Jump to content

Jacob Cagney

Resident
  • Content Count

    155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jacob Cagney

  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.
  16. 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. If I give someone permissions to use my creations in their builds, I do not want some desk jockey that makes minimum wage trying to decide who is or isn't allowed to use my stuff in their builds. US Federal Law says that the copyright owner, or the copyright owners legally authorized agent, are the only ones who can make a claim of copyright infringment. That means ME and ME alone can say whether or not I allow someone else to use my stuff. So hands off my rights. If someone even remotely thinks that an item might be stolen, or sold against another persons copyright, then the person who buys the item is the ultimate bad guy here, since they are willingly buying something that they think it stolen. If you see an item that is full perm and it is being sold for 10 lindens and you buy it, then YOU are the one who is in the wrong for buying it, not Linden Lab for not removing the item. People need to man the heck up and start taking personal responsiblity for what they do, and stop trying to blame others. If people would stop buying stuff they think might be stolen, or has something hinky with it, then the yahoos who steal and resell stuff wouldn't have a market. But hey, everyone wants a cheap deal, even if it means they are buying stolen stuff. Until they one day get a message that the stuff they are selling is using stolen textures and they themselves get nailed with a takedown notice. Stop being so damn cheap, people.
  17. Darrius Gothly wrote: Okay .. duh on me. I finally see the reason for our disconnect. You are measuring things on the "how long are my arms" scale. Those of us objecting (not upset mind you .. just objecting .. strenuously) to the email promotion are measuring things in the "how big is the world" scale. When you have stepped back and looked at things from our scale .. come on back and I'll help get your nerves calmed down again. .. tip 'o the hat ... Help me to understand what your view of the email promotion is, and I might understand better why you objecting. From my view, anything that tries to generate interest in the Marketplace, that potentially translates into sales for the users is a good thing. Especially when it didn't cost the users any money.
  18. DartAgain wrote: Traffic to the web site means nothing. Page hits mean nothing. Extra revenue to LL for running a promition from the sales of those products on sale means something only to LL and the selected merchants, no one else. Customer spending is finite, you can squeeze it a little but you can only increase it so much. And when you do, someone is going to miss out on sales. Usually smaller merchants. Smaller merchants are the first to leave having no consistent profit to keep them here. Aside from LL making more commission off these sales, what other positive effect does it have? None. So why not stay out of the market manipulation and let a generic "shop for the holidays" graphic take over and let the free market run its own course. A simpler approach that didn't manipulate would have a boost without favoritism. So my understanding of what you wrote it this: You do not care how many people see the items on the web site. You do not care if anyone sells items on the marketplace, unless it is you who is doing the selling. The email had no value to you, personally. The email potentially has the chance to reduce sales to some sellers, by potentially increasing sales to other sellers. (something that already exists, as you so freely pointed out, by the finite number of customers/spending dollars) You think Linden Lab should not advertise the Marketplace, or its sellers, because you personally think it is manipulating the system when they try to generate interest in the web site. Gotcha
  19. Darrius Gothly wrote: Just to recap as this is an issue at least 3 years old .. and probably much more: Instead of investing a few person-hours to resolve the issue once and forever, LL has chosen to address each occurrence with direct personal intervention at an ever-growing and ever-accumulating overhead cost. It depends on how many sellers request refunds. If there are only 10 requests a year for refunds from sellers, it makes more sense to spend resources on higher impacting aspects of the system. If the employee to has to imput the refund to the seller is getting paid 10 dollars an hour and it takes less than 3 minutes to process the refund, there isn't much cost associated compared to the time involved in changing, debugging, and releasing code.
  20. DartAgain wrote: Jacob Cagney wrote: DartAgain wrote: Well, no point in making points that others have made about your post, they've covered some of it pretty well. My take on it is that unless LL changes course in the way they do business, in 5 years you won't be here for me to tell you that i told you so. Sorry, but that really isn't saying much. If you go back to the old SLExchange archived forums, and old SL Archived forums from 5-7 years ago, the same thing was being said then as you are saying here. And yet Second Life is still around. Oh sure, it's not a new prediction. I myself however, do not suffer from premature extrapolation. Your argument seems to be that we don't have the right to feel the way that we do, which is strange to me. Nevertheless as I said we decline. So some complainer(s), somewhere is spot on in describing why that decline is happening. If not us and these many varied arguments in this thread then who is rightly identifying the reasons for the decline? Never said people do not have the right to feel the way they do. What I AM saying is that I do not understand why people feel the way they do over the email promotion. That is the underlying thing I am trying to understand. Why do people feel the way they do about the promotion? I just don't get it. No one paid to be in the promotion. No one paid to see the promotion banner. No one paid to get the promotion email. No one lost sales because of the email promotion. No information has been released that indicates that anyone even actually sold items because of the email. All indications seem to be that Linden Lab used the email, and selected the sellers, in order to try to generate traffic to, and hopefully sales through, the Marketplace. I just plain do not understand why the company trying to generate traffic to the web site is seen as some as a bad thing, and gotten them all upset about it. This is what I am trying to understand.
