city's breakling down on a camel's back

The question posed was daunting: can a virtual entity release (or even retain) copyright protections on their created works? Each of us, on the grid, is backed by a typist existing beyond the world we know; that entity is legally liable to, and protected by, copyright law. But if our virtual and real identities are never legally connected, what are the protections that support, or punish, our avatars?

I started by looking into Hatsune Miku. Footage of her performing live for a stadium crowd has been posted; and that article also led me to news of Kyoko Date, perhaps Japan's first virtual idoru kashu, back in 1996. This also drew me inescapably to footage of Feel Good Inc. by the Gorillaz, performed live. (Ironically, there was better, clearer, more synched coverage out there, but it's all been pulled in a copyright dispute with Viacom.)

But in the Gorillaz' case, all profits go back to the collective of artists--signed to Viacom, apparently, at this point--who got together and voiced/animated the band; Hatsune's profits go back to the software developers of Vocaloid. In both cases, the real dominates; and in Second Life, as much as we may deny it at times, the real dominates too. Unless we're wandering Octoberville, or a roleplay sim with rigged models, there are no NPCs in SL.

Okay, so where's the problem? At the end of the day everyone logs off and enters meatspace again. No one's wholly imaginary on the grid; so why is there concern at all?

The answer to that question just might be in how Second Life is perceived. MSNBC, a year ago, asked if Second Life was a game. Linden Labs have always insisted it wasn't. Griefers on the grid generally insist that it is. That's a pretty big chasm between the two modes of thought.

But think on this: if it's just a game, then, at the end of the day, it's all about points, not players. Moral or immoral, it's just virtual play; no consequences. Kill, maim, murder, stab, rape--steal--insult other avatars--be rude in public--wherever your personal 'do not cross' lines happen to fall...then go to sleep after, get up, and do it all over again. No harm, no foul.

But if it's not a game...if it's just us, finding new ways to express ourselves...if it's us finding new ways to live and interact with our fellow beings...then what happens on Second Life has consequences. Second Life then emphasizes Life, more than Second, and what happens there, happens to us and not just our avatars.

How many people have left SL over a broken heart? How many people have decided they can't date anymore in SL, and then stopped dating in RL, too? (I know at least one. And if there's one...) How many people make their livings in SL? How many people value their SL lives over their RL ones? (Again, not all of us, but I've known a few...)

So where are the lines drawn? It seems to be the mentality of those who lift and resell that it's just pixels, that it's on the net, and thus, on the net it's free; the internet ethos writ large in a virtual realm. But consider, truly consider, the price of that freedom:

* I don't pay for my Gmail account. But Google does. And partially to subsidize that, Google spins text ads across the top of my account. Some of them I click, some I don't--it's based on what I receive in email, which on occasion, makes for fun text ads.

* I don't pay for my web sites. (My friend pays fees, though, to host her domain--of which my web sites are a small, small part. Without her hosting, I would not have web sites.)

* I don't pay for my LiveJournal account. (But my friends did; in fact, I have a permanent account on LJ because of their largess.)

* I do pay for Netflix, which gives me the ability to have a set amount of DVDs delivered, and an unlimited amount of television shows and movies to be watched online. Are they "free", in that I can watch them anytime? No, because I pay for that account.

* And I maintain I pay for Hulu, because while I don't pay them by way of hard-earned dollars, I am telling them they can play ads for me, and I decide whether I like--or do not like--any ad I see. This both tailors my preferences, to the ads I want to see (in advertising speak, to the ads that will likely sell me something), as well as helps advertising marketers get a feel for what does--and what does not--work.

But we have to think to draw these conclusions, don't we? PBS has sponsors who carry the weight of programming costs; so does Radio Riel. Linden Labs itself is carried by tier payments and virtual real estate purchases; but they are also carried by upload fees, for sounds, animations and textures. A Second Life account isn't free; while it is possible for someone to completely and totally exist on SL and never spend a virtual dime, it's far from easy, and there is still investment in SL that goes on, in terms of hours spent at the keyboard, if nothing else.

Another article from 2007 mentioned the then fledgling involvement of IBM in Second Life. Now, it's a foregone conclusion; IBM owns several islands, and tops well over five thousand employees with active accounts. (Though I'm even more amused to consider the "Lips" picture on Philip Linden's avatar may be a copyrighted trademark...not that Richard O'Brien or the production company behind RHPS may care at this point, but again--see how far copyright infringement goes, when we start breaking it down?) Would IBM engage in islands used for corporate meetings, employee training, and product development if SL was just a game?

Beyond anything else, Second Life reflects real life. Beyond anything else, Second Life has a cost, just as life does. And the problems of the real world--from racism to copyright infringement, and everything in between--are reflected in the virtual realm.

Runes of Magic, when players move from zone to zone, or the main world to more private instances, flips up aged sketches of game concepts paired with tips for use of the game. One of those tips that randomly rolls around is a caution that everyone the player interacts with, in Runes, is a real person.

Maybe that should go up on the port screen now and again: "Remember: everyone in SL is a real person. Treat them accordingly."

Of course, then it comes down to the individual: are we likely to take everyone we meet at face value, and treat their homes and possessions as theirs, and worthy of respect? Or are we just there to sneer at the "fur fags" and toss LOLcubes onto their parcel until the sim crashes? Two entirely different motivations, as to how things work on SL.

It remains to be seen which motivation will win. In the meantime, I don't think there's any established precedent on a purely virtual construct having anything resembling rights; but there is no purely virtual intelligence on the grid (barring variations of the ALICE program). Massively commented last month on avatar rights and virtual property; it's a good read that outlines the basic concepts. And the Star had a wonderful article on avatar rights (largely concerning Anshe Chung); this passage in particular leapt out at me:

To avoid relying on property concepts, one scholar has written that avatars should enjoy the protection of defamation law. Her argument is that online characters rely on reputation when interacting in the virtual world and that slights to their reputation carry over to their real-world counterparts.

Especially considering the business with RR, that's a fascinating perspective.

The Simon Fraser University in Canada has a paper--available for reading or downloading online--in their digital collection about rights in virtual property; "ownership", in other words, and how it applies to virtual worlds. Gwyneth Llewelyn put out an article on "content theft" and raising awareness. And Stephen Euin Cobb wrote on discrimination against avatars last July, in a very thought-provoking article.

But none of this brings any further light to the topic at hand. The U.S. government--and I might go out on the limb and further state, no world government, in fact--is prepared legally to deal with the concept of virtual citizens of any realm. No one's thought this over, save people on the ground in virtual worlds, it seems. And none of the RL law has yet managed to catch up with what's happening online.

While many of the lawless, "Wild West" aspects of the grid are starting to fade (gambling gone, banking gone, slowly but surely the adult entertainment industries are being tucked away or disappearing entirely--at least, those who haven't decided the hell with Zindran life, they're moving back to the mainland), in many ways it's still a virtual frontier--because issues are being raised that the world beyond hadn't even bothered to consider. In ten years, will Second Life still be thriving? Maybe, maybe not--but if it is, it's almost a guarantee that there will be more virtual protections in place.

It remains to be seen whether those as-yet-unwritten protections and rights will combat the problems in any meaningful way--or, as with DMCA provisions now, just provide lip service between bouts of tortured misapplication of the principles.

show me the way and I'll try again

I doubt I'm done with the whole copyright issue, and the legal confusion of U.S. copyright law--and, considering Second Life is international, but Linden Labs are based in California, I'll likely continue to concentrate on U.S. law--but I've been holding several links open that I should just make a post out of, and move on from. (As ungrammatical as that was).

First, I'm not going to make a large deal on this, but protesting against Step Up! has had more repercussions than just job loss. Apparently I've been banned from Vade Mecum--which was somewhat baffling at first, because as far as I know, I've never been there. In fact, the only reason I found this out was due to following a link one of my hunt groups gave out, on a store in that sim offering a hat gratis that sounded vaguely interesting.

It turns out that the reason I was banned is because the sim owner is either friends with folks who are friends with one of the organizers of Step Up!, or just directly friends with the organizer in question. I will say that the sim, now I've been trying to find out more information, sounds rather interesting, and they have their own Ning community, to announce events in the sim and roleplay events.

If you scroll down the main page announcements, in fact, you'll find a link to Couture Chapeau, which is currently doing a wonderfully vintage hat line--and, in fact, was the store I was trying to reach to check out their work.

