Freya Mokusei

Not surprised they closed this loophole, to be fair. There's no reason my.secondlife.com should be hosting huge pics. There's probably no fix, 500x295 is all you're likely to get. A more successful way to do this would be to download straight to disk. You can set custom image dimensions using this method, too.

Text chat isn't. If I recall correctly (been a while) that's all sent via HTTP. I don't know about Voice, it's property of Vivox and is closed-box, but that doesn't guarantee any additional security. I have heard some fun anecdotal stories that suggest security is laughably poor, but I have nothing to post to confirm this. You might be interested in this page: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Technical_overview_of_Second_Life_security

Interesting! I've not known of a natural landmark covered by copyright before. Was that part of the ruling, or was it more... cultural reasons for the objections? (I did find some fun information about photographing Uluru here) The Hollywood sign is my favourite example of copyright-in-real-life, being so prolific in media. But by far the most entertaining to me is the Eiffel Tower, where it's only against copyright legislation to photograph it at night.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: I think we need Kimmy to return to the thread to describe the sort of streaming she's considering. For sure, yeah. Usage rights vary a lot, and Kimmy was never clear. I think the issue at the moment is the word 'film'. Youtube doesn't host many legally-uploaded and access-free films.

Aah righty, yeah that's Firefox. Suggest Chromium-based browsers, like Chrome or SR Ware Iron.

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: LOL... if i preview my reply it vanishes... what have you done now LL? Any luck here? https://community.secondlife.com/t5/premod/moderationitemspage/tab/rejected

Rhonda Huntress wrote: It's a good thing SL photos are not stolen content like those linked articles refer to. Right! I clarified that in my first post (which the OP approved of), we've been talking hypotheticals for a while. Was discussing the composition of scenes and artistic intent, it's perhaps easy to see why. To bring you up to speed with a fresh example, both of these images could be snapshots taken in SL (they're not, because this is hypothetical):- One is clearly allowed under the snapshot/machinima policy. The other would very probably be judged as IP theft. See how this gets complicated? The machinima policy makes this issue relatively simple, that was my reasoning too, but for those left not satisfied... It's not necessarily easy - with rendered content - to tell the difference between an arranged scene made up from small elements (ok) and a complex single model that's being presented as is, with no artistic value added (less ok). Seems like Phil and I are discussing whether or not SL assets have artistic intent (my position is yes), which is why I linked to articles that clarify how art and rendered assets crossover, in terms of legality. Hope that helps!

I know what you meant by need, but my use of the language was important when noting the difference between:- An item used in a photographed scene because it is found in that space without arrangement. An item placed in a rendered scene because it would be found there if the scene was taking place in real life. Was trying to avoid additional confusion by discussing what 'needs' to be in a scene. I didn't want to get sucked into discussing activity, but instead artistic purpose and intent - which determines how the snapshots would be judged. There's no need for agreement. You have an opinion based on what sounds like feelings, I am happy posting links to sources that discuss model/asset-based copyright basically forever. You can see the language they use for yourself. Best of luck!

Alwin Alcott wrote: Renting and buying a DVD does only give the right to watch it in your own home, in a family setting, absolutely no broadcasting in any way. Streaming is making it public. Even on a limited access stream by VPN, you take it out of the home and family setting. Agree entirely. I probably linked to a legit broadcast warning somewhere already in this thread, but in case it was satirical here's another few. Public performance strictly prohibited Unauthorised reproduction or distribution Public showing or broadcasting

Rhonda Huntress wrote: If you can take reasonable precautions you will not have a problem. You can stream a NetFlix movie at home to watch with your friends. If your neighbors have tapped into your network and are restreaming the movie to other people, that's not your liability. Are ya sure? Public Network Responsibilities - Are We Liable? Given the possible risks (fines, disconnection, imprisonment), I would be pretty careful about this. It seems like your hypothetical relies on an investigative body doing a lot of work, rather than simply logging your IP address as infringing copyright and beginning proceedings against you. Sure, if someone bypasses the security of Netflix, that would be their problem. If someone bypasses your security, that could be your problem (and the could is the issue). I definitely would advise against streaming a personal DVD in-world or anywhere else online. Yikes. Sorry Rhonda, but none of your advice looks very safe.

