Ziggy21 Slade

The Vampire thing is because Vampires are a massive part of popular culture right now following the 'Twilight' Series/Saga of books and movies. The movies have grossed over $2 billion and the books have sold over 116 million copies so it makes sense for LL to present SL as a place for Vampires to hang out especially since there are an awful lof of them here. I would agree its time for a new banner now but this particular Vampire Campaign has only been running since New Years, so I dont think 4 weeks is unreasonable. I would also add that of all the seasonal events, Valentines is very much the last minute one, usually I hardly sell anything Valentines related until a few days before with about 90% of sales on the 13th. I would certainly like to see them promoting SL in different ways, but i thought the association with 'Twilight' made good sense.

I think what is sad is that an experienced resident would be so judgemental. What leads you to believe that this dog isn't currently getting plenty of exercise? and even if it isn't what business is it of yours?. What a totally lame, noobish comment. I would suggest you try getting a bit of exercise yourself, it might give you a better attitude.

As others have pointed out reviews are often abused a bit so they do have to be taken with a pinch of salt. I do have to say though, you do seem pretty keen to write bad reviews and although, as Sassy points out, this is your right, you could at least give the merchant an opportunity to rectify an issue before publicly condemning their product, its a bit like going to a restaurant and getting a bad meal and saying nothing about it at the time while the restauranteur has the chance to fix things and then complaining at the end when you get the bill and its too late for anything to be done. Isabella Seibert wrote: 2- bought an item....crap...trashed it ..wrote bad review ..... I realise of course, that you are trying to be brief here, but "bought and Item....crap...trashed it" doesn't sound like the basis of a very considered or constructive opinion and the fact that your review was removed probably suggests it was downright unfair. Remember creators are real people, for most this is a little hobby that makes them or maybe costs them a little bit of money and all are learning on the job at one level or another. You want reviews which are honest and fair, are you sure that yours was, because it seems LL didn't.

I am pretty sure the only place you can use an animated GIF is in a listing where there is a specific place for it, and it then appears if a user clicks the Watch it action link under the main image. It would be nice if I was wrong but I dont think I am.

Interesting post. Last week I watched an award winning documentary called Tallhotblond, which tells the true story of an online Love Triangle started on Facebook which ends in an horrific murder. None of the people involved in this were at all honest with each other and they all said and did things online which were out of character to their Real Lives. A lot was made of how easily these people were able to deceive each other, alongside a good attempt to show and understand the real emotions which led them down their fateful road. It struck me at the time that had these people come to SL and not FB, they could have done so much more to develop and express their online personas, they could have been as deceitful as they like with each other and indulged their fantasies to the fullest and no one would have minded or got too upset because here for most, thats part of the game. They wanted to lead fantasy lives but because their medium was Facebook each assumed the other was being honest and this led to disastrous consequences. I think this illustrates a fundamental difference between SL and FB though, it seems to me that FB for most is about connecting with other parts of your RL, work collegaues, old school friends, estranged family members etc, Second Life I think is about disconnecting from RL, leaving all those people behind and being someone else. I would agree that SL has so much more to offer than FB, but I am not sure they will ever really compete because they do somewhat different jobs.

April Looming wrote: So just imagine your average SL griefer thinking "hmmm. This sounds like fun." No need to actually have his argument win; just tie up SL in legal action. What if LL doesn't have the cash to fight a bunch of legal battles? What if the merchants that depend on SL for their main income face a potential shutdown? I believe SL would be a very different place. This a highly unlikely scenario, an individual starting a law suit against a decent sized corporate certainly isn't going to be having a lot of fun, he still has to put evidence before a judge and have him agree there is a case to be heard, at the very least its going to be extremely costly in time an effort, and one would assume that as with DMCA if a law suit is brought incorrectly the complainant is liable for the losses of the defendant, this is hardly going to be something 'your average SL griefer' is involved in, if that were the case we would all already be receiving regular take down notices under DMCA. I don't like the idea of this legislation, I see it as the start of the slippery slope of censorship, but we shouldn't panic and waste our time worrying about fantastical over dramatic scenarios like $500 uploads and SL being shutdown, there really is nothing in this legislation to suggest that either of these things may come to pass even if it is passed in it's current form which it probably won't be. "Legislation should not include a private right of action that would invite suits by 'trolls' to extort settlements from intermediaries or sites who are making good faith efforts to comply with the law," Google vice-president and Chief Counsel Kent Walker has said in Congressional testimony