I'd encourage everyone to check them out if you're interested; I love the layout on their Ning, and it sort of sounds like they might have Steampunk touches, now and again.

I just can't. Since I'm banned.

In other news, I meant to make mention of this before, but Miss Dio on her blog, the Ephemeral Frontier, is collating all the various recent changes in SL and is cautiously seeing hope in how the Lindens are interacting with the grid. For me, the jury's still out, but she makes very good points.

MMORPG ponders, what is an MMO? It's a good, thought-provoking article. And i09 pleads for people to stop oppressing men in fantasy games. (On a more serious note, i09 ponders recent changes in science fiction in media, and whether or not those are sexist, or empowering. Their answer, by the way? Both.)

And tomorrow, the Exodi sim starts their Quest for Flesh hunt--hunting for small candy bars containing skin, eyes, or candy. (I'll briefly point attention towards the first skin shown in that blog entry as evidence of how copyright infringement remains a thorny issue on the grid...) But the skins and eyes look really good, I'm looking forward to the hunt.

In the meantime, the shops of Wretched Hollow are having a pumkpin hunt, with a slight difference. Most of the prizes range between one and ten Lindens, with the occasional skull scattered about with limited edition Lord and Lady Hollow outfits for L$100. (I'll post pictures later, and I'll have to negotiate with Miss Neome for modeling the mens' versions, but the Hollow outfits come in Blood Red--a gorgeously shadowed deep, rich red bustle-dress with flexi sleeves--and Blood-Spattered--which is a muted charcoal with splashes of blood across the bodice and the front of the skirt. They're very well done, and well worth the $L100 per outfit.)

We realize that the hunt is going to take some time. There are things that you can do to help reduce the amount of lag while you are hunting. You can lower your draw rate to 128 under preferences/graphics. This helps lag on the server side by not making it process things that you aren't near. You can also help out by switching to non scripted hair and clothing while hunting. The Lindens are finding that the resize/recolor scripts in the hair and clothing are really hurting sim performance. If there is considerable lag, you may be asked to remove some items. Please do not be offended.

All things considered, these are very polite tips, but it does make me ponder. For one, Miss Oriana Kuhr's entire product line, fashion-wise, relies on resize scripts. Now, I realize, many of us could get the size we want of the item we want and strip the scripts, but many of Dilly Dolls's resize-scripted skirts are also recolorable, via scripting. One skirt, eleven tops, you can't just strip the color scripting out--unless you want default black for all your outfits.

But it does make me think--how many businesses leapt on the resize scripting bandwagon (especially hair designers!) because it would "stop" Copybot and similar programs, somehow. (In truth, it doesn't, at all, but delusions persist.) And now that it's turning out to be as big a problem as Mono-scripted rezzing items? How soon will we see resizing scripts vanish from all the companies who once thought it was so necessary to employ them?

And how many of those selfsame businesses throw up their hands and declare an end to it, and leave the grid over it, declaring a loss of any perceptible profit?

Participating stores are all Wretched Hollow merchants and include Wretched Dollies, Sick With Lust, La Boheme, Silent Sparrow, Likka House, House of Debauch, Blood Tea, Rainbow Sugar and Occular Oddities.

Considering Occular Oddities is becoming a new favorite eye shop, and I've been a member of Silent Sparrow since the dawn of time--and I like poking around the Wretched Dollies shop on occasion--this is the perfect hunt for me. Twenty-one pumpkins? Bring 'em on!

Get your pumpkin hunters' kit here--including the notecard with the passages I quoted--and join in the fun!

he best advice she said was just forget it, but the ants will march until their queen has come

(Much of today's article was written by reading through the Copyright Page found on the website of the Artists Rights Society of New York and the United States Copyright Office webpages.)

Really interesting--in a psychotic fashion, of course--way to announce a new video game hitting the shelves.

I particularly like the lock of long black hair. That's just perfect.

And Amanda Palmer talks more about music, sponsorship, fans and trust.

Physical art follows real copyright law, just as digital art does, and it does not fully adapt to an understandable protection set for the users of virtual worlds, but at least it's a starting point. So let's go from the basics to the specifics.

Copyright, as defined by U.S. Title Code 17 provisions, is a form of protection reserved to the creators of original works, which can include literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and other intellectual works. Copyright can extend to unpublished work as well, depending on the work.

According to the Wikipedia page on the Copyright Act of 1976, these significant protections and provisions were added:

Under section 102 of the Act, copyright protection extends to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device".

That's a pretty long definition, but it goes on to define "works of authorship" as any of the following:

1. Literary works (fiction, non-fiction, poetry, prose or verse, dictionaries and thesaurii, cookbooks, craft books, autobiographies and biographies--you get the idea);
2. Musical works (with or without lyrics, any form of musical composition);
3. Dramatic works (with or without music, covering all plays ancient and modern, and all derivative works from plays, musicals, and performance pieces);
4. Pantomimes and choreographic works (from street performance to Broadway dance exhibitions);
5. Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works (physical sculpture forms in all media, paintings, drawings, and sketches, and any and all graphics, both physical and digital);
6. Motion pictures and other audiovisual works (film and other recording forms, including television broadcasts, cable television broadcasts, and satellite television broadcasts);
7. Sound recordings (music, performance, comedy, and audiobooks);
8. Architectural works (small or large in scale, buildings for private or public use, utilizing any building form).

The owner of the copyrighted work in question is generally granted "the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

1. To reproduce the work in copies or phonograph records (and, unspoken but treated as given, digital reproductions);
2. To prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted originals;
3. To distribute copies of the work to the public by sale or other ownership transfer, or by rental/lease/lending of the original work or a copy of the work;
4. To perform the work publicly (reading aloud from a literary work, performing choreographed movements or musical pieces from the work, pantomime derivations of the work, or audiovisual representations of the work; this [again unsaid] would also include releasing audio or audiovisual works on the net;
5. In the case of sound recordings alone, the law has been amended to include all forms of digital audio transmission.

"Sound recordings are defined in the law as 'works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work' ", as those are in general protected by the copyright section regarding audiovisual works, according to the U.S. Copyright Office. In addition to the copyright provisions listed above, works of visual art have also been granted independent attribution rights, and artistic integrity rights, further explained in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act.

Okay, so that's what copyright law (in the United States, at least) currently covers; how long does it last? According to the U.S. Copyright Office, copyright protection exists from the first moment the work is created in "fixed, tangible form"; in other words, the first time a tangible, material copy or phonorecord (or, I would assume, equivalent digital recording or publication; I might be wrong on this, how'ver) is made of the original work. If the work is copied over a period of extended creation time, then each period of creation creates copyright for that section of the original work.

Only the original artist (author, dancer, performer, architect or the like), or those individuals deriving rights through the original artist (in the case of commissioned works, for instance, where the holder of copyright is the patron, or splits the rights between the patron who commissioned the work, and the artist who created or performed the work) can rightfully claim copyright on such fixed works.

Sometimes copyright is conferred from first date of publication; in these cases, generally copyright is granted to the publication for the run of that publication: for example, if Smithsonian Magazine published an article on Chinese representations of the horse in historical art, in their September/October issue, the copyright would be © to the Smithsonian Business Ventures Group (and/or the Smithsonian Institute) for the period of that print run. Generally, that would be two months--September to October--inclusive; for the period of September of the current year to September of the year following; or from September of the current year to February of the year following (a six-month run). In all cases, rights would then revert to the author of the original work; they are, with very few exceptions, never held in perpetuity. (And if they are, you've signed a bad contract; don't do that again.)

Now, in this light--original "fixed" nature of work--and remembering that unpublished work can be considered to be under copyright if a copy is made; would it not then follow, on the grid at least, that the first time we copy any original prim or system-layer object/item of clothing, we haved fixed that object in terms of copyright?

Think about this. Say I create a rug from one of my textures. If the properties are pulled up on that texture, it will say I created the rug on October 11, 2009. The original texture will show I uploaded it to the grid on October 8, 2009. If someone then comes and downloads that texture from looking at the copy I have in my store, set for sale, and then puts out their own version dated October 15, 2009, mine would be the earlier "fixed" attribution of copyright for any conceivable claim, yes?

Is my copyright--always assuming I created the images to use in the uploaded texture in the first place--diluted by the infringement of my work? Yes. Of course it is. Is there a way to recoup potential financial loss? Not so much. But I can, assuming I own the textures, and thus, any derivative works of them, claim copyright violation to the Lindens, whereupon they will be bound by the laws of the DMCA to block such content from being seen on the grid.

