Toysoldier Thor

Gavin Hird wrote: LOL - you keep making insinuations that has no base in fact! :-)) What I say is this: To declare a license that is not based in legal realities don't give you any protection whatsoever, but only hurt your business. The same goes for TOS. Ask Microsoft if they enjoyed paying 1.8 billion Euro in fines. I have seen your debates with others that disgree with you and I know that you will not admit you are wrong on the advice you are trying to suggest to others....i.e. a smart business practice for SL Account Buyers is to ASSUME YOUR LEGAL ENTITLEMENTS instead of confirming them with the Seller and abiding by them. So... my message stands with everyone else reading the thread.... You can run your SL business the way Gavin suggests you do .... ie. run your SL business on shifting sands of unknown - unproven legal actions floating over your head.... Or... you can assume the least level of understood LL and Sell agreement entitlements and then confirm increased entitlements up from this position based on getting stated confirmation of what you are entitled to - and as such you remove any doubts and risks to your SL business. In the end.... between LL's TOS, the Creator's Selling EULA, and you the Buyer... the party in this triangle with the least amount of control / protection is the Buyer. As such, as the Buyer of full perm content in SL... protect yourself and dont make assumptions like Gavin is making and dont go into a business operation where the willingness to take things to court to prove that LL or the Sellers agreements that you agreed to in both circumstances are invalid is an operating principle.

Gavin Hird wrote: The reason is, at the bottom of it, rooted in technical limitations that can't be mended without major re-engineering of the asset system. OK Gavin... Prove it. Show me evnidence from LL that this was the reason? It has nothing to do with your idea. All your "this is the fact - deal with it posting" wont change that. If this was actually the reason (which its not) and LL actually was stupid enough to deploy the Mc Gavin solution - SL would never have been as successful as it was. because so many ppl would not have registered knowing that their RL account was fully disclosed. You sure come up with some grandious idea. Anyway.. you are going on a tangent. This does not change the facts. LL registers each of your accounts that YOU agree to each time. The TOS is based on these rules and it would be in your best interests to abide by them instead of trying to make arguments how they can be proven to be invalid.... and for what purpose Gavin???

Gavin Hird wrote: Toysoldier Thor wrote: Gavin... you are right that you all agreements between you and LL are to YOU and not your Avatar accounts with LL, then why did EACH of your LL ALTS have to register for and agree to the terms LL set out for you before you logged in? Why Did LL not register YOU the human and allow you to simple add more accounts related to you? Simply because the permission system in SecondLife is derived from the Unix permission system. I have previously posted to the extent how this could be reorganized to have a common asset store for a main account and alts. It takes a bit of system re-eenigneering to do it. That is not the reason Gavin. LOL nice dreamsing. Simply because of a technical reason. Cough cough. Come on Gavin. Get real. It has NOTHNG TO DO WITH Technical limits. Many LL customers want full anonymity. They would not register them as a fully disclosed human even if it were offered. Most users would still create multiple human accounts that are fake. IT has to do with the fact that in this virtual world, LL wants the Registered Account to be the entity that all LL TOS relates to.... If a human wants to have mulitple registered accounts, that is fine but each of them still have to abide by the TOS. stop coming up with these dreamed up ideas.

Its too bad LL never posts here. I would love if a person from LL Legal Team would chirp in and set the record straight on what rights a person's many Alts have vs not have. How do they see Gavin's statements that LL's TOS does not hold water and that Gavin can do what he feels he is entitlted to...

Gavin Hird wrote: Toysoldier Thor wrote: So stop trying to find loopholes in an attempt to violate a IP creator's rights. First of all I am not looking for loopholes to violate an IP creator's rights. It is a completely baseless insinuation! I also don't have any assets in my inventory created by you. They were deleted months ago. So you can stop that discussion right now! Just because there is a TOS does not mean it holds water when tested with the legal system. Both Microsoft and Apple has to warying degree found this out the hard way. To declare a licence that is not based in legal realities, is nothing but disengenious and only hurts the issuers own business. Gavin I am not talking about my content you bought from me... I am talking about your poor assumptions you are making and how you are trying to find legal loopholes in the LL TOS you agreed to and the Seller's agreements that were posted to you before you bought. You say you are not looking for loopholes in any of the agreements and then you say what I highlight in red. Anyone that creates and rests their business operations based on misunderstood and non-legal tested assumptions of the stated TOS is operating their business dangerously. They might be right and that is great... but the risk to their business if they are wrong is huge. By making the assumptions you are making and by making statements that LL"s TOS that you agreed to not holding water and can be proven wrong in court.... this is FINDING LOOPHOLES in my eyes Gavin.

