Advertisements

  • Advertisement
Photobucket
My Photo

Tip Jar

Support Blog

Tip Jar

Official Second Life Blog

EngageDigital

« "They Will Get Past Any Lock" | Main | Duck »

September 16, 2009

Comments

Rob van Kan

I might be able to add to the fire by stating that when I was still active (I left! You must be so happy!) and a mentor, we were told in no uncertain terms not to file ARs for copyright infringement. Meaning: "When you see some nobody flog Mercedes cars or Converse All-Star shoes, do not tell us about it." So I didn't. (I bought the shoes though.)
Perhaps all that had a logical reason, perhaps not - law is not my forte. But it certainly sounded like they really did not want to hear of it. Which is a wee bit more than acting late.

I am just leaving that for you and/or Stroker to ponder. I will now bow out with my ungracious, bony, male self and leave you alone.

Cheers, the fmr Ms. Laetizia Coronet.

Darien Caldwell

Of course LL is to blame. There are a lot of easy, simple things they could do to stop it. (Remove anonymous avatar creation, Put in DRM, close source the viewer) But of course it has been their choice not to.

So the question becomes, is this a case of them being deliberate about it, to undermine creator's rights for their own benefit (most likely), or just being incredibly clueless about how their bad choices would affect things (possibly)?

One is criminal, the other is negligence. Either way, they have some responsibility.

As I said at the other site, LL should probably be thanking Stroker for forcing them to move into the world of a responsible company of the 20th century, which protects it's content and the content of those who use their tools to create, assuming that's how it goes. But if LL wins this case, they will actually lose, in every other way. They will lose the respect of content creators, their residents, and never be taken seriously as a platform again.

Interested Merchant

I don't think Stroker or Nomine are wanting money or SL to close like the forums masses are squealing but action to happen to help secure content. If LL ever manages that they'll probably find far more corporate types sign up anyway.

As for Lord Sully, he's a nice guy, yes going over the top a little with negativity but if LL has so much epic fail why not announce it to the world. Without Sully my only info on adult content changes would be that blog posted months ago - very ambiguous and the MOTD posted on the 15th Sept only...

LL are negligent all the way, even now after the adult content rules became 'enforced' you can type 'sex' into search, untick adult and see masses of sex sims set to mature..One of them is actually called FREE SEX LAND.

Fail after fail, it seems the only way they do listen is when the law bites them on the ass...And from the rumours I've been hearing, LL told the creators to go right ahead and file a lawsuit.

It's all made for interesting viewing.

melponeme_k

If you really walk around Linden Village, you will see plot after plot of what would be termed grief builds on resident sims.

Pair that with Malaby's account of departments fighting each other in death match Jiras.

And one can only conclude that the tech department won.

This lawsuit is a needful thing. The customers need to know where LL really stands on official record.

cube3

my mention of the veoh case wasnt meant to "rub anything in."

in fact, it was meant to warn folk AGAIN that they have little time to wise up.

though the vitton case offered some hope only a few months ago against safe harbor and for IP owners.

we cant even treat servers as pawn shops or retailers? can we? sad.

autistic media induced psychotics... youve been edumacated./

if someone wants to profit from trade on the net, either OWN or license the rights to the goods you trade in, period.

cube3

he DOES have a case, if we already havent allowed the rabbit hole to eat us too far...

note.other news of the day in techland - "ADOBE buys Omniture" Does anyone really think this tech will be made part of any tools buisness for content makers?. no
it will be another "service" feature that will allow anyone for free to upload content for adobe to own, and that content maker to "maybe" make pennies on the dollars adobe will charge "soap sellers" direct.

or so the web2.0 meme goes....

how am i wrong prok? seems most i have said here and for decades about the changes in media/tools ownership/ and the reality of the virtuality has been shown correct.

btw- starfish regenerate their arms if lost/cut off. Nature and time.

They dont work like web2.0 economics that coulpled with the DMCA have caused much damage to the whole as done by the greed of a few in a very short time.