This is, of course, all assuming I even know who infringed on my copyright; on the grid, sometimes it's harder to trace who's lifted what for sales elsewhere.

According to the provisions of copyright, however, origination is key; simply having a work in your possession does not confer copyright ownership:
The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey the copyright or any interest in the copyright. This remains in the possession of the creator and is often referred to as the underlying artist’s copyright, distinct from the physical object which embodies it.

Thus, no transfer of copyright-exclusive rights can be made, in terms of the original creation. I've always wondered where that puts collage-level works; because in essence, this is what much of SL creation comes down to:

1. LSL script for operation from Avatar X;
2. Prim created originally by Linden Labs tools for use within the Second Life medium;
3. Sculpt map to form the prim created by Avatar Y;
4. Texture created by Avatar Z.

In such a case, all you've actually done is assembled parts and put them together in a fashion of your design. Does this, then, constitute an original work that is then protected from the moment a copy is created of said design; or does this constitute a multiple ownership of copyright (you, the Labs, and Avatars X, Y and Z)?

Is anyone else falling asleep? I know these are important questions, but honestly....And in all honesty, most of the residents on the grid don't want to think this much. They want their copied fashions and their "anonymous" textures and their free jewelry and their discount shoes. They don't want to have to ponder where the texture came from; where the sculpts came from; whether anything was acquired illegally.

Any or all of the copyright owner's exclusive rights or any subdivision of those rights may be transferred to another party, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the copyright or such owner's duly authorized agent. Such transfers are comparatively rare in the U.S. and are almost never knowingly engaged in by European artists. For more on this subject, go to “Related Topics” and see the pages titled “Do U.S. Owners of Works of Art Also Control the Copyrights?”

Everything I've learned about copyright in the last few days tells me, this would also cover things like Darien Caldwell's publicized flounce offworld, wherein she boxed up everything she'd ever created and set it out for "free"--for whatever use those who happened upon it would use it for.

Does an in-world notecard under an avatar name constitute transfer of copyright? Because if it does not, then every item that can conceivably used from that box retains original copyright to Darien Caldwell, and not to any subsequent scripters, animators, or makers of objects or outfits on the grid.

Now, that mention earlier of unpublished works; by which, I believe I mean, works which are not published under anyones' press/label, including vanity press/labels; this is what the Artists Rights Society says on the topic:

Unpublished works: All works that are unpublished, regardless of the nationality of the author, are protected in the United States. Works that are first published in the United States or in a country with which the United States has a copyright treaty or that are created by a citizen or domiciliary of a country with which the United States has a copyright treaty are also protected.

Which brings us, I suppose, back to collage, which has a tricky and wandering path to copyright. If most of the created objects on Second Life fit, truly, into the artform of collage, then how are those works protected?

First off, this is a good basic link that reinforces quick answers to all copyright issues, while not specifically addressing collage art; and the Bridgeman vs. Corel court case is excellent to read through regarding photographic reproductions and copyright infringement. And this link addresses some of the uncomfortable issues surrounding works commonly assumed to be in the public domain, that may in fact not be released yet from the provisions of copyright.

In this light, I myself may have textures on the grid that are in violation of copyright--while I maintain that the ragtime music covers I collected, retouched, aged, frayed, and backed with public-domain aged paper and shadowing are original works, per se--I may well be wrong. I'm not entirely sure, in fact, whom I'd need to contact to ascertain copyright release; though I'm fairly sure that since I was using the art of the sheet music covers, and further detailing them, without use of the music found within those (physical, not virtual) covers do not resemble my extracted work enough to qualify.

But, as said, I may be wrong.

From funnystrange.com's page on "Derivative works":

For a derivative work to be copyrightable, it must be "different enough" from the original works that it can be considered a new work in its own right. For most collage artists, this is not a problem. The very nature of collage generally involves combining multiple elements to create a new whole. However, keep in mind that the changes must be significant. Minor alterations to a single other work might not be "different enough."

Most important to the collage artist is that a derivative work can only include copyrighted material if it is created by the owner of the copyright on the original material, or with that person's permission. This means that making a collage that includes photos from National Geographic, Rand McNally maps, or pictures of Andy Warhol paintings, is illegal unless you have obtained permission from whoever owns the copyright on those works.

Or, unless we can ensure that those pictorial representations are in the public domain.

But this also means that, for sale or not, "mixed" collage works in world--a collection of punk music tour posters; scattered seed/flower/fruit label squares, the sort seen on slatted wood crates, baked and shadowed onto a wallpaper wall; or the former highly aged and faded labels and movie posters I had layered onto the walls of the old business above Autogenic Alchemy in Penzance, Kartiny--all of those, were the copyright holders found, could be declared illegal. DMCA protections could be filed.

There is no avatar on the grid who is exempt from this, and, I'd hazard the guess, no Linden on the grid, either. Everyone has at least one example of copyright violation in their inventories, whether they knowingly bought a stolen item in world or not. Linden Moogle avatar freebies that have been around since 2005, "free" texture packs available in every welcome hub, practically, that were ripped from other games (Unreal, Doom and Quake among them), Poser files that have been stripped and released in world, in violation of user agreements from their creators' sites...the list can and does go on.

Once again we reach this inescapable point: protesting the "theft" of items from a virtual world, when one may not clearly own copyright to those items in the first place, serves only to muddy the waters. None of us have clean hands regarding copyright infringement. None of us.

and through it all, the rise and fall, the bodies in the streets

I knew I was running the risk of my IMs capping, due to how many notices some of my groups are sending out currently--it is October, after all, time of hunts and giveaways--so I logged in a bit early. Perhaps it was a good thing I did, because I had the time to speak with kagabandurriasconcuerdas Flanigan, the owner of Boxed Heroes.

As it turns out, I was wrong on a few points; those points I'm going to correct here, and link back to the original post.

To start off with, Boxed Heroes never received any DMCA filing. NOT ONE. All they received was a single anonymous IM--anonymous in terms of, they had no verification who the man really was, or if he really worked for DC/TimeWarner--that said he worked for DC, and he was going to contact the Labs and say that Boxed Heroes was in violation.

The decision was made to pull all the avatars for sale, and look into things. Mr. Flanigan kept paying tier on his lands, and his stores, none of them went away; but at the end of the six-month period of thinking things over, they contacted Linden Labs for more information.

Kona Linden sent this notecard back to him:

In Second Life, we all encourage creators to use their imagination to create content. Some create things that are inspired by real life objects, like cars or jewelry. Now that Second Life is getting larger and residents are exercising their intellectual property (IP) rights, usage of copyrighted/trademarked material has become more of an issue in Second Life.

In general, the use of tradmarked/copyrighted material is frowned upon in Second Life, unless of course you own the rights to the material. To better understand your intellectual property rights, visit the Second Life website and look up our information regarding TOS and DMCA information (http://secondlife.com/corporate/dmca.php). Keep in mind that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is a federal law and companies/entities can take actual legal action against a SL resident directly. Linden Lab is merely obligated to "cease & desist", meaning we will warn a resident and take the appropriate action, pending on the nature of the violation. Here are some general guidelines:

TRADEMARKED MATERIAL

All Lindens are required to remove all content utlizing trademarked materials, with or without notice. This includes all RL corporate logos and name brands. Understand that certain objects to look like a RL item is not the same and utilizing trademarked names or logos. So one can create a car in SL, make it look like a Mercedes Benz SL, but cannot use the name "Mercedes Benz SL" in it's description or textures, nor can one use their trademarked emblems or logos. The mere shape of the car that was created is NOT trademarked (but making shapes to replicate actual trademarked logos is NOT acceptable). Use of designer logos like those of Gucci, Nike, Louis Vuiton...etc. are also not acceptable. Any resident may file an abuse report if they see any other resident violating trademarked material usage on in-world content in SL.

US Patent & Trademark Homepage: http://www.uspto.gov/index.html

***Use the Search tool under Trademarks on the left navigation when you go to US Patent & Trademark Homepage.
- Use the "New User Form Search (Basic)"
- Under View Search History, select "Plural & Singular " & "Live" radio bottons
- Enter the name of the business in question (ie. Nike)
- Press "Submit Query"

COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL

Using copyrighted materials, like trademarked materials, is also discouraged. Lindens will not remove copyrighted material upon seeing the items in-world unless the owner of the copyrighted material notifies Linden Lab per the DMCA protocols noted on our website. If the material is proved to be copyrighted, Linden Lab can and will remove the violating materials in-world and the concerned residents will be notified.

