If you didn’t see this coming, then you really should have. It was only a matter of time before someone disgruntled enough took the legal route to take a lashing at Linden Lab. This case has arisen and has been pounced on by numerous SL blogs.
Who is it?
Well it involves two named plaintiffs. The first is Eros LLC, who’s CEO is one Kevin Aldermann (In SL, Stroker Serpentine), of Stroker’s Toys fame. The second is Shannon Grei (In SL, Munchflower Zaius) who owns Nomine. They are two of the six plaintiffs who bought a case against Thomas Simon (In SL, Rase Kenzo) for copyright and trademark infringement. That case was settled outside of court.
The defendant is Linden Research International, Inc. or as we know them, Linden Lab – Makers of the Second Life platform.
What is it?
What makes this case particularly notable? Eros LLC and Grei have filed a Class Action Suit in the US District Court, in the state of California. This means it represents not only themselves, but anyone else who is similarly situated.
Also, they’ve made the demand that this case be trialed by a jury. Judges don’t like you to make that sort of a demand as it costs a lot of money, and you better have a damn good reason for doing so.
In particular, the plaintiffs are bringing forward complaints against Linden Lab for breaching the Copyright Law of 1976 (the biggie), The Lanham Act (which covers trademark protections), two state laws governing Business and Professional Codes, and a complaint against LL for intentionally damaging resident businesses.
The lawsuit states that “Linden Lab engaged in violations of the Lanham Act and Copyright Act by directly, vicariously, and contributorily infringing Plaintiffs’ copyrights and trademarks, and by inducing others to infringe the same, Linden Lab has also knowingly and intentionally engaged in and continues to engage in unfair, deceptive, and misleading business practices under California law.”
So, it’s a pretty big complaint.
So really, what is it?
Well the plaintiffs have made a number of complaints against Linden Lab:
- violating the real-world IP rights of the owners of virtual content within Second Life.
- providing the tools to allow other SL users to infringe real world copyrights.
- profiting from illegal theft by taking a portion of the revenue.
- refusing to stop infringement as they make a healthy profit from it, despite having the technical means to do so.
So why now?
The plaintiffs make the complaint that Linden Lab will not ban anyone who uses circumvention clients (i.e. Copybots) to illicit purposes. They also make the point that the vast majority of SL businesses cannot afford to file a lawsuit due to the expense involved. Because of this, Linden Lab have allowed theft on the grid to run amok and failed to provide adequate protections.
What about the DMCA?
The complaint states that the DMCA process is flawed as the accused party will often simply ignore just takedown notices, and start a new account, reuploading the stolen content. In particular, the lawsuit states the facts which I’ve never dared publish before:
Often times, Second Life infringers will counter-file against the DMCA, which results in the restoration of the pirated content and the release of personal information to both the rights-holder and the infringer. Because many content creators in Second Life choose to remain anonymous, this aspect of the DMCA has an intimidating and chilling effect on those content creators who do not wish to jeopardize their privacy and anonymity. Additionally, some Second Life infringers threaten rights-holding merchants with the release of their protected assets for free if they file DMCA claims against the infringers. Second Life infringers are all too familiar with these aspects of the DMCA and use the DMCA as a shield to continue infringing and profiting with minimal or no consequence.
The complaint also highlights that Linden Lab often fail to return the content back to the rightful IP holder in a usable manner. This is assuming Linden Lab take any action on a filed DMCA notice.
Wait – how are Linden Lab making money out of this?
The plaintiffs state that Linden Lab are profiting from stolen SL content in five ways:
- The infringers are renting land from Linden Lab (directly or indirectly) in order to sell their stolen products.
- The infringers are paying the 10L$ fee to upload the stolen content which LL charge to allow content onto the Second Life grid.
- LL operate the most widely used Currency Exchange – the LindeX – which charges a 3.5% exchange fee.
- LL own and operate XStreetSL, which also takes a cut from sales of stolen products.
- Linden Lab operates the inworld classified system, which charges residents on a weekly basis.
The lawsuit argues that Linden Lab have provided the tools to allow infringement, and that they engage and profit directly as a result.
Linden Lab do this despite being made aware that a substantial amount of content in Second Life is protected by real life trademarks and copyrights.
But this is Second Life!
The plaintiffs maintain that trademark infringement is still a crime within Second Life. They liken the case to that of Canal Street in New York City. Of the handbags and purses sold near Canal Street, some (although authentic brand names) have been stolen and sold on at discounted prices, others are fakes which are simply using the brand name trademarks.
Eros LLC likens this to their SexGen line of products, which Aldermann claims are widely ripped across the grid.
Wait, what? SexGen?
Yep – SexGen. Eros LLC owns the trademark on the name.
Eros LLC makes the case example of Eva Capalini, who counterfeited SexGen products and sold them on, as well as enabling other users to sell on components of the products. In June 2008, Linden Lab disabled access to this content (and hence ruining content in world), but reverse this decision after a public outcry on the grid. As the customers had bought the products in good faith, Eros LLC’s CEO Aldermann became the “bad guy” and he launched a publicity campaign to rectify this.
The plaintiffs are stating that Linden Lab had knowledge that such pirates were using the Second Life platform to infringe Eros LLC’s trademark.
Okay, so what now?
Now the plaintiffs will have to demonstrate that their trademarks have indeed been breached and that Linden Lab:
- have caused confusion by allowing both legitimate and stolen content with the trademark SexGen brand to have been sold.
- acted in a willful, intentional and purposeful manner in concern to the disregard and indifference to Eros LLC’s rights.
- benefits financially from infringements of the trademarks.
- have caused injury through lost sales and revenue, lost business reputation and consumer confusion.