I think this legislation does sound very scary, and whilst I defintely don't agree with it, there does seem to be quite a lot of misinformation about it. The legislation is designed to target torrent sites and the like, sites who's main aim is to share copyrighted material.... Infringement exists if "facts or circumstances suggest [the site] is used, primarily as a means for engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the activities described." It would be difficult to form a legal argument which said that the Second Life's PRIMARY reason for existing and the main activity of its users was illegal file sharing. Thats not to say I am naive enough to believe that such legislation won't be misused should it come into effect. I havent seen any mention anywhere other than here of huge upload fees to cover the cost of detecting illegal content, after all DMCA already covers this offence and we don't pay huge fees now. A sound legal argument has to be presented to block a site, and this of course can be disputed so sites cannot be taken down 'without question' . In the case of streaming music, I don't think its very expensive to actually operate legally, sites like Live365 for instance offer packages for small internet broadcasters, and I think there may well be even cheaper solutions if you live in Europe. This of course covers the internet broadcasting of the music and obvioulsy not the original illegal download (assuming many DJs usually obtain their files in this way.) The other way around this of course is to pay an artist to perform live, and more new artists gettting paid has to be a good thing for SL and for music generally. Given the number and magnitude of the opponents to this legislation, it seems fairly unlikely it will be passed in its current form, I really, really hope not, but I dont think it will be the end of the world or the end of our specific world if it does become law.

Alicia Sautereau wrote: No offense, but all i can say is "lol" I bought a walkway that wasn`t cheap, but very cool. 1 week later, i learned blender, sculpties, fractionals the ins&outs with possibilities and improved it. You know what? when my house is finished, again (thanks asset server), that i will put on the market place for l$0 , i will be putting some time again to make some sculpty stuff and give it out for free aswell. While we are on the whiny tour, some will remember i had a tier system for estates 3 years ago for wich people now pay alot of money, i`m in the early stages of recoding it from scratch and make it free for every one to host it them selfs... And then i`m going to add some additional modules, like a rental box, overal accounting overview, vendors and security system tied to the user`s land in the tier/rental module... Who evers remembers me from the old days, *waves*, i`m back with a vengence against overpriced stuff :matte-motes-evil: /end rant, see you in a couple of months again What a really lousy attitude. You write with what seems to be smug pleasure at the idea that you are going to maliciously undercut others with freebies, as Toy points out this seems to be more about feeding your own ego than the delusion that you are doing something for the community. What possible justification can there be for producing a commercial product like a tier system for estates, i.e. used by other residents to make money, and then giving it away for free. Anyone purchasing such a product, by defintion has already spent hundreds of dollars getting an estate to rent out, they are not some broke newbie who needs a few free clothes to wear. It has no marketing value since they are hardly likely to pop back a week later to see if you made a more fashionable tier system for them to add to their collection. I think you should re examine your motivation for this and double check that there is a positive idea at the heart of it. If you dislike overpriced stuff, make and sell reasonably priced stuff, you don't have to instantly jump to freebies. I would also be interested to know how you determine what is overpriced stuff, have you surveyed any customers and discovered them to be dissatisfied with pricing?, in who's name are you waging this campaign? and to what end? are you hoping for a day when all stuff is free?, because when that day comes it's all over. no more ego trip, no more SL, and no more old friends to wave to. It's also worth remembering who is behind some of the avatars here, there are disabled people who dont have the employment choices many people enjoy, single mothers trying to scrape together a few extra dollars to keep their kids happy, older unemployed people who can't get job offers, students having their first attempt at entrepreneurship. A healthy vibrant marketplace where people can make fair money is a great thing for many people and without it SL would not exist, anyone who sets out with malicious intent to destroy this is a..... expletive deleted!! In answer to the OP, yes please kick out this freebie rubbish and the numskulls who inflict it upon us.