Repeated violations by a resident can result in one's account being placed on probation or permanently banned.

Bottomline, we encourage all our residents to be as original as possible when creating their content. If you want to exercise your IP rights, it's a conflict of interest if you're utilizing materials (textures in particular) that you don't own the rights to. You CAN create parodies, like instead of "Gucci purses", you can make "PUCCI" purses...but it would be best that you use your own branding and design your own logos. So help us protect your rights by also respecting the rights of the rightful owners of copyrighted/trademarked materials =)

Other sites of interest:
http://www.hasbro.com/home/copyright.html

FREEBIE BAZAAR in Stillman,
IVORY TOWER LIBRARY OF PRIMATIVES Learning center on how to build in SL!

Words fail again, but just in short--according to what Kona Linden sent them, this backwash of an 'official notecard', rife with spelling errors and misinformation, is what the Labs send people who want to know how to deal with copyright issues in world! LINDEN LABS sent this to Boxed Heroes! By the provisions set out in that document--and I use the term very loosely--Mr. Flanigan is completely in the right! He's not in violation of copyright! Because the Labs have told him HE CAN COPY ANYTHING HE WANTS...as long as he doesn't give them the COPYRIGHTED NAMES!

And why the hell did Kona link in the Hasbro list?? What relevance does that have? Telling us that as long as we mention in a notecard within the product package that an item we're reproducing has a copyright date to another company, we'd be FINE to reproduce it on the grid?!?

This is the kind of thinking we're given, at the end of the day on the grid--some likely lower-level Linden, who's never even thought through running what xie writes out in a notecard through even a simple spellcheck program, giving out inaccurate and misleading information to merchants on the grid. The irony is a rich deep vein at this point--because it's not just the Step Up! kiosk in Boxed Heroes anymore. It's Boxed Heroes, with all that they do, being legally able to exist according to the Lindens, because they changed the avatar names. It's any business who chooses to change the name of an otherwise recognizable RL institution, piece of furniture, outfit, avatar. At this point, the wide ironic vein runs straight through the Linden Labs offices in San Francisco. Likely it's tapped for morning coffee, considering what Kona Linden has been telling people.

[15:21] Emilly Orr: Understand, it will likely become another rant, but I *will* apologize for the errors, and clarify things, in the next entry. And it won't be a rant on you, specifically.
[15:22] kagabandurriasconcuerdas Flanagan: thank you
[15:22] kagabandurriasconcuerdas Flanagan: we removed the kiosk anyway

According to Mr. Flanigan, they're going to take some time and reorganize the store. He tells me that it was never copyright infringement in the first place, because they uploaded their own textures, did color-correction work, did their own hair, everything--it's all original out of the box. Or the boxed hero. I think he somewhat misunderstands what copyright infringement actually is, but he's also far from stupid--he is clearly, and unambiguously, operating within the guidelines that the Labs sent him. In fact, he brought up the point I made in my first rant, that they're not hiding anything. They give out avatars, sets of armor, and outfits in their lucky chairs; they take out ads; they participate in hunts. How is any of that hiding anything?

And he's right. He's not hiding. And he's changed my mind on a couple points, that I'll be employing from now on.

1. If there's a dispute between residents, I am going to talk to both sides, if I can. I'm not going to blindly veer off into opinion without at least making the attempt to verify. As it turns out, I was wrong on a few points for Boxed Heroes, and Mr. Flanigan, I apologize for any impact that had on your business at large; such was not my intent.

2. According to the Labs, it's not copyright infringement if it doesn't use the name. So at least on the grid--if nowhere else in reality--ARing on the basis of appearance alone won't be heeded by the Labs. We'll have to wait for really egregious examples of blatant infringement to parade by before the Labs will listen.

Though that does, of course, lead us to point three:

3. Kona Linden has a lot to answer for.

For more (though not clear-cut or easily understandable) information, check out Ed Fair on trademarks and likenesses, or the Chilling Effects' FAQ concerning Protest, Parody & Publicity.

Oh, one last point? Because I think this is important to mention as well. Mr. Flanigan--as mentioned, he's removed the Step Up! kiosk from his store--didn't remove the kiosk based on my post, or any fallout from it. He removed it because when he received it, he was told that it was a group based around prevention of 'ripping' technology, such as that employed by the CopyBot program, Meerkat, Glintercept, and, as he mentioned, the Emerald viewer.

I don't know who gave him the kiosk. I didn't ask. But he says he was clearly misled as to the purpose of the group. Now, I won't go out on another limb and accuse anyone of outright lying to get the Step Up! kiosk out in stores, but I do find it highly intriguing that people would get such a wrong--and such a distinctly wrong--impression on the real purposes of the group.

Funny, that. Isn't it?

(Additional note: In reviewing this, and reading over Kona Linden's notecard again, I should state for the record that, while the card IS vague and misleading, the important--"important" meaning "legal", in this sense--phrases ARE there:

("In general, the use of tradmarked/copyrighted material is frowned upon in Second Life, unless of course you own the rights to the material."

(In other words, if you don't own the rights to the material outright, and someone files against you, the Labs WILL remove your work.

(Linden Lab is merely obligated to "cease & desist", meaning we will warn a resident and take the appropriate action, pending on the nature of the violation.

(In other words, the Labs won't stir a finger to stop copyright infringement in any way UNLESS they hear from the folks owning those copyrights--and if it's not a clear-cut case where rights are fully and legally owned, the content will be restored by the Labs.

(All Lindens are required to remove all content utlizing trademarked materials, with or without notice.

(In other words, if the Labs hear about it--through the filing of a DMCA cease and desist order, or other means--they can take your content without telling you. They're not legally REQUIRED to tell you, it's just a social nicety.

(Lindens will not remove copyrighted material upon seeing the items in-world unless the owner of the copyrighted material notifies Linden Lab per the DMCA protocols noted on our website.

(In other words, the Lindens will only remove copyright-infringing materials if the clear owner of the copyright complains per item using the specified DMCA protocols the Lindens have established on their website. These may be different than the filing procedures allowed anywhere else.

(Repeated violations by a resident can result in one's account being placed on probation or permanently banned.

(In other words, if too many DMCAs are filed against you as a maker of copyright-infringing content, the Labs will remove your ability to login to the world, short term, or permanently ban your account, long-term, at their discretion.

(The legal wording IS there...but you have to know what you're looking for. And you have to understand what you're reading. AND THE SPELLING ERRORS AND GRAMMAR DISCREPANCIES DON'T HELP.)

as daylight broke, I saw the earth: the trees had burned down to the ground

Cake Wrecks discovers steampunk cakes. Is that last one an armored air kraken?

For that matter, Mr. O'Toole clues me in to twelve necessary works of steampunk fiction. As he said, I don't disagree {DISAGREE! IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DISAGREE!} with anything on that list.

And what's up with the rumors of undead taking over Babbage? Anyone want to let me know?

And Jokay Wollongong gets slapped in the face. It's always comforting to hear when educational efforts are gang-raped by the Labs.

*adjusts her sarcasm meter*

Sorry, moving on.

I wanted to talk a bit about the principles of fair use. Stanford University defines it thusly:

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material
done for a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon,
criticize or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without
permission from the copyright owner. Another way of putting this is that
fair use is a defense against infringement. If your use qualifies under the
definition above, and as defined more specifically in this section, then
your use would not be considered an illegal infringement.

The tricky bit is that phrase, "transformative purpose". What are transformative purposes? As the article goes on, billions have been spent by law firms and clients trying to ascertain exactly what that means.

It's still vague, but it boils down to two distinct areas, near as anyone can figure.

First is fair use by means of critique. Think articles, essays, and reviews. You violate copyright if you quote the source work as a whole; but if you are reviewing a book, film, or album, you can use sections of the work without fear of prosecution. Snippets of song lyrics in a larger review of an album; quotes taken from the Lancet to support a doctor's findings on the H1N1 virus; a passage from an environmental book on the effects of acid rain. These are all legitimate examples of fair use by means of review.

The reason fair use via critique is allowed is that the public is offered a benefit, essentially by advertising the work: it's generally inferred to be an educational benefit, but porn websites have slid under this provision for years by claiming that their offer of a snippet of a full porn film, or the posting of a few photos from a larger (generally purchasable) photo set is using the fair use of legitimate "review".