I am going to say this again..... If you - the buyer - are not clear and/or do not understand the conditions of use of full perm content that you are buying from a Seller...... DONT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS THAT PPL LIKE GAVIN ARE MAKING. Do not assume your entitlements are for the better when they are not expressly stipulated by the Seller. Go back to the Seller and ask them for confirmation of what the Seller understands. I would also ask the Seller to email you any clarifications he / she makes for you on terms of use that were not stated in his / her selling Usage Agreement. What the OP did and is doing is EXACTLY what all buyers of full perm content should be doing - specially when the content will be used for a larger build that will be sold itself. Protect your own interests by replacing Gavin assumptions with clear stated facts..... and for heavens sake.... dont make business decisions based on loopholes you think you found because the Seller and LL's TOS are not valid or can be legally violated. It avoid a lot of trouble for you in the long run.

Anaiya Arnold wrote: Personally I've never needed to use a full perm item with another account, but I would not be judging someone who does so in instances where there is no indication they should not. If sellers want full perm content restricted to a single avatar, then they need to explicate this rather than expect everyone else to guess as much. It does no one any favours to pretend otherwise and in fact risks misinforming a full perm seller who might decide to rely on such an assumption based on reading such inaccurate advice. Anyone who wants to restrict use to one avatar should explicate this clearly in their license and preferably before the sale unless they are willng to refund the purchase. It's not something that it is reasonable to expect others to guess when the expectation of non-sharing between avatars relies on a wholly inaccurate assumption to begin with. There cannot be sales between avatars anymore than there can be sales between chairs, or bootstraps. It's very important that full perm sellers understand that they need to stipulate rather than assume non-sharing between a single persons' avatars if they wish such a restriction to limit sharing between a single person's avatars. Otherwise, even with the best will in the world, some people are going to fail to guess the intended restriction and will end up sharing between their alts contrary to the content creator's wishes, without ever realizing the content creator did not want them to do that. Anaiya, As has been posted earlier... the full perm sellers had and still have a reasonable cause understanding that BY DEFAULT unless otherwise stipulated, the buyer of content should not assume the buy is between HUIMANS - its between REGISTERED LL ACCOUNTS that all humans have agreed to the LL TOS before each of their registered LL accounts were allowed to log into SL with. You and your Alts each operated independently by you. Of course you have the full rights as the human that registered each of these LL accounts, but you also agreed to the limitations that each of your accounts with LL has. You as a buyer of the full perm content should assume that you CANNOT transfer content to your other alts based on LL agreed terms and because how can any full perm seller reasonably control use of their IP usage when he / she has absolutely no way to confirm or even validate who all your alts are? HECK even LL doesnt know that all your Alts belong to you. So, how do you or Gavin or any others think it would hold up in court when the Seller takes you to court for this poor assumption of the LL TOS and the Seller's Usage agreement? And, last point on your content... its is really in the best interests of the BUYER of full perm content to buy this content from the seller with a 100% full agreement of the terms that the Buyer needs from the content. WHY? Because lets say you are a buyer of a pack of full perm textures from a Seller of these textures. The deal happens and you then spend 2 months making this amazing new creation and put this new creation onto MP and make 1000's of sales from this build. Then 1 year later the Seller notices that you seem to have violated one of his conditions of use of his full perm textures. He demands you STOP selling your products based on it and also he is furious and wants compensation from you - a portion of all your sales you made from this amazing build. He takes you to court over it. IF he loses, other than court fees all he loses is no access to the revenue he wanted from you and nothing else. IF he wins, courts shock you and side with the Seller (Gavin and Riven and Nef were wrong after all - ohh darn - why did I listen to them and that thread).... other than court fees you also lose your main product that was a hot seller, you also *owe the Seller actual $ penalties by paying his back a portion of the renenues that he demand. So.... let me ask you again.... who do you think is the party between the full perm seller and buyer that should be most interested in making sure the terms of use of the full perm content. Let me answer for you..... THE BUYER !!

