Jump to content

Jacob Cagney

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Jacob Cagney

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I want some of whatever it is that you are smoking. Recent? Second Life just celebrated its 16th Birthday. Which means it was created in 2003. 2019 - 16 = 2003 Tilia appears to have been created around 2 years ago. 2019 - 2017 = 2 This means that Second Life / Linden Labs has been in existence in the US for at least 14 years before Tilia was created. Even Google Maps Street view shows that they have had the same office location in San Francisco as far back as 2009 and probably before that too. A location that has existed for at least 10 years is in no way more recent than a branch location created around 2 years ago. So there is no way, in any stretch of the imagination, that the US location is "recent" compared to any branch they have in the UK. The only way you could come to that conclusion is if you are smoking something. So, I say again, share it, because I definitely want some of whatever it is you are smoking.
  2. Some Updates to The Terms of Service Entry posted by Linden Lab · July 11, 2017 We have added references to our wholly-owned subsidiaries, Tilia Inc. and Tilia Branch UK Ltd., which will be handling payment services on our behalf under certain circumstances.
  3. The problem with filing a DMCA against the entire store, or person, and not the item, is that the creator has to legally claim ownership of the item itself. This is in the copyright laws. However, I do not recall seeing anything in the law that says a DMCA must be filed for each item, individually, against the same seller. So if a user is selling 5 items from the same creator, that creator can include all 5 items in one DMCA. It would behoove creators to go through the sellers entire store to see if any more of their items are being sold by the user, and then include all items in the single DMCA so that Linden could ensure that all items are removed at once. We all wish more could be done to make the process easier, and faster. Instead of complaining about how the law doesn't make that easy, perhaps there could be discussions about what creators can do to help protect their content? I am thinking mostly about watermarks, or other indicators that can be hidden in templates that are not normally visible, but can be exposed. If you create and sell templates that can only be used in Second Life, like creating full perm clothing that others can edit and add to themselves, putting a transparent watermark on one of the clothing layers with your SL ID number that could be exposed if needed, would pretty much ensure that any resells of the templates would contain the watermark with your user ID number on it. Similar to when police used to tell people to etch their SSN or DL number on items in case they are stolen, the police can identify the proper owner. Then if you have to file a DMCA, you can provide Linden with the information on where you hid the mark and how they can see it on the item, for additional proof that you are in fact the original creator. After all, not many people are going to put another users ID number on their own creations.
  4. Sorry. By templates I mean those items that are created and designed to be used in a graphics program for creating clothing, etc., like in Gimp or Photoshop.
  5. As a creator I have full control over who can and cannot sell content based on my template. I am not sure why you seem to think that creators don't have control. If I see someone selling my creations and I know they didn't pay for it, I file a DMCA. Can we control someone passing a template to another user, no, but we can control who is allowed to sell those meshes, or use those meshes to create items. You seem to believe that putting restrictions on templates will stop the problem, but it wont. Templates that are meant to be used in a graphics program can be altered and exported, making them full perm for the person who has them, regardless of what permissions you put on the template in the first place. Sure, I can make a template no transfer, and the person who buys it cannot just resell it as is, but as soon as they open it in a graphics program, they can make a single minor change, export it, and bam, resell effectively the exact same template that I created. If you make a template No Copy, then the user has 1 copy of the item in Second Life, but it does not affect how many times they can open the template in a graphics program, make changes, and then export and save the item with a minor change. You are effectively talking about security by obscurity. The only thing people won't be able to do is directly resell the template without doing any adjusting to it. So why should I make it harder on my own customers just to try to slow down the few who choose to violate the law in the first place. It won't stop them and will only annoy both myself and my customers.
  6. Sorry, no. You do not get to tell creators how they can do business just because there are abuses by some people. If I want to create and sell templates full perm for others to use, then that is my right.
