Qwalyphi Korpov

Griffin Ceawlin wrote: Seems overly restrictive to me. By that standard, probably the majority of snapshots (screenshots) ported in any way (many are uploaded to Commons using Flickr upload bot), from SL to Wikimedia are in clear violation. They do not seem to have considered LLs Snapshot and Machinima Policy at all and instead rely on a 10-year-old press release. In the OPs case, I think the following might apply: "... the artwork is not the primary content of the image or is not clearly recognizable: in that case, usually only the creator of the resulting picture (recording, etc.) holds a copyright. For instance, when taking a photograph of a group of people in a museum, the photo may also show some paintings on the walls. In that case the copyright of those paintings does not have to be taken into account." (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Scope_of_licensing) @Scalar: Slap a {{Second Life}} Template tag on it. Perhaps that will satisfy. The Wikimedia has it's policies. I'm trying to explain why the OPs contribution could be questioned based on those policies. The OP may be somewhat unfamiliar with the Wikimedia policies given the reference to 'fair use.' Wikimedia does not accept content based on 'fair use.' If you think the Wikimedia policy is excessive I wonder what you'd think of the LL contributors agreement? http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Contribution_Agreement

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Pertinant LL legalese... Copyright Licenses This is the legal permission that you can show the festival organizers or anyone else who’s interested: As long as you comply with the terms and conditions below, both Linden Lab and the Residents of Second Life (collectively, “we”) grant you the following copyright licenses: A License To Capture. You may take snapshots and capture machinima of the 3D content we created that is displayed in-world, and A License To Use. You may use the resulting snapshot or machinima within or outside of Second Life in any current or future media. And from the terms and conditions mentioned above... (b) Avatar Consent for Machinima For machinima, you must have the consent of all Residents whose avatars or Second Life names are featured or recognizable in the machinima. This includes avatars who are featured in a shot, avatars whose names are legible, and avatars whose appearance is sufficiently distinctive that they are recognizable by members of the Second Life community. Consent is not required if an avatar is not recognizable and is merely part of a crowd scene or shown in a fleeting background. Consent is not required for any snapshots. It is not about the OP complying with the Second Life TOS. It is about the OP complying with the requirements of Wikimedia. The 'copyright license' LL and it's residents are granting may or may not meet the 'free license' requirements of Wikimedia. A simple example would be an copyrighted image imported to Second Life. I doubt that LL and it's residents have the authority to license the use of that copyrighted image. So if it's captured in a 'snapshot' and ported to Wikimedia there can be an objection. (edited to add example)

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: You can identify a statue, it's always in the park.. You can not identify the person in that image. There is no way to prove that the complainant is actually the person in the image. The issue, which I believe you've misunderstood consistently, is whether the contributor holds the copyright to everything contributed. Specifically who hold the copyright to the silhouette of the man and other content. Not who the "person" in the park is. I doubt the complainant is a Second Life resident. It's not about Second Life. It's about Wikimedia.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: you can't identify the av in the image. The objection is foolish, it is like someone objecting to a snapshot taken from a roof top of a park and someone saying " hey, I'm in that park. take down this image." I understand that from your perspective the objection seems foolish. However, the issue is whether the submitter holds copyright to all of the copyrightable content they submitted. Restating using your analogy - It's like someone objecting to a snapshot taken from a roof top of a park and someone saying - "hey, that statue in the center is a work of art for which the sumitter probably doesn't hold the copyright." The Wikimedia provides detailed explanations of their policies. I've only skimmed through a portion related to contributing your own work. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Contributing_your_own_work It was interesting to me that the wikimedia apparently would not consider Second Life "photographs" to be photographs. I think they would call them "screen captures." Of course I'm only guessing. It only matters if you're interested in complying with their requirements.

Griffin Ceawlin wrote: friscolives wrote: You also have to keep in mind, with SL being a global company and LL not on US soil--... What ever gave you that idea? 10.2 The applicable law and venue is in San Francisco, California. You agree that this Agreement and the relationship between you and Linden Lab shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to conflict of law principles or the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods. Further, you and Linden Lab agree to submit to the exclusive personal jurisdiction and venue of the courts located in the City and County of San Francisco, California, except as provided in Section 10 regarding arbitration. ... 11.1 The Service is a United States-based service. Linden Lab controls and operates the Service from its offices in the United States. The main issue here is compliance with the policies of wikimedia rather than compliance with specific laws. I will paste one below that seems very relevant. Wikimedia states clearly that they do not allow the use of 'fair use.' ------------------------------------- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works -------------------------------------- But Wikimedia Commons isn't commercial! And what about fair use? Wikimedia Commons is not a commercial project, but the project scope requires that every single picture may be used commercially via free licenses. Every image or media file must be free of third-party copyrights. Fair use is not allowed on Commons. "Fair use" is a difficult legal exception for pictures that are used in a certain limited context; it is not applicable on entire databases of copyrighted material.

