Catherine Cotton

I will let everyone else judge for themselves ok. https://d44ytnim3cfy5.cloudfront.net/assets/7589393/view_large/Ladies_B_Strong_tank.jpg?1366652213 https://d1ij7zv8zivhs3.cloudfront.net/assets/7589388/view_large/B_Strong_Mens_Tee.jpg?1366652187

You know what back off, he just discredited himself in his final post. You can't sell copy right materials in SL for any reason what so ever.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Catherine Cotton wrote: Double checked, follwed the pics in his profile, post removed. I do have 2 B Strong tees that were free.. untill someone bought 100 of each to "give to my friends." yeah.. i believe that too, so now they are 10L each.. easily giftable and i have already donate 100 USD to the Boston Strong fund.. so basically anyting i do make on them wont come close to what i donated. so i am not making a profit. just to be clear. Shakes head, no comment. Someone else deal with this.

Double checked, followed the pics in his profile, post removed. btw "ETA I wonder if your post is not another way of saying if your not with us, you are against us. Go figure. A typical strong-arm tactic." No that was the NOT the idea. I will continue to go after anyone who is ripping content off the web and making a profit off it. I still say selling Boston Red Sox clothing on the Marketplace is wrong, more so it has always broken the TOS for Second Life. Ok done posting from my kindle its just aggravating. Good luck to ya all

My error, I followed some links threw a profile and was mistaken. As to the store name, and ownership. Thanks for having me double check this. EDIT: Apparently by his own admission he is selling the B in Boston Red Sox Logo on his t shirts on the marketplace. Which makes my above statement null and void.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: You are making the mistake of thinking that LL claims copyright. They don't. They claim rights to do whatever they want with everything but they don't claim ownership of the copyrights. So it's up to the copyright owner to file DMCAs, and that's not LL. But LL doesn't have to act on your DMCA charge. They can simply say they let the other party use your content. LL has the right to distribute your items in any way they like, right? They're allowed to give it away (or have it taken from SL). @ Phil, and @ Kawakkelde; Ok I read that section of the tos again. (cripes I should have it memorized by now) I believe I get it, they have all rights to user content,(as quoted below) but they don't have to protect my rights...but I have to grant; "you hereby consent and irrevocably appoint Linden Lab as your attorney-in-fact, with the power of substitution and delegation, which appointment is coupled with an interest" to protect their rights to my user content. Really. Yeah that's not going to happen. "Except as otherwise described in any Additional Terms (such as a contest’s official rules) which will govern the submission of your User Content, you hereby grant to Linden Lab, and you agree to grant to Linden Lab, the non-exclusive, unrestricted, unconditional, unlimited, worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, and cost-free right and license to use, copy, record, distribute, reproduce, disclose, sell, re-sell, sublicense (through multiple levels), modify, display, publicly perform, transmit, publish, broadcast, translate, make derivative works of, and otherwise exploit in any manner whatsoever, all or any portion of your User Content (and derivative works thereof), for any purpose whatsoever in all formats, on or through any media, software, formula, or medium now known or hereafter developed, and with any technology or devices now known or hereafter developed, and to advertise, market, and promote the same. You agree that the license includes the right to copy, analyze and use any of your Content as Linden Lab may deem necessary or desirable for purposes of debugging, testing, or providing support or development services in connection with the Service and future improvements to the Service. The license granted in this Section 2.3 is referred to as the "Service Content License." Linden Lab has no obligation to monitor or enforce your intellectual property rights to your User Content, but you grant us the right to protect and enforce our rights to your User Content, including by bringing and controlling actions in your name and on your behalf (at Linden Lab’s cost and expense, to which you hereby consent and irrevocably appoint Linden Lab as your attorney-in-fact, with the power of substitution and delegation, which appointment is coupled with an interest)"

I think your smart enough to see the point I was trying to make, so I wont waste your time explaining it in great detail. I found it a bit insulting that you described banking to me like you were also about to sell me on the leather checkbook holder to match my purse. Do you realize that Linden Lab also posted to the Desura web about changes they are about to make with that Tos? "....Changing the license will require that we initiate discussions with past contributors. If some contributors are uncomfortable with this new structure, we may need to evaluate the impact that could have and whether we may need to make any adjustments. Contributors should each expect to hear from us soon...." I suppose that is all just much to do about nothing also.

If LL is claiming all copy right from here on out. (From those who have already agreed to the new tos) Then those that have agreed to the new tos have also forefeited their right to file any DCMA; against anyone on the Second Life platform, and in real life. Once copy right is given up, its given up. Since LL claims all copy right, it would then become their right to do so. Correct? If Sally rips off John, and resells his stuff for a profit; John can't do a damn thing about it. Sally can sell all of Johns goods. It's up to LL to decide if they want to file a dcma against Sally. Since its now LL copy right they can go after Sally. What are the chances of LL following up with a DCMA? If everyone decided to copy everyone else stuff, and sell it. LL would have to go after everyone. I am not suggesting anyone do this. However given their history of customer support sometimes they just make it too easy to see the obvious issues with their for the greater good actions. Also how does this now affect Linden Lab/Second Life safe harbor status? Here is how this played out; if you pushed that "agree" to the tos button. You have no right to complain when someone rips your stuff,opens shop right next to you and undersells you. It's not your property, it's not your right.

"Now that LL changed their TOS this year that gives them rights to everything we upload and can be used by them for advertisement and all. What does it mean for poses / animations creators? Does that mean that LL could pick any of our animations / poses from the server without purchasing it in-world and use it to make their own pictures or videos to promote Second Life, without our permission? I know we have kinda no choice but to accept their TOS to continue to use SL, but i would be mad if i learned that LL would use any of my creations without my permission, of course it would be an honor in a way to have a product chosen, but to not ask permission to use it?! I'd prefer having them ask me to offer them poses for ads, i'd even give them for free but i'd want to know about it." Unfortunatly I think this is the mindset of many. Don't stand up for your rights, just bend over and take it in the .... Just wow.

