1. Of course you can frankenskin your skin. Why can't you? If somebody doesn't value your design and wants to change it, of course they can. BTW, prefab makers also get all prim-a-donna in this way, making their wallpaper and texture selections unmoddable. They abhor the idea of anyone Tampering with Their Vision. Ok, when they do that, I tend not to buy their Vision and buy a vision I can revise from some of their wonky notions of what people actually want to live in.

I'm confused as to whether this drama de jour is the same one that Torrid was opaquely referring to on her blog about stabbing and people not forgiving her blah blah.

I guess I think what this is really about is lots of new people coming in, and having traffic and sales more than all of you put together. That must be unpleasant, but that's life in the big city.

BTW, I'm also not getting all this big talk about "prosecutable by Linden Lab." LL can't do anything about anything. They can agree to comply with a takedown notice -- but they can't be the force that issues that takedown notice by their judgements. People keep seeing them as "doing nothing". But as a common carrier in a safe harbour, it seems to me, they can't be expected to do anything. If there is theft of IP, you have to a) have already gotten a real trademark in RL through the labourious and perhaps expensive procedures that RL necessitates; and 2) get a real lawyer in RL, with RL expense and trouble. I'm not aware of a single case where anybody has done that. When there are some, then LL can perhaps be called upon to comply.

I do hope in contemplating the folly of this particular story that you will also come to see the error of your ways in slamming people who sell freebies, too. Check off "no transfer" or "no mod" if you feel clutchy, and then shut up. Oh, the issue is she "used the infamous OpenGL texture-ripper to obtain the skin texture so that she could make personal modifications to it". Well, if it was on no-transfer and no-mod and this was done for personal use only, or even first-sale of one-time sale, it seems to me there is no case. Only if a) it was trademarked and b) someone made numerous copies or put the modified skin now on copy to sell endlessly could there be a case. So...there's no case. Next.

Posted at 10:57PM on Sep 7th 2006 by Prokofy Neva

2. Well, I have not been aware of any of this going on, and am not sorry for that fact. I felt terrible for Lost when his skin was blatantly ripped off and resold a few months ago. However, I do not see the problem in this case. The alterations were done for personal use. In RL, I can go buy a Burberries scarf and spray paint it if I want to.

Now, I know that the vulnerability of textures in SL is causing a lot of pain and problems, and maybe that overall frustration is the root of all of this, but this shouldn't be the issue to fight over.

Posted at 12:15AM on Sep 8th 2006 by forseti svarog

3. Modifications for personal use I think should be perfectly acceptable. Since many of the tools used for fair use modifications are exactly the same as those used by out and out thieves, I can also see why a content creator might get miffed. But personally I don't believe they have a right to feel put out.

The folks they really should be getting upset about are the ones who open a store and sell ripped skins as their own: those are the cretins who need schooling.

Another reason content creators put "no modify" on some items is to make it clear that making a change to something is delving into unsupported territory. Let's say a developer creates a scripted vehicle. They might not have any problems whatsoever with the purchaser changing its shape or adding weird do-dads, except for the fact that they will undoubtedly break the thing at some point. If the vehicle is delivered with full modify privileges, the customer might think mistakenly that whatever they do to the thing, the vendor will be there to pick up the pieces and make it all work again.

In the case of a skin, I don't see how this latter consideration would apply. Skins don't consist of large numbers of intricately assembled prims with complex scripts making them work: modifying them doesn't cause the skin to "break". That leaves the vague "artistic integrity" argument, as in "you changed my skin, and made it ugly, and now people think I created an ugly skin!" Creators who feel strongly this way should never, ever put a price on their work- they should simply refuse to allow someone else to buy it. The moment they sell an item that has some practical or functional purpose other than hanging on a wall, it is predictable that the new owner will feel they have a right to change it.

Posted at 12:35AM on Sep 8th 2006 by Tomas Hausdorff

4. Now you know I have been watching this drama fest go down like a hawk just like the rest of you, and for the most part I have kept quiet. Why? I'm really not sure, I have mixed views on this. I can feel for both sides so really I don't know what I want to say about any of it, but I can try.

I for one, would be really upset if somone stole any texture of mine, for resale or not, but I really can't explain why it would bother me so much, unless of course it was for resale purposes or if it was being handed out.
Now if somone just took my texture (if I made skin), to mod it, I guess the only reason I would feel saddened is because we all know stealing a texture is wrong unless of course you have permission from the creator. But I too agree with what some people said. In the real world you buy it, you own it, you do what the hell you want with it, I am just not sure if I feel that goes for second life as well. But why wouldn't it? I am just so torn!

As I am sure everyone knows, Mistress and Torrid are a HUGE part of getting my name out there, helping me, giving me a store in MC, getting my feet off the ground in general, and I love them I LOVE THEM SO MUCH! I know they would NEVER EVER do anything like this with bad intentions, I can honestly say I would trust them both with just about anything. So no, I will not hate them, I will not stop talking to them and yes I will still love on Torrids big booty. I think when being accused of somthing all you can do is tell your side, say sorry and move on, they both did just that. What else is left?