Linden Lab stand accused that they have caused irreparable damage to the plaintiffs and that if they will continue to carry out such acts, they will continue to do so to others too. Therefore, the plaintiffs are leaving the option of an injunction against Linden Lab open.
And what do they want?
Well for a start, they want to be compensated for their alleged lost income, as well as anyone else who feels they have a similar claim too. That’s a sum for damages for trademark infringement, or if the plaintiffs so decide: Linden Lab’s profits, the cost of the legal action, the actual damages caused by LL’s alleged conduct and treble damages (as per the Lanham Act).
So what now?
Linden Lab have 20 days in which to respond to the complaint. Assuming the plaintiff’s lawyers can make this a class action lawsuit, we could potentially see many more other content creators in Second Life joining in this suit to recover lost income.
What will this mean for Linden Lab?
This is already a huge publicity blow for the Lab. It’s one thing for a company to start filing suits. But when two of the grid’s high profile customers take you on, you have a mess on your hands. Already the SL blogosphere has widely reported the matter, and if the case progresses, the mainstream media may find this an interesting example of internet copyright and trademark law.
Hang on a sec – what about that Second Life Roadmap with the Creative Commons license and the improved IP rights?
Hah. Don’t make me laugh.
But won’t Linden Lab just claim that their an ISP/Platform Provider?
Probably. But then they’ll have to explain the Linden Department of Public Works, which creates content across the Second Life grid, including content which residents can only gain access to when buying a sim. Being solely a platform provider is one thing, but creating your own content on that very platform with the aim of financial gain is a very different thing.
Why don’t they just file DMCA notices?
They have. They’ve probably filed more DMCA takedown notices than you’ve had hot dinners. A class action lawsuit clarifies that they have filed the DMCA notices, and that they own the copyrights to the said products, but Linden Lab have failed to comply.
Will the Plaintiffs go all the way? Or will they just settle?
Your asking the wrong guy. But in the case against Rase Kenzo, the plaintiffs opted to settle for a reported $7,000 and covered legal costs themselves. That said, a class action suit does suggest that this could well be more about than just money – it seems to suggest that the plaintiffs want to rally the SL community of content creators to show Linden Lab that they have to do something, and that they will use the law to do that.
But what if the Plaintiffs win? Won’t that kill Second Life?
I doubt it – but there would be a heck of a lot more tighter control on content in Second Life. Although it’s entirely possible that the grid will be policed, I can’t see that happening for the life of me – SL is just too big. They may go the route where all new created content has to be approved before it can be set to sale, but again that’s a huge undertaking for a company which doesn’t really like to do anything which involves IP rights. But then again, they may not have a choice.
To be honest, if this goes all the way to a verdict, then you’re looking at a massive change in the way Second Life as we know it will work. If the Lab win, content creators will be extremely disillusioned with the rights they have in SL. If the content creators win, the floodgates are opened, and LL will be forced to change a lot of how SL works.
Okay.. What’s next?
Watch this space.
Disclaimer: The author is not an Intellectual Property lawyer, and this article is not offered as a legal standpoint, but simply a reading of the situation. All stated incidences are alleged, and all analysis is based on a small bowl of honey roasted peanuts. The filed legal complaint can be viewed at Massively.
Kitty O'Toole on September 17, 2009
Excellent post Prad..I needed someone to explain all thia to me as I didn’t really have a clue. You’ve just saved me a lot of brain cells!
=^..^=
Tracy Rubble on September 17, 2009
If LL does have to begin authorising everything before its set to sale, it’s going to put a lot of people off creating.
Firstly, they’d most likely charge so much for each item like other platforms do, making them money, and adding even more overheads to smaller or newer designers (or skint ones like me :p).
Secondly, unless someone is very serious about selling things, they aren’t gonna want to jump through hoops just to put it on sale.
Regardless what LL do, or have to do, its going to be VERY hard to police content creation in a user created metaverse. Like viruses and hackers, someone will always find a workaround. Plus LL don’t want to damage the economy, so they’ll probably find one too.
I can’t make up my mind about this case.
Eve Petlyakov on September 17, 2009
Pass the peanuts please…
steve on September 17, 2009
Stoopid waste of money, I doubt very much they will win. It’s a bit like sueing the Government because someone stole your car.
Personally I think people that whine about copyright in virtual worlds need to get a life (or a proper job). Just my opinion.
Arguing that LL profit is a bit like arguing a private landlord (in RL) is profiting from a drug dealer renting his property.
I think content creators in SL need to be aware that RL IP protections don’t necessarily extend to SL. And to be honest (imo) why should they?
Clearly LL don’t care – and they’ll have more money than the plaintiffs so they’ll win anyway.
Ryker Beck on September 17, 2009
@Steve:
Personally, I think someone who says that someone “whining about copyright in a virtual world needs to “get a life” and thinks that “RL IP protections don’t necessarily extend to SL” is not only ignorant of the situation at hand, but also has absolutely NO idea what the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is (aka DMCA).
The Lab having “more money” is also a ridiculous argument. KamberEdelson is MORE than qualified to pursue this case, and perfectly capable of giving LL a shakedown if not an outright defeat.
And just for the record – telling anyone that they need to “get a life” immediately places you in the category of “teenage know-it-all” who should obviously leave the legal-speak to the grown folk.
steve on September 17, 2009
@Ryker,
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see won’t we.
I think I’ve just expressed some hard facts. Facts SL obsessives never like to hear. Fact is LL obviously couldn’t care less, they clearly place very little value on in world IP.
Point in case, you can whine and moan all you like – tell me what they do about it. Basically nothing. So, get over it or don’t play. Remember SL is just a game.
Here is just one (flawed) part of the case. It is argued by the plaintiffs that LL is making money out of the alleged piracy. I’ve never heard such a lot of nonsense.