TOO LATE! I got someone thanks

Sadly I don't have a regular job to offer at the moment, however I do have some really easy, a little boring, admin type work I need doing during the next 2 or 3 weeks. No experience, special appearance, language or time inworld is required. Work can be completed at your convenience within the next 2 or 3 weeks. Very good rate of pay for work of this nature. As this job will suit anyone I am likely to hire the first person to contact me, so don't hesitate. IMs inworld please to Ziggy21 Slade

It sounds like you have a great skill set for SL. It really depends on how much you want to commit yourself, but I would advise creatiing a range of products and selling them yourself rather than doing custom work for others. Because things sell for relatively low prices here, people have low price mindset so it's very difficult to earn a decent rate doing custom work, if you manage to make minimum wage you will be doing very well indeed. Creating your own products and selling them won't bring a return as quickly, but over time someone with your skills can easily make a decent rate on a product. As an example, a product I developed, originally from free scripts which I have modded, has sold over 2000 copies over the last 4 years, each sold for around $2 US each, which means I have made over $4000 US from selling a product which took a total of around 40 hours to develop (I have updated it a few times). As a rough guess, if I had paid you to develop this for me, you would probably have walked away with about $400 US. The other main advantage I see is that you get to make what you want, when you want. On the down side, marketing your own products is time consuming, packaging, creating listings, managing a store (if you decide you need one), all these things seem to expand to fill all available time, most creators enjoy a lot of this stuff, but it's not for everyone, If you are currently in a serious RL relationship, you may not be for much longer if you decide to take this route. Prices for textures are usually pretty cheap, although sets of textures that work together can go for much higher prices, L$3000 ($12 US) per pack for instance. Skins vary in price from Free through to about L$4000 ($16 US) for a quality posh one. Residents who are not involved in creating and selling or have so far been unsuccessful at it, have absolutely no idea how much money it's possible to make here, people can and do live off their SL earnings ( I make about 2 thirds of what I make at my fairly low paid RL job), although it has to be said such merchants are very much in the minority. Having said that there are thousands of us who are making a credit crunch busting extra bit of pocket money each week. I suggest you check out inworld search > events > education (not sure if its the same in the new viewers), where you will find plenty of free building classes, give a few of these a go, even though you already have skills, it will open your eyes to the possiblilities. Good Luck Dude !

Yeah, I have to admit - gut feeling is definitely a large part of it, as you say it's difficult to accurately track the results, although until Google came along all advertising was like this, you stuck your ad in the local paper or wherever and hoped the phone rang more times. Having said that I do vary the products I enhance from time to time and the places the enhancements run and I do see fluctuations in sales which seem to relate to this. IMHO anyone who says they dont look at adverts, or does't pay attention to them, is simply mistaken. For a start the Marketplace is a collection of 1.7 million adverts, so just by using it you are being advertised to . If a user goes to the homepage and sees a homepage enhanced item that they like the look of they will check it out and may well buy it, I find it very difficult to believe that they are never ever at least curious about the odd item they spot on the homepage. Similarly with category landing pages, we would have to assume that the user drills down to the required category and then, unlike ever other person on the planet, starts reading the page from the bottom or flicks forward several pages in order to avoid anything that has been enhanced. Granted it may well be that each user is not checking out enhanced items on every visit, but they don't need to because there are tens of thousands of users all of whom ARE going to be influenced at one time or another. Although you posted in the Fashion Forum, which is not just creators, I would expect there to be quite a lot of creators reading and responding there, which begs the question why aren't they checking out those adverts? and how do they plan to compete if they don't know what the competition is up to.

I agree the holiday one was very, very late, sales of Christmas decorations etc are pretty much over now .

I run quite a few enhancements, about 25 this month, but I will reduce this to about 15 after christmas. they defintely make a difference for me, although I think some products do better on the Homepage and others are better on the category landing page, I haven't figured out a pattern to this, it's probably most heavily affected by the product's main image. I have also had a good hit rate occassionaly from the Checkout Receipt page. No doubt you will see plenty of posts here from people who say that enhancements don't work, my guess is that many of these people will have never run enhancements or will have only run one for a small amount of time. In my experience the results are not always instant, and often seem to affect other products as well as the one being advertised.