So there you have it, my mixed up, confusing no good feelings on this issue. I didn't want to open my mouth, cause really it has nothing to do with me what so ever, but I got so caught up in the mix that I feel as if I've been reading some book, and now I just want to talk about it.

I just want to add, that Starley was a very close friend of mine way back when, her store was actually the first store I ever sold anything in, and I appreciate her so much for doing that for me, it means the world to me that she would open her arms to a noob that thought she could make dresses. (Sorry I know this last sentence is pointless I just didn't want to only mention that Torrid and Mis helped me and leave out the fact that Starley too helped give me my name)

Posted at 1:07AM on Sep 8th 2006 by Camie

5. Some great input here! On the matter of modifying a product that you purchased ... my position largely falls in line with most of the other comments. I think it's a legitimate practice and if I could be convinced that it actually was "wrong," it would be a wrong on par with jay-walking.

What struck me more was the virulent lashing out over what seems to be a non-issue. It felt more like a character assassination than an genuine cry for justice. Cristiano's hint at the timing of this controversy made the whole thing even more surreal.

And that brings me to the reason I'm commmenting! The aforementioned anonymous "hit-job" blog was taken down!! (the former location was here: http://thetruthrefic.blogspot.com/) Those who had a chance to view this hatchet job saw some vicious accusations and attacks against Torrid, and for some reason Nephilaine Protagonist.

It's not known why the blog was removed. Perhaps the blogger felt remorse? Or perhaps upon review they decided the piece did more damage to their cause than good...whoever "THEY" are.

Posted at 4:49AM on Sep 8th 2006 by Aimee Weber

6. Just like if I buy a long-sleeve shirt at a real-life store, I have the right to cut off the sleeves at any time, or dye it another color, or spray paint a message on it. The designer created the work, I paid them for it, and as long as I don't re-sell the item, I should have the ability to personalize it.
Just like with my most recent skin purchase. I love the appearance, but I hate the fact that I'm stuck at 7'2" for the rest of my second life. Frustrating.

Posted at 9:45AM on Sep 8th 2006 by Corey Akula

7. There are a lot of facts and arguments to back up what Mistress and I did, I'm aware of that. In my case when I decided to go to Lost and talk to him about it a few months back, I did so because I felt bad about not asking.

It may be legally right but it's the moral issue of it that caused me to be sorry. I know that it hurt him because I didn't ask and no I would never do it again, wrong or right.

I know there is great frustration in not being able to modify skins and hopefully at some point LL will add some more layers to help with that. Until then I advise asking the creator to modify it, all they can do is say no.

No, I'm not happy that the situation was blogged for public viewing. I understand why it was blogged but it was difficult because it brought up a lot of emotions. As far as the trashing, that's nothing new from anonymous folk, I think I've been called everything in the book and accused of everything under the sun at this point lol.

I resolved my situation with Lost and we are on good terms. I made my apologies privately and well now publicly too. One good thing that came from all of this is the realization that I have a lot of very supportive and genuine friends.

Posted at 11:08AM on Sep 8th 2006 by Torrid

8. Hmmm... well, I think that if someone makes their stuff no modify, thn the only honourable route is to ask if you may have a modify copy - no matter whether that is for personal use or not. The choice is yours whether you buy something modifiable or not, and Torrid has been in SL long enough to know the difference.

Trust is a tricky thing ... once you lose someone's trust it is going to be hard for people to build that back up. That cuts both ways if blogs were written -- though I have to say that the only blogs I have seen on the subject have all been attributable.

Suggesting that there may be ulterior motives for the timing is a bit unworthy of everyone who suggested it. I think the people concerned are genuinely upset, and I don't think that the publicity aspect of it was a motive, frankly.

Posted at 2:42PM on Sep 8th 2006 by Caliandris

9. Well bah..

Cristiano is right.. if it was personal it should have stayed personal..

Prokofy is right... there is not a scrap of credible legal argument here..

Moral arguments abound.. and are probably right.. but.. do you rip CDs? scan stuff? use P2P to source stuff? it's digital people.. it's therfore 'steal'able, every bit of it (Im sure it wont be long before whole AVs or objects can be skimmed off 'the stream' technically, let alone textures). This doesn't make it right.. but it's the facts. You produce digital content it will be stolen by those who don't give a 'moral toss'... unpleasant fact of life...

This is a really bad advertisement for SL, a bunch of folks having a slanging match over protecting a patch which doesn't realistically warrant any protection (its not like someone had to sub-contract skin or jean production out to China to sell XXX copies of something: make it once sell it multiple times digitally - it's not 'real').

It reminds me of the recent Mitch Kapor quote:

"And you’ll face challenges. In every disruptive technology I’ve seen, there has always been a dynamic in which the early adopters