"Is Second Life just a Game or Is it an Extension of your real life?" I can log out of SL, I cannot log out of rl.

"You couldn't buy or sell Linden Dollars either without agreeing. Making it difficult to cancel your account under the terms of the old TOS without agreeing to the new TOS might be unconscionable." Tidy little spot LL has folks in. Can't stay, cant easily leave. Someone needs to make a machinama about the current police state of Second Life. Unfortunatly they would have to agree to the tos by doing....welcome to the rabbit hole Alice.

I think it is now Linden Labs duty to go after those who have openly been selling unmodified textures from well known texture sites. Let me be excessively clear here; The people who are in SL selling commercially protected textures they bought, screen captured, "save image as", off the web and claimed to be their original work. Textures they did not modify in anyway what so ever other than to slap their logo on them, put them in a box for resale and/or illegally claim ownership of. More so since LL does clearly not own the rights of 3rd party products it's also in their best interest to remove them before they get sued. LL drew a line in the sand, now its their turn to stop harboring illegal content.

As one artist to another. If you haven't read the terms of service yet please do so before you upload. In particular section 2.3. Cat

These sites have an obligation to protect their artists. I salute them for doing so. I also wouldn't do business with them if it were any other way. They are protecting their bottom line as well. I also salute LL but with just one finger these days lol.

Thanks very much Tarina a lot of great info there. I hope you do hear back from Jennifer soon. I hear you loud and clear on all points and 100% agree with you on the ripped content and EUA points. On another note. I read something on one of the many blogger sites re: this new tos. I wish I had thought to keep the quote and http. The main point was for those who are ok with this new tos. The reply was something to this: "Interesting take you have on, online banking as well." I thought "well now thats just brilliant!" LL is no different, they were intrusted with our goods and services and in the end they decided our commideies were theirs. Why is what is happening any different than what we expect from any business? IMO it is not. I would no more expect my bank to take my cash because I do online banking with them. For those of you who think the tos is perfectly fine. Call up your bank and tell them they can also have your money.

I am surprised we haven't heard more from our EU friends. Also some folks have been saying this will only affect those that steal content from within SL and outside of SL. I am going to disagree there. If your already a theif why would you care. The front door is locked. Of course your next course of action is to break a window. Folks who don't want their content and rights taken will either get a better lock and/or move to a safer neighborhood. It's not the honest folks LL should of targeted in the new tos revisions. I am still very much perplexed as to why these changes are taking place. The timing with Desura is alarming. The claim on individual works is more than mind boggling. I came to SL in 2003 we were more than encouraged to build and create, upload, preform, write code, poams, sing, run clubs. 2013 None of which you created is yours, LL owns it and can now resell it, and you pay them for the privilage of being allowed to grace their grid with your presence. Via L$, land, memberships, and uploads. Putting my sadness and anger to the side my gut tells me there is something very wrong here, and I don't honestly see that changing anytime soon. I hope this is a wake up call to the creators of SL, not LL. Expand your grid presence if for no other reason than knowing that you can create without LL over your shoulder drooling over your newest gift to the LL portfolio. If someone had tipped me off in 2003 that this is how the party would end. I would of drank in rl that first day, gotten totally hammered.... and not logged in again. Its been an interesting 10 years but I cannot say that I have trusted LL threw most of them.

No I wouldn't expect this to bother folks who just rip their content off the web. For other mesh creators like myself...sign the new tos? HELL NO.

seriously "lol"ed on that one.

First land was a 512 plot scheme. You got it with your monthly basic subscription. It was usually crappy mainland no one wanted. Unfortunatly land barons scooped up all the really good plots very early on.

Acturly it's like this; Lifetime accounts were $159 and some change. That gave those folks no fees per month for life. They also recieved 4096m of land not 512 and 500L$ per week. They are sitting pretty at this point.

I would take that blog with a grain of salt tbh. Other than the fact that he is an x Linden, his stories tend to be one sided. If you know what I mean.

Lets just be thankful that there are professionals, in their field; willing to look into the situation.

Your right they haven't taken my content for their own gain nor have they the right to do so, until I log in. Then everything is LL's to do with what they wish. Which is why I will not log in. It is a strong arm technique, and as I have also provided it is against the consumer protection act to do so. So when I say nail meet coffin, it means just that. What is SL without creators. Dead.

FYI: "It also makes it an unfair practice for a supplier to take advantage of a consumer not in a position to protect their own interests. It gives the Director of Consumer Protection the authority to take action before someone has actually suffered a loss as a result of an unfair practice" The Consumer Protection Act. http://www.justice.gov.sk.ca/The-Consumer-Protection-Act " take advantage of a consumer by including in a consumer agreement terms or conditions that are harsh, oppressive or excessively one-sided; or take advantage of a consumer by exerting undue pressure or undue influence on the consumer to enter into a transaction involving goods or services."

I did a search today for "web hosting services claim ownership of my content" I did not find 1 that claimed any ownership. Ironicly they said in fact they do not claim ownership of content. My question to LL is; what gives LL the right to claim ownership. On what grounds? LL is a provider, a paid provider for a service. How can they on one hand accept payment for their hosting service and on the other claim any right to the content of a service they provide. Lets dumb it down, LL is no more than a web hosting service. They do not provide an endgame. They do not provide a fun experince. They provide a platform on which the creators do provide all the entertainment and content. If we look at this in the most basic form, I cannot see anyway that LL has a right to claim ownership of any content on their servers. Nail meet coffin.