Many locations will not allow you to build. You should be able to build at a public sandbox. Try seaching for 'sandbox.' Unfortunately many of those you find will be for premium members only. You won't find out until you attemp to teleport there. Not a problem if you're premium.

KarenMichelle Lane wrote: When a IP address is used with out a port designation, port :80 is always assumed. Perhaps you are saying that in general telecommuncation software will append a port of 80 to any IP address that doesn't have a port specified. I'm not really sure. For music streaming a port of 80 isn't assumed by me. A music streaming URL plugged into the Land Audio setting needs to match the port being served. While 80 is a possible match it's not a likely match. There should be no reason to guess what the port is since the OP would have had the port in the original Land Audio settings. There is, btw, a URL which will work in world to access the same streaming content the OP was interested in. It uses a higher bit rate. It also does not use port 80. Here's a bit of reference material regarding ports and their expected values: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_TCP_and_UDP_port_numbers I would be very interested in know the origin of your "always assume 80" rule. I suspect it was meant to apply to web browsing rather than the entirety of TCP/UDP communication.

KarenMichelle Lane wrote: Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: I would expect a radio URL in Land Audio to have a port number specified. Your example doesn't which is a puzzle. It appears to be the URL of a shoutcast webpage rather than an audio streaming URL. The :80 is assumed when a relay plays on that port. I do not understand your comment. However I can say that the radio I use does use URLs that have port numbers. They are not often 80. The OP said the same URL was copied, pasted, copied and pasted again without change. And yet there was no port number in the example. So someone is not being accurate I assume.

I would expect a radio URL in Land Audio to have a port number specified. Your example doesn't which is a puzzle. It appears to be the URL of a shoutcast webpage rather than an audio streaming URL.

Thrown under the bus Another country heard from /* I apologize if I have missed seeing these in the hundreds of idioms preceding */

Perrie Juran wrote: Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: With the problems of group chat continuing year after year it certainly is irritating. I tried to review the LL efforts to fix things. Some parts I just couldn't find. Here's what I think has happened: 2008 LL acknowledges group chat problems and commits to fixing them 2009 LL makes some changes and while they can measure improvements problems continue. Here's a link to an amazingly detailed technical explanation http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Technology-General/Improving-the-quality-of-group-chat/ba-p/645117 2010 LL says fixing group chat is a top priority 2011 LL announces new group chat will launch by March 31st http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Tools-and-Technology/Technology-Improvements-for-Q1-Including-Raising-Group-Limit-to/ba-p/673513 2011 LL delays new group chat due to licensing issues. Then quietly never launches new group chat 2011/2012 (?) LL announces they have largely resolved all group chat issues. They are now rarely seen. I remember the announcement. However I can't find it now. Clean up of premature declaration of victory or poor search skills on my part? Are you perhaps thinking of The Large Group Issue in your 2011/2012 comment? That was related to the group members list never loading. It had side effects such as not being able to change group preferences (recieve notices, show in profile) and sometimes if I recall correctly made starting or participating in a group chat difficult. That problem has been fixed. No that isn't what I was thinking I remembered. That is a nice example of a problem that got fixed though. I am remember a blog post... I think it must have been one of those - that gushed about how work had been completed on the group chat issues. It claimed that the problems were almost never seen anymore. Not that they had been completely eliminated. Found it... Pasted below & here's a link: http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Featured-News/July-Update/ba-p/964435 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Group Chat Lag Here’s a little something about that right royal pain, Group Chat Lag. You know how it is: you’re inworld, having a ball chatting with a group of friends, but the chat shows up with words missing or in the wrong order. It’s like a bad roommate, always hanging around and making a mess, interrupting your conversations and ruining your jokes! Some of your friends won’t even try talking while that loser’s around, knowing that their impeccable comic timing will come out looking like free-form poetry. Except, for some reason, we don’t see that dude around much these days. Was it something we did? We’d say that we’ll miss the old Group Chat Lag, but that would be a total lie. Instead, as the saying used to go: “door Don’t let the hit you in the butt on the way out.” ------------------------------------------------------------