Innula Zenovka wrote: Gavin Hird wrote: As anything else that belongs to you, from a legal standpoint you are the owner (holder) of any licence that you have acquired via a proxy in the form of an account whether it is a bank account, a gmail account or an alt account in SecondLife. It is impossible to grant a license to you bank account. If anyone did, the licence would automatically have been granted to you, the owner of the account. If you purchase a license from Microsoft to use Office, the license is not granted to the paypal account you may have paid it with, but it is granted to you. The inventory of an alt account in SecondLife is just assets belonging to you, like money in your bank account is an asset beloning to you. You, the legal person, have the ownership of the assets, as you also have the full responsibility. You must not let the legal aspect be muddled by the fact that we in SecondLife tie virtual personas to accounts that you own. You're confusing an account as a means of payment with an account that you own. But, since you mention bank accounts, they provide a good example. I have several accounts in RL with the same bank. They all belong to me, as does the money in them, but the bank pay me, or not, interest at different rates, and allow me access to my money on different terms, depending on which of my accounts I've deposited my money in. I can't, in other words, say to the bank, "it's all my money, no matter which account it's in, so you should pay me the same rate of interest on it all, or allow me immediate access to it all". Good example! But Gavin will buck this. So lets use Gavin's own example he posted to me about his beloved Apple. He says that its not Apple usage agreements that allow the sharing Apple allows among devices yet then he goes on to say that Apple allows 5 registered devices as a limit. Hmmmm that is a law of the land ??? Sounds like that is an Apple usage agreement...... So Gavin... based on your understanding of law, I guess since all the devices I might own of Apples... since they are all mine - Apple cant tell me which devices I can and cant share with. Apple signed an agreement with ME not my devices. My devices are only agents of me. right?? Now watch how Gavin will spin this to be different. He is fully willing to spin that the LL USER ACCOUNTS he registered from EACH TIME he registered with LL for EACH ACCOUNT is does not count and all activities among all his accounts is applicable to the one human. But this does not hold true with Apple's per registered account / device. Gavin... you are right that you all agreements between you and LL are to YOU and not your Avatar accounts with LL, then why did EACH of your LL ALTS have to register for and agree to the terms LL set out for you before you logged in? Why Did LL not register YOU the human and allow you to simple add more accounts related to you? You know why, Because based on LL TOS and even generally most sellers agreements, the agreement is that your ACCOUNT operates independently and you are NOT entitled to transfer rights among accounts be default. Any BUYER that thinks their registered account by default can transfer content their alt bought between their REGISTERED accounts is the ones making poor assumptions.

Gavin Hird wrote: Innula Zenovka wrote: Gavin Hird wrote: Ciaran Laval wrote: Toysoldier is correct here, it's a license to use content that you purchase or a license to use content that you sell or give away, the terms of service 7.3 states this. That has never been the question. The issue is the difinition of you, and you are the account holder - a RL person. An avatar is just a proxy of the RL person. So it would seem you're buying the licence for use in connection with a particular account that you hold. That is what they try to make it out at, but the account (avatar) is just a proxy of the account holder. It is the account holder that is the subject of the law, which therefore also has the rights to use the licence. And here is where Gavin once again is trying to interpret the LL TOS that he agreed to when HIS LL ACCOUNT was registered with LL. He is trying to bend LL's TOS and most peoples reasonable understanding of the TOS as well as what most sellers of full perms understand. This is an agreement between accounts in a game that had rules that GAVIN the human agreed to. Now he is implying that LL is trying to deceive all of us in their TOS and in fact Gavin now is trying to dig for his only loopholes of logic in the TOS he signed up for and agreed to. Gavin.... your registered account in SL with LL is a contractually binding agreement you signed up for. and now you are looking for ways to bend or corrupt the TOS / agreement because you dont agree with what you signed up for. Your SL Account has USAGE RESTRICTIONS ... THAT YOU AGREED TO! Deal with it. The LL TOS makes for a reasonably understanding and assumption by most users of LL's service that there are usage restrictions between registered accounts. YOU the human shold not reasonably assume that you are entitled to have full access to my full perm IP among your other registered accounts simply because I might not have said so. LL TOS implies you agreed that you dont. So stop trying to find loopholes in an attempt to violate a IP creator's rights.

