Phil Deakins

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Pie Serendipity wrote: Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: one of best known architects of the 20th century That's a little like being one of the world's tallest dwarves, isn't it? ETA: I deliberately changed Adolf's first name because I didn't want to be accused of Godwinning the thread. I've never understood why people like you, upon finding they've dug themselves into a hole, grab a bigger shovel. ETA: Bringing Loos, a modernist, to your defense in criticising art (ornamentation), then denigrating the modernist century is the kind of self contradiction you are not learning not to do better than almost anyone I've seen. Bravo! Maddy - and everyone else - there are people, very few people, who it is simply not worthwhile engaging in any sort of reasoned discussion because their objective is not to have a reasoned discussion. Their objective is only to put people down, and engaging with them only feeds their enjoyment. They can be shown to be wrong all day long but they love it because it gives them more opportunities to put people down. One such person is participating in this thread and it is best to ignore that person.

Deltango Vale wrote: "Anyone who imagines differently should explain why they think that TPVs saved SL." ----------------------------------------- TPVs saved SL because V2 was a disaster of galactic magnitude. Phoenix and Firestorm have been adopted by the vast majority of SL residents because the V2 viewer was an unholy kludge based on a misplaced philosophy, designed by a rogue team in secret without any input from the userbase then patched like crazy as a result of howls of protest from every corner of SL. I remember even Desmond Shang - yes, calm, cool and collected Desmond Shang - holding his nose at V2, pleading with LL to fix it because he HAD to use it to avoid liability should anything go wrong inworld. Thank all the gods for TPVs. The V2 was a disaster. I won't argue against that And I won't argue against the idea that TPVs were a godsend at that time, BUT... There is no way that SL would have gone under if the only choice was the V2. Some people actually liked it, some people actually loved it, some people got used to it, new arrivals got used to it because it's what they got, and so on. Some people may have abandoned SL if the only choice was the V2, of course, but there is no way that the V2 would have caused SL to go under if it had been the only choice. Many of us would have moaned and complained but most of us would not have walked out. What TPVs did at that time was save US from the V2. They didn't save SL.

I don't usually see any of the ads but occasionally the blocking system suddenly fails and I see them until the browser or computer is restarted. I'm not seeing them now, but isn't Ad Choices the Google page where you can tailor the ads you get?

This is also aimed at Scooter. You are right about the ToS. I had a look at it and, about submitting content, section 1.3 says, "[...] you are the sole author and owner of the intellectual property and other rights to the User Content, or you have a lawful right to submit the User Content and grant Linden Lab the rights to it that you are granting by this Agreement and any Additional Terms (as defined in Section 2.2 below)," So the ToS does prohibit the uploading of anything where the user doesn't have all the rights that LL claim, which means that the normal licensed stuff can no longer be uploaded. Nevertheless, there is still plenty of previously uploaded licensed stuff in the assets servers that LL cannot assume all the new rights over, and LL can be reasonably expected to know that. So my point in the OP still stands. It is impossible for LL to know which assets in the system were uploaded under limited license, and they cannot legally exercise all the new rights over limited license content, even when the uploaders have clicked to accept the new ToS. What they could do, of course, is flag new content, or start a new store, and only exercise the rights they claim over that. They simply cannot legally do it with some of the previously uploaded content and they have no way of knowing which is which.

I was going to ask you where the Xs that you clicked on were but then I saw one. There are at least 3 versions of the top right corners and only one version has the X. I've no idea if you can finely tune the ads you get any more without Xs on all of them. You can click the top right to go to a Google page and tailor the sort of ads you get though.

Pie Serendipity wrote: Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: I was under the impression that Google became so large because it returned the most relevant results. Good to know it was because they have an empty page. It wasn't a great search engine to begin with - there were lots of better portals which had a massive head start and failed because they confused the user, and are actually still doing so - but people used it because it was simple. The rest is history. ETA: Even Microsoft has eventually realised the need for simplicity, not a multi-purpose portal, but Bing is too little, too late. ETAF: Google Doodles are the art world's equivalent of kids' toys; I don't see them, because on my desktop I have the single essential element of the Google home page - a box to type my search terms in. Google became a successful search engine because of two things:- (1) It returned much better results than any of the other major engines and (2) because it wasn't cluttered with ads and such. #1 was THE main reason. Because of its superior results Google became a major engine through word of mouth, especially from those who were in the search engine business at the time. So contrary to what you wrote, Google WAS a great search engine to begin with. Its results were so superior that other major engines copied it, specifically its majoring on links. They didn't copy it immediately, of course, because there was no money in search engines back then. When Google later started to make huge amounts of money by becoming an advertising agency with an excellent engine, the other copied. And if you are interested in how they knew what to copy, when they were developing Google (called 'Backrub' at the time) at Stanford University, Google's creators published how the engine worked, and it's still online for all to see. Incidentally, the portals you mentioned - the major engines at the time - failed because they never found a way to make money. By the time that Google showed the way, it was too late. Some of them had already gone to the wall by then.

