Content Creators in SL Commence Action Against Content Theft

Just about every content creator in Second Life is concerned about the epidemic level of copying and straight out rip off of their designs and goods in Second Life. Short of being under a virtual rock it would be impossible not to be aware.

It's not clear whether it's the introduction of the copybot program or the increased use of third party viewers with their additional 'features' that has enabled such widespread theft, but one thing IS for sure, when Linden Labs uses as one of their main 'selling' points to prospective residents the ability to create content in SL (on the Linden Labs servers) they neglected to add the little 'detail' that once created and 'planted' in the SL 'fields', the creation will quite probably be harvested and resold in SL and other grid and Internet based markets by opportunistic thieves. Linden Labs also don't say that in fact their response to content theft is inadequate and slow to the point of enabling the content thieves. Yet it is all occurring on LL servers on a grid administered by LL salaried professional staff.

I have heard many (probably kids and those with the IQ of a carrot) that SL is a 'game', that it isn't 'real' money, that this doesn't matter, that it's not 'real' theft, that the content creators are 'only in it for the money' and somehow 'deserve' to be ripped off; that it's no big deal. Let's dig a hole, scrape the abovementioned idiot group into it and look at this issue logically....

Second Life is enhanced by the content created by residents. Without it there are no shopping, clubs, builds, great sims and environments to explore and enjoy, no virtual weapons, spaceships, vehicles etc. There are no schools, universities, community discussion and self help groups. In short.. what would it look like without content creators' creations? Cos funnily enough, it isn't Linden Lab providing all that you enjoy and that enhances your SL experience.

Without content creators you may as well be on email. Oh wait.. someone created email too..

Now here is the odd thing.. you may need to really engage brains and think about this.... ready.... this is a biggie....sitting comfortably for this Big Revealing Fact?

Content creation takes time.

'OMG!' I hear you say!....'It does?'

See, content does not create itself. (Told you this was a Big Fact..)

Content creation time at the hourly rate of say a web page developer = $
NOT lindens which can be converted to USD, but real money in real time. See here's the odd thing.. braced for another Big Fact?...

People.. real people.. with real computers, and real flesh and blood bodies at real keyboards with real (expensive) 3D and graphics programs... use their tools and skills to CREATE something that others can use. Yet for some reason, when it comes to bringing their creations into SL and even charging for it, they make themselves the target of those who feel they are entitled to a freebie life (the Gimmee-gimmee toddler mentality) or those who want to make a quick buck by stealing and reselling ( the 'psst wanna buy a watch...it fell off the back of a truck' brigade).

So what are content creators doing about this situation?

Well one group has lodged a submission for Class action against Linden Labs in the NY Supreme Court. For those unaware, a class action is a group of content creators in this instance - not just one content creator.

The 'Step Up' Campaign has been established and the number of content creators joining this campaign and taking strategic action is growing daily. Among these actions are 'designated no upload days'. As Linden Labs charges 10L for every texture and file upload this may help demonstrate a level of economic impact - of course the problem with this is that there will probably be double uploads the following day, but at least LL may be able to have a measure of the level of dissatisfaction and concern. The first designated 'no upload day' is November 5th slt. (see: http://stepupsl.wordpress.com/)

One would think that LL would already be able to identify these figures given they form a large part of the ongoing LL income.. but it seems either they 1) have not the technology to count these uploads and report on them in their monthly financial reports or 2) they don't think them significant enough to be concerned about. I doubt the former and feel the latter would be foolish and short-sighted.

Another form of action is now increasing. Many content creators are now selling their creations on the web and delivering in virtual worlds directly. They are charging $USD via for example, paypal or credit card at a price they feel makes creation and selling creations worth their while. This of course seems sensible, particularly given most harvesting the lush fields of LL are selling the stolen goods to other grids - the Open Sim users being the largest market of opportunity.

So what does this mean for LL and content creator residents? Watch this space.