  21. Darrius Gothly wrote: Jacob Cagney wrote: It also kinda shows that Linden Lab didn't set out in advance to have some grand promotion. It might have been done quickly if they were watching metrics and saw that the holiday slump for marketplace sales was already in full swing. How in blue blazes does picking six select Merchants for a one-time email promotion add anything of measurable value to the Marketplace metrics? If THAT was their goal .. OMG we need a REALLY long talk with their thinkers and planners. (Sorry .. but that one just doesn't even pass the sniff test .. from 10 feet away) Maybe their intention wasn't to generate sales, but generate traffic? Just like Amazon or Ebay or any other company sending out an email to their registered users. I would venture to guess that the whole purpose of the emails is to generate interest in the web site. Regardless of what is actually promoted in the email itself. Example: I got emails from a Star Trek web site advertising sales on some of their products. One of which is a set of BBQ Grill tools. By your standards, if the email sent to me did not cause me to buy the set of grill tools, then the email was of no measurable value. However, even though I didn't buy the grill tools, I took a look around at the other stuff they have on their web site. So the email didn't generate a sale, but it DID generate traffic to the web site. So the email DID have a measurable value, in page counts. Sure, the Linden Lab email promotion had no direct value to you, but it didn't cost you anything, and you didn't lose anything either. So if the email had no value to you, cost you nothing, and lost you nothing, why are you upset?
  22. Darrius Gothly wrote: There are two very distinct reasons why "Giant Up-Updates" are sent out: 1. Someone pulled the trigger too soon, or set a hard date and was not willing to flex it .. or in some fashion established exterior and unrelated deadlines, or 2. We missed a critical thing that should have been caught, wasn't (for whatever reason) and now HAS to be rolled out or really bigger badder things will happen. We've been through both. I personally have been responsible for both. I try like crazy to NEVER employ #1 as it really messes with customer confidence to turn out a known buggy product. Then when you can't defend the decision in any valid manner .. you look like a real doofus. I prefer not to be doofus in any form of appearance. I have fallen victim to #2 for many reasons, none of which really matter to this discussion. Suffice to say I work hard to avoid #2 too. The cutover from XStreet to Marketplace was without a doubt the result of exterior meddling in the schedule. The fact that the entire XStreet structure was up and running for some time afterward, added to the many MANY valid objections and bug reports posted here and in JIRA about SLM, lead to the only reasonable conclusion: It didn't go so well. Here's the bottom line for me Jacob: When they spring something on us (like the recent email promotion for only a few select Merchants) .. it turns out wrong. When my experience and understanding lead to me to realize there are speedbumps ahead, I will do my best to call them out and help suggest a course around them. If you choose to see it as me slamming or bad-mouthing people .. that's your view. But I dang sure won't sit idly by, letting known problems go unaddressed .. especially not when those problems impact me, a project in which I'm involved or invested .. and when options exist that would completely avoid the obstacles. In short, I'd rather think first .. then act with a bit of an idea what I'm doing. I find it preferable to always RE-acting to a situation that didn't really need to BE a "situation" in the first place. I agree with you that the cutover from Xstreet probably was because of "exterior meddling" but chances are, those exterior issues were outside of the control of Linden Lab. But in all honesty, wasn't it better to have both sites running side by side for a while to allow for the core bugs to be addressed on the new system before the old system was shut off, instead of just shutting off the old system in favor of the new system before the core functionality of the new system was ready? How did the email promotion turn out wrong? How were you personally affected by the email promotion?
  23. polysail wrote: Nothing in my post is a strawman argument~ not even close. My point was~ and still is prepare for unfairness in open markets. It always happens. Anyhow ~ I'm off to go do something productive~ I've got nothing more of value to contribute to this conversation. You all have fun arguing with the obvious trolly purple cookiemonster. An "open market" is one that provides free access to everyone. How is having a promotion unfair to the open market?
  24. ChinRey wrote: Jacob Cagney wrote: This is what I do not understand. So because you were offended by the promotion, (for what, not being included?), you are going to stop trying to grow and promote your SL business? No, as I've already said, I'm not offended at all. Jacob Cagney wrote: Isn't that the proverbial, shooting yourself in the foot? Throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Cutting off your nose to spite your face? Taking your toys and going home? No, it's called cutting your losses. Linden Lab does not seem to be capable of handling the Marketplace in a satisfactory way so I'm not willing to invest time and money in that market. It's pure business. If you want any success at all, you have to weigh investment (in time and money), earning potential and risk towards each other. This incident and the reactions afterwards have seriously reduced the estimated earning potential and increased the risk level. Edit: Forgot to mention the lack of response from Linden Lab, that's probably the biggest factor increasing the risk level for anybody who wants to deal with them. Cutting your losses? What losses? It costs ZERO money to list items on the Marketplace. So you are saying that you refuse to participate in something that is freely available because of some slight that you feel? Personally, I do not expect anyone from Linden Lab to say something officially about the promotion. The Terms of Service gives them the right to have promotions like this without or without notice to the sellers of the content they are promoting.
  25. ChinRey wrote: Jacob Cagney wrote: Except, as has already been established, no one "purchased" anything. Oh yes. Every merchant who has items listed on MP purchases a distribution service from Linden Lab and are entitled by law to the same level of service provided of course that they're dealings are on proprotionally equal terms. In that regard you can not reagrd this sale isolated from the overall service or lack thereoff LL provides to their b2b cusotmers through the Marketplace. First of all, no one purchases a distribution service. Items that are sold for more than 10 lindens have a 5% commission paid by the seller to pay for the upkeep of the system. This is not a "distribution service". Linden Lab doesn't charge to pass inventory from one person to another, or sellers in world would be paying to send other people items. If you want to try to claim that the 5% commission is a "paid distribution service fee" then where is your outrage that users who sell everything for less than 10 lindens, or who give away free items don't have to pay this service fee while everyone else does?
×
×
  • Create New...