Read the TOS of LL on what constitutes content in SL - what it is and is not. It is moreso a License to Use. If a customer wants to challenge my understanding of their rights to my own IP of the content I created and am selling to others to use.... then let them take the issue to court. Honestly Made, I am really getting sick of this response from so many on these threads of .."did you take it to a lawyer". If I went running to a lawyer every time I had to interpret a situation about my SL business, my SL business would be bankrupt in the first few hours talking to a lawyer. Maybe your SL business makes thousands of RL $ a month and can have a lawyer on retainer to protect your lucrative SL main business, but I cant. Its not feasible. But I do think I know enough about my rights to feel good if and when an SL resident decides they want to knowingly violate my IP rights. I also can observe best practices from other creators in similar roles to me and read all that is available on the Internet. Let me turn this around on you Made... how many SL customer of your Full Perms sculpties that use it to make new selling creations went to a lawyer to confirm what they are and are not entitlted to when interpreting their business arrangement with you and your content? Since you keep bring up this question / challenge - how many times have you gone to your lawyer about your SL business? If the way I am protecting my content in SL is wrong - then wow - there is a whollleeeeee lot of SL Creator/Merchants that are doing it wrong and can be take advantage of by those in SL that are looking for loopholes to violate our rights. Not all us SL Creators are running an SL business to the extent that you must be doing where you can have a lawyer on retainer. LOL so I will follow your exposed practices on protecting your IP (as well as countless other content creators in SL) who do have the $ and lawyers on call. Oooops... I am already doing that. At the end of the day, unless you are full time dedicated IP content creator in SL and your main income is from the content you create and sell on SL (which is sounds like you are), the truth is - and most of us know this - most SL full perm content creators are 99% vunerable to even the slightest risks and attacks from copybotters, customers that think like Gavin, LL's weak levels of protection of our content, etc. Most of us SL Merchants make far to little from our created content to effectively protect our content. If a customer wants to violate our USAGE AGREEMENT, most know that in reality, there is little we can do to stop them. We simply have to trust and hope that most fellow SL Residents are honest law abiding customers and have a respect for the content we create to the level that they will honor our agreements. We can file a DCMAs on violators but we know often that is like doing #1 in the ocean. So... long winded answer to your question Made.... NO And when you ask me this question in the future again as a challenge to my understanding of my rights and the laws of the land.... you will get the same answer again. Hope that settles this re-occurnig question from you.

Gavin Hird wrote: Fear not, I have no intention of using the one item bought from you as anything but inverntory filler. As for Apple, in good Apple tradition, you can share all content purchased on iTunes and in the Mac App store with all your devices and Macs without restrictions. Something to think of? ;-) Ohh and how was I given that right Gavin by Apple? Was it through an Apple stated USAGE AGREEMENT or was it because I personally felt entitlted to use and share whatever I bought from Apple base on my own interpretation of the laws of the land? Since I am not an Apple user in any way but as you say that Apple ALLOWS (through their usage agreement that apple customers agreed to) customers to share content purchased on itunes... how can my Daughter share her itune song to my Android? Edit Add: As for how your purchasing alt uses my content - I dont care in the least as long as you abide by my lisencing agreement on how you are entitled to use it and that you honor the restrictions of how you can use it. If you want to let it just sit in your inventory as filler - fine by me. You are not hurting my feelings in the least as I know the quality of my product and I have countless customers including many of SL's top respected sim landscape designers that use my products and love it. What other SL merchants that are full perm creators should be nervous about is if the other alts of Gavin buy their content and realize Gavin's aparent disrespect of their stated Usage Agreements.