In the meantime, previous court actions taken against LL have offered obiter dictum that has been followed. That the SL economy is 'real' that it translates to $USD through legitimate conversion and exchange. That SL is NOT a game, it carries none of the pre-requisites of a 'game'. That SL is a social networking and economic/commercial/business venture. That the LL Terms of Service does not override contract and criminal law either domestic or international. I predict another out of court settlement to avoid hard precedent being set.

If this proposed class action succeeds, and there is no reason to believe it won't, this will herald in a new era for LL and content creators on the LL/SL grid.

And remember, every time someone rips off someones work, every time someone accepts the stolen goods either on SL or other grids, the eventual cost increases to all but the thief. Make no mistake, this is theft.

Content Theft, Copying and the Next Step: ES and Glitterati

Update on the recent posemaker case:

Glitterati & ES. Now renamed ES vs Glitterati

A Glitterati customer says there is an ES pose like one of yours.
Glitterati responds with 'they must have copied the Glitterati pose" - and shares this publicly despite clear evidence to the contrary.

This action was not only unreasonable and proved to be lacking in fact but marked the beginning of the corner into which Glitterati had placed themselves.

The poses in question were in fact clearly evidenced as having been developed and up-loaded to SL by ES prior to not only Glitterati's, but also prior to the Glitterati pictures placed on their Flickr site. It is hard to copy something someone made AFTER your creation!!

The latter fact still seems not to have permeated the minds behind Glitterati.

Perhaps Glitterati is a little confused and thinks that ES really means ESP?

Now the reasonable person would would engage the brain rather than the mouth at this stage, but not katy. In what could only be considered either a desperate face-saving exercise or an adolescent temper tanty, she embarks on a very public ES witchunt to the extent of calling on others to join her in this flaming and bullying of ES. This is rather like the yell of 'fight' or 'rumble' behind the bike sheds at school - you all know the type. The crowd forms, the bully blusters but sometimes, the 'reasonable' kid has had enough and bites back.

When this katy-led witchunt evolved into defamation and libel and republication of such on several sites on the world wide web. ES has no option but to defend its reputation.

Being reasonable people ES undertook this through the procedures set in place for dispute resolution.

Recent update:

Katy of Glitterati has not yet responded in a counter claim on the poses that Glitterati ( note: NOT ES!) was asked to decommission. The decommissioning was based on a Linden Labs (LL) investigation in which it was claimed that the Glitterati poses in question were in fact produced AFTER the ES poses. Glitterati claims that they did not defend in the appropriate manner as they wanted to continue to hide their 'real' identities - presumably from legal action arising from their actions.

However, katy and Glitterati did lodge their own claim with LL citing that 10 ES poses were copies of Glitterati's. This claim was also taken seriously by ES and LL. The poses subject to this claim were decommissioned as the claim was investigated, The cited poses were compared, found not to be copied and ES owners lodged a counter-claim, citing evidence to counter the Glitterati claims in accordance with proper procedures

Notice the difference in behaviours here. One party hides behind an avatar name and uses the web and the false sense of anonymity to mischievously flame, harass and defame in a baseless manner.

The party subjected to this behaviour takes appropriate action using proper grievance resolution procedures.

At this point the status is as follows:

ES has:

1. Provided evidence to LL in response to the mischievous Glitterati claims,
2. ES has filed a counter suit in response to the mischievous Glitterati claims (NOTE: no hiding behind false identities here!),
3. ES has engaged legal representation to undertake the counter suit.

One wonders when katy and her 'family' at Glitterati will work out that far from teen high jinx, their behaviour has stepped firmly into the realm of law. No wonder they seek to hide their 'real' identities. A writ served may well cause some questions around the dinner table.

Content Theft #2: Outcomes

When alleging content theft it is imperative that clear evidence is provided to substantiate the claim. Content theft is a serious matter and allegations have may have a significant impact on a number of levels for the accused.