I'll reply to this briefly since I think there were misunderstandings. Phil Deakins wrote: It's just not art. Eeeeh, people say that about lots of things. Determination of whether something is or isn't art is pretty complicated (and always judged on someones opinion). That's why I was talking about placement and composition - other 'tells' that something is art. That's why I linked to the Wiki pages, to try and show that I was using specific terms as they're used in the digital art community. I disagree with most of your reasoning and I'll try and summarise as to why, by picking this bit of your post (which is where I think the confusion is clearest):- Phil Deakins wrote: ETA: Incidentally, if someone is creating an SL hospital ward, then beds are definitely needed. Yes, SL beds are not needed in RL, but they are in SL... It's not about whether they're needed to complete a scene or to fulfill a hobby, but instead that they're not needed because SL avatars don't get sick, or need rest. Avatars have no use for a hospital ward. They're simulcrums of things that we 'expect' from reality, but that our avatars have no use for, other than to look pretty sitting on. A hospital bed in Second Life is not hanging around, waiting to be filled by a patient with stitches who is expecting 2-4 weeks of sterile aftercare and needs plumbed-in oxygen - it looks pretty, makes the space believable and - perhaps - make the sitting avatar look suitably 'present'. You'll find it common, if you look around, that model assets and set pieces from games, movies and other media that uses 3D rendering refers to such items as 'art', in large part because they're created by 'artists' and require creative skill versus engineering skill. Court cases across the board will use similar language. Calls to product placement are waaaay into other territory, I would be entertained by such an argument but it wouldn't go anywhere in court. And, again, cans of Coke display trademarked material, which is treated very differently. 3D rendered scenes don't work as analogies to real life film or photography, though some terms are named similarly. The difference is - for simplicity purposes - expressed in my posts as artistic intent. If a creator doesn't see their creations in SL as art that's fine - maybe they're not art - but from a neutral/legal standpoint it's hard for me to agree that no furniture in SL has artistic intent behind it (which is how these cases would be seen if they came to court). I understand that all of the above was your opinion, and that's fine. I'm just seeking to clear-up the terms I used as they appear to have been misread. I'm glad the OP has had their questions answered, and don't really mind chatting in the breeze about theoreticals. The example of a hospital ward does have a lot of benefits and was definitely useful in describing scene composition.

Phil Deakins wrote: We see published pictures of the inside hospital wards. Those pictures include beds, and other equipment, and no permission was asked for, or even required, to publish those pictures. It would make life a bit screwy, to say the least, if we had to get the permission of all object creators whose objects appeared in our RL photos before we published them. 50/50! It's a bit difficult to explain maybe, but digital art can be considered a composition depending on where it's placed and how much is contributed to a scene. Imagine if this scene existed as a single mesh asset and was used 'whole', has the photographer added much value other than to simply rez and snapshot? And as a secondary concern, does the photographer then know that most of their scene will have been stolen from a closed and protected artistic work - a computer game? Do they have a responsibility to check? Does it undermine the creativity the photographer had hoped to showcase, and make the composition less original? It's also hard to argue that a hospital bed in Second Life is only a functional item that appears in the scene without intent (since no-one needs hospitals, or beds...) - everything is created for artistic purposes. It gets messy fast. I know this guidance is well-written on the subject of digitising RL items (somewhat, slightly associated): JISC UK - 3D Digitisation and IP Rights - it talks about how the original item may be considered an artistic work on its own merit, thus making reuse of digitised models more difficult legally, even though the digital model is brand new. This might be an interesting read, but is a definite side-track to this thread. But you're pretty much right by the end, it would be a hassle for anyone to do this much research in RL or in SL, and would severely hamper SL's ability to be publicised (a net-loss for all of us). Hence the Machinima/Snapshot policy, which keeps everything a little tidier.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I have some experience of Copyright issues in my day job - I frequently have to run around chasing IP rights between a few organisations and in making sure that the websites I manage obey the law and respect the efforts of creators and photographers. You're right that the License to Use allows you to use any images captured in Second Life (as long as compliant with the Machinima/Snapshot policy). This includes images that contain other peoples' content. This would hold true whether the purpose for those images was commercial or free. Given the fairly small ecosystem in SL however, and the typical friendliness of the Creator class here, I would say it might be nice to... Inform at least the most significant creators of your intentions, if only so that they can see a new way that their content is likely to be used. Personally, I'd get quite a kick from knowing that something I built had made it into dead-wood formats like a book or magazine. Even the worst case scenario - that a creator is opposed to your use of their work - provides an opportunity to showcase the work of someone else who's more appreciative. Attribute. Although it's not not necessary at all, if there's space... why not consider this, too? Easy to include in captions, or at the back of the book and you'd gain ++Karma. No legal obligation to do either of these, but I think it would pay-off and be fun/interesting for all involved. Like I say, SL's a small place, what makes one of us stronger can often make several of us stronger, together.

I always liked the LSL example from LSLWiki.net for explaining the Listen event to people. Once you initiate a listener (using llListen), you can test for specific words or phrases being spoken on channel 0 - the local channel - by testing against string message. Hope this helps!

Plenty of folks complain about this every week of every year that SL has been open. They also most often neglect to run any tests or post any useful information about their system for people who might want to spend time helping. They also often post once, ranting nonsensically and dragging in every symptom they can imagine to blame on SL's servers, without once examining their own connection. It becomes a real hassle, not knowing if effort spent will ever be read. For some reason all these troubled sorts imagine that these problems are brand new and were caused by some imaginary drastic changes on the servers. I never know to what they could be referring, don't they realise it's way more likely that their Internet performance - something dependent on a myriad of technologies and providers - is probably screwy? It's a mystery what makes people complain in this fairly useless fashion. SL works for plenty of others, and those affected never seem to apply logic to determine that the problem is almost certainly at their end. Weird. Anyway, I hope that answers your question.