Consider this – if a person carries drugs on public transport then the public transport company are making money out of illegal activity – but are they liable – I don’t think so.
Another example. If a person buys a van to turn into a mobile meth lab – then the car company that sold that van should be sued for profitting from illegal activity, and the government can also be sued for taking the sales tax….
um, No, I don’t think so.
The case isn’t against LL.
If they had taken a civil case against the individual involved they might have had a chance, (But the weren’t able to do that because US courts have no jurisdiction outside the US) but a class suit against LL – it’s so unlikely they will win due to the precedent it will set. It will mean anyone indirectly in the path of some criminal activity could be held liable – and that is never ever gonna happen.
The ruling made OUTSIDE of SL would have repercussions OUTSIDE of SL. So it won’t be made because it doesn’t make sense.
There is no liability on the part of LL.
Instead of just slagging me off present a coherent argument.
… or get a (real) life. People whining about the goings on in SL just make me laugh.
Ryker Beck on September 17, 2009
@Steven:
There is nothing “obsessive” about expecting a company that claims to be willing to uphold a law to actually follow through with doing so.
This is not about SL being liable for the fact that their gaming engine allows for copyright infringement. It is about LL not doing their part to stop it from happening when they are informed of it. It is about LL not SUPPORTING or carrying out the filed DMCAs in the way that they SHOULD be with regards to their user’s intellectual property rights.
Consider this – your car is stolen. You call the police. You tell them who has your car, and prove the car is, in fact, yours. The police tell you, “Come in the office, file a complaint, and we’ll take care of it.” And two months later – maybe the car is returned, maybe not. It really doesn’t matter to the police, because it’s not like THEY’RE losing anything over the loss of your car. In fact, their wages are now being paid by the thief’s new-found ability to pay taxes with his bang-up pizza-delivery gig he nabbed with his sweet new ride.
OF COURSE Linden Lab is making money out of this. Uploading content isn’t free. Renting land isn’t free. Premium accounts are not free. The SL classifieds are not free. Cashing lindens out of your account is not free. Land search listings are not free. Maybe when one person is doing it, it might not be “that big a deal” – but when you have hundreds of people ripping, uploading, and reselling copyrighted software and content – yeah, Linden Lab is making quite a chunk of change out of slacking on the job.
Internet Copyright Law is a very real thing. It doesn’t JUST exist on Google, Deviant Art or CGSociety. If you create original digital content, no matter where it is or what it is, it is yours to claim copyright over. Just because it enters Second Life does not mean your work and intellectual property rights are checked at the door, and it is ridiculous to think that they would be.
This has nothing to do with LL just happening to be indirectly in the path of criminal activity. It has to do with LL not upholding a law they have an obligation to uphold, as a company and an intellectual property platform, to the best of their ability. Just because you don’t decide the fate of the person who stole the car, doesn’t mean you don’t perform your duty as police officer.
amalyn on September 28, 2009
“Remember SL is just a game.”
I beg to differ. If Second Life was intended as merely a game, an entertainment diversion, then what is Linden Lab doing promoting it to business, educational institutes, non-profits as a collaborative conferencing environment? ( The ‘Second Life Work’ page off the main SL home page – http://work.secondlife.com/en-US/ )
Why does the Solution Providers Directory exist? ( http://work.secondlife.com/en-US/getstarted/findpartner/ )
However, that is a moot point.
The bigger issue is the general public perception of digital content or content intended for primarily digital consumption or experience as not being worth paying attention, or that the person who created it was “just playing”, that thing which are digital are not real, things that are digital in origin do not matter.
This extend as well to public perception of things a simple a images — the number of times I have been in-world, and seen users that have gone to an image search, grabbed pictures they thought were cool, uploaded them in world, and are now selling them. I haven’t always been able to get ahold of the creator– and the DMCA process must be done by the copyright holder, rather than a sympathetic third-party.
In terms of the issues within Second Life as a platform: there are two methods of dealing with things and both lead to potential repercussions for creator whose content has been stolen.
Going through the DMCA process potentially leads to the violator creating a new account to do the same thing on, or trying to counter-file, and personal contact information being released to someone potentially bent on trolling and harassing across physical and virtual worlds (or distributing the information to others who would find it amusing to do it for ‘t3h lulz’)
The other option is trying to contact the individual copying and distributing your content illegally, and trying to educate them as to what is wrong with what they are doing — but then the potential for them to attempt to abuse report for harassment.
I have found it very difficult within Second Life to quite grasp how Linden Labs thought the (still) current and past method of not dealing with stuff would work in the long run. Granted, my background prior was on the Policy Violation Team on deviantART, so enforcement and follow through on posted policies is something that tends to be a prominent issue for me.
Knowing the atmosphere toward content, creation, copyright, that exists within the general populace (as opposed to the creators), has discouraged me from getting really into creating within Second Life, as well as feeling wary of my original goal of using my land within Second Life to showcase my artwork, due to the awareness that someone taking a screenshot of my work in world, uploading it to their inventory, and then selling it in their shop is incredibly simple to do, and difficult to fight, in term of finding the person.
(Of course, the same is true of anything posted on the net really, if someone has the motivation to want to do so…)
I realize that arguing based on essentially flat-works is very different from dimensional and scripted items, I am mentioning my point of view, as it is what I am most familiar with. I very much appreciate the amount of work put into creation of sculpts, having fiddled around a bit, but not coming anywhere near to the quality that others have mastered.