Gavin Hird wrote: You in the TOS text refers to YOU the REAL LIFE PERSON reading this. So when YOU purchase something by proxy of your avatar, YOU have the right to use it. Any other construct will not hold water in any jurisdictial system. So Gavin, What you are telling all of us is that YOU do not and will not respect the terms of service that you agreed to when you registered and signed into LL's SL nor will you respect the license agreement stated on MP place by the Creator of content in SL? Is that what you are saying. You have told me in the past that one of your Alts has bought my content. I am telling you now.... Gavin nor any of your other Alts in SL are entitle to a USAGE LICENSE to my content. Only the ALT that bought my product can use the content it bought. None of your other alts are entitled to it. Are you saying you are violating my agreement and have copied my content to your other alts? The LL TOS is very clear in any anyone's eyes except for those that are looking for loopholes and love to skirt the law with their own interpretations of the terms they signed up for. You did not buy my product... your avatar bought a license to use MY content of which I - the human behind my avatar told you explicitly you cannot share with your other avatars. I don't care what you think about your interpretation of the law. If you copied my content to your other alts... YOU - the human - are violating MY license to use. Its sad that you see licensing of SL product this way. I really thought based on your RL background with apple that you would consider IP rights to be something to be honored. I am also sad to see how many of my fellow merchants in this thread seem to have such little regard of other SL Merchant's content usage rights in their attempt to explain how they have rights in RL that circumvent both their agreed to obligations as a customer of LL's and their agreed to terms of use of products they bought from another SL member.

The majority of Viewers on the market are NOT LL Viewer 2/3. So the same would hold true on the percent of Merchants that use LL viewer vs Phoenix / Firestorm. I guess if the answer is "You cant be a MP DD Merchant unless you use LL's Viewer" it gives me and most other merchants another reason to delay the migration to DD (not that I was going to be the first anyway - more like the last). Hopefully by the time LL decides to shut down Magicbox delivery - all the TPV's will support Merchant MP Support.

CommerceTeam Linden wrote: For those who would like to review some of the documentation we will be releasing on March 21, we have had Beta versions of these documents up since we launched the Direct Delivery Beta. Here are a couple of links to those documents: Migration Guide Draft Selling in the Marketplace Draft If you would like to try Direct Delivery out and get some of your questions answered that way, please try it out on the Beta Grid. Just read through the Migration Guide Draft. I didnt notice any Merchant Prerequisites for Merchants prior to migration so I have to assume that Merchant's DD migration and MP product uploading / updating is Viewer Agnostic. If that is the case, when does this MERCHANT FOLDER show up on all our viewers? Will this pop up on my Phoenix or Firestorm viewers on March 21st? My Phoenix does not have a ME> menu items so what are the migration steps for different generations of viewers (i.e. the Phoenix vs the LL3/Firestorm viewers). How does a Merchant update a product into MP via this process? If I migrate product XYZ-v1 and the following week I want to upgrade it to XYZ-v2 how does this work? How bout if I update my product without changing its name (i.e. no version label on the name of the product... XYZ then XYZ)? What does this do to the MP and DD when the new product with the same name is uploaded?

Rival Destiny wrote: As for the license itself, the person who said you can put anything you like in it, but it's not necessarily going to hold up in a court of law, is bang on correct. Nobody is saying that the person is allowed to ignore, they are saying that if your license is poorly written, then someone may use your product for something you don't want them to. Think of an unlocked car and a purse sitting on the seat. Just beccause someone says that it would be easy to take that purse, does not mean that they are endorsing stealing. You see what I mean? As for your own terms of use on your products, if I were to purchase them in SL I would follow your license to the letter. If you said no alts, I would not pass them to my alts. Even if I legally could I would still not so so. Having said that, if you did not specify useage by alts, then I would consider it. And as I said to the OP earlier on in the thread - if you are worried or unsure of the legalities, you can always ask the seller/creator. I know you would follow the seller's agreement but re-read Nef's posting. She said that since she - the human bought the content - she feels entitled to let all her alts have a copy of that content since she owns them all. This implies to me that even if the seller says she cant - she feels she can since she was the buyer and owns all her alts. That is what angers me. And as for the statement about whatever was written in the contract stands..... the responding poster took the point completely out of context. I didnt imply that a contract can dictate the violation of local laws. I was trying to say that in contract law... if I sell you something and in my agreement that you agree to I say something like you can buy my product but are not allowed to use it... that violates no laws. Its a silly agreement and a buyer would be stupid to agree to a contract that say I am buying a product I cannot use - but since it did not violate a law and was just a term of use... the buyer has to honor the contract they signed. The same holds true with a seller saying that content cant be shared among alts. Nef's posting indicated that she has the right to share any content she buys in SL among all her alts just because SHE the human bought it. Anyway... this thread is frustrating.... time to unsubscribe to it. Later all!

problem seems to have gone away - I just got a mass of delayed forum email notifications 1/2 hour ago. It was not my email as I was getting email notifcations from SL Inworld scripts and IMs. Just not forum subscriptions.