In that case, your original post was written in such a way that it gave the wrong impression.

You seem to be interested in it, so here's some information for you that may or may not interest you. Google started this type of advertising with what they called AdWords. The other engines saw that finally a search was making real money, which was something new, so they followed suit. AdWords are the ads you see with the search results. On the results pages, they are on the right side and at the top with a cream background. I see that there are also some Wajam ads above those at the top but I'm out of touch and I don't know what they are. Advertisers pay for clicks on the AdWords ads. The way that some people make a lot of money from is by taking out AdWords ads themselves. They do it in this way. They find AdWords fields in which advertisers pay a lot of money per click, and then they'll take lower cost AdWords ads out in the same field. Sometimes their ads will get clicks and the user will be sent to a page of more Google ads - ads of the companies that pay a lot per click. So, when the user clicks on one of those ads, the arbitrager will get a large amount for the click. They'll pay Google a smaller amount for the click on their own low cost ad, and the difference is the profit. It's called arbitraging. That's how some people make a very good living from AdWords. It sound a bit underhanded but Google were well aware of it pretty much from the start and, the last I heard, they were happy enough with it because users got to where they wanted to go, albeit with an extra page in between. Then Google expanded their advertising system and got website owners to host the ads. That's AdSense, and it's the system that's used on LL's websites. Here again, some people use it to make a lot of money by hosting the ads but going further with them. They make a lot of small MFA (Made For AdSense) websites for the ads and seo them up the search engines' rankings. The sites often contain interesting text, of course, and suitable inbound links are organised, all of which helps them up the rankings, but they are there solely to get clicks on the AdSense ads. For people who want to make good money from those systems, the opportunities are there, but it does take ongoing time to keep abreast of changes that are always happening. I made a lot of money from AdSense ads on my sites but that was because my sites were already at or near the top of the search engine results for lots of searchterms.and got a lot of traffic. I didn't need to keep at it and follow all the changes. I didn't make any MFA sites. I also made some money in a similar way to arbitraging but I didn't keep at it for long because it was necessary to be at it much of the time. I used a small UK engine that only produced advertisers' result - the results were all pay-per-click ads. I got into the gambling sites field where the advertisers were competing on price per click on a hourly basis. They'd work their way up to around £30 per click (that's about $50 per click) and then drop down again, only to start the cycle over again. I was an affiliate for engine so I got money for clicks that were done on my site. I also took out low cost ads for one of the top few sites that were competing like that. My ads advertised the one I'd chosen and was still on the first results page but lower down. The difference in cost per click was huge. When someone clicked on one of my ads, the user came to my site, but they never actually saw it. On receiving the click-through on my ad in the engine's results, the back end of my site did an auto-search in the same engine and it received the results. From the results it picked the result for the gambling site that I'd chosen and did an auto-click on it. So the engine got the full amount for the click from the gambling site plus the small amount from the click on my ad, I, as an affiliate, got my share of what the gambling site paid the engine, and the user got to the site s/he wanted to go to without seeing anything in between. Everyone was a winner I cleared the method with the engine so it was all above board. But it did take ongoing time to keep up with things so I only did it for a short time. I much preferred to just set things up and then sit back and leave it to earn money. It was good fun though.

I think you're still mistaken. Your quote from your original post that we're talking about states that "A club owner who is threatened by a dj that plays at other clubs needs to re-evalute their business", as you rightly said. But that club owner wasn't the OP (the DJ). It was the club owner who rejected the OP's application. The application was rejected because the OP was also a club owner, and not because he "is a DJ that plays at other clubs."