The second is fair use by means of parody, and on this one, it's both a finer line, and a broader use. Because parody so specifically relies on knowing the source work, one is allowed a much larger use of that source work. In general, it's understood that to allow parody, likenesses of movie characters, resemblance to popular songs, and broad references to literary works are all allowable fair uses.

The PotterPuffs were an excellent project at the time that fell under fair use of parody. Parodying both the PowderPuff Girls animated series, and the Harry Potter novels by J.K. Rowling, she managed to make enough--and, incidentally, get enough practice as an artist--that she is now working on her own original anime project, in addition to selling commissioned works through her journal.

Parody is also the hinterland that "Weird Al" Yankovic and other comedic singers exist in. Yankovic in particular broadly parodies works of the time, blending music, sound and geeky reference into a melodious accordioned whole, and has rarely been attacked on any side.

Anything that Saturday Night Life has ever done; Mad Magazine has ever done--as a publication or as a skit show; a great amount of everything the Daily Show has done; it all falls under the rules of parody. And while these rules have been challenged, and generally far more often than the rules for review, fair use in all cases has generally been upheld. The exceptions are generally obvious, flagrant flouting of all fair use principles.

By the way, the prohibitions and protections of fair use as a concept? Only apply in the United States, and in Israel; no other country has adopted these measures.

It all comes down to Title 17 of the United States Code of copyright law; the same law that can be used to deny spammers access to your email (but really, who wants to go through that every single time you get a piece of spam email? Most of us just toss, or block, and move on).

This is the exact passage as given regarding copyright infringement:

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 5 > § 501

§ 501. Infringement of copyright

(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner
as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in
section 106A (a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United
States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or
right of the author, as the case may be. For purposes of this chapter
(other than section 506), any reference to copyright shall be deemed to
include the rights conferred by section 106A (a). As used in this
subsection, the term “anyone” includes any State, any instrumentality of
a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a
State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such
instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions
of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any
nongovernmental entity.

(b) The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright
is entitled, subject to the requirements of section 411, to institute an
action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or
she is the owner of it. The court may require such owner to serve written
notice of the action with a copy of the complaint upon any person shown, by
the records of the Copyright Office or otherwise, to have or claim an
interest in the copyright, and shall require that such notice be served
upon any person whose interest is likely to be affected by a decision in
the case. The court may require the joinder, and shall permit the
intervention, of any person having or claiming an interest in the
copyright.

(c) For any secondary transmission by a cable system that embodies a
performance or a display of a work which is actionable as an act of
infringement under subsection (c) of section 111, a television broadcast
station holding a copyright or other license to transmit or perform the
same version of that work shall, for purposes of subsection (b) of this
section, be treated as a legal or beneficial owner if such secondary
transmission occurs within the local service area of that television
station.

(d) For any secondary transmission by a cable system that is actionable as
an act of infringement pursuant to section 111 (c)(3), the following shall
also have standing to sue:
(i) the primary transmitter whose transmission has been altered by the
cable system; and
(ii) any broadcast station within whose local service area the
secondary transmission occurs.

(e) With respect to any secondary transmission that is made by a satellite
carrier of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary
transmission and is actionable as an act of infringement under section 119
(a)(5), a network station holding a copyright or other license to transmit
or perform the same version of that work shall, for purposes of subsection
(b) of this section, be treated as a legal or beneficial owner if such
secondary transmission occurs within the local service area of that
station.

(f)
(1) With respect to any secondary transmission that is made by a
satellite carrier of a performance or display of a work embodied in
a primary transmission and is actionable as an act of infringement
under section 122, a television broadcast station holding a copyright
or other license to transmit or perform the same version of that work
shall, for purposes of subsection (b) of this section, be treated as
a legal or beneficial owner if such secondary transmission occurs
within the local market of that station.

(2) A television broadcast station may file a civil action against
any satellite carrier that has refused to carry television broadcast
signals, as required under section 122 (a)(2), to enforce that
television broadcast station’s rights under section 338(a) of the
Communications Act of 1934.

Is it leaping out at anyone else that Title 17 was never intended to be used for non-broadcast violations? Songs, audio recordings, television broadcasts, theatres playing films? The Communications Act was put into place long before the advent of cable television; the provisions of DMCA, in fact, were never intended to apply to the internet.

And yet, it's what we're trying to focus on to protect us on the grid; with provisions that are wildly out of date, meant to apply to mediums in which we are not working, as designers and makers of items.

So what's our alternative? We don't know yet. Both the MPAA and the RIAA, in America, are pushing President Obama to enact more stringent measures to protect their copyrighted works, in terms of media; to date, nothing has been signed into new law. And while both organizations derive a great amount of satisfaction from throwing their weight around, very little is getting done, save for the random, targeted arrests of citizens no different than the rest of us, who just happened to get caught.

All we do know is that if we file a DMCA cease and desist notice on someone we believe is violating our intellectual property, is that most of the time the Lindens will remove that content--at least for a while--due to the strength of that filing. (What happens after, with counterfiling, legal action and actual lawsuits--well, that's up to you. And up to how much you can afford, in terms of profits lost and real-world monies paid out.) And that it can, tenuously at least, be connected to some definition of "fair use".

For the rest...well, we're on our own. Until something better comes along.

by salt. by dice. by meal. by mice. by dough of cakes. by sacrificial fire.

"Across both public and private sectors what readers experienced as "management" was pervasively problematic. It just wasn't what it said on the tin. Wherever they looked, readers found a glaring discrepancy between "official" and "unofficial" versions, between talk and walk.

The talk was empowerment, shared destiny, pulling together: the walk was increasing work intensity, tight performance management, risk offloaded on to the individual. The talk was flat organisations: the reality, centralisation and a yawning divide between other ranks, required to minimise their demands for the greater good, and a remote officer class whose rewards had to soar to motivate them to do their job. Employees were the most valuable asset - until costs had to be cut."
~Simon Caulkin, "Farewell, with a last word on the blunder years"

This is the single largest problem we're seeing, and it's become universal in terms of employment, world-wide. (I'd almost be willing to say grid-wide, as well, but it's still mostly a real-world issue.)

"A woman working for a regional newspaper group in the UK as an editor was informed that she would become editor of 3 newspapers, and was then told she now had to manage 5 newspapers. Feeling overwhelmed she visited her GP, who told her that she was so stressed (read stuck to the ceiling) she was proscribed to take at least 4 weeks sick leave. Her boss on learning of her GP’s advice warned her that [any time] taken off would be a career changing decision – read don’t bother coming back. Nice."
~SMLXL, Modern Life is Rubbish

In France, this is particularly problematic. France Telecom, Renault and Peugeot, among other firms, have been exceptionally hard-hit by corporate suicides--that is, people who choose to take their own lives at work.

The national suicide rate, in fact, for France, is just a bit under 15% for every 100,000 people. Paired with that, one in every ten French citizens claim antidepressant medication and treatment on their company's health-care plans.

"Of course, institutional stupidity and failure to take responsibility are characteristic of all top-down organisations - in fact, they're two sides of the same coin. Hence the reductio ad absurdum, also charted here, of gleaming hi-tech organisations too witless to stop themselves auto-destructing."
~Simon Caulkin, "Farewell, with a last word on the blunder years"

People are quickly starting to realize, world-wide, that the experience of their grandparents--staying in one company for life, retiring from that firm when the time came--just isn't happening. Even bright talented people shift around, and usually not by will--they move when they feel forced to, when they feel they aren't being heeded, when they feel that their job will be axed soon--and many of them don't move soon enough, ending up on the cutting room floor, the casualty of yet another spate of downsizing.

"'Who needs me?' is a question of character which suffers a radical challenge in modern capitalism. The system radiates indifference. It does so in terms of the outcomes of human striving, as in winner-take-all markets, where there is little connection between risk and reward. It radiates indifference in the organization of absence of trust, where there is no reason to be needed. And it does so through reengineering of institutions in which people are treated as disposable. Such practices obviously and brutally diminish the sense of mattering as a person, of being necessary to others."
~Richard Sennett, "The Corrosion of Character"

This, I feel, has begun to leak into Second Life--that concept that any avatar is replaceable, that any worker can be fired or hired, with no better recommendation than 'well, they look good on paper'--or even worse, 'their av looked okay'.

It's very dismissive, this concept, and I think especially in virtual worlds, there needs to be an honest pause to consider. Is this person helping my company? should be the first question. Is this person doing what I need them to do? If not, then obviously, let them go--but it must be said, most employment options in Second Life lack multiple facets. Each employer in general wants only one thing. There is little room for multi-tasking, let along use of broadened skill sets.

