August 16, 2008 by Ciaran Laval
Posted in
I missed Sarah Nerd's party due to people forcing me to drink a strange potion, this potion largely erased parts of my memory of last night's debauchery although I do recall turning the microwave on three times and three times witnessing the circuit box turning off my electric downstairs, this is when I realised it might be the microwave causing the problem.
What has this got to do with transferring assets I hear you cry, and the answer is nothing but I wanted to explain my absence was due to circumstances beyond my control!
Right, transferring assets, there's a bit of a hulabaloo about whether residents should be able to take their items to other grids, especially if the other grid doesn't respect permissions.
The crux of the matter seems to be based around perceptions of what an item is. Consumers (that's me) seem to think an item is something they themselves own. Content creators (that's the clever people) seem to think an item is licensed and that they themselves retain ownership.
I can foresee much gnashing of teeth over this issue if it ever becomes an issue. Consumers in most cases haven't ticked boxes on Eula agreements when purchasing items in Second Life and this is a very important issue in terms of ownership.
Linden Lab of course would appear to own everything, and we do click a tick box there to agree to terms of use, so in all reality the power is in their hands.
So where do we all stand? Do consumers believe or even realise that they only have a license to use a product? Do content creators make this abundantly clear? Are we all going to have to start ticking boxes everytime we buy an item, especially if the content creator wants to restrict use of that item on other grids and more to the point, are content creators offering refunds if consumers don't agree to such terms and conditions?
This issue has implications not just for inter-grid issues but for inworld issues too. Content creators need to ensure that their license to use it clearly understood by consumers, there's no point moaning about it after the event if creators find that they haven't done all they can to respect the usage of their items. These issues are developing now, people need to take note of what's happening.
On a side point, transfer permissions in Second Life, why are content creators so anti transfer? I can understand that they don't want to combine copy and transfer but so many items can't be transferred. When my inventory is getting full I have the delete option, but I'd prefer to be able to give the item to someone else. This does of course depend upon what the item is but in terms of most items, transfer should be an option.
- Ciaran Laval's blog
- Add new comment
- 651 reads
Warning: EXTREMELY slipperly slope ahead!
The whole concept of copyright extension via licenses (EULA/ToS) needs to be re-examined by the courts. What it all boils down to is something called "software as a service". Something that the big players in the software and media industries want BADLY. For exmaple, the RIAA/MPAA would love nothing more than charging you for EVERY performance of a song/movie, and Microsoft has been pushing hard to make its OS/Office suite a "service" for which you pay a periodic subscription.
Licenses are becoming ridiculously complicated and full of all kinds of legal land mines. Almost NO one reads them, and they are hideously one-sided. It's the old "hide the eggs in the cereal" gimmick that capitalists have used since time immemorial. People have the expectation that when they plop down their hard-earned money for something in a box, ie, a PRODUCT, they can pretty much do whatever they want with it, within reasonable limits. It's not being marketed as a service, and there are no contract negotiations at the register (nor are the majority of license contracts presented to the consumer before purchase).
This ultimate does boil down to Copyright Law, and how companies are finding ways to exploit their userbase, and prevent any/all "fair use" possible to avoid seeing their "product" devalued in any way, shape, or form which is normally allowable under the law.
For a really good digest on the state and history of Copyright Law, read this article from Tim O'Reilly: http://news.oreilly.com/2008/08/how-copyright-got-to-its-curre.html
a couple of comments
1. Some items kinda have to be Yes-Mod to be useable (at least until the basic avatar model becomes obsolete, which may never happen) ... e.g., hair and prim clothing.
2. In RL, there are some items where owning an object doesn't actually give you a license to use it. The classic examples are DVDs and CDs... owning the plastic disc doesn't really give you any rights to do anything other than listen to it at home (which is something you don't need any license to do.) You don't have the right to make copies (aside from copies for your own "fair use") and you don't have the right to incorporate the content into another work. You don't even have the right to play it in public, so theoretically even blasting it on your car stereo would be an infringing use. (Public places like stores and restaurants are supposed to pay licensing fees to the major performance rights organizations even if all they do is play the radio loud enough for customers to hear the music.)
----
Tammy Nowotny
----
Exactly what I am talking about..
"Owning" an product that you purchase should come with certain automatic, inherent rights that are inalienable, despite ANY "license" or contract restricting otherwise. It's the nature of people to expect certain default rights to something they bought.
Beyond that, if all you are buying is a "license" to do certain things with something that you purchased, you should be required, by law, to be FULLY notified of the license terms BEFORE you buy it. "Shrink wrap" licenses and contracts should be ruled illegal, and anyone offering a license/contract to you should offer a legitimate way to enter proper contract negotiations before the purchase.
The problem is that copyright law has been so far overextended in favor of content creators (almost solely at the behest of giant conglomerates with large warchests of lobbying funds, and NOT the "little guy" artists/creators who are the ones ultimately suffering from this mess), that it is causing a severe form of backlash at the consumer level, and rightly so.
When you have people being sued for playing music on an outdoor stereo at a private pool party, things are broken. What's next? Suing people for doing book readings? That's "public presentation", too, ya know. The law is broken. The abuse of the law (and the legislation system which keeps breaking it even worse year after year) by corporate entities is rampant. A serious public revolution over it is coming to a boil, and asshats like the RIAA/MPAA (aka "MAFIAA") are doing nothing but throwing more coal in the furnace.
What does this all have to do with transfer of items to other grids? People, most notably consumers, are getting tired of the stupid games relating to content creators wanting to micromanage what consumers are getting via these mechanisms. Other content creators are getting tired of the bad rap they are getting from consumers because of the micromanagers. In addition, consumers' need to be able to defend their default expectations of use, and content creators need to be forced to present the full and dirty details of their restrictions up front. As a content creator, I do both.