As for the issue of Linden Labs profitting from the theft – this is a huge issue. The analogy of landlord profiting from the drug dealer renting their property isn’t quite equivalent. As people who sell (or give-away) stolen content generally are not (or not just) renting land, but paying for their content uploads of stolen content, usually multiple times as each account gets banned, as well as through the LindeX fees for cashing out to physical world currencies, Xstreet transaction percentages, classifields, land listings, etc, etc — the landlord would have to be charging the drug dealer tenant currency conversion fees, fees to post signs on the lawn, fees to bring the substance onto the property each time a new shipment is needed – for it to mimic the dimensions of the situation of what is occurring with Linden Labs profiting from content theft.
Nimil Blackflag on September 17, 2009
thank you for this write up prad, it was a lot easier to read than some of the other blogs i’d seen about it. now i know what they are doing.. and good for them! i hope they win! its high time LL cracked down on this rampant theft all over the place. i think LL should have banned people who released stolen content into the world, instead of just slapping them on the wrist and telling them to quit it. they should be outright ip banned so they cannot make alts and rejoin the population to start again. its really disturbing just how much they have let go on right under their noses, and even though SL is a huge place and there is no way to police it, we should be able to report theft and have it removed for good instead of removed for a couple of hours while this person gets on an alt to upload it.
Desidelia on September 17, 2009
Lol steve when u discover that some people makes more than 10000$ a month and some of them illegal, it will change ur stupid opinion that SL is a game. In anycase, call them loosers when they are buying their new car IN REAL LIFE.
And for the topic, the problem of SL is that is internet in 3D, and who can control internet?
Raul Crimson on September 17, 2009
Thanks, Prad, for making this a bit clearer.
Personally i’m not sure if this is the best way to prevent content thief, but well, i presume is the only possible way the lawyers found.
Anyway, for what i know, the only things LL can do against those thiefs will affect all the residents. IP banning won’t work (in my ISP the IP numbers are dynamic) and the only way to REALLY protect the content whould be to make people who wants to upload content be identified to Linden Lab, some like the Age Verification (we could name it Content Creator Verification in this case). This way they could sue directly the thiefs, but that solution won’t be accepted gladly by most of the residents.
Any solution of this will be bad for somebody, or directly bad for everybody.
Nadine Nozaki on September 17, 2009
Yes, this will be bad for us, what ever happend WE are the loosers. We who try to have a nice second life, maybe add and a few items for our self, using our imagination to create out selfs a nice little get away from real life.
I’m sorry i have payed money to one of these two creators. DMCA is a bad law imho, most clames have been proven to be wrongly filed, at least in real world.
As with real world copyright problem the only solutions is finding a way for people to like to give money to the creators. Sueing LL, Trying to force that to make my world more restricted, trying to make me unable to create the stuff I like to create. I not the way, I make me negative, it makes me fustrated.
Bluegum Lunasea on September 17, 2009
I can’t see how Stroker and Munchflower can win in the long run.
At best it will be a massive Phyrric Victory, and at worst LL will exercise their “we can ban anyone for any reason or no reason” escape clause. Being a vexacious litigant would certainly seem like a good reason to the Lab.
Time to bunker down in a fox hole folks and hope it all ends quietly because if it blows up the flak will be horrendous.
Isabeal Jupiter on September 17, 2009
The plaintiffs have an uphill battle here. I think they will have to position LL as similar to the Napster line of cases in terms of allowing copyright violation, and the Napster decisions really aren’t particularly strong ones.
The burden to prevent copyright infringement and to police it still lies the the content creators because of the nature of the internet, where limitations on the transfer of content (whether illicit or not) are simply routed around.
My prediction is that, in the end, even if LL is found liable, it will be up to the content creators to catch the bad guys and bring suit against them. LL’s burden will probably only involve some sort of reporting requirement and warning system in addition to what they already have set up.
Rifkin Habsburg on September 17, 2009
While I sympathise with anyone who’s had to deal with content theft, I do have some reservations about this action in particular. I’ve posted my thoughts on my blog.
Tweets that mention Stroker and Nomine versus Linden Lab - Metaversally Speaking.. -- Topsy.com on September 17, 2009
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by poid. poid said: versus LL – http://bit.ly/47kd7W [...]
Stroker on September 17, 2009
Great post Prad. Concise and relevant. Thanks for the comments/opinions everyone!
Prad Prathivi on September 17, 2009
Good luck to you, Stroker!
Lily on September 17, 2009
I hope they don’t win. What they do is promoting their brands in a very ugly way. So many blogs and sites are promoting them for free now. Don’t be deluded. I don’t think they are thinking about other content creators at all.
I agree with Raul and Nadine – this case is hurting SL residents. I think protecting IP is important, and that some new tools need to be implemented… but this?
I believe Linden Lab are aware of the problem and are working on developing the so much needed tools, but it’s not a matter of several days, as some may presume. It requires a lot of carefully made decisions and a deep interference into existing system. I understand they don’t want to act hastily. But can’t you see these changes are happening? There’s so many changes happening at the moment, that it’s impossible not to notice them.
Stroker and Munchflower, if you don’t like how SL works, leave. Create your own virtual world and make it better. If it’s at least as good as SL, I’ll be the first one to come. Or if you want to act as a rescuer for the rest of content creators, develop tools you find appropriate and present them to Linden Lab. What you’re doing is only making things worse. And blaming Linden Lab for everything that’s bad won’t solve any problem at all.
I support Linden Lab. They deserve it, for they made the only virtual world that I want to log in to. If there’s no settlement, I hope Linden Lab wins.
amalyn on September 28, 2009
The problem is that Linden Labs has not engaged in open discussion with content creators on what can be done, and what is being planned. The issues with copybot have been longstanding – this isn’t just something that has popped up over night or even just in the past year. While Linden Labs may be working on something that may feasibly work to protect the rights of creators, create a sustainable atmosphere, as well as not cause end users to feel like they are being oppressed in some way.