Can one not see that this lawsuit is ONLY the dress rehearsal for the type that will be had against a GOOGLE or FACEBOOK within 5 years?

Darien Caldwell

"Can one not see that this lawsuit is ONLY the dress rehearsal for the type that will be had against a GOOGLE or FACEBOOK within 5 years?"

If by Google, you mean Youtube, I agree. That, or the way Google keeps trying to co-opt vast stores of literature who's copyright holders are missing in action. One of the two will bring things to a big head I agree.

Facebook, I don't see being at the center of anything. But then again I'm not a Facebook user. Maybe it's more than just a page to put your party pics and what music you like.

Troy McLuhan

The last page of the court papers is titled "JURY TRIAL" and says "Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury for all issues so triable."

Does anyone know which of the issues can get a trial by jury? Is that a judge's decision?

I wonder why they'd ask for a trial by jury.

Ann Otoole

@Troy So they won't have to accept a left wing information wants to be free paid off by the EFF judge's decision

Tammy Nowotny

I wonder if my Strokerz vendors are still working.

cube inada

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/ten-years-later/

another year later..do you feel saved?;)

c3

DMCA- will make us all slaves to Server Service Bankers.

Information wants to be Owned!

bladyblue Bommerang

Think of the timing of this - Stroker and Philip Linden (SL Founder) Just did a BFF interview last month and now this case is filed - also last month Linden Lab announced the new content creator licensing coming out (and if you have ever been suspended you cannot be a content creator under the new rule).

But how would Linden Lab get away with making everyone stop creating items and creating an income. Well, LL gets sued and it is forced upon all of us, that is how.

So Linden Lab along with their boy Stroker is manipulating the American court system so LL can force a drastic change on its user base.

Don't believe the hype.

Prokofy Neva

@ bladyblue Oh, ok. Hadn't thought of that angle. You could be right. It could all be a hustle

@cube 3 well, the safe harbour thing is certainly a hustle that merely provides free space for Google, etc. to sell ads on Youtube. The tekkies bitch that in fact DMCA only enables evil record companies to harass moms of toddlers, blah blah so they invoke it as effective but whenever it is used they whine that the little guy is hurt, etc.

I don't know understand what you mean by "server service bankers".

Qie Niangao

There's less than meets the eye about this one bit:

"Stroker Serpentine is still in the People list -- the Lindens didn't remove him. But he's put on his avatar 'Closed for Remodeling' and if you try to teleport to his islands or stores, they say 'can't teleport' or 'parcel not there' etc. as if closed to the public."

Supposedly that all predated the suit and is associated with an advertised grand opening of a new "Eros Mall" that's been in the works for a while. (This cribbed from an SLU post.)

cube inada

SERVER SERVICE BANKERS=
sorry just playing with finding a new term for these folks....
"rent" servers, offer free "service", paid for by gambling bankers-VCs....

anyhow- this defines them in proper lawyer speak.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10357108-93.html?tag=newsLatestHeadlinesArea.0

Camara & Sibley say very clearly what they think of Scribd's business model.

"Under the aegis of self-promoting misinterpretations of federal statutes," the lawyers wrote in their complaint, "the West Coast technology industry has produced a number of start-up firms premised on the notion that commercial copyright infringement is not illegal, unless and until the injured party discovers and complains of the infringing activity, and (the) infringer fails to respond to such complaints."

Camara & Sibley added to the complaint, "Apparently (the West Coast start-ups) believe any business may misappropriate and then publish intellectual property, as long as it ceases to use a stolen work when an author complains...Many millions of dollars have been invested in this business plan."

Prokofy Neva

Oh, I see lol. that's very helpful cube, thanks. Sums it all up very clearly. yes, it's a conscious business model for the West Coast...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Advertisements

  • Advertisement

Advertisements

  • Advertisement
Blog powered by Typepad

Networked Blogs

  • Networked Blogs