"Perhaps the collapse of orthodoxy will make it easier to salute and cherish such exceptions: companies that refuse the dominant logic, such as John Lewis; academics who risk their careers by engaging with big issues (would Darwin, Freud and Marx be employable in today's universities?); courageous public-sector managers who find ways of circumventing the draconian targets regime to do what they know to be right."
~Simon Caulkin, "Farewell, with a last word on the blunder years"

The more I go on, the more I realize I had an exceptional opportunity, beginning my life on the grid. I started in a company that just wanted pretty decorations--and truly, that's all I was. But I went from there to being a person in my own right; after all, in how many strip clubs did the patrons discuss Catholic hierarchical structure and Latin declensions with the dancers??

More than that, as I grew in experience, my employers gave me more responsibility. By the end of it I was an estate manager on the land; I was the club manager; I was responsible for new hires. I was not just pretty pixels on a pole.

Though, to be fair, that is also completely illustrative of the problem. With little raise in what they paid me, I was expected to be entertainment, human resources, event coordination, management and security. Were there others on staff to do these things? Yes, but I was rather the all-in-one.

And when the club stopped being profitable, in terms of tier and time invested, the owner of the club closed it, rather than work out how to make it profitable again.

"People are both clinging on to their current jobs, however much they dislike them, and dreaming of moving when the economy improves. This is taking a toll on both short-term productivity and long-term competitiveness: the people most likely to move when things look up are high-flyers who feel that their talents are being ignored.

The most obvious reason for the rise in unhappiness is the recession, which is destroying jobs at a startling rate and spreading anxiety throughout the workforce. But the recession is also highlighting longer-term problems. Unhappiness seems to be particularly common in car companies, which suffer from global overcapacity, and telecoms companies, which are being buffeted by a technological revolution. In a survey of its workers in 2008, France Telecom found that two-thirds of them reported being “stressed out” and a sixth reported being in “distress”.
~from the print edition of The Economist, author and date unknown

There's a lot of stress and tension, both on the grid and in the world. How will I pay rent? is a common question in both places. How do I keep my job is another--even jobs that, in any world, the person doesn't particularly want. There is a creeping dread growing by leaps and bounds at the thought of being in the job market again--even young fresh minds, brilliant and inventive, dread the thought of the interview process. And once the job is acquired, the rent issue is stabilized, the keeping that job question keeps back--will they still pay me? and when do I get axed? are two questions that should never be asked, in terms of a worker employed--and yet they, too, are common everyday questions now.

"A more subtle problem lies in the mixed messages that companies send about loyalty and commitment. Many firms—particularly successful ones—demand extraordinary dedication from their employees. (Microsoft, according to an old joke, offers flexitime: “You can work any 18-hour shift that you want.”) Some provide perks that are intended to make the office feel like a second home. But companies also reserve the right to trim their workforce at the first sign of trouble. Most employees understand that their firms do not feel much responsibility to protect jobs. But they nevertheless find it wrenching to leave a post that has consumed so much of their lives."
~from the print edition of The Economist, author and date unknown

We are creatures of loyalty. Pixel-brained or flesh, we equate work with home, employment with caretaking, workplace with family. It takes a lot of dissatisfaction and ill treatment to get the average person into the mindset of escape-from, over endure-for.

In this economy, worldwide, we are now seeing the results of that dissatisfaction and ill treatment writ large. Middle management is effective, and causes the largest problems; but upper management is no longer content with anything that doesn't improve the bottom line. And the bottom line is now profit. The bottom line is now paying off the shareholders. The bottom line says people are disposable, any cog for any gear, and just as easily slotted in somewhere else, regardless of where their talents lie.

"Management seems to have responded to the new stresses in the world's increasing globalization by passing them along to the workers, and operating under an ersatz 'we're all in this together' bonhomie while they sharpen the knives for the next round of cutting. This leads to a growing alienation of people from their work, and from those that they work with."
~Stowe Boyd, from the /message blog

If the people over you are more interested in preserving the bottom line, and the people next to you are keeping their heads down to avoid being shoved over themselves, there is no job loyalty. There is no security in position. There is only when does the bad thing happen? And who gets attacked this time?

To create anything of value in the world beyond, we have to recognize the worlds we're creating virtually. To improve anything in the real world, we have to improve it on the grid, first.

If we can't do that, then we have no hope left.

(Regardless of what any particular reader may think, this had nothing to do with recent employment situations in my life. I just found it a fascinating series of articles.)

and if I fall, I will find a way back to my hands

I had intended my next entry to be about the principles of fair use, and what constitutes fair use in SL.

That's changed. Radio Riel lacks one host, now.

This potentially is a great problem, how'ver; because as far as I know, barring Touma-san, we--they--don't have any other hosts.

So. A small guide to hosting, if you care to read along, and then whom to contact to apply.

First, remember, your value as a host: be polite, be charming, be approachable. You aren't the life of the party, as such; but you are an important gear that keeps the party moving. If the conversation lags, see about asking someone something. Comment on the music, comment on the clothes, comment on topics of the day.

Second, be aware that while spelling isn't everything, since most of Radio Riel's gigs are in and around Caledon and the steamlands, it's not nothing, either. Typos are typos, they happen to everyone, but try to avoid common spelling/chat pitfalls like "r u sur?" or "o i c" or "gr8". Caledon as a whole values literacy; values intelligence; and while propriety and proper dress (and address) may have fallen by the wayside, intelligence and literacy are still guideposts to success.

Third, it helps to have a large wardrobe, but if you have one or two nice pieces, that's really all you need. Don't be afraid to ask fellow Hosts or Presenters, depending, if they have something more formal they can loan you; they're usually more than willing to, if they have transferable gowns or suits.

Fourth, don't be afraid to like places--for example, I adore the crowd at Terpsichore Tuesdays, and I'm going to miss them; in time, I think I'd have fun going back and dancing not as a paid Host. If you like a venue, and it works out for you to take that slot, unless someone else really adores it too, don't feel bad about taking that. Having changing Hosts and Presenters is fine; but having consistency never hurts either.

Above all, only take a job hosting if you want to. It will pay rent, it won't support shopping sprees. And if you're doing it to make big money, or to get you by until 'something better' comes along--don't bother. Only go in if you're committed, and happy, to host for Radio Riel.

And, if you have aspirations to Present--to be an SL/internet DJ--getting your feet wet as a Radio Riel Host is never a bad way to go. You can learn by watching the Presenters present; by listening; and by asking questions. You're already halfway there, and they are always looking for Presenters, for new shows, new events, and all-day stints of running Radio Riel's main stream.

To submit applications or for further information, contact Autopilotpatty Poppy, the Radio Riel events manager, or Gabrielle Riel, Radio Riel Presenter and owner.

I'm sick of playing all of these games, it's not about taking sides

(**NOTE** I have, since publishing this, talked with the owner of Boxed Heroes and corrected some of the errors in this post. You can read down, or go ahead to the correction and apology. Thanks.)

I'd heard about this, but I will admit, I just had to go see it for myself. I had to stand in the shop and see what they'd agreed to do.



The full kiosk, with the orange ribbon the organizers thought had no confirmed meaning; with the ribbon button that looks like an insincere smile; with the "Step Up!" in lettering straight from 1974.

Right. We're seeing the posters, the banners, the kiosks, all over the grid now. People are walking around with their group tags--"I'm Stepping UP!" Why is this different?



Because this is inside Boxed Heroes.

Boxed Heroes.

For once, I'm not going to rant and rave and carry on--though I easily, EASILY could. No, I'm just going to let a few pictures do most of my talking, I think. To illustrate the point.



After certain individuals who actually owned copyright on everything they were selling came in and stomped them flat, it took a bit for Boxed Heroes to reinvent themselves. You'd think they would have learned, but...apparently not.

This is their version of Batman, and Robin. Not from the comics; from the movie. So they're not just risking the wrath of DC, again, they're risking the wrath of Warner Brothers.



They're not even trying that hard. Oh, their version of Harley Quinn has a different hat, and they're calling Ivy "Deadly Ivy"--but it's instantly recognizable.



The "Doomed Doctor Avatar"....are they kidding? Right next to a version of Iron Man that is directly lifted from the film version! Which is above a version of Wolverine that is also lifted directly from the film version of X-Men!



