I'm sure that it is an absolutely wonderful thing in some way, but people are having items disappear from their inventory without warning and they need to be informed as to the reasons for this and precisely what is likely to disappear.

I have seen direct, first hand, that a friend who counter filed a DMCA against someone had her content returned in a broken, unusable state.

Both of these are actions that LL has not taken in the past and need to be addressed and explained immediately.

I won't touch the priority again since I honestly have better things to do than get into a pointless edit war over this however I'll bet that if a Linden does decide to do something other than ignore this (they're normal course of action when people try to dictate policy to them on the JIRA) it will be Rob or one of the other JIRA mod lindens lowering the priority back down to something sensible.

I think if a DMCA is filed and the content is removed that's acceptable. But if a counter is made and it is not pressed further or determined the DMCA was in error then the data need to be restored to its original state. Getting it back broken is not acceptable, this could be used maliciously to drive people out of business as not only would they be tied up in the red tape of a DMCA filing but even if they prove the DMCA is false their content and perhaps business is now destroyed.

Granted the person being filed against could go after the person that filed for financial restitution as allowed under the DMCA. But if the information can be "flipped off" and "flipped on" without losing anything then that's the way to do it.

I have been saying for over a year that the way LL handles the DMCA is lackluster and opens themselves up to liabilities. I'm quite happy that stolen content is potentially being removed fully and not in some half assed way.

However, the issue now is that people are having items vanish from their inventory when they are innocent bystanders. Not everyone has the time to scour the grid and catalog who makes what and can easily pick up something thinking it's legitimate only to find out later it's not. This isn't their fault, and it's unbelievably insensitive of you to paint these people as complicit in it.

Yet even that isn't my big gripe, my big gripe is that content which has been DMCA'd and then counter-DMCA'd is not being restored intact, or whole, or usable. It's akin to saying (to borrow an analogy I made elsewhere), "Hey, this guy says you stole this car so we're going to bust in the windows, rip out the engine and steal the tires. Oh you have a sales receipt? Oops, well here you go, sorry about the car."

On top of the fact that LL turns over RL identifying information on counterfile, something that is making many legitimate content creators concerned about filing in the first place, this latest handling makes many of us feel "Why bother?"

This latter issue is something that can be used against ANY content creator for harassment. It's already happened to at least one. That's one too many as far as I'm concerned.

from the .readme in MLP1.2 boxed.
MLP - MULTI-LOVE-POSE V1.2 - Copyright (c) 2006, by Miffy Fluffy (BSD License)

The BSD Licence allows anybody to use the source code, in any manner they wish, providing that they provide the copyright notice above on further distributions.
So it's totally free, however if you like it, I would be very happy if you donate any L$.

From the headers of the scripts under Eva Capalini's name:

//MLP MULTI-LOVE-POSE V1.2 - Copyright (c) 2006, by Miffy Fluffy (BSD License)

and in .~run

//MLP MULTI-LOVE-POSE V1.2 - Copyright (c) 2006, by Miffy Fluffy (BSD License)
//To donate, go to my profile (Search - People - Miffy Fluffy) and use the "Pay..." button, thanks!
//You can also find the link to the latest version here.

So you toasted the MLP scripts under a BSD licence that was not violated, taking down a ton of items and such and basically pissing off how many people for what DMCA violation? Reasearch is a great habit it may be advisable in the future.

I would not care about the scripts as I can rebuild but every damn position notecard is gone giving me a bit of work to get it all fixed. I have Miffy's original scripts and will reload with that. Warning would of allowed me time to work wround this if the issue was know. Instead we get a full blown knee jerk reaction over a technically non issue. Good work.

I can see this becoming a problem for all content creators. With this type of reaction, the moment a person sees a item that acts in a smilar manner they can fore up under the DMCA to yank it and poof it is gone no questions asked.

This wasn't even about the removal of those MLP scripts in the first place.