Is it just me or has email notifcations on all forum subscriptions stopped for others as of yesterday afternoon. All of a sudden late yesterday I noticed that the dozens of email subscription notifications I get from SL Forums stopped arriving. I checked my email this morning and they still are not coming. I checked the actual forums and there is actual activity in the forums and threads I watch.... I made no profile changes and the profile settings are all still set correctly. I even resaved and still no notifications. is anyone else seeing this?

What Nef said in her posting and that Riven is refusing to acknowledge she stated and which seems to goin in harmony with Riven's initial posting that started this whole discussion is basically... Paraphrasing.... "Since I fully believe that under a court of law I - the Human - was the actual buyer from the seller in SL/MP I will rightly come to the conclusion that all products I buy from any seller in SL/MP is a product for ME the human and not my alts. As such I am fully entitled to use the sculpts textures etc. I bought from any seller among any of my alts - regardless if the Selling Alt states in the product license that I am not allowed to share the product among my alt". If you Riven and anyone else is now saying that the RL person behind the ALT that bought the product is allowed to ignore / violate the creator/seller's stated "Limited Use Agreement" which would state the buyer CANNOT TRANSFER CONTENT BETWEEN ALTs.... then this is a pretty sad situation in the SL community. Since the SL ALT is the agent of the RL person.... then when the SL SELLING ALT states clearly in the product's "limited use agreement" that "YOU CANNOT TRANSFER OR RESELL ANY CONTENT IN THIS PRODUCT AS STAND-ALONE ITEMS", I sure as heck better not see Nef buying my agent's products and transfering it to any of her other alts because of her interpretation of her god given rights as a human behind her buying alt. What is good for her (rl buyer behind her alts) is good for me (rl person stating my IP rights thru my alt). Nef IS NOT entitled to transfer any of my content to her other alts - regardless of who is the legal buyer - because my limited use agreement of the IP content I have rights to has stated to her that SHE CANNOT TRANSFER STAND-ALONE CONTENT SHE BOUGHT FROM ME. That is ME telling HER. And she she pays for and received my product - SHE (the human) has agreed to my terms of the purchase. Is anyone here debating this? So I will say this once again and fully endorse Amethyst's last posting..... dont make your own legal assumptions of what the seller said or didnt say and what rights you have if a SELLER didnt make a point in the agreement that you are not sure of. Do exactly what the OP of this thread has done...... Go back and confirm with the creator/seller on exactly what rights you have when you are not sure. This will avoid a lot of potential future hassle for you and the seller. DONT ASSUME TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT - CLARIFY THEM WITH THE SELLER. As for anyone above that posted the silly and obvious statement that a contract cant violate a local law - welll DUHH!!! Where did I say anything about a contract stated that violates a local law? What I said was that I can stipulate how my product that is being used can or cannot be used. I was using an extreme example in saying that if a IP Creator states something as silly as "if you buy this product you are agreeing to never use it and it can only sit in your inventory" then that is the agreement you agreed to by buying the creator's product. If you are silly enough to read the terms of use and still buy it - that is your fault. If you dont like the terms of the purchase agreement - then dont buy it.