The Crow--he's even called "Eric"--and Captain America.

Words fail.



They've even gotten Blade and Serena in on the action--and Blade and Serena? Are just down the row from Neo and Trinity, from the Matrix movies.



In honor, I suppose, of the potential Wonder Woman film coming out, and the Watchman film that did come out--Wonder Woman and Rorschach.


Finally, "Arachnid Woman"--which proves they can do original stuph (and they can, some of their armor sets are INCREDIBLE)--which, nevertheless, still draws heavily on comic books and Adam Hughes artwork--and a green-skinned ultra-muscled "Gamma" hero.

*coughs*

So what's the hang-up? A store liked the concept of supporting content creators. The Step Up! people--who are obviously not in the least bit interested in policing who asks for a kiosk to display--have sent Boxed Heroes a kiosk. They put it out. What gives?

I'll tell you. Do you honestly think, for one moment, that Boxed Heroes' largest concern is "content theft"? SERIOUSLY??

No! Their largest concern is not having Warner Brothers land on them like a ten-ton spiked weight! Their largest concern is hiding from DC and Marvel! Their largest concern is NOT GETTING CAUGHT!!

Oh, pardon me--not getting caught AGAIN.

Now, I should state that Boxed Heroes, as a creators' collective, does an amazing job recreating these (copyright-protected) avatars. And, as I mentioned, they do original work, some of which they give away in their lucky chairs, and I have never failed to be less than impressed with the work they do.

But that's beside the point; their original work isn't what keeps their coffers full. What keeps them paying tier is the work they've done on the backs of other creators. And isn't that pretty much directly what Step Up! stands against? What it was, in fact, founded to combat?

First, if "Step Up!" as a campaign is to be taken seriously at all, they need to police who's picking up their kiosk. That's the main point I'm making, and I am deadly serious on this--otherwise, they're just a bunch of lip-service gossip girls who want a cause for five minutes, and as soon as the next thing goes bang, they're going to flutter off to it.

And personally, I know most of the women involved in this, and I cannot believe for one moment that they are that brainless. So they need to pull it together and look at what they are--by kiosk presence--approving on the grid.

Second, if "Step Up!" is seriously invested in preventing copyright infringement, then Boxed Heroes cannot be on the list. Nor can any store that engages in copyright infringement. Because it looks bad. You know how it looks?

It's Marianne-McCann-dancing-on-Zindra bad, that's how bad it looks.

You want your campaign to be taken seriously? Then take it seriously. Don't blithely hand out kiosks to everyone who's made a t-shirt to put out. Check who's going into the group. Go look at what they're doing.

Because Step Up!'s kiosk in Boxed Heroes? Is laughable. Worse, it's sickening and it's a tragedy. It's empowering to anyone who's ever thought, hey, I don't have to pay for things, I can just copy them. It's the fast buck mentality in spades.

Am I blaming Step Up! directly for their kiosk in Boxed Heroes? No. Indirectly, absolutely. But more, I'm saying if Boxed Heroes retains their kiosk, anyone seeing it is going to know two things, beyond any shadow of any doubt:

1. Step Up! is a joke, and it was never a serious effort to make the Lindens sit up and take notice of the problem of copyright infringement; and

2. The Lindens' edict on no items that infringe copyright on XStreet isn't serious, because look what they allow in world.

Yeah. Just look.

Welcome to the new world.

keep my hand in the fire, sooner or later, I get what I'm asking for

The Selby is looking for "Second Life homes to photograph". Not sure why, but your best bet for contact is on Twitter--theselbyblog--or via the web site...if you can find contact info there.

Also, according to Metaverse Tribune, Virtualget.net has issued a full and unreserved apology for any--they say purely unintentional--misleading that happened, since they never thought for a moment that anyone would find their teeny little corner of the webiverse.

Riiiight.

For one, if they are telling the truth, they've tarnished their own reputation, as well as that domain name, and their potential client, if they were to take over that domain name. No one's going to trust them now.

For two, how stupid do they think we are? "Gosh we're sorry but we didn't think you'd mind"? When the entire grid, it seems, is still massively oversensitive about copybot issues?

Just...idiotically done, people, start to finish. Take a break and think next time. Save everyone some frustration.

On that, sort of...I wanted to talk a bit more about content theft, copyright, and the DMCA law as it stands.

What we have in world, right now, is not specifically content theft. Legally, it cannot be theft if you still possess the item--and through crash and inventory loss, dissolution and information decay, you still do, you know. That is the law of intellectual property--that your idea, once executed and trademarked, cannot be taken away from you.

But I've read a bit since my initial post on the original theft in Woodshed. My shock and outrage at the sheer audacity, there, I don't think were misplaced, but I fell into the same linguistic pitfall as nearly everyone else.

Put simply, what occurred with Rebel Hope, RH Engel, Nonna Hedges, Susan Ramos, Putrid Gloom and a host of others--and more being added each day that Cryolife, among others, is used to access the grid--is more correctly termed copyright infrigement. Possibly even straight brand dilution, like the virtual equivalent of Chinese-manufactured Gucci handbags, Taiwanese-made French faux couture, or Singapore-based XStreet knock-offs.

This means any lifting of prims, textures or scripts is no less damaging, but intellectual property is not being stolen--you still own the concepts. The idea was yours first, not theirs, no matter how widely they distribute their lifted content.

The DMCA is a hotly contested document (one of the most notable contests is between the DMCA and the Kapor-founded Electronic Freedom Foundation, amusingly enough) that was never intended to be used in the ways it's become standard, these days. It was originally designed as a stopgap until something better could be written; set into law to stop (mostly international) pirates from defeating DRM and other forms of digital copyright protections on DVDs, VHS tapes and CDs only.

In all the years since the DMCA first became law, it has done zero to defeat internet piracy, for all it's used all the time--both appropriately and inappropriately. And now it's become de rigeur to use it in world, because there really isn't anything that addresses the needs that the grid, and the internet at large, have developed at this point.

There are ten (actually eleven) big myths on copyright that need to be understood first, as well as a brief understanding of domestic copyright issues (and something of a brief sketch on the problematic nature of international copyright, as it stands).

And you might want to read through why the Electronic Freedom Foundation protests the DMCA.

There's a great "coders' rights FAQ; there's also a great section on bloggers' rights cases.

In short, though, if you've read through all that, and you still want to file a Cease and Desist letter using DMCA provisions, here's how. Here's another look on the process.

Basically, you'll need these things:

[full address (or as much of it as you can get) of the offending party and/or hosting service (in this case, the Labs)]

RE: DMCA Copyright Infringement Notice

Sent via Email and Fax

[the current date]

As required under Sections 512(c)(3) and 512(d)(3) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §§512(c)(3) and 512(d)(3)), we are instructed to place you on notice that:

1. [Your company name/avatar name/personal name (basically, whatever name you are doing business under in the grid)] is the exclusive owner of the copyrights in and to the [Your company name/business] website, artwork, and photographs appearing therein (singly and collectively, the "[Your company name/business] Images"); and

2. Utilizing the search query, ["whatever search term in world, or on Google, located the infringing business/competitor"] at [XStreet URL, Linden Labs SLUrl, or http://www.google.com search finding], the following search results contain unauthorized copies of [Your company name/avatar name/personal name] Images or unauthorized derivative works of the [Your company name/avatar name/personal name] Images which infringe the [Your company name/avatar name/personal name] Images and the exclusive rights of the Owner:

[Infringing SLUrl, XStreet URL, or Google web page address here]

Infringing webpage contact info:

[(Basically, anything you can find on their external-to-SL dealings, their avatar or real name, their address if you can find or get it, and any relevant in-world shops, businesses, XStreet stores, or the like that you can manage to track down)]
[(phone number or fax number if you have it)]
[(email address is helpful too)]

Please immediately remove or disable all access to the Infringing Material.

The stolen images can be found:

[(SLUrl, XStreet store location, or external-to-world website information]

I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

I swear, under penalty of perjury consistent with United States Code Title 17, Section 512, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

[Your Signature]

[Your Name
Street Address
City, State, Country
Phone Number]
[your email]
[any other SLUrl identifiers you wish to include]

And here's a fairly handy form letter to adapt if you've been challenged on DMCA provisions and you want to contest that.