  7. Even if Linden Lab streamlined the process more, or hired dozens more people to address the reports, it is not up to them to protect the creator. As others have pointed out, who is right and who is wrong? If 3 people buy a template and only change the colors, the templates would match each others stuff. So which one would be the real creator? Do you really want a company trying to decide who is the rightful creator or not? If you read up on DMCA it is all legal stuff and the rightful, legal, creator has to file the DMCA. Linden Lab does not have the right to do that. Which means as soon as they start policing the content and taking down items and suspending or deleting accounts, they will violate the law and could end up being sued or having the whole system shut down. If I create something and then privately sell or offer it to another user to use for their own creations, Linden has no right to say that the other person cannot use what I created just because that persons stuff matches mine. Until the law is changed, the entire onus is on the creator to defend and protect what they created, and no way, no how, should Linden be involved in that process other than to respond to valid reports from the creator themselves.
  8. Maybe there should be a Reporting Party Event set up. Get as many people together and just spend 15 or 30 minutes flagging as much stuff on the marketplace as possible in that time to see if maybe linden will get the hint that more needs to be done?
  9. Right. which is why I am asking if they shouldn't just remove all of those lower categories. This way people wont get in trouble when it seems that more than 75% of the sellers don't even bother to put their items into the correct ones!
  10. Any demo that costs more than 1L you should avoid. The seller is just scamming at that point trying to get money from people they know most likely wont buy the full item.
  11. Should Linden remove all of the lower categories on the marketplace? It seems that since so many sellers cannot be bothered, or are too lazy, to put their items in the correct categories that Linden should just get rid of all of them except the main ones, like Home and Garden, Vehicles, Apparel, Animals, etc. If you look at the Marketplace and set your options to see 96 items, sorted newest first, I bet you will find that close to 80 of the items have some issue with them. Wrong category, not set to moderate or adult, or keyword spam. 80 out of 96, on average, means that there is either something wrong with the way the marketplace is set up, or the sellers are just lazy twits. So honestly, what is the point, if the sellers just don't seem to give a damn about making sure that their items comply with the rules, why not just remove some of the "rules" in the first place? If all of those hundreds of categories were removed and only the main ones were left, the sellers would have to be spot on in order to sell their stuff because no one would be able to find anything without good and proper keywords and they would pretty much only have themselves to blame when their stuff doesn't sell.
  12. You should be able to submit a case to LL and ask them nicely if they can help you by pulling up the order number for you. Let them know you are trying to locate the order number itself and would like help. Provide them with the sellers name and the item name. They should be able to get that information for you.
  13. Once you drag the item to the marketplace widow, right click on the folder and pick whatever it says to create the listing for your item. You shouldn't have to go to the website to make the thing acttive
  14. Unless you are the person who created the item,or you are an authorized reseller who buys the items direcetly from the person who created the items, then yes, the items are used. You got the item, you do not want it, you are re-selling it. Gatcha items are no different from other No copy, Transfer items that are being sold and they should be placed either in the right category, or the used items category. If you do not want to buy them, then don't, but demanding that they be segregated from the rest of the items that are being sold is just wrong. If you see an item that isn't correct, like wrong category, wrong advertised permissions, nudity, drugs, whatever, you should report it to Linden. If you are not willling to help clean up the marketplace, then stop whining about it on the forums.
  15. Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Jacob Cagney wrote: Artorius Constantine wrote: That said, when I log in the "Recently Purchased" list is usually full of Trademarked and Copyrighted items. They (LL) really need to police the Marketplace better. If you log in and see copyrighted or trademarked items then the creators of said items are being lazy by not reporting the items. It is not up to LL to police the marketplace, or anywhere else for that matter, for copyrighted content. LL most definitely should police the MP for Copyright protected goods. They take a cut of each and every sale, therefore they are profiting from the sale of illegal goods. If you really believe this, then you have ZERO knowledge about the law. I highly suggest you get yourself educated before you continue to reply about stuff you clearly no nothing about. http://www.copyright.gov http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 The only person/entity responsible for protecting copyrighted materials is the copyright owner.
  • Create New...