Recent Comments:
Casualty of War - Torrid Midnight
Second Life Insider
Sep 10th 2006 10:54AM "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."
I'd be interested in seeing some details regarding this aspect. Since all i can find so far (including the very definition of "fair use") seems to point to the contrary..?
specifically:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Podcasting_Legal_Guide
in particular note details on 'reproduction rights' and 'fair use' which is generally limited in scope and allowed for "transformative" purpose, like criticizing, commenting, parodying, news reporting, teaching. While personal copies and modifications may be allowed by law, they quite certainly don't appear under "fair use" concept, and i was so far unable to find anything specific about it (first sale doctrine is different matter, as it grants right to sell instance of copyrighted work as long as no copies are retained by person selling the item)
Casualty of War - Torrid Midnight
Second Life Insider
Sep 9th 2006 5:54PM "I make a point of buying people's creations that are worth it, but content creators need to know that once I buy it, it's mine. I own it, and I will continue to feel free to use it, write all over it, put eyeliner on it, or burn it among other things.
It's the world we live in, and it's perfectly legal. Deal with it."
I guess the potential problem with this line of reasoning is, in RL for your money you generally get _single_ item you are then inded free to do whatever with. If you burn it, paint it in pink polka dots or throw away, that's it. The appearance and/or condition is changed forever and changes usually cannot be reverted without effort as extensive as the modding itself.
When it comes to textures ripped from SL items, what you instead get is base item which can be modified into as many options as one pleases, without affecting the original purchased item. Suppose a content designer is selling outfit in multiple colour options. If i buy green one, then rip off the texture and re-colour it to red one... suddenly i have two perfectly valid options -- the green original, and the red version that i'd otherwise have to _pay_ for, to get from the original creator.
Because of this ability to 'eat your cake (mod the item) but still have it (keep the original)' the line between "fair use" and theft can be quite a bit more blurred than what happens in RL, imo. Now, if someone has enough integrity to destroy original item once they have modded copy, that's one story. But honestly, how many people actually do, or even consider this aspect in the first place?
SL Fashion, Personal Modifications, and Of Course, Drama.
Second Life Insider
Sep 9th 2006 11:36AM Aimee, if you are going to cite other people's opinions on the subject as part of your commentary, please at least try to not make the selection so blatantly one-sided.
There's been long thread discussing this very issue on the official forum not so long ago (okay, i suppose a week can be like century around some places)
http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread.php?t=133531
... in there you can see people like Chip Midnight speak strongly against utilization of texture ripping, even for personal use like it happened in this particular case.
Just to point out that no, not everybody sees it a trifle matter that can be simply brushed off as advertising thinly disguised as drama. And while fair use is certainly aspect to consider, another would be the feelings of original creator... to cover another angle of the "more human side of the debate", so to speak.