Josh Susanto wrote: I'm not merely arguing the probability of detection. I'm also arguing the probability of the image being determined to be an infringement of some other image in the event that anyone should make such a claim. In other words - Detection. Josh Susanto wrote: If I have to check the copyright office to make sure that these users are the registered holders of copyright before I use the images, then I'm not going to be able to produce very much for them. Normal practice in circumstances like this would be to get the client to sign a form stating that they owned the copyright or had permission from the copyright holder. If you had any practical experience and knowledge of matters like this you would know that already. How quick Josh can make things is not considered in copyright law. I really am leaving this debate now, to other readers I would say, IMHO Josh has no idea what he is talking about, and is trying to find ways to justify his own underhand creation methods, believe what he says at your peril!.

Josh Susanto wrote: >I know I said I wouldn't debate this further And yet you do. So you misrepresented your position, and that's wrong. I changed my mind and gave reasons why, nothing wrong with that. Josh Susanto wrote: Repeated disparagement, in and of itself, is not a viable argument. I was hoping it might make you consider the consequences of stating things like this in a public forum which may be being read by young or inexperienced people. Josh Susanto wrote: >Under absolutely no circumstances could this ever be considered 'fair use'. As you say it doesn't take a law degree to know this. Fair Use covers using images in things like news reporting, reviews and education, it certainly does not allow for commercial use. Incorrect. The item may be used commercially, but it must have other cultural merits. No correct, the scenario you described did not offer 'other cultural merits' did it ? Josh Susanto wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use > I understand the points you made about Google, but unfortunately for you the Law is determined by the setting legal precendents, Such as?... [3, 4, 5, 6,] ? This Wikipedia page directly contradicts your argument, I have no idea why you included it. Josh Susanto wrote: 1) I actually described doing quite a bit more than that. No you desrcibed doing very slightly more than that, i.e making it negative and switching the red and blue channels. Josh Susanto wrote: 2) If the result is unactionable, how can you define it as noncompliant?. So if a guy robs a bank and leaves no evidence, no law was broken? Josh Susanto wrote: >I would agree you are unlikely to be caught but that is a different debate. Maybe you'd like it to be a different debate. But if you should some day have reason to throw a similar example to a corporate legal team, I expect you'll find that it quickly becomes the same debate, and a very short one. I now offer a free product that meets your own personal criteria of infringement, and I offer L$10000 to the first person who can show me the source of the image. Once you've seen the images side by side, you'll see the relationship, except that I'm pretty sure that would never happen before any applicable copyright should expire. Please feel free to contact what you consider to be the infringed party and see how far that goes. When you've given up, you'll finally understand what the law is and what it isn't. So you have no moral input on this whatsoever, if you can get away with it it's fine.? I wonder if you draw any lines at all on this, are your fellow merchants safe from your dishonest thievery , for instance.? Its a great shame you havent created anything worth stealing, I think you would see things very differently if you had. As for not understanding the law, your understanding seems to be, if no one has caught me, I havent done anything wrong, so lets see how far that goes.

I suggest giving all of your money to me, I will take good care of it and of course return it when you need it. Honest : )

Josh Susanto wrote: I also claim that "if" I've taken a bark texture, produced a seamless version, run it negative, switched blue and red layers, enlarged the image 4x, added a fictive layer of resolution, turned the grain sideways and wrapped the thing around a 3D model of a tree trunk, what I end up selling doesn't require a law degree to understand to be fair use, even assuming that a photographer somewhere has an IBM mainframe working 24/7 to identify potentially derivative images, and that it somehow manages to spot the texture I'm using. I know I said I wouldn't debate this further but it really bothers me that you would put such misinformation here, it really is the most irresponsible foolishness. Under absolutely no circumstances could this ever be considered 'fair use'. As you say it doesn't take a law degree to know this. Fair Use covers using images in things like news reporting, reviews and education, it certainly does not allow for commercial use. I understand the points you made about Google, but unfortunately for you the Law is determined by the setting legal precendents, not by what Josh thinks it should be. Although you have done your best to give the impression that you are completely changing the image this again has no connection at all with 'Fair Use', but then I am sure you can't seriously believe that making an image larger and turning it sideways somehow absolves you of the need to comply with copyright law. I would agree you are unlikely to be caught but that is a different debate.

