Recent Comments:
Underage crackdown [updated]
Second Life Insider
Mar 8th 2007 2:44AM Which was the Linden that was giving that out?
Marketers, take note.
Second Life Insider
Dec 24th 2006 2:03PM It's so true. In real-world meetings with clients, this has been a fairly typical misconception -- "it's a video game, right? Video games are for teenage boys."
It's good to draw attention to the true demographics of Second Life, because they can only help to make it MORE attractive to businesses and residents. Misconceptions hurt its growth, and that's not fun for any of us.
Casualty of War - Torrid Midnight
Second Life Insider
Sep 10th 2006 2:59AM I've noticed a lot of misconceptions about copyright and DRM recently, and I'd like to hopefully clear some of those up.
The idea that Second Life employs a system of intellectual property ownership that trumps real-world copyright law is faulty. Second Life is not a legal jursidiction unto itself, but rather, a series of computer programs running within a set of servers located in California. Interactions mediated by the Second Life servers are subject to California state law as well as US federal law, which is where copyright comes in.
From a legal perspective, Digital Rights Managements models such as that employed by Second Life's permissions system, most certainly does not trump the guaranteed rights of fair use.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management#Other_copyright_implications)
In fact, the TOS specifically addresses copyright ownership and fair use rights.
SL TOS - Section 3.2:
“You retain copyright and other intellectual property rights with respect to Content you create in Second Life, to the extent that you have such rights under applicable law. However, you must make certain representations and warranties, and provide certain license rights, forbearances and indemnification, to Linden Lab and to other users of Second Life.”
(http://secondlife.com/knowledgebase/article.php?id=060)
However, circumventing DRM is also mentioned under the TOS. And guess what, Linden doesn't like it.
SL TOS – 4.2:
“You agree to use Second Life as provided, without unauthorized software or other means of access or use. You will not make unauthorized works from or conduct unauthorized distribution of the Linden Software.”
(http://secondlife.com/knowledgebase/article.php?id=060)
Now, from a technical perspective, using any of the tools available to extract texture data (save for hypothetical future ones derived from libSecondLife) does not involve directly violating DRM, as these are not third-party tools that directly affect Second Life, but rather, involve the OpenGL processes that Second Life decodes its data into. Obviously, were these tools to directly break the DRM system imposed by Second Life, using them would violate the SL TOS.
The assertion that a content creator's intentions are clear when they set an asset no-copy or no-modify is true. Yes, obviously the creators intended for their works to not be copied or modified. However, as we see when referencing both US law (see cited examples at Wikipedia's DRM page above) and the SL TOS, this is not a right the creator is legally granted. By producing a copyrightable work, copyright is implicitly established, and with it, fair use rights apply. Creators' rights do not trump consumers' resale rights established under Bobbs-Merrill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine), nor do they trump consumers' rights to copy or modify a work for their own personal use.
Finally, I've heard a lot of analogies of virtual clothing being similar to real-world clothing: after buying them, you should be allowed to hem the legs of your jeans. However, this is faulty reasoning as well. We're not dealing with physical objects, however much they may appear to be when translated from raw data into a 3D representation on our Second Life clients.
A better analogy would be that you have the right to copy music from a CD you purchased to your iPod. You own the physical media the music was transported on, but not the music itself. However, you do have the right to copy –and even modify it– for your own personal use. This is what the doctrine of fair use guarantees.
To sum up, a shirt in Second Life is not like a shirt in Real Life. In fact, it's not LIKE anything – it's actually an image of a shirt in Real Life, subject to the same laws and precedents that affect a piece of music.
Exposed
Second Life Insider
Sep 8th 2006 10:55PM When I started my account, I wasn't in a very good space paranoia-wise, and as such, basically every part of my account is a lie. Don't tell the Lindens.
Still, for those people out there for whom privacy is critical, I'm worried about the impact this could have. How much did they get? Do the exploiters really care? Did they even retain the data? What will be the response? I guess we'll find out.
American Apparel Attacked!!
Second Life Insider
Aug 11th 2006 11:48PM As an upper-right Platformist, I feel compelled to point out that as the SL servers are on US soil, any actions commited involving them... are... on US soil. Let the flaming begin.
As a Canadian, my heritage is defined by beer commercials (http://youtube.com/watch?v=BRI-A3vakVg) and by CBC Heritage Minutes. (http://www.histori.ca/minutes/default.do?page=.index)
As such, I know that the Hudson's Bay Company's territory, Rupert's Land, consisted of the Hudson Bay watershed, thus only extending into very small parts of modern-day North Dakota and Minnesota. When Rupert's Land was handed over to the newly-founded Dominion of Canada, the modern-day border had already been set years earlier.
It's true that the Hudson's Bay Company operated at various times within the United States after it was formally founded, maintaining trade monopolies and defacto police forces in the Oregon territory. However, their association with what would become Canada far exceeded anything they did within the US. America had been a sovereign nation for nearly 100 years by the time the HBC ceased to control Rupert's Land.
This concludes today's Catherine Omega Historical Moment.