Hi Ven, The advice above is largely directed to those who have the stand-alone Quicktime application installed - typically, SL users from the times before when an external Quicktime download was required to view Quicktime media in SL, and therefore may still be lingering on their system. My understanding (not the most comprehensive) of modern Viewer arcitecture is that the bundled Quicktime plugin (located at: %VIEWER DIRECTORY%\llplugin\media_plugin_quicktime.dll) only contains low level information. I can't say for sure whether this presents a risk without knowing its contents - however it's likely that running with media disabled in-viewer (Preferences > Sounds & Media) will prevent any use of this library and render it safe - or, as safe as things are likely to get. I would expect that the dll doesn't have much risk associated with it. I have tested removing this specific file manually, and don't see any significant errors in my viewer, though I expect I'll see more if I try viewing a Quicktime media source. If you're particularly worried, I'd say try this (keep a backup) and see if you notice any difference in functionality. Disclaimer: I use Catznip R10, the content in this post has its accuracy limited to that viewer only.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: ETA: There is a situation that might fall into the grey. Imagine you have a private link to a YouTube video produced by a friend. Absent that link, others cannot view the video. If you e-mailed that link to someone else, you may have (I don't know) violated the copyright restrictions on that video, or at least potentially peeved your friend. The same would happen if you pasted that link onto a MOAP prim face. My (neither engineer nor lawyer) understanding is that the uploader gives permission to YouTube to host and replay uploaded content entirely freely (in the same way that SL 'demands' rights over uploaded material for serving/CDN purposes). Under this model, the link becoming publicly known is a social infraction ('oops, sorry') and not a legal one, since you're not gaining access to a system without permission or exploiting a copy-protect mechanism.

I don't shop in USD but I reckon this is gonna be a difficult ask. 300USD converted to my local currency is at the very bottom of the range for professional laptops. Ultra graphics on a laptop for any length of time is risky for reasons involving the laws of physics, budget constraints are unlikely to help you surmount this. Buying a new laptop also will do nothing about the amount of latency (lag) you get from your connection. They're not magic.

Alwin Alcott wrote: in addition to Freya's perfect answer... D'aw, you're sweet. Alwin Alcott wrote: In GB people got fined for 71000 pounds .... I also know a case - a friend from the UK - who got shipped over to the US and ordered to pay over £300,000 for merely linking to streams. He was looking at prison in a foreign country initially, and only interjection from an activism campaign (and then UK government officials) stepped down the rhetoric. Certain locales are more entrenched in the Copyright wars than others, some actions open you up to far more risk than others. Alwin Alcott wrote: using vpn is legal ... For now! Many governments are cracking down on these simply because they can be used nefariously and because their promises to the copyright lobbies are more important than the existing freedom for citizens and companies to control their own web traffic. This is, however, the same move the OP seems to ask about - the removal of a tech based on potential to break the law, rather than actual activity that does. It's dangerous to keep things moving in this direction. Keep an eye on your freedoms, take action to defend your rights.

You're asking two questions. And to clarify ahead of time, illegal and not allowable in SL are not the same thing. Activities in Second Life are more constrained than those legally allowable. Streaming video (on its own) is not illegal and is allowed in SL. Infringing copyright is illegal. Therefore... Violating copyright by streaming restricted-license videos is illegal. It's your responsibility to determine the legality of your actions and to check usage rights and restrictions on the media you stream. You've probably seen those big messages at the start of Holywood films that start with FBI WARNING or - those are usage rights.Also worth noting that Second Life itself [largely] doesn't face liability for the actions of its users, legal or otherwise. There's some incentive to limit acceptable behaviour in SL, but there's little reason for SL to police the way its users use media streaming - this is left to regular law enforcement, and the legal teams of copyright holders. When you break the law in SL, you break the law on the Internet - more and more, local and federal police agencies are monitoring Internet behaviour. Risks exist. Copyright is a complicated subject, not one that I can summarise in a forum post. If you have doubts about your streaming activities, consult more authoritative sources.

I still mostly use prims for the same reason as you - I like quick feedback, collaboration and continued socialising. There's no reason you can't combine tricks, I can still make prims look pretty swish (if a little heavier, prim-count-wise).

So why're you posting here? Linden's don't really check out the People forum, why would they? Your viewer has a 'Forgotten Password?' link. Use it.

Thanks a lot for the explanation, I think I'm caught up. Costs are probably low, but I feel is best for the user to decide how to proceed. I've seen some companies/accountants get incredibly picky over less than a dollar of VAT reclamation before. Land costs.. that could be tier paid direct to LL, could be substantial and B2B. Probably worth the saving on a full region at $295+20%.

Sorry, I don't understand any of that. Tax isn't my area and I struggle with a lot of these terms. It sounds like your claims are in opposition to the page I linked, which states:- What are the items for which Linden Lab charges VAT? Anything that you pay Linden Lab for will have VAT applied. This includes: Purchases from the Land Store Land use fees (tier) Private Region fees Land auctions LindeX™ transaction fees Are you saying this page is incorrect? Or something else?

Continues to sound like a connection issue, perhaps is intermittent on your line or link. I don't know why you think that installing new viewers will improve performance. Help yourself. Run through the troubleshooting list I linked before.