Thanks Alot Ciaran...
Now I have Ludacris stuck in my head("The Potion").
Sarah Nerd put on a good show. Lots of contests. Fantastic turnout. The stage is still up as a good luck charm until after the winner is announced on Monday. Your recollection of your evening may or may not parallel events following my departure from SL last night - I haven't decided yet.
Ben Duranske had an interesting commentary at the end of a metanomics discussion on this issue. Embedding that below. Was disappointed there was only one legal term - and that I already knew it- but thems the breaks.
Interesting
The Linden Lab promise is an intersting point, as is the transport permission issue. I like that because it makes it clear to the customer what the limitations are.
You're already effectively
You're already effectively ticking boxes when you buy things, it's called Contract of Sale. The problem in the past was that this stuff wasn't taken very seriously in virtual worlds, including by Linden Labs themselves. That appears to be changing - for example there are rumours that the UK will shortly increase the penalties for online copyright theft tenfold to a max fine of around US$100,000.
LL have occupied a 'cake and eat it' position on these issues and maybe the cake will bite back soon! They cannot claim to respect everyone's copyright (aka: the right to copy) and then allow non-paying residents of another VW to make copies. Likewise they claim to respect copyright yet claim the right to do whatever they choose with Resident's content? So, if that content is 'stolen' on other grids aren't Linden the victim of that theft too, aren't they going to defend their own (claimed) property? Spot any anomalies?
As for Transfer perm's - it's been my experience most customers would rather have Copy than Trans, they care more about the value to themselves than passing it others, it's human nature I'm afraid. The permission that's going to die out (in top-level items anyway) is Mod. If it's much easier to make illicit copies of modifiable items then any creator with any sense doesn't sell their items with Mod perm's anymore. It's a shame because the best way to learn how to build in SL is to see how others have done it - but 'Mod' is basically over...
a couple comments
1. Some items kinda have to be Yes-Mod to be useable (at least until the basic avatar model becomes obsolete, which may never happen) ... e.g., hair and prim clothing.
2. In RL, there are some items where owning an object doesn't actually give you a license to use it. The classic examples are DVDs and CDs... owning a plastic disc doesn't really give you any rights to do anything other than listen to it at home (which is something you don't need any license to do.) You don't have the right to make copies (aside from copies for your own "fair use") and you don't have the right to incorporate the content into another work. You don't even have the right to play it in public, so theoretically even blasting it on your car stereo would be an infringing use. (Public places like stores and restaurants are supposed to pay licensing fees to the major performance rights organizations even if all they do is play the radio loud enough for customers to hear the music.)
Clarity
I don't think I've made myself clear in my blog post. I'm not talking about copyright of the item itself, I'm talking in terms of usage. I've seen people stating that the consumer doesn't own the item, just a license to use it, but that makes no sense to me if there's no license included in the sale.
For example some content creators are saying they will forbid their items being used on other grids, even if it's technically possible, but if they haven't stated that is their stance already, will they be able to enforce that?
I agree with you about Linden Lab, that was the point I was trying to make regarding Linden Lab being the people will all the power.
Understood about the copy issue and of course copy is always useful due to asset server issues anyway!
Um, you might like to have a
Um, you might like to have a look at copyright law before commenting about EULAs.
For example, if you buy a piece of artwork you don't sign any EULA but the copyright remains, unless you have a very specific contract transferring it to you, with the creator. You don't have any rights to copy the item.
With other things the dividing line is less clear, but I rather suspect my lawyer could make a case that anything I sell you that I've made, except something that is ONLY a script, is digital artwork and there's no license needed, it's my copyright. I also have the perfect right to copyright a script - you signing an EULA doesn't change the law about copyright, it just makes damn sure you know what the terms and conditions beyond those bare minimums are.
I rather suspect a lawyer or two will get involved before this gets settled - and whilst what you say sounds right from a common sense point of view, the law rarely coincides with common sense in my experience.
As for content creators and no-transfer: it all depends. I personally prefer no-copy, yes-transfer for what I make and what I buy. But a lot of people for a lot of products (especially clothes) like to make outfits and combines bits from this and bits from that. There are even tools to try and make this easy to do. They form a big power-bloc that encourages content creators of all kinds to make stuff copy, no-transfer.
Peeked
I have taken a peek at copyright laws and Eula's before I blogged, honest ;) They conflict! Especially when it comes to software and even judicial rulings aren't consistent. Eula's are generally used to circumvent copyright laws in the case of software.
In the case of artwork, although I can see how the artwork itself is copyrighted, is its usage protected in terms of a user taking it to another grid (and using it in the same fashion they do in Second Life)? Do you still own the item or has item ownership been transferred to the user?
EULAs/TOS
Just wanted to suggest that where the titular are concerned, it'd be generally useful to immerse yourself in contract law. Here in the States, rulings haven't been consistent either. IIRC, SCOTUS denied certiorari in a couple of instances that would have provided much needed rulings one way or the other. Given that so many actions within my scope of interest here and far beyond that scope are occurring in the name of "power afforded to the administrator via a TOS" I'm hoping Ben or some other legal expert will take it upon themselves to muddle through it sometime down the road. Ben may have done so already and I could have simply missed it.
I've been tempted to try. But unless an argument is patently wrong from a layman's standpoint, I'm steering clear. For reasons I expect are obvious. But I will point your attention to the Megan Meier suicide. The resulting litigation may have important repercussions.