This was about another content creator who got griefed with a fake DMCA notice, had her content removed by the lindens, and when she counter-filed she only got a unusable version of her content returned because the Lindens broke it on reinsertion into the database or something.

It has nothing to do with stolen content and has all to do with how the Lindens technically handle DMCA filings and counter-filings.

So if LL's DMCA policy somehow involves not restoring content completely, then they've got a serious problem and they aren't properly implementing the DMCA. The content creator can take the DMCA filer to court (assuming they can find them!) and perhaps even LL.

This is the kind of nightmare situation that made people uncomfortable about the DMCA in the first place. I'm going to go back up my content.

I have asked her to come forward with her own story but at the moment she's unwilling and is afraid to, and having parts of her business excised like an appendix hasn't really made her feel any more comfortable about it.

In my opinion (I'd love to hear a lawyer's take on this), LL shouldn't be responding to DMCA takedowns from jurisdictions other than the US that don't abide by the DMCA, right? So now we have two problems, that LL is irrevocably destroying content and that they're doing so in response to DMCA claims that have no standing.

I do agree that the DMCA doesn't provide them the opportunity to verify the authenticity of the claims (at best if they were willing to be helpful they could turn over proof that asset X was uploaded before asset Y, but I wouldn't even expect them to do that) which isn't my complaint. The fact that when receiving a counter notice they return content totally worthless turns what is just a mere annoyance for a week or so into the wholesale destruction of someone's business.

LL can, however, and in my opinion absolutely SHOULD ban the accounts of people who repeatedly file DMCAs that are overturned on counter file. Especially when these people are based outside of the US and are not subject to the perjury clause of the DMCA itself.

In that case, we have a showstopper on our hands here. LL has a humongous loophole that allows for the destruction of valuable content, and there's nothing the victim can do about it (aside from suing LL, perhaps )

"Honesty; a sincere intention to deal fairly with others.

Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others. It derives from the translation of the Latin term bona fide, and courts use the two terms interchangeably.

The term good faith is used in many areas of the law but has special significance in Commercial Law. A good faith purchaser for value is protected by the Uniform Commercial Code, which every state has adopted. Under sections 1-201(9) and 2-403 of the code, a merchant may keep possession of goods that were bought from a seller who did not have title to the goods, if the merchant can show he or she was a good faith purchaser for value. To meet this test, the person must be a merchant, must have demonstrated honesty in the conduct of the transaction concerned, and must have observed reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade. A buyer would likely meet these requirements if the purchase proceeded in the ordinary course of business. If, on the other hand, the purchase took place under unusual or suspicious circumstances, a court might conclude that the buyer lacked good faith.

Where a nonmerchant purchases property that the seller lacks legal title to convey, the issue of good faith is known both as the innocent purchaser doctrine and as the bona fide purchaser doctrine. If the purchaser acquires the property by an honest contract or agreement and without knowledge of any defect in the title of the seller, or means of knowledge sufficient to charge the buyer with such knowledge, the purchaser is deemed innocent.

In both commercial and noncommercial law, persons who in good faith pay a fraudulent seller valuable consideration for property are protected from another person who claims legal title to the property. If a court establishes the purchaser's good faith defense, the person who claims title has recourse only against the fraudulent seller. Strong public policy is behind the good faith defense. Good faith doctrines enhance the flow of goods in commerce, as under them, buyers are not required, in the ordinary course of business, to go to extraordinary efforts to determine whether sellers actually have good title. A purchaser can move quickly to close a deal with the knowledge that a fraudulent seller and a legitimate titleholder will have to sort the issue out in court. Of course, the purchaser will be required to demonstrate to the court evidence of good faith." - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/good+faith - There are plenty of these definitions and they all basically read the same.

