a reason for wanting to see the ads now, so I'm happy to remove the blocking - and I can now get to the SL site, of course

The ad blocking I was using is built into the IE browser, so I just disabled it. I had originally played with filtering but no ad-blocking is enabled now and I don't think I'll play with any again for a while.

Keli. In an earlier long post (on the previous page) I mentioned the Wajam ads on Google's results pages, and I said that I'm out of touch so I didn't know what they were. I've just discovered what they are. Wajam is a non-malicious system that's snuck onto my computer as a browser add-on. It changed pages to include ads. I've removed it now. I thought I'd mention it in case you come across it. I discovered that in the process of removing my ad blocking for a different reason, so now I'll be able to check if the change I made still exists - when I see a top-right corner of an ad that will take me to that page again.

valerie Inshan wrote: No fault for me Phil. So... it has to be yours! :P With a face like you have, there can be no fault for you

I've turned off ad blocking and I can now get to the main SL website. It's odd that it suddenly went wrong though.

Yesterday and today I have been unable to load the SL website. For instance, clicking the logo on the top-left of this page normally takes me to the site's homepage or to the login page, but now it takes me to a totally white page with the Title "OpenId transaction in progress". Typing http://www.secondlife.com/ into the address bar does exactly the same. Is it just me or is there a fault?

Cerise Sorbet wrote: The change LL made means that if you are getting charged by a group now, the group owner chose to do it that way. There was never any automatic notice about this, and not really a good way to do that; roles can have this property toggled on and off whenever the group owner feels like it. Or it's an older group and the owner still isn't aware that it's turned on.

True enough. If they want to exercise full rights over new content, they can do it that way.

I didn't get the impression that I could fine tune it that much but I didn't really examine it closely. You can keep your yoghurt though

I believe don't have to log in. If you just set things as you want them and leave or close the page, your changes should remain - stored in a cookie. I did that yesterday without logging in, and then I went back to see if the change I made was still there, and it was. It didn't know what language I wanted so I set it to English and closed the page. I then clicked on another ad to get the page again and the change was still there - stored in a cookie. The next time I see ads I'll go to the page again to check if the change is still there.