Thank you amethyst! At least someone on this thread is reading and listening and understands

Rival Destiny wrote: Nefertiti Nefarious wrote: Alts are merely multiple manifestations of the same LEGAL persona ... the real person behind the keyboard. They have no standing in law, they are not real persons, they cannot be sued for anything, and they cannot sign a binding contract. Only the human behind the alts can. A sale to Nefertiti Nefarious is really a sale to the person whose credit card pays for the stuff. Likewise, a sale to my Anonymous Alternate is also legally a sale to that real person, not a bunch of pixels. So prohibiting transfer among alts is a concept that you would have a very hard time enforcing legally ... all my alts are ME. And if I bought it, I would expect to be able to freely use it. This is my understanding also in regards to what the law defines as a legal entity. SL is a platform where real people do business with real money using our avies as our agents. We cannot circumvent the legal system by assigning legal rights to a virtual being that is in fact driven by a real person. This is yet another instance where you cannot separate rl from sl. So Rival, go on and read the rest of Nef's statement. Nef believes that her RL rights behind her avatar allows her the right to vioilate / negate the license / agreement rights set by the real life seller's avatar simply because she (the human) in her opinion is the actual buyer. She forgets that a usage agreement set by creator and selling IP rights owner can state ANYTHING it wants and if she purchases the creator's product - she has agreed to and is obliged contratually to this agreement (dont matter if the human or his/her agent is telling her). IF I am the seller and in my agreement for the widget I am selling it says :"by purchasing my full perm widget - the purchaser agree to never actually use the widget that was just bought for any purpose at all other than to sit in the purchaser's inventory".... then the RL human of the Avatar selling agent expressed his limited use agreement to any purchaser that made the decision to buy it. As such, Nef's avatar buys it and Nef is contractually obliged never to use the widget she just bought.... regardless if it was her avatar or her.... it amazing how many are trying to come up with ways around the creator's IP rights and agreements.... loopholes and rights that trump avatar agreements..... sigh

Nefertiti Nefarious wrote: Alts are merely multiple manifestations of the same LEGAL persona ... the real person behind the keyboard. They have no standing in law, they are not real persons, they cannot be sued for anything, and they cannot sign a binding contract. Only the human behind the alts can. A sale to Nefertiti Nefarious is really a sale to the person whose credit card pays for the stuff. Likewise, a sale to my Anonymous Alternate is also legally a sale to that real person, not a bunch of pixels. So prohibiting transfer among alts is a concept that you would have a very hard time enforcing legally ... all my alts are ME. And if I bought it, I would expect to be able to freely use it. Then Nef... based on your understanding and beliefs stated here... and the fact that you are basically saying that regardless if a full perm creator in his agreement tells you that his/her creations can ONLY be used by the ALT of yours that bought it... do me a favor... dont buy my products as you would be violating my agreement and intent in my agreement. Your statements are saying that your LINDEN TOKENS that bought a creator's product entitles you - the HUMAN behind all your SL ALTs - to move and copy the creator's content to any of your ALTs regardless if he says you cant.... buecause you believe what you believe? i.e. all Creator / Merchant agreements and terms of use to Nef are null and void and have no meaning. pretty sad. EDIT: So expanding on Nef's beliefs..... since the Creator/Seller's avatar is an agent of their REAL HUMAN.... the stated contract that we have posted whereby the Creator TELLS you in his terms of use that "only your buying ALT has the right to use his creation and cannot transfer it to ANY other SL account".... you - the human behind your ALT must abide by the contract the creator behind his alt tells you. If you dont like the terms.... walk away... but you surely are not entitled to rights the creator told you that you are not.

Lasher Oh wrote: Bella - I know that pain all too well it has taken more than 18 months to get my listing sorted after that nasty migration and then their ludicrous maturity demands. This time round I'm praying that it won't be such a malevolent process. As far as I'm aware we do not need to rush into the DD thing. We can keep our magic boxes for a period of time not yet disclosed. I certainly don't intend to be giving up my boxes any time soon and my finger nails will be embedded in them right to the last. I don't trust LL devs to make this new system run smoothly as they tend to do things that suit themselves and not their customers. However I hope I'm proved wrong this time around. ^L^ I am totally onboard with your strategy on LL's DD deployment plans. I will be the last one to move my magicbox delivery to DD and I will turn out the lights on magicbox. But Lasher, what scares me is that (as LL has proven time and time again - look at their partial almost full deployment of Received Items this past weekend) LL could risk impacting the operations / sales / delivery of even those of us that try to avoid being the first DD delivery users. The changes they need to deploy has to - at least in some part - impact the current magicbox delivery system as MP code in general will have to be changed. So... even for us that will be last to run to DD - hold on to your shorts!