Randall Ahren wrote: I did a copy and paste from the actual statute, and indicated it was a partial quote by stating "in pertinent part". What is your concern with 17 USC 106A(a)? I didn't believe it was pertinent, so I didn't quote it.... What legal training have you had, to enable you to decide which bits of law may or may not be pertinent? I believe it's pertinent because the quote that you gave said (paraphrased) - in order to claim copyright you have to register, the passage you quoted from said - You dont have to register unless you intend to take this specific legal route. The two results are practically opposite of each other. And NO I don't think I was rude at all, I merely stated a fact - you misquoted. Oh and please don't De render me, It hurts so much!

ralph Alderton wrote: 0L$ and 10L$ dross dominate any relevant search. This is a clearly a grave error. What other online retail store would allow the lowest quality and the worst products to take up the most important shelf space, in this case, the first 10 pages of any Relevant search results. I've been lobbying the community and Linden Lab for 3 years or more regarding the SUPERABUNDANCE of dross and rubbishy products cluttering up the marketplace I'm worn out with it. 'You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear' To attract and retain new and existing users SECONDLIFE MUST LOOK ATTRACTIVE and 10L$ and 0L$ dross ain't helping. We need paid keywords and listing fees to rid the marketplace of the appalling SUPERABUNDANCE of dross that currrently dominates Zactly!

Josh Susanto wrote: >it won't get your stuff re listed. Have you seen all my stuff? Even if half of it got permanently delisted, I'd be making some kind of money. Thats really not the point is it? I am not going to continue in this debate further, both you and Randall are playing at lawyers, neither of you have the legal qualifications, knowledge or experience to make the arguments you are making.

I think you should be careful when quoting all this legal stuff, to make sure you have the necessary legal knowledge and qualifications to back it up, and clearly you don't, you are deliberately misquoting in order to win an argument. The passage from the document you misquoted in your second post is immediately preceeded by this sentence... Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a) [17 USC 106A(a)] You then did it again with another passage in this post... Randall Ahren wrote: Moreover, the date upon which they registered the work is very important because if registration was not timely, they are not entitled to statutory damages or attorneys fees. See 17 USC 412. Once again you have misquoted, missing out this important sentence... other than an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A (a), There is absolutely no need to 'register' something for copyright, if you created it you own it, it's as simple as that, if someone files DMCA against you, your stuff will be removed and YOU will have to prove you are not infinginging the complainants copyright in your counter claim, so you can demand anything you like, it won't get your stuff re listed. LL DMCA Policy Read the above and you will see there is absolutley no mention of any opportunity for you to...demand proof of the registration, certified by the Registrar of Copyrights and bearing the original seal. As a merchant you should be supporting the idea of DMCA and not trying to find technicalities to circumvent it

Please exscuse the shameless plug I have everything you need in 1 big pack... Interactive snow ground panels with sounds and particles, snow drifts, snow emitter, snowman and woman, snowball thrower, Ice pond, Ice skate giver, Whimsical winter Trees, Snow Angel, Snow writer to write messages in the snow, Igloo, Logs around the fire, snowy rocks and logs. The Snow and Ice Megapack Great Value from Big Cake : )

Also... I put the windows 7 logo on there because it emulates windows 7, just like I put the youtube, facebook, and twitter insignias on there. I say very clearly in the discription that it is Silveos cloud technology being used to emulate windows 7. This isn't so much about misleading customers as it is about avoiding litigation, do you have microsoft's permission to use the Windoze 7 Logo in your advertising? If you don't LL are quite likely to remove your listing for Trademark violation, and Microsoft could pursue you in the courts. It may sound far fetched but it can and does happen here. Also ask yourself, is the prescence of that logo likely to increase your sales?. Keep up the good work Dude, but read the rules and stay on the right side of them.

LoveAngeL Lyre wrote: Except of that the thread is (for my opinion) in wrong category and the important Trijin's remark about listing / branding guidelines i have a question. Why someone to spend 500L$ for this product when he can get a web browser (with all these features / facebook, twitter, youtube, maps etc) just 1 prim and a radio also for free? Simple, because they want a cool looking device to perform those functions inworld, you could just as easily say, why would someone spend L$500 on a dress when your avatar comes with a load of free clothes.