The best interests of creators is for habitual offenders to be removed from Secondlife and the continued go-forward propagation of stolen goods be halted. So the take down process may need some work so it will change permissions to full (owner, next owner, creator) no transfer instead of total removal of items in inventory that were purchased in good faith. In the case of stolen textures it does mean the person that bought them should no longer be using them but I don't see how this is possible unless LL reworks the permissions system where textures are concerned.

Ranting in the pjira won't do any good because LL has repeatedly stated legal issues are to be taken to LL's legal dept iaw the TOS. So the affected parties need to contact LL's legal department directly IAW the TOS.

LL's legal department needs to speak in public on this one IMHO.

The DMCA is a different piece of legislation that has nothing to do with "Uniform Commercial Code" and you're seriously confusing issues by involving it.

Once again you demonstrate your excellent capacity in missing the point.

Thank you for your patience.

– Katt Linden

Note: Please refrain from calling one another out and arguing with one another in this JIRA, it is not appropriate.

katt i dont suppose you have any news...

Remember, this isn't about Linden Lab purging stolen items from the DB that had a rightful DCMA claim made on them. This is about Linden Lab removing items after a DCMA claim without checking at all if there are any grounds for that claim, be it based on original creator or actual licensing,

In all other facets of our legal system we have "innocent until proven guilty" except when it comes to this. LL is obligated to deal with all DMCA notices and remove content described in them regardless of whether or not they feel they lack merit. It's unfortunately not their call to make.

Which is why it is SO PARAMOUNT that if they remove content they restore it intact, whole and exactly the same state that it was in before the notice.

I am not complaining about the unfortunate position they're in on this issue, I'm complaining about the SHOCKING actions they've taken in restoring content. Actions that make the restoration entirely worthless in the first place.

There's also still no notice or official explanation from a Linden since this first became public on Saturday. How much longer is Torley's group liabilities video going to be the top news?

Sorry that took so long, I know it's rough when it seems like information should be available and isn't!

We're just now putting up the blog post, explaining in as much detail as we can give.

I realize we're not going to be able to answer all questions, and I'm sorry abut that, though we'll be there to talk in blog comments and or here, later this afternoon. (Laura and I are both in meetings until about 2pm SLT, but we'll be there talking later in the day.)

I hope you'll all understand that we can't always give details in legal matters, but we do care, very much, about keeping Second Life a great place for us all, and we are paying close attention to your questions and needs in this matter.

Thank you!
– Katt Linden

Please re-read the JIRA itself as well as specifically my comments here and make a blog entry that reflects reality. A rehash of the knowledge base article is not that.

http://blog.secondlife.com/2008/06/17/responding-to-questions-about-the-dmca-process/

Have the items mentioned here been restored fully?

If so, maybe we should set this to "Fix Pending", and leave it that way until we're relatively sure that content is restored properly now in the event of a counter-claim.

And who's side of the fence are you on? You claim to be a creator, and on their side, but you are suggesting that people submitting DMCA's (ie creators) should be banned if they get counterfiled? What? Griefers' paradise.

The DMCA is the law, and the method of dealing with it, at least one of the titles is, the first one implementing the WIPO treaty provisions into Title 17 of the US Code. The rest sees to be nothing but sops to lobbyists. So use the law as it is, or lobby to get it changed.

However, your comment on Torley's videos made me smile lol. Guess what, there's a new Torley video post that has knocked this issue off the top already lmao. WTG LL, no clue as per usual.

Yes Lex, they do have to respond to claims from anywhere, because the stuff being ripped off could have come from anywhere. It's part of the Berne Convention, which virtually every country is now signed up to, which ensures that US copyright is respected and acted on abroad. Of course to get that protection for Americans, they have to extend the same protections to everyone else around the world. And you can bet that the RIAA doesn't want that changed lmao.

The biggest problem, is that in the US, unlike most countries, while copyright protection is automatic on creation (part of Berne), in the US, for US citizens only (Non-US benefit from Berne), except under certain special circumstances, you cannot file in court unless you have registered the copyright as well. Bizarre, since virtually no other country does that, but lobby your politcians. But that means they can use a DMCA, but cannot often take it any further. How's that for freedom? lmao

DMCAs are filed under perjury (as I've said here already) only if you're in the US. If you aren't in the US, there's no punishment.