And finally, one last link, to the group that's currently against the DMCA. It's a good idea to read through that.

as the world looked down, they raided our senses, there can be no reconcile

In the middle of a quick graphic job on a voodoo doll skin (I really don't think I'm ever going to sell it, I just want to import it and see how it looks; it's the Sezmra skin base with overlayers of burn and burlap, essentially), I heard from sachi Vixen, calling everyone on her list to warn them about Virtualget.

I immediately grabbed what I could on their 'current listings' and sent notecards explaining the issue to Ghanima Uriza, among others, before leaving SL and working more on the dolly skin.

Miss Ghanima (she runs Blue Blood, if you don't immediately link up the name; very much gothic/EGL work, nice textures, and generous with sales and lucky chair/Midnight Mania items) wrote me back, and from there to the present, talked to the folks behind Shopping Cart Disco to send out an immediate screed on the danger.

Of particular importance, I think, is this run from the comments:

Domain: virtualget.net
Status: Protected

DNS:
ns1.realitychecknetwork.com
ns2.realitychecknetwork.com

Created: 2009-07-02 04:19:38
Expires: 2010-07-02 04:19:38
Last Modified: 2009-07-02 04:18:31

Registrant Contact:
Katz Global Domain Name Trust
Privacy Protected Domain Katz Global Domain Name Trust (domaintrust@katzglobal.com)
32 Maxwell Road #03-07
Singapore, SC, sg 069115
P: +65.67228356 F: +65.67258021

Administrative Contact:
Katz Global Domain Name Trust
Privacy Protected Domain Katz Global Domain Name Trust (domaintrust@katzglobal.com)
32 Maxwell Road #03-07
Singapore, SC, sg 069115
P: +65.67228356 F: +65.67258021

Technical Contact:
Katz Global Domain Name Trust
Privacy Protected Domain Katz Global Domain Name Trust (domaintrust@katzglobal.com)
32 Maxwell Road #03-07
Singapore, SC, sg 069115
P: +65.67228356 F: +65.67258021

Billing Contact:
Katz Global Domain Name Trust
Privacy Protected Domain Katz Global Domain Name Trust (domaintrust@katzglobal.com)

Apparently, they have over two HUNDRED domains registered, all out of Singapore. But this one caught my eye. From a user named "Hyb":

1-866-726-4678 Moisey Uretsky HOSTING THIS SITE located in Brooklyn NY

abuse@realitychecknetwork.com there is their email addy

Now that's the one that may get them into trouble. Singapore, well, there's not a lot an American web company--like, f'rinstance, Linden Labs--can do to effect punishment. But the Brooklyn, NY server host? That one they can go after.

And seeing as how that ties into a company that may well be just a dodge front for credit card fraud? That one could make Federal-level charges, and potentially Interpol charges, if they handle credit fraud.

The word races around the grid; don't be surprised if this is the next seven-day wonder for a bit. Me, I'm going to sit back and watch how fast the site gets pulled, frankly. I'll keep you posted.

In the meantime, DO NOT shop there, DO NOT give them any of your RL info, DISCOURAGE YOUR FRIENDS from shopping there. With any luck, no one will lose anything of importance, but the scammers.

for there's a shadow of doubt that's not letting me find you too soon

Amanda Palmer is the herald of the new music age.

Why do I say this? For once--and I know, this will shock some people--set the music aside. You don't have to be an Amanda Palmer fan, a Dresden Dolls fan, to get the concept. Though it probably won't hurt.

In one of her blog entries, she mentioned being unafraid to take fans' money. There is no coy turning aside with her. There is now "oh gosh thanks" with the ducked head and the toeing of the foot in the sawdust. There is no record label standing impassively in front of her, financial intercessor, taking their cut and surreptitiously handing back the rest.

There is no pretense. There is just her, singing, and holding her hand out.

Why?

listen.

artists need to make money to eat and to continue to make art.

artists used to rely on middlemen to collect their money on their behalf, thereby rendering themselves innocent of cash-handling in the public eye.

artists will now be coming straight to you (yes YOU, you who want their music, their films, their books) for their paychecks.
please welcome them. please help them. please do not make them feel badly about asking you directly for money.
dead serious: this is the way shit is going to work from now on and it will work best if we all embrace it and don’t fight it.

She's right. In every single way she can be, she is right. This is what's happening. And we're seeing it everywhere.

This ties in to something I've been observing on YouTube. When YouTube was small, and it was really, honestly, just a bunch of geeks and art and film students, trading five minutes of surreality back and forth, nobody cared. Then people started uploading videos they liked. Then shows they liked. People weren't trying to steal, they just wanted to share.

But this got the attention of the labels. And slowly but surely, they figured out--there was a whole web site out there, that wasn't giving them back a dime. So Sony stepped in, restricting content. Then EMI, then BMG, and on down the line. Warner Brothers has been especially vicious in this, stripping the audio track from any unauthorized video containing it on the basis of 'artists' rights'.

It's got nothing to do with protecting the artistry in songcrafting, if the artist then gets their own channel, and uploads their videos. It's just profit-gouging.

But, as this process has evolved, people have figured out--live recordings are exempt. Whether the artist allowed it or not--and that is an ethical grey area--as long as they are not being released for profit (and YouTube is not geared to make profits, just to show videos and garner support from advertising and officially registered accounts), none of the major labels can touch recordings from concerts and performances. Because that's all on the artist.

And surprisingly few artists have stepped forward to have their content removed; nearly to a performer, they see it as free advertising, as a chance for them to get their songs out, their face out there, their values and ideas if interview snippets are uploaded--everything the major labels say they want for their clients.

Now, with this change, YouTube is less about finding the slick marketed videos that are vetted by the labels, and more about finding the raw, real, live-in-person (at the time) performances. Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo, Chicago, Marseilles, Brighton--wherever the art is performed, wherever the artists travel to be seen. It's more centered on the singers, the songwriters, the performers, less on the images derived by directors.

I'm pretty sure this is a good thing.

in fact, i ENJOY being the slightly crass, outspoken, crazy-(naked?)-chick-on-a-soapbox holding out a ukulele case of crumpled dollars asking for your money so that someone else a few steps behind me, perhaps some artist of shy and understated temperament, can feel better and maybe a little less nervous when they quietly step up and hold out their hat, fully clothed.

i am shameless, and fearless, when it comes to money and art.

I'm fine with Amanda being fearless. I'm perfectly fine with her being shameless. In fact, I'm all for hard-core street training for some of the up-and-coming artists, the scrabble for coins and overfolded dollars, the challenge of coming up with costumes on a shoestring, the endless calculations: what will the audience want today, what did they want yesterday, what will they want tomorrow?

It'd snap some sense into the latest batch of bubblegum popgirls, manufactured within an inch of their lives. Or, put another way--yes, L.A. Reid made P!nk a household name, but stepping away from him and his plans to make her an edgier Britney Aguilera Kelly Lavigne, made her an artist. And she's fought like hell to retain creative control of her songs, and her music, ever since.

Whether you like Amanda Palmer or not is not the issue. The issue is respect for the art, and understanding of the process. This is the new world. And yes, it involves downloading music from the internet, it involves file sharing (which is not content theft), it involves word of mouth--from the artist as well as the fans--and it involves directly handing over your earnings to the artist, on occasion. This is the return of the patron, but in this case, the artistic patron is all of us. And the artists must not fear standing in front of us and saying I'm good. You like what I do. Pay me.

So anyway, I don't have a fabulous tie-up ending for this, it's mostly just a rant. But I'll bring things back around to the grid, at least:

[19:47] Serenity Semple: [19:47] Vanity Hair Greatter: Welcome to Vanity Hair,we support contents creators, so MAKE SURE YOU DON'T WEAR ANY STOLLEN ITEMS in this shop, you risked to be ejected, thank you for your support!! Please enjoy your stay!!

This is the reason many of us are choosing not to shop at Vanity Hair. Not that we support theft, content or otherwise, but that we don't want to be yelled at like we're five year olds.

Their hair is no-mod anyway, now; they've been bitten by the resize-script bug. So they're useless for furs, anyone without the set head size, anyone who may want just one or two prims of the hair in a different position...Hair makers need to realize, hair does not equal prim skirts. Prim skirts can be on consistent resizers; hair by its nature cannot be.

I, and many, many others, refuse to buy no-mod hair. And Vanity Hair is now off my personal list for hair options.

B'sides, they can't spell.



And this is a picture from Low Prim & Grim's satellite location in Jumanji. Why am I not surprised?

When you're standing in front of it, the tentacle waves, the floor undulates, and the eye twitches like a mad thing at its window. Hee!