Without substantial evidence to back up such claim, the allegations become baseless, defamatory and could quite reasonably be regarded as a cynical attempt to create a widespread public perception to the detriment of a rival business so accused.

In a recent SL case involving posemakers/animators one levelled very public claims of copying against another. The accused, Essential Soul (ES), priding themselves on originality and specific key positioning in their poses and well as taking seriously the reputation of their business, naturally looked into these claims. They found that not only had ES's own poses apparently been copied by their accuser, but other elements of their business also. They responded in the proper manner and through the proper channels to restore their business reputation.

To this end, ES lodged a DMCA Complaint with Linden Labs (LL). Subsequent investigation by LL considered all considerable and compelling evidence provided by ES, including design, origin and upload and release dates found that ES's poses had apparently been copied by the 'accuser' and ordered the copied poses be removed.

Did the accuser deal with being caught out in a proper manner? Did they apologise for their behaviour? No. Astonishingly they [again] publicly put pictures up of the poses they were found to have copied on their Flickr with the heading:

'sniff sniff'
and the statement:
" Discontinued because the people at Essential Soul are a bunch of money-grubbing assholes".*

They further claim that only revealing r/l information to Linden Labs stops them from lodging a counter-claim against ES - yet LL already holds r/l information from the registration details required from all individuals prior to being granted access to the LL SL grid. It is difficult to see how revealing to LL what LL already holds, is a barrier to lodging a counter claim.

Astonishingly now, and in a complete turn-around to their public statements made against ES, the accuser now claims that poses cannot be copied or copywritten!

The petulant tirade finishes with a promise that people will 'see some shit'.

Charming.

So, to recap, these people actively, publicly and with no evidence defamed the reputation of a rival business. They were found to have copied the poses they have been ordered to remove. They sold and presumably enjoyed unjust enrichment and yet they accuse the business they copied as being the 'money-grubber' - and so continues their pattern of defamation, libel, and self-interest.

Lodging a DMCA with LL is only one step in the DMCA grievance process. That merely seeks investigation and remedy on the LL owned grid.

There are further remedies open to ES and other businesses that have been subjected to defamatory and baseless claims.

Content Theft, Misrepresentation, Fraud & Libel On The Internet

Content theft is a serious matter and is subject to a range of international and domestic legal remedies. Quite rightly. The monetarism of 'virtual' worlds and 'virtual' property has been addressed in recent court cases in the USA, China and Europe where such 'virtual' property and civil and criminal crimes associated with such property have been subject to legal proceedings and remedies.

Bearing this in mind, a recent event in SL has caught my particular attention. In this instance, despite all clear evidence to the contrary, one business owner has used their group and blog to accuse another of 'copying'.

The business person so accused has ample clear evidence to show that to the contrary that their accuser developed their product AFTER the accused. This evidence indicates strongly that the accusations are not only baseless but have no standing in fact.

Of course there are people who believe that making unfounded accusations, 'getting in first' will draw attention from the actual reality of their own actions. All it does is draw more attention to the facts of the case. The question asked is - prove the accusation. It will be interesting to see how LL deals with this particular case.

However, in the course of making unfounded accusations, another series of elements have been engaged by the accuser. In terms of business these may be considered to be more serious than the actual copying, which it seems on the basis of evidence provided by the accused, that the accuser may have quite possibly committed themselves.

To many, originality and reputation is significant. To have reputation and integrity compromised has the potential to cause damage, personally and in business. When this is undertaken with intent and without foundation the defense of 'fact' or 'truth' does not apply.

To reiterate:

LIBEL:

1. 1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
   2. The act of presenting such material to the public
2. 
   DEFAMATION - An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment, status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are defamation.

As time goes on, recent cases are addressing many of the legal issues that have caused some furrowed brows in the legal community in the past. Perhaps it is time for people participating in virtual worlds to fully understood that their actions may in fact, be subject to real life legal remedies and not merely TOS of a grid or site owner.