Abby Sockington wrote: That is just my point as a result no premium land owner can will their account to another person since it will likely be froze, Blocked for non payment of land use fee's. LOL, I thought your point was that the premium account holders have a way to use land after they die without having to pay the LL any monies because it isn't likely the LL will ever expend the resources necessary to pursue payment of tier from the estate of the deceased even though they might have a valid legal claim that could be pursued simply by presenting a demand for payment to the estate executor.

With the problems of group chat continuing year after year it certainly is irritating. I tried to review the LL efforts to fix things. Some parts I just couldn't find. Here's what I think has happened: 2008 LL acknowledges group chat problems and commits to fixing them 2009 LL makes some changes and while they can measure improvements problems continue. Here's a link to an amazingly detailed technical explanation http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Technology-General/Improving-the-quality-of-group-chat/ba-p/645117 2010 LL says fixing group chat is a top priority 2011 LL announces new group chat will launch by March 31st http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Tools-and-Technology/Technology-Improvements-for-Q1-Including-Raising-Group-Limit-to/ba-p/673513 2011 LL delays new group chat due to licensing issues. Then quietly never launches new group chat 2011/2012 (?) LL announces they have largely resolved all group chat issues. They are now rarely seen. I remember the announcement. However I can't find it now. Clean up of premature declaration of victory or poor search skills on my part?

Jillam wrote: I tried to sit on the cube but it wouldnt allow it. Says there is no room to sit but I did use the camera to get inside and double clicked on the ground inside to teleport there and it worked. Thanks for the help. A simple cube inside the bounding box of another object will give that 'no room to sit' message. A cube with a sit target would allow you to sit though. Not needed now but... the next time you need to break in... I mean... enter your own property.

UniPuma Coba wrote: This looked like the right place since really there isn't one ;P Does the house you receive with the premium account have a resident access list of any kind. What I am exactly and why is. Is the house private or can just anyone walk in the front door and if I invite someone over can they just LM and return as they choose in general making themselves welcome to one of your account perks. And if this is so is there anything in SL market that can prevent unwanted access to your home? Uni Each premium home has it's own parcel of land. It is "owned" by the premium member. So as Randall says you can control access the same as any other parcel. The exception being that while the land can be set to a group it can't be deeded to a group. That prevents sharing of some control features with non-owners. There are products that would help support shared control of access.

I had an urge to take a welding class. Now it seems better that I'm learning to do graffiti.

The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.

It's not about the money, money, money We don't need your money, money, money Ain't about the Cha-Ching Cha-Ching Ain't about he Ba-Bling Ba-Bling Forget about the price tag. Money can't buy us happiness It's not about the money

Amethyst Damour wrote: Hi all i recently changed to singularity viewer from firestorm as i had a lot freezing screen problems on firestorm that i couldnt seem to resolve... anyway i belive linden labs have changed the way you upload textures in world and done away with the temp upload option when uploading images from ya PC....thing is there still seems to be the temp upload texture image option on singularity but when u try using it it comes up a message....Unable to upload asset. not sure its a bug in singularity or what but there doesnt seem to be a singularity support group in world? To use the replacement feature in Singularity select "Computer" rather than "Inventory" in the Pick:Texture dialog box. Some other viewers call it local.

Trixie Wyx wrote: It looks like land access still works the old way. Which is a new twist on the phrase "you have payment info on file although you don't have payment info on file." My alt has PIOF per his web profile. The legacy profile shows no PIOF. llRequestAgentData says he has no PIOF. (& land parcel access is consistent with llRequestAgentData as you said) Now I can clearly remember (but not find) a thread where I complained that my profile showed that I had PIOF when I didn't. At one point I'd added it. Then I removed it. Someone explained that the profile showing PIOF meant there was payment info on file or at some time in the past there had been payment info on file.