I understand the safe harbor provisions. As I also said.

I also said nothing about anyone counter filing. I said the individuals who routinely file DMCAs to disrupt individuals and businesses when there's no merit to it be banned.

Check your attitude, reread what's been posted here, and come back.

This is to Chalice and you. How is LL to determine whether there is any merit? They actually have no power to do so. If they do, they lose their Safe Harbour status, meaning LL can be sued as well as the infringer much like Napster was. As a service provider they are required to remove content on receipt of a valid DMCA. And that is it. Nothing else. If they receive a counter claim, they must restore it. Failure to do so means you can take action against LL, because they have failed therefore, to follow the rules for Safe Harbours and you can sue them since they are therefore not protected by the Safe Harbour provisions, that's take down and restoration of content.

It is up to a court to decide, not LL, as the arbiter of the law. That's the process. A DMCA caim is designed to be enough, from the true copyright owner. Counter claims were expected rarely, because the person would know it was not lawful, and very few would need to be settled by a court. They didn't count on the blatant dishonesty and flagrant abuse of the law within SL. But where there is a counterclaim, it restores the status quo. Anything beyond that, it's for a court to decide and adjudicate on. If LL fails to restore, then they are liable.

Of course the DMCA is a hideous piece of work, but that's what happens when you let the big boys like RIAA dictate things. So lobby your politicians to amend it.

And finally, it's not correct to say there is no punishment if people are not in the US. Any assets they have there (which will include any Lindens and $ held in US accounts, like LL, SLX and others for example) are under US jurisdiction, and they could also probably order the closing of the person's account. Certainly they can issue a warrant for arrest I dare say, making it awkward if not possible for that person to ever get a visa, or mean instant arrest on entry to the US. And not forgetting that LL has offices elsewhere, like the EU for instance, in the form of Brighton, UK, so they can both instigate actions in other countries, and people can instigate action in the UK/EU against LL, because they have assets there (and I believe all the banking and hence all LL's money is in the UK too) under the jurisdiction of UK courts, UK and EU law. And that is regardless of what any ToS says. A ToS does not supercede the law.

But since they have multiple offices, it is easy to have an effect on LL from either end. I'm actually a bit confused here by what has actually happened, because I have seen three different versions in 3 different places, all claiming different things, and zero of any substance from LL.

Again, read what I've said here. I said to Chalice it is not up to LL to decide what DMCA notices have merit. They have no decision in the matter. Did you even look at the other comments before you started personally attacking me?

LL has said that they will ban accounts that abuse the DMCA. They've never done so. Nor would you be able to claim they have since they don't speak publicly about punishment. But I know anecdotal that I've never seen an account I've DMCA'd get banned before.

This JIRA was for clarification on all those points.

And regardless of what someone can do to pursue a perjurious DMCA notice, the fact that it results in permanently crippling the content in question even after a counter-claim is a serious problem, and that's what this issue is about!

The difference is that when you buy something in SL, you are buying something that behaves like a physical good. Should it be treated as a licensed property that you are merely linking to, or like a tangible good that you have purchased.

Ann is arguing the it should be treated like a physical object under the UCC.

I don't know how a judge would see it. I suspect that it wouldn't be treated like a tangible object. On the other hand while I'm sure that the RIAA would love to have the ability to make downloaded copies of songs purchased by innocent third parties go poof, I wouldn't bet that a judge would declare that reasonable either. Judges are human, juries are human, and there's enormous room for interpretation in the law.

So, Joshua, I don't think you're necessarily correct in simply dismissing Ann's point like that.

Regardless, they've gone back to pretending it didn't happen in the first place so it's a moot point to debate at the moment.