However, end users should also not assume that simply because they are uploading an image to have on the wall in their private home, that it is fine to take someone’s work from elsewhere online to do so without permission. Even if you are certain you are uploading with the appropriate permissions to prevent others from right click -> take copy, you are enabling further violation of the creator’s copyright should someone using copybot come along…
With Linden Labs emphasis on Second Life as created by the users, and the emphasis through the showcase and Solution Provider Directory on premium well created content being desireable, then there needs to be openness and transparency with those involved in the creator community to plan what can be done to work together. This has not happened.
In my time within Second Life, this has been a very sore point for me. I love the concept of virtual worlds, and enjoy participating – but get very frustrated that Abuse Reports are not to be used to report copyright violations — especially when I am wandering around the grid and come upon a shop where someone is selling work from multiple artists and friends elsewhere online, with the only current option being for each of the artists to go through the DMCA filing process. This is garbage.
I realize that I’ll have various people tell me to shut it since I don’t have any huge game-changing suggestions of how things can be improved. We’ve seen how various in-world community-based groups get regarded by others — accusations of witch hunts and causing unwarranted drama, especially by their detractors. I applaud Stroker and Nomine for pursuing this avenue — it isn’t a happy-happy-joy-joy joyous celebration, at all (as I recognize and agree with various others in that this may be a no-win situation for the community as a whole), but it feels very much necessary at this point to get actual meaningful changes implemented, as well as to shift the paradigm within the community in attitudes toward and treatment of intellectual property.
Thorn Witrial on September 17, 2009
@ Lily,
I don’t think you are comprehending the problem. This isn’t a question of yelling at LL to fix something ‘in a few days’, or for promoting a business. This is about years of theft and content/trademark violations that the two companies in this suit have tried for years to get Linden Labs to do something about, namely upholding their own TOS against thievery and the DMCA process.
Meetings have been attended, DMCAs and ARs have been filed, Help Tickets have been submitted.
*YEARS* of trying to work within the LInden Lab matrix have gone by with no solid result. Meanwhile, LL directly profits (literal profits of literal money) from the acts of piracy. Please reread Prad’s blog post to see what I’m talking about.
This is extremely wrong on many levels. Bad ethics, bad business. The sad thing is it’s taking people dragging LL to court to get any sort of response that isn’t more of ‘we’re working on it’ and then no result.
Lily on September 17, 2009
Years? SL has only existed since 2003, and I remember in the first half of 2006 there still were no problems like this. Some things were sold full perm at the time.
I think you’re not understanding the problem actually. Making Linden Lab guilty because someone else is breaking the law is simply wrong.
Don’t try to find a scapegoat – deal with those who really are guilty.
Nimil Blackflag on September 17, 2009
2006 is actually when theft rose to monumental proportion with the allowance of free accounts.. i know that well, as i came with the free accounts and was looked down on for a long time because of that. copy bot came in right around then as well.
but its still years.. its 2009 now, that’s 4 years worth of dcma, copyrite infringements, etc.. LL has really done nothing to stop it and so these people are fed up.
while i do love this world i play in, i really hate that it is being overrun with theft.
Lily on September 17, 2009
You are right, the copybot issue emerged in the second half of 2006, but as I said, in the first half that year some things were sold full-perm. Content theft happened suddenly and was a shock for everyone – even Linden Lab, I think. No one really knew at the time how to fight it. And everyone was used to kind community that relies on honesty – so it was even more of a shock when copybot made its appearance.
I’m absolutely against content theft but as I said, finding an easy scapegoat is wrong, and in this case I’m not changing my mind. Also, I think the problem lies elsewhere. It seems to me that Linden Lab didn’t consider this as a priority issue in the beginning (which was a big mistake, as time has shown). This is why it took so long, in my opinion. But a lawsuit when things actually start to change is just obvious. They know LL can easily fulfil their demands (regarding changes), so probably this case will be a settlement, BUT their brand is promoted and perhaps they get some easy money.
I don’t expect anyone to share this point of view, but this is how it seems to me.
steve on September 17, 2009
I agree entirely with you Lily. Anyone giving this thought outside their own emotive response to the situation will come to the same conclusion.
We don’t hold the Government responsible if someone breaks into our house.
We don’t prosecute ISPs when people use the internet for illegal gain.
We don’t bang up the car dealer who sells a van to a crim to turn it into a meth lab.
It’s the same thing.
These guys wanna go after copybot creators, or rezzable or someone like that. They are barking up the wrong tree with LL.
Phoenix Psaltery on September 17, 2009
Lily, you are being quite shortsighted about this. Linden Lab established the system that allows us to create things in SL; they also created the means to convert our L$ earnings into real world cash. First of all, it is not unreasonable to ask them to help prevent content theft, and secondly, they profit from every sale because when the thieves cash out their ill gotten L$, LL takes a cut.
This is not making LL an “easy scapegoat,” this is like an attempt to correct a corrupt judicial system.
P2
steve on September 17, 2009
@Desidelia
SL is a game.
Sure, some people (very few) make money in SL – but the vast majority do not.
What pisses me right off is that in reality it is only your SL content that you are pissed about getting nicked. At the same time people are more than happy to have uTorrent on their PC, use rezzables BuilderBot etc.
And the argument goes, oh but I only use these to perform quasi-legal operations. Yeah right.
So, you go out and buy CDs when you want music, or buy from iTunes. Never viewed illegal youtube content etc etc. On it goes.
The double standards and the complete lack of a universal ethic astounds me.
Why is SL so special.
Lily hits the nail on the head. And I’ve said it before – the class action will fail because LL are not liable for someone elses (possible) copyright/IP breach.
That they are making money out of it is illegal – ISPs are not prosecuted when someone downloads kiddy porn. The principle is the same and that is why the class action will fail.
