tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post1899325833040483904..comments2023-12-14T18:17:52.957-08:00Comments on The Train Wreck Love Life: among the roots and baby's breath, I covered us with silver leavesEmilly Orrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07245643246821826101noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-16374324096556502702009-08-13T08:02:04.176-07:002009-08-13T08:02:04.176-07:00Yeah, the phrase "Visual depictions of patent...Yeah, the phrase "Visual depictions of patently offensive sexual conduct including, but not limited to, sex acts between consenting parties and masturbation" is pretty bizarre. Are they really saying that *all* sex acts between consenting parties, and *all* masturbation, are "patently offensive"? Offensive to whom? *I'm* not offended by masturbation. :)<br /><br />Is there a thread where they've given any clarification to that?<br /><br />Aside from appointing someone less pink and more socially skilled to oversee the process, or getting a time machine and going back and enforcing copyright from the start, I'm not sure what I'd advise the Lab to do about copyright stuff at this point. <br /><br />I don't think they're exposing themselves to significant liability by prohibiting copyright infringement and then (inevitably) policing that imperfectly: they can say "oh, sorry, you're right, that's against our rules but we hadn't noticed it, we'll take it down immediately", and your typical court is likely to find them blameless I think.Dale Innishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02771522211082181738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-9059143608307963242009-08-12T15:16:18.933-07:002009-08-12T15:16:18.933-07:00I tend to agree, though--legalese or not--I think ...I tend to agree, though--legalese or not--I think it fosters more hostility, in the long run, than it saves legal headaches.<br /><br />Am I suggesting they let things stand as they are? No, of course, they can't; it's far too late, and rather like locking the barn door eons after the cow has evolved opposable thumbs, but you're right, they have to do <i>something</i>. How'ver, they are setting themselves up in two distinct and disagreeable ways:<br /><br />1. The "But we've <i>always..."</i> brigade. Which is starting to be felt, the legal impact of which will be nil (they can't, after all, sue because they made a Catwoman outfit and didn't ask), but the potential <i>social</i> backlash of which is <i>huge</i>--and yet more makers (and purchasers, <i>and</i> holders of premium accounts and land) will walk due to this.<br /><br />2. The appointment of a brilliantly pink <i>bunny</i>--who's even <i>named</i> "Pink Linden"--to oversee this process. So far she's dodged and weaved with the best of them, been more perky than Torley, <i>and</i> managed to insult with a smile--all of which is guaranteed to circle us back to people leaving, or, if not outright leaving, telling everyone they know that SL is a bad investment.<br /><br />Again, residents gone, creativity lost, money lost, future customers lost. This isn't good for them in the long run.Emilly Orrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07245643246821826101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-71191083245420268702009-08-12T10:09:46.497-07:002009-08-12T10:09:46.497-07:00I agree with Mr. Magellan and Mr. Ortega, that thi...I agree with Mr. Magellan and Mr. Ortega, that this seems like a reasonable effort on the part of a corporation to protect themselves against copyright and trademark infringement claims (which, in fairness, are required for the owners to maintain their rights). It seems that much of what we're seeing, particularly with M Linden in charge, is the evolution of Linden Lab from a free-wheeling group of geeks to a larger, more corporate group - complete with, yes, lawyers. Particularly with pioneering free-wheeling geeks, it's not surprising that they would fix problems as they arose in an infuriatingly <i>ad hoc</i> manner.<br /><br />Miss Orr, you may be right that the ultimate aim of M and friends is to create a business-oriented virtual world, jettisoning along the way the role-players and casual social networkers that have made SL successful to date. As I've probably opined in these pages before, I can't see how that model works (at the very least, wouldn't there have to be an iron-clad way of showing the user's true identity, i.e., that M Linden = Mark Kingdom, before corporations could take it seriously?), but it doesn't mean the corporate gods think the same way. Nonetheless, both this episode, as well as the "adult" ghetto, seem like directives from the legal department. (The definition of "adult" content that you quoted above is an excellent example of legal-speak, a