Czari Zenovka wrote: Tagging onto Perrie's post but it is to the thread... Just got this notice in the Content Creators Group: Bryn Oh, long an avid and powerful supporter of the arts, resigns her role with the LEA (Linden Endowment for the Arts) in response to the August 2013 Terms of Service. Unfortunately, Bryn Oh's action, and the downing tools of some creators, won't be noticed by the LL population, and everything will continue in SL as before. I seriously dislike the new ToS, and I'd absolutely hate it if I were an artist who uploaded my work, or a texture or mesh designer, etc., but, on the whole, the actions of a few won't make a scrap of difference to anything, imo. If, and it's a *very* big if, LL became plagued with objections, petitions, etc., etc., then they may rewrite the ToS, but, even then, they wouldn't have to rewrite it because the vast majority of users will stay, the vast majority of creators will continue creating and selling, some artists and mesh designers will probably stop uploading their stuff, most of those who buy licenses for textures and meshes will probably stop doing that, but, in the overall view of things, nothing significant will change and SL will continue as normal, in my opinion.

Trinity Yazimoto wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Trinity Yazimoto wrote: I dont think they will take the items like they are displayed in sl. They will take the files. PNG and TGA for textures, DAE for meshes etc.... But it is impossible for them to know which texture files they can legally use, because it's impossible for them to know which ones the uploader had all the rights to and which were only under license. LL has no way of knowing so they can't legally use them. they dont care, they are covered by the new tos and by the dmca process... if something is prooved as stolen content, the dmca will take it down and the fault will be thrown on the sl resident who first uploaded that and lied saying (when s/he agreed with the tos) that s/he had enought rights on the files to give full licence to LL First: No ToS trumps the law. If LL is caught breaking the law, their ToS can't save them. Second: LL can be reasonably expected to know that licensed textures are uploaded into SL and that those who upload them don't have all the rights to them. The ToS does not prohibit the uploading of textures that are not fully owned by the user. Therefore, LL can be reasonably expected to know that they cannot have all the rights they claim in the ToS over every uploaded texture. That being the case, it's my opinion that LL would not have a legal leg to stand on if they were challenged in court for misusing a licensed texture.

Malanya wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: You have mistaken what's been said in this thread. He didn't not get the job because he has a group for DJing. He failed to get the job because he is a club owner; i.e. a competitor. There's a world of difference. I know that, I didn't misread. Maybe my reply didn't convey that? He is ALSO a dj not just a club owner. I think I clarified that in my reply. Maybe you have mistaken my reply. Here is part of what I wrote in my reply " A club owner who is threatened by a dj that plays at other clubs needs to re-evalute their business." I didn't think I need to add anything else since his OP explained he was also a club owner. Your post, even the part you quoted, only talked about DJs who work at other clubs and what you wrote sounded as though you thought he didn't get the job because he worked at other clubs. That's why I pointed out that he failed to get the job for an entirely different reason.

It depends on whether or not the advertiser pays on clicks or on sales/sign-ups. If they pay for clicks, the affiliate/publisher (LL) will get money just because you clicked on the ad, regardless of whether or not you buy anything. If they pay for sales/sign-ups, and you save the destination page in your favourites, LL's affiliate ID will be part of the page's URL and, when you open the page again, LL will get money if you buy something. If they pay on sales/sign-ups and you don't buy/sign-up at the time or via your favourites, but you only back to the site via another route, such as a search engine, then the affiliate (LL) gets nothing. Note 1: Doing multiple clicks in a relatively short space of time won't cause LL to get a payment for each click. The ad system companies, in this case Google, have systems in place to handle that sort of thing. Note 2: I may have made a mistake earlier when I said that publishers (affiliates) don't get a percentage of sales. On reflection, maybe they do. It's been quite a few years since was involved in it and my memory is known for being less than perfect.

Alicia Sautereau wrote: Alright, you`re right about that, but the blank claim on everything sure makes it stinks from all sides as they are knowingly keep stolen content inworld and on the marketplace. I can't do anything but agree with that. That's also true although I can't criticise them for now knowing exactly which items are stolen. The best that a company like LL can do is respond to reports of stolen items.

You have mistaken what's been said in this thread. He didn't not get the job because he has a group for DJing. He failed to get the job because he is a club owner; i.e. a competitor. There's a world of difference.