Alternatively it will drag out for years costing everyone a lot of money and the only people laughing will be the lawyers.
steve on September 17, 2009
I meant to say…
That they are making money out of it is NOT illegal.
Prad Prathivi on September 18, 2009
Just FYI – Rezzable’s Builderbot will only copy things which you have created yourself on the grid (therefore which you have full perms on anyway).
Rein on September 18, 2009
As a retired SL content creator, and knowing many past and present content creators, I can tell you the PRIMARY reason people who create content in SL retire, or consider retiring, is content theft, and LL’s half hearted (if any) response to it.
In some cases, I have known people who reported content theft, LL did nothing, and when the victim took steps to publicize the name of the thief in SL, the thief themselves filed an AR for harassment. And guess what? LL acted then.
There is presently NO means of properly securing content from theft. The permissions system of SL is admitted by many, many people I’ve spoken with, to be heavily flawed and inadequate.
If the plaintifs win, and I hope they do, it will further damage the already floundering SL economy as LL scrambles to create some kind of superior means to protect content rights. YET if LL wins, I can see most content creators simply removing all their items from the grid.
SL will be made better, albeit after a rough time, should the plaintifs win. If LL wins, SL will suffer far worse over time.
Ryker Beck on September 18, 2009
LL *IS* liable for holding up the DMCA. Which they are not doing to the best of their abilities. Which is why this lawsuit is taking place.
Dream Resistance on September 18, 2009
Please guys, read. Prad even made it REALLY easy. The onus to find content theft is still on the creators. However, once found, LL isn’t executing the DMCA take-downs correctly, nor doing anything as simple as, I dunno, EFFECTIVELY BANNING THE THIEVES. Instead the thieves are allowed to crop up again and again, having to buy more land (which LL profits from) and upload the content again (which LL profits from) and list in search for 30L (which LL profits from) and buy classifieds (which LL profits from) and list on SLX (which LL profits from) etc etc etc. Get the picture?
Yes Lily, back in the day, people gave away THEIR OWN STUFF full perm so it could be spread across the grid. How that likens to theft, I really have no idea.
As to anyone saying it’s just about greed or advertising? Please, you have /no/ idea what you’re talking about. Both of these people are incredibly nice, generous, open-minded, and giving people. Content creators have a right to compensation for their work (and really, you end up paying, what…2, 3 whole USD for hours and hours and hours of content work) and to the protection which is PROMISED them in the LL ToS.
Jarl on September 18, 2009
Irrespective of who wins the case, the ultimate losers will be the rank and file members of SL, either by virtue of increased restrictions designed to protect LL’s interests or an eventual drying up of of content by disillusioned creators. Given that SL relies as heavily on trade as it does, it does NOT take a brainiac to figure out that either outcome is not particularly satisfying for the majority of people who play this game in good faith.
And it is to those very people I direct this advice. In the end, the buck can only be passed so far. There are plenty of options available to those keen on enjoying their Second Life roleplay (and yes, finding fault with the system and waxing lyrical on it is one of them). In the end however, the most decisive action is that which the residents themselves take.
For myself, I refuse to give dollar one to anybody I figure is fencing stolen goods in the real world and I see no reason why I ought to treat Second Life any differently. If I consider a product is worth possessing, then I also consider it worth my while to put my money into either its further development or the development of new and improved products. And excuse me for stating the blindingly obvious here, but that “just aint gonna happen” if I’m handing my hard earned cash to some cheap knock-off merchant whose sole talent lies in how well he/she can copy someone elses work. At the end of the day someone has taken the time, effort and artistry to put that product within my reach. Why would I hand my money to someone who has looted the shop?
And if you’re one of these people screaming defence of the content creators, then I can recommend no better place to start. “Charity begins at home” and all that. But I would go one step further and say that you would be enriching your own experience of SL in the long run. Sure, people like Stroker stand to make a shitload of linden out of their work, but in the end you also benefit, either directly or vicariously, from the efforts of these people who brought their diverse (and in some instances “peverse”) imagination and talents into the community. And chances are that even if you aren’t able to personally afford the products they provide (I know I sure as hell aren’t), then with a little patience and vigilance you might just find a Midnight Mania board or a Lucky Chair somewhere that might drop one of their products or something roughly approximating it into your lap anyway.
Naturally this kind of altruism will not appeal to all – that is why content theft exists. And some people may well feel it within their god given rights to take advantage of the fruits of some (admittedly clever) individuals who have exploited loopholes in the metaverse to provide “illegal” copies, either free or at a price. That is their choice, it need not be yours if you don’t want it to be. My advice is if you do feel outraged by this practice then do as I do – vote with your feet. By that I mean if they offend your sensibilities, avoid them like the plague. What good is a ripped skin or hairstyle if there’s nobody about to fawn over the avatar in it? More to the point, how stupid are these people going to feel if, after forking over their linden for a pirated copy, all they appear to have become is a walking advertisment for the genuine article?
I’m not advocating a campaign of vigilante behaviour against every last person who persists in using pirated content, not when we have seen the very same people who would cheat one aspect of the system (content theft) rely on another part of the system (abuse reporting) to defend themselves. I find their behaviour in that regard grossly hypocritical personally, and that is why you wont find me marching a wall of penises through their lives to register my disgust at their actions (as amusing as such a scene might personally be to me). What you will find me doing is ultimately turning my back on these people, along with anyone who willingly supports them. They don’t get my money, they don’t get my friendship, they sure as hell don’t get my recommendation to others. Life, even second life, is far too short for me to be wasting my time on those people – they serve no purpose past being walking billboards in my eyes and when was the last time you held a meaningful conversation with a billboard?