Trixie Wyx wrote: I made a new RP account today, sent over some L$, and made some marketplace purchases. That was enough to switch on "payment info on file" for that account. That must be a side effect of the new payment system on the marketplace. So if you were relying on PIOF to have some sort of significance, it looks like doesn't any more. I doubted this but you are correct. In fact it isn't necessary to actually make a purchase. My alt had no 'PIOF.' He did have some L$. Logged into market place, picked an item, hit 'buy now' and got a payment method added. Now he has payment info on file. Never completed the payment. No methods other than 'pay with L$' Here's a picture:

Erik Verity wrote: 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". LOL 6.3 says "In addition to the rules set forth in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 above, you agree that you will not: ..." which is different from saying "In place of the rules set forth in Seciton 6.1 and 6.2 about, you agree that you will not:..." That is poorly written and self conflicting. However I agree that the Maturity Ratings have precedence over 6.1, 6.3 and any other sections they conflict with.

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.

Lindal Kidd wrote: I don't know if it's new, but Section 6.2 (vii) should give anyone pause. Apparently, if you cyber with someone you know is a minor, or in LL's opinion should have known, you are in Big Trouble. in response to an earlier comment: LL has not banned sexually explicit content, except as provided by the Maturity policy (e.g. not in General regions.) You're taking that sentence out of context. The wording of the new policy which removes the requirement for 30 days' notice prior to making a policy change should also raise eyebrows. Taken literally, it seems to say that they can change the TOS at any time and not tell you about it. You are responsible for checking it every so often to see if they've changed it. I doubt that they would do that in practice, but if they did, I also doubt that "you should have caught the change we made last month" would fly in court. You're referring to Section 6.3 (vii) The earlier comment is not taken out of context. Although it does conflct with other nearby content. Activity prohibited without qualification in section 6.1 is later again prohibited with an exception in section 6.3. Something needs a rewrite. Relevant fragments below. ---------------------- 6.1 You will not post or transmit prohibited Content, including any Content that is illegal, harassing or violates any person's rights. You agree that you will not: .... (vi) Post, display or transmit any Content or conduct or host any activity that is sexually explicit, or intensely violent. Any violation by you of the terms of this Section may result in immediate termination of your Accounts without any refund or other compensation. 6.3 Additional rules of conduct apply to users of Second Life: In addition to the rules set forth in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 above, you agree that you will not: ...(iv) Post, display or transmit any Content that is explicitly sexual, intensely violent or otherwise designated as Adult under our Maturity ratings, except as set forth in those ratings.

Rosen Janus wrote: Just logged into SL and got the TOSS pop-up. I try to make it a habit NOT to blindly hit agree on these things. It's never easy to spot all the changes as you read through the 18 (is it still 18?) documents that are included by reference as the Second Life Terms of Service. It appears that there are many significant changes. A key one being 11.4 where you now agree that the TOS may be revised at any time without prior notice. No more language about material changes being effective 30 days after notice. Perhaps prompted by their recent failure to provide a 30 day waiting period before implementing material changes. That section pasted below for your convenience. --------------------------------------- 11.4 This Agreement and the referenced Policies are the entire understanding between us. This Agreement, including the Additional Terms and policies referenced in this Agreement, sets forth the entire understanding and agreement between you and Linden Lab with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior or contemporaneous agreements or understandings. Linden Lab reserves the right to modify this Agreement and any Additional Terms, at any time without prior notice (“Updated Terms”). You agree that we may notify you of the Updated Terms by posting them on the Service, and that your use of the Service after we post the Updated Terms (or engaging in other such conduct as we may reasonably specify) constitutes your agreement to the Updated Terms. Therefore, you should review this Agreement and any Additional Terms on a regular and frequent basis. The Updated Terms will be effective as of the time that Linden Lab posts them or such later date as may be specified in them. Except for such Updated Terms, this Agreement may not be modified except by mutual written agreement between you and Linden Lab that is signed by hand (not electronically) by duly authorized representatives of both parties and expressly references amendment of this Agreement. You acknowledge that no other written, oral or electronic communications will serve to modify or supplement this Agreement, and you agree not to make any claims inconsistent with this understanding or in reliance on communications not part of this Agreement. The section headings used herein, including descriptive summary sentences at the start of each section, are for convenience only and shall not affect the interpretation of this Agreement. As used in this Agreement, references to a determination made in Linden Lab's discretion means that the determination will be made by Linden Lab in accordance with its good faith business judgment. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, void, or unenforceable, then in such jurisdiction that provision shall be deemed severable from these terms and shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions.