Multi-Love returns to SL by Sansarya Caligari
June 17, 2008
Gridwide--Today Linden Lab released a blog announcement about Saturday's removal of scripts and animations sold by Eva Capalini and sculpt maps sold by Loni Arado, stating that certain items in Second Life were "inadvertently disabled". The blogger, LauraPLinden, did not elaborate citing LL's duty to protect the privacy of residents. She did go on to discuss the DMCA policy of Linden Lab and the possible consequences for false DMCA takedown requests.
"The problem should be fixed now, and we apologize for the inconvenience it caused. If you believe your content was inadvertently disabled, please try re-rezzing it. If that doesn’t work, please contact Support at http://secondlife.com/support," LauraPLinden stated in the blog.
Second Life residents were left with more questions than answers following the announcement, specifically why the open source script Multi-Love Pose V.1.2 was removed last week from many items, but the actual animations which were what reportedly was what was infringing on the copyright of the creators of the animations were left intact in peoples' inventories.
Hundreds of creators who used the open source script but not the animations were in an uproar this weekend after finding their creations were no longer working, while their customers were left uninformed about the broken content and with no recourse for refund or replacement unless the creators did the extra work to do so. No follow-up information has been published by Linden Lab about how the broken content will be replaced, other than a general "try re-rezzing it," statement from Live Help and now the blog post. Those residents who do not possess a premium account are not able to file a support ticket to receive help.
The blog also cited a specific case from 2004 when the Diebold Company was forced to pay over US$100,000 in damages and legal fees for innappropriately sending out cease and desist letters to ISPs citing DMCA violation after documents from their systems were released across the internet.
The blog also cited a specific case from 2004 when the Diebold Company was forced to pay over US$100,000 in damages and legal fees for innappropriately sending out cease and desist letters to ISPs citing DMCA violation after
Posted By:
كرتون اسلامي | Saturday, June 21, 2008 05:15 AM
Upholding DMCA inside SL is a joke. I've seen residents publically embarrass other residents by saying outloud, "You stole that!" without knowing where the selling resident got their material. I personally believe that to protect your work, you need to put a notecard in with your sale stating your policy about resale of your products, and either no copy or no transfer your work. At least take some precaution. It's hard to control it,but I've seen stuff that people have been sharing for months and years being resold. Your fault, creator, for making it full perm. Copybots cant steal animations or hidden scripts, and texture bakers kill texture quality when they withdraw the information. Not to say that it can't be done and done well, but I've never seen it. I think what it comes down to is people's willingness to not steal other people's work knowingly, and for people to shut their big fat mouths about who stole what when they don't know the terms under which a seller's goods originated.
Posted By:
Delaynie Barbosa | Sunday, June 22, 2008 06:28 AM
The problem, Delayne, is that many of those items that are set full perms now were originally NOT set full perms. Glitches in the SL Client software sometimes made/make permissions change. There have also been known script exploits where no mod scripts were able to be viewed by people who knew how to do it. The problem is that the permissions systems in the client can fail, and they aren't comprehensive enough to protect creators to begin with. Notecards can be removed from the items when they're resold, language in an open source script can be changed.
Posted By:
Sansarya | Sunday, June 22, 2008 08:34 PM
;)