Deja.... I think you are doing EXACTLY what you should do. Wherever you assume or are not sure of the Seller's agreement in any way, it is ALWAYS the wiser move to remove doubt and uncertainty and go back to ask the Seller what his/her intent was in the agreement - even if he/she did not clearly make a point in the agreement. This is prudent and it also keeps you out of any future potential problems. The advice is..... IF YOU ARE UNSURE - ASK THE SELLER !!

Pamela Galli wrote: Sales in SL, unless stated otherwise, are always between accounts (ie avatars). You cannot, for example, buy one of my houses, copybot it, and give it to your 9 alts, "because it is the same person behind them". Yes, ppl do sometimes want me to give them a house because, they say, their alt bought the house. There is no way for me or any seller to verify who is an alt of whom, much less who the RL typist behind any account is, so it is simply specious to suggest that transactions can be consider anything but between accounts, unless it is stated. I 100% agree with you Pamela. And I would ASSUME most sellers in SL see it the way you and I see it. Most do not assume that the BUYER is the hidden human behind the Avatar.

Rival Destiny wrote: Toysoldier Thor wrote: At the time your AVATAR AGENT entered into the purchase agreement, your AGENT did not divulge to the seller who the REAL LEGAL PURCHASER WAS. So, as such the agreement can only logicall be between the agents. Or worse yet, based on your understanding of contract law..... since both the buyer and seller agents are not legal entities... what you are suggesting is that the sellers agreement in general is completely null and void. So basically full perm sellers have NO PROTECTION legally in SL since obviously the agent cannot enter into any agreement - its not legal in the eyes of the court - and the buyer is not a legal agreement entering entity since the agent cannot enter into any agreement.... So I guess its a free for all. LL does not force you as an SL AVATAR to openly and publicly reveal your RL identity nor all of your Agents you control. Since this is clealy information not readily available to any other resident in SL - including the seller Avatar agent, it sure would be interesting so see your court case go up against a seller that you made the assumption YOU were the buyer and that the seller didnt clearly state your RL identity is the buyer. IF by default the Purchaser is the RL human as you state or even if a Seller clearly states that the RL human is the buyer and that only one of his AVATARS can use the asset.... I guess this seller must take his products off the MP.... since MP is designed to make sales between AVATARS - not HUMANS. Even if the Seller wanted to sell on MP - MP has no way to collect the RL Buyer's informtion prior to you making the legal purchase agreement as a human buyer. The seller cannot force you to agree to the terms of the agreement prior to pressing the BUY button and to provide your RL info to the Seller prior to pressing the buy button. So... if you ever do get taken to court for your assumption - I would hope you post a thread in this forum telling us if you won or lost on this case. I would be very curious to see if your assumptions on if the courts sided with you or the seller. I never assume. That is the part that I think you are misunderstanding here. I am not assuming anything. You are assuming that because something isn't stiupulated in a license that it shouldn't be considered. I'm saying, not assuming, that legally, if it's not mentioned in the license then it isn't covered. If it's not covered then you can legally go forward. Just because you have an issue with alts using textures doesn't mean that the texture creators who currently sell their textures and allow you to use them with your alts are wrong or unethical. Because according to your theries here, they should not be doing so. The statement you made that started this discussion between you and me.... This is a real grey area IMO with regards to the 'purchaser'. Unless it states in the license somewhere that the definition of 'purchaser' is the 'avie' then myself, I would consider my real life self to be the purchaser. To "consider" is in my opinion to "assume". If you said that ... Unless it states in the license somewhere that the definition of 'purchaser' is the 'avie' then myself, contract law would state that the "puchaser" in the agreement is myself" then this would not be you making an assumption or considering the situation - it would be stating the fact that if the seller does not define the definition of the BUYER - they BUYER is the human. Also, you said in this statement that unless the seller states in the agreement that the buyer is the avatar.... but later you state that contract law NEVER sees an avatar as a buyer - that an Avatar is only the agent. Since as you state that contract law only see an avatar as an agent - then any seller that includes in the agreement that the buyer is the avatar would not be valid in the eyes of the courts..... hmm??? Anyway... we can go round and round. Maybe you are right - maybe you are wrong. I do not agree.