No-one is suggesting for a moment that you need to condone or even associate with these cretins. Similarly, no-one is suggesting even for an instant that you form a cheer squad for the content creators OR for Linden Labs. Frankly I can see both sides of their arguments and while both parties can argue effective cases for their respective positions, I know that no matter which way it falls out, I will be personally be poorer for it in one way or another.
Can I change their minds? Hardly. But I can behave in such a manner as I believe appropriate so as not to exacerbate the problem. And if more of us had the sense to realise this instead of going off the deep end and getting all hot under the collar over something we none of us have a hope in hell of stopping, then whether its content theft, litigation or both, at the very least we would be making life as difficult as possible for those who would profit in ways we find disagreeable.
Be part of the solution, rather than merely another one of the mewling cabbages demanding one. Sure its fun to pop up on to your soapbox and vent your spleen, but wouldn’t you rather be in-world getting your rocks off instead?
Desidelia on September 18, 2009
Steve I am sorry but u are very wrong saying SL is a game, some call it metaverse, I call it internet in 3d, but is not a game, there are lot of things in sl, business, education, spare time, etc. Some people enters to chat, another for sex, anothers to win money, anothers to play, another to comunicate, another to take photos and the list goes on and on and on…
About the topic of this post I really dont care, designers says they are against piracy then they do piracy, cos the picture of the campaing of this topic is funy due to one of them was acussed of stealing
Chez Nabob on September 18, 2009
As the creator of the IP rights campaign you are referring to, I feel like I need to address your comment, Desidelia.
It is true that one of the creators who participated in the campaign was accused (emphasis on the word accused) by a blogger with an ax to grind and a personal vendetta against that creator.
That blogger also earns money from her site, so the more drama and controversy she creates, the more it benefits her in terms of page views and ad revenues. She is far from the unbiased, disinterested party she might like you to think she is.
Making an accusation and proving it are two entirely different things.
On a related note, having worked with Stroker on the campaign, I have to say he is one of the nicest, most approachable people I have had the good fortune to meet here in SL, and I’m glad he and Munchflower decided to take this step to push LL to help content creators better protect their IP rights.
Some here have claimed things are changing. I’ll believe it when I see it.
As someone who’s been around since 2005, I feel VERY qualified in saying that content creators have been waiting YEARS for LL to help us better protect our content and we have gotten little more than lip service from them.
It was only a matter of time before someone filed such a suit, and I hope it leaves a stinging red mark on the buttocks of the Lab. If they had stepped up to the plate and delivered long ago, this suit wouldn’t be necessary.
So I say BRAVO Stroker an Munchflower!
Jarl on September 19, 2009
“Some here have claimed things are changing. I’ll believe it when I see it… It was only a matter of time before someone filed such a suit, and I hope it leaves a stinging red mark on the buttocks of the Lab. If they had stepped up to the plate and delivered long ago, this suit wouldn’t be necessary.”
And what if that “something” takes the form of a re-write of the TOS to the effect that all content uploaded or created in-world becomes the property of LL? Worse, they sell their servers to some corporate hatchetman who either sells them for scrap, or employs these same people back to reformat them, with or without an equivalent of the metaverse we are currently enjoying so much? Will you be advocating everyone who ever generated dollar one for use in world to launch a class action suit against Phillip Linden if he suddenly decides to reinvest his personal gains in numbered swiss bank accounts and declares himself bankrupt? Hey, maybe you might find him sympathetic to your cause… settiling it AND every subsequent plaintiff out of the coffers of LL until the organisation is insolvent… what then?
Admittedly these are extreme examples, but they are not beyond the realms of possibility. No matter how much real money and effort has been expended (and I understand Stroker has invested a fair bit and don’t blame him for being angry at the state of affairs) at the end of the day it is LL who controls and maintains the framework and they are under NO obligation whatsoever to keep it running if they deem its liabilities outweigh its benefits. This is precisely what I alluded to earlier when I said that no matter which way this argument falls out, it is undeniably the users will lose out through either reduced content or increased restrictions making it that much more difficult (and dare I say prohibitive) to upload it. And that’s the good news – we can and probably should entertain the notion that the metaverse rug could be quite literally ripped from under ALL our feet in the worst case scenario.
As I see it, that puts the onus squarely back on us, the end users of the product to bring about a solution. You can merrily launch all the actions your pocketbook demands against LL until the cows come home and it wont make a scrap of difference to the problem. People will still find a way to swipe stuff for as long as a market exists for it and in the end its the little guy who loses out.
And by the “little guy”, I am assuredly NOT referring to the content creators. I have recently seen a 2 year old 4 Corners report on Stroker and he is not a “little guy”. However nice he is, is ultimately irrelevant – he is an entrepreneur as much as Phillip Linden is an entrepreneur in that both identified markets they could make a buck out of, securing enough capital to turn their vision into a reality.
And yes, if his product is good enough to stick in someones home then he has every right to be paid for it. But not at the expense of others, many of whom like myself do not own, nor entertain the notion of owning their product legally or otherwise.
And that is the bottom line here. I don’t blame you for skipping blithely past the solution I presented earlier since its far FAR easier to go after the big lumbering target with the fat bank balance than it is the weasely parasites that cling to its sides. And heaven help us should we ever have to find fault with ourselves if there is a common enemy we might all point to. No, no and again NO, we must bring that beast to its knees to feather the nests of a sundry few like the good sheeple we are. And that goat up the back bleating the moral high ground? Oh, ignore him – he’ll never take ANYONE to court.
Chez Nabob on September 19, 2009
Excuse me Jarl, but I am very much an advocate of having the users provide a solution to the problem. The IP rights campaign I started (see Stroker’s ad at the top of this post) is VERY MUCH about making the overall community of SL part of the the solution.