Scooter Hollow wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: This is a reply to your second to last post above this one I've arrived at a conclusion since I posted the one to which you replied. I am now of the opinion that the ideas of LL setting things up to sell SL complete with content, and LL wanting to sell or pass content to any of their other products, don't hold water. The reason being that LL would not only have to differentiate between assets that have had the ToS accepted and those that have not - difficult enough - but they'd also have to differentiate between assets that are not owned by the uploaders but are used under license, and that's totally impossible to do. I.e. the uploaders of assets that are under license do not have the legal right to grant LL all the rights in the ToS, so LL can't have the legal right to include them with a sale of SL or pass them to people using other programmes. I may be wrong, of course, but I'm now leaning more towards your idea of things. I don't know why people keep saying it would be too difficult to figure out what content qualifies under the new TOS; it would be extremely easy. Anything uploaded after the date the new TOS took effect is theirs. A very very simple search filter to run, and scrape out all of the older content. As for whether or not the content actually belonged to the uploaders, they're home free under that too. Under the TOS, the uploader assumes all responsibilities for claiming they have the rights to upload what they are. Maybe they could have an intern go through and drop all the Iron Man armors and Skyrim weapons but they're perfectly free to offer everything and wait til a content creator complains officially before taking anything down. LL has good reason to know that some uploaded textures are uploaded by people who only have a license to use them in certain ways. Therefore, LL can be expected to know that they can't have total rights over all uploaded textures and, in those circumstances, I feel sure that they could be held accountable if they exercised total rights over them.

Trinity Yazimoto wrote: I dont think they will take the items like they are displayed in sl. They will take the files. PNG and TGA for textures, DAE for meshes etc.... But it is impossible for them to know which texture files they can legally use, because it's impossible for them to know which ones the uploader had all the rights to and which were only under license. LL has no way of knowing so they can't legally use them.

Snugs McMasters wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I may be wrong, of course, but I'm now leaning more towards your (Maddy's) idea of things. Don't do it Phil! You lean her way and the next thing you know, your wallet is missing! LMAO! I can assure you that Maddy won't get my wallet I keep it down the front of my pants!

This is a reply to your second to last post above this one I've arrived at a conclusion since I posted the one to which you replied. I am now of the opinion that the ideas of LL setting things up to sell SL complete with content, and LL wanting to sell or pass content to any of their other products, don't hold water. The reason being that LL would not only have to differentiate between assets that have had the ToS accepted and those that have not - difficult enough - but they'd also have to differentiate between assets that are not owned by the uploaders but are used under license, and that's totally impossible to do. I.e. the uploaders of assets that are under license do not have the legal right to grant LL all the rights in the ToS, so LL can't have the legal right to include them with a sale of SL or pass them to people using other programmes. I may be wrong, of course, but I'm now leaning more towards your idea of things.

I didn't say anything about stolen content. I merely stated that the ToS claims all the rights there are except actual ownership. There was no need to change the ToS because of stolen content "in the warehouse". Changing the ToS makes no difference at all to that situation.

Thank you, Maddy. I've either seen that page before or one very much like it. It's about creating unusual shapes in the normal way. I wonder if torturing was the method in your second paragraph - setting the parameters for a prim that will take them and then changing the shape to one that won't take those parameters.

To be honest, I've no idea how to torture prims. I read about it many years ago but I didn't try to hold it in my memory. I don't even know if it's still possible.

Phoebe Avro wrote: So LL now own all the ripped Skyrim content on the MP ^^ i am sure Bethesda would be interested in that, now there is some one worth taking to court for compensation! No. They don't claim ownership of it all. They claim all the rights the owners have except actual ownership.

Perrie Juran wrote: Give me half an hour with someone and I can basically teach them how to torture a prim into any shape they want. Try doing that with sculpties or mesh. I have to challenge that statement My understanding of torturing a prim is not taking a prim and reshaping it in the Edit box. It's reshaping the prim in ways that the Edit box does not allow. Not all reshaping options are available to all prims. Some prim shapes are missing some options. Torturing a prim is applying the missing options to it. My question therefore is, do you mean torturing a prim, or do you mean reshaping it with its available Edit box options?

It was Google who threw him out of their AdSense programme and it looks like he was cheating. His messages to them sound like he's cheating too. The amount he said he was making isn't outlandish though. There is a lot of money to be made from Google's AdSense (and from AdWords). I was earning at the rate of between $30,000 and $40,000 a year from AdSense. I let it slide quite a few years ago but I still get hundreds of $ each month from it. Some people make it a full time, well-paying, job.