language that appear superficially close to English, but is entirely different in meaning.)Rhianon Jamesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13627163137265856251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-56203286773467368242009-08-12T08:16:43.450-07:002009-08-12T08:16:43.450-07:00Seems I remember a conversation I had with my SLis...Seems I remember a conversation I had with my SLister about a guy who was selling avatars of DC heroes. They were so well made, looking like they did in the comics, that DC sent him a cease and desist letter. And yet, outfits of DC characters are sold, just not so fine in detail. <br /><br />Paramount is aware of the Star Trek fan films that are being made all over the place, and I'm sure they're aware of the roleplaying in Second Life. As long as no actual money is being made (in other words, lindens made in world doesn't get converted to actual real world cash), they'll probably treat it as they do with the fan films. Just basically keep a close eye on their property.<br /><br />I was told the BBC is aware of the presence of "Time Lords" in Second Life. Again, as long as no real world money is being made, they seem to be ok with it. But, nobody really roleplays the Doctor, at least as far as I know. They roleplay Time Lords from Gallifrey, and only one has ever hinted at knowing the Doctor, but never mentioning him by name. Now, the use of the Daleks, that may be a different kettle of fish, as the estate of Terry Nation holds the rights to that. <br /><br />In the end, I think companies like DC, Paramount, and BBC may consider roleplaying in Second Life the same as "Fan Fiction", and be honest, it's what it is. <br /><br />I understand what Linden Lab is doing, it was just something they couldn't forsee in the beginning.Fuzzball Ortegahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08105503367947546821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-61498130481663303252009-08-12T08:05:26.189-07:002009-08-12T08:05:26.189-07:00I think you might be wrong in two areas, Mr. Magel...I think you might be wrong in two areas, Mr. Magellan, and here's why.<br /><br />First, it may be growing paranoia, but I'm seeing this as yet another step down the road to the SL that M Linden wants most of all: a pure unsullied business platform, where all corporations have a footprint, and it is used for shareholder meetings, medical and educational training seminars, and corporate workshops. <i>We</i>--the residents of the grid, above and beyond all issues of copyright infringement--interfere with that vision. A safe, sane, and most importantly, financially <i>sponsored</i> SL, with all the ragged edges tucked away and nothing untoward happening even out of sight.<br /><br />Second, Linden Labs <i>is</i> painting a rather vivid bullseye on their heads with this move--it will be well and good if <i>every</i> infringer of intellectual copyright steps forward and deletes non-authorized content, but, by owning XStreetSL outright, and by enforcing these policies in typical Linden Labs slapdash fashion--because you and I both know that is <i>exactly</i> what will happen--they will then be liable for everyone they do <i>not</i> track down. Yes, of course the residents are <i>also</i> liable, and subject to the exact strictures you mention. But Linden Labs is not off the hook--for corporations and private citizens can then bring suit for not stopping everyone <i>else</i>. As long as XStreetSL was owned by external business concerns, the Labs could legitimately shake their heads and say, <i>How could we enforce that?</i><br /><br />Now that they <i>can</i>, however, for all that the policies <i>state</i> the residents are enjoined to self-police--the Labs as a corporate body <i>also</i> open themselves to suits of infringement.<br /><br />Is it long past time that copyright protection needs to be in place on SL? Likely, all things considered. Are the Labs, as per their usual, picking the most insanely inefficient method possible, with the greatest potential corporate harm to themselves, that they can? Absolutely.Emilly Orrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07245643246821826101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-5624841523405384852009-08-12T07:48:49.689-07:002009-08-12T07:48:49.689-07:00Linden Lab has shown signs, repeatedly, that when ...Linden Lab has shown signs, repeatedly, that when it started SL it had no idea how it was going to evolve. After all, there were few good precedents that could serve as warnings. Consequently, LL had to be the first to run into problems that were not foreseen and perhaps not foreseeable. Where this latest tightening regarding copyright, trade marks, etc, is coming from is clearly LL's legal department. If it is now found that someone has infringed, that 'someone' will be the resident, not LL, since it has expressly and punitively discouraged the practice. LL can then delete the resident and be in the clear. Not nice to residents, but not silly for LL, either. I am far from convinced LL's position is the best, but it is at least safe for LL.