That campaign is all about educating the public about content theft; making them aware that content creators’ IP rights are being violated in SL; encouraging them to be a part of the solution by notifying legitimate content creators when they see a ripped/stolen item; and asking them to stop buying stolen content.
But that solution only goes so far. At some point LL MUST step up to the plate to help creators better protect their IP rights. Despite the fact that they are legally obliged to do so it benefits them as SL’s economy thrives on user-generated content. No content, no SL.
Instead, LL has chosen to drag their feet for years on this issue, and it’s high time someone took them to task over it.
If giving content creators better tools to protect their IP rights means that LL’s business model goes into the toilet (a situation I find HIGHLY unlikely to occur; in fact I think quite the opposite would happen), then they never had a legitimate business model to begin with.
End users absolutely should play a role in this situation, but that only goes so far as many of them will opt to continue buying stolen content. At some point it becomes the responsibility of the guy that owns the servers to step up and take some responsibility for what is going on those servers by taking a more active role in helping creators defend their IP rights.
Desidelia on September 19, 2009
Yes chez I said acused never I said guilty, and I really dont have any intention to say that is a bad thing that campaing. My point is that there are shit in all the sides. Linden Lab, designers, comunity. And I dont say for that person that was acused. There are shit in lot of designers like false DMCAs, riping other desginer’s textures and copying, copybots, unethical marketing, illegal resources, etc. Then by the side of comunity groups sending riped items, using copybot, bloggers helping brands, etc
And finally by the side of Linden Lab, well I think this topic it resumes it, but it needs to add all other things that Linden Lab does bad too not only to designers
The final thing is the real law that is obsolete and dont help anybody, cos when u wanna sue someone from another country is very hard and expensive.
So my conclusion is that there are shit in all the places and I dont find any other solution than adapt, like in RL.
Content Theft and You in the SL Community « Hey Girlfriend on September 20, 2009
[...] It’s an ugly thing, content theft in SL. If affects every single one of us, whether you are a designer or not, whether you are aware of it, or not. It damages our ecomony, in ways I cannot begin to describe in a sensible manner, I’ll leave that to others who comprehend this more then I. It violates the one being stolen from, rips their livlihood, or their hobby, right out from under them. Many good designers have packed up and left SL, giving up the battle. Many designers loose the passion to create in SL…leaving much less new content for us to enjoy. It is nothing new, content theft existed long before recent things have made it easier. For a good article explaining what is happening in a real world courtroom regarding content theft, see Prad Prathivi’s great post. [...]
SLG on September 21, 2009
lol obviously someone likes to steal…saying someone needs to “get a life” when talking about copyright laws in virtual worlds is worried about whether they will be able to steal someone else’s stuff later on. How pathetic. If you have to steal content from someone in a virtual world you have some serious issues. Seek professional help. These are real laws and were put into action for a reason. I hope to God these people win. Stealing is wrong whether it is in second life or real life. Period.
SadieMae jameson on September 21, 2009
I am behind yall 100%. i am so tried of seeing stolen content being passed along and resold. it makes me sick to my tummy becasue i know theres nothing really that will be done to the people stealing and the Ll has never tried to stop it , so now we have a massive wildfire burning out of control. i have seen some pretty awesome designers give up and either quit sl creating or let it go on becasue the time and energy it takes to fight them with no outcome is both time consuming and frustrating. I guess when secondlife said be anything you want to be in our world , they didint realize that some peopel actually wanted to be thieves.
Raven Nuubert on September 21, 2009
This is the digital world.
The capability for LL to check things before they are sold will not be a long drawn out process. It will be a digial verification by a computer system.
A Transation Authentication Server.
In other words … the check will take take seconds.
The fallout from the Lawsuit will not be LL having eveyone fill out a form and then waiting while they go through some manual sales verification process of the objects for sale.
Neither the residents performing legitimate business transactions nor Linden Labs has the time or money for that.
If an object is being sold by someone other than the owner … or by an individual without the rights to sell the object, the transaction will be cancelled immediately in REAL TIME and the customer, Linden Labs and the Creator of the Object will all be notified in REAL TIME.
This process should not inconvenience anyone, other than the thieves.
This is not rocket science … these capabilities have been around a while …
Identity Management (IDM) is a maturing technology. The Identity that is verified need not be RL IDM, it only need be SL IDM. This keeps everyones anonymity intact and also keeps LL and everyone else (who would rather spend their time more judiciously) out of the court systems.
In any case, these are digital objects and adding attributes similar to the following should not be difficult:
o Copyright Owner
o Patent Owner
o Licensee
I know that it seems we all beat up on LL.
Frankly, I applaud LL for all that they have done thus far.
However, I note that there are rumblings of competition starting for LL both because it is profitable and because of the level of dissatisfaction by many of it’s creative customers.
LL … those who create new content keep SL vibrant, new and alive. I hope that LL realizes that. If you lose their creative residents and are only left with the thieves / copiers then where will your new content come from??
IBM used to lead the Computer World. They were number one. Where are they now? Mainframes are no longer the primary systems in use; they lost the PC Market battle; they don’t own the laptop or notebook markets; none of their OSes or systems are number one in sales anymore.
Linden Labs … The court battles should not be your main concern.
You started with an Innovative ideas and concepts which made you successful. If you don’t protect, mentor and nurture your creative residents and continue to innovate, improve and be a market leader then your creative resident pool will dry up and someone else will take your market share.
… and the market …
… will leave you behind.
Cheers.
The killer awoke before dawn « Second Life Shrink on September 27, 2009
[...] and New World Notes, and there’s no shortage of comment around the SL blogosphere (like here, here and here). In such circumstances any opinion I care to offer is bound to be superfluous, as [...]