<br /><br />It would have been ideal if the 'do's and don'ts' of SL were all laid out clearly at the start. However, LL was pursuing a different and possibly self-serving ideal of keeping its hands off and letting the world go where-ever it wanted. Unfortunately, the rest of the real world was less interested in global social experiments and more interested in defending its own intellectual property. Maybe signs should now be erected at orientation hubs 'Welcome to the real world!'<br /><br />As for items for which copyright has expired, the answer is obviously that there is nothing wrong in copying them, by definition. However, as far as I know, copyright does not expire until 70 years after the death of the copyright holder (and 100 years in the USA). I may be wrong on these legal niceties, but that is my understanding. Needless to say, most copyrightable items that you come across in the course of an ordinary day are still protected under copyright, regardless of the public perception.<br /><br />How will borderline cases be decided? In LL's favour, of course.<br /><br />Will appeals be given a fair hearing? No, LL will not waste its time with this. LL is probably finding that it spends more hours on policy development and implementation than actual product enhancement these days. It could well already be placing an unsustainable load on company.Mako Magellanhttp://victoriansecondlife.ning.com/profile/MakoMagellannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-76729304384940314382009-08-12T04:59:19.392-07:002009-08-12T04:59:19.392-07:00Which would have been better, though, Miss Myers? ...Which would have been better, though, Miss Myers? Enacting these policies from the beginning, for items in-world or out; or enacting these policies six months <i>after</i> buying out XStreet, a move many saw as largely self-serving, and significantly <i>after</i> creating Second Life itself, wherein many copyright-infringing items were created <i>by</i> Lindens and given out for free to new residents?Emilly Orrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07245643246821826101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-91749676355786428382009-08-12T04:40:19.154-07:002009-08-12T04:40:19.154-07:00uhm, regarding the branding guidelines... no one h...uhm, regarding the branding guidelines... no one had to complain. It's illegal. It's copyright infrigement. This comes as absolutely NO surprise to me at all, and I don't see that LL really has any choice but to make these guidelines. Does it suck? Sure.<br /><br />Brigitta MyersAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-59353774689731012062009-08-11T21:36:49.685-07:002009-08-11T21:36:49.685-07:00My answer at this point would be...yes.My answer at this point would be...<b>yes</b>.Emilly Orrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07245643246821826101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-66842945887640083062009-08-11T21:24:35.641-07:002009-08-11T21:24:35.641-07:00I really have to wonder if these people are on CRA...I really have to wonder if these people are on CRACK! <br /><br />*sighs heavily*Sphynx Soleilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08384124029613452884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-89691760092507038572009-08-11T20:31:32.858-07:002009-08-11T20:31:32.858-07:00No, you're right, but just sex--plain, vanilla...No, you're right, but just sex--plain, vanilla, no bondage, no leather, could even be plain heterosexual <i>*married*</i> sex--that's considered "patently offensive"??<br /><br />By <i>whom??</i><br /><br />And sure, I can take that bet, but if they're Winchell's or Dunkin' Donuts, well, they're going to be banned soon. :pEmilly Orrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07245643246821826101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135301473915671680.post-33623271227034895782009-08-11T20:27:59.123-07:002009-08-11T20:27:59.123-07:00Agree the copyright thing is going to be an incred...Agree the copyright thing is going to be an incredible mess.<br /><br />Doesn't look to me like it says that nudity is patently offensive; it just says that it's "Adult" and has to be marked that way. Patently offensive things are *also* "Adult" and have to be marked that way.<br /><br />I think I'll take that bet about banning all sexual content soon. How many donuts? :)Dale Innishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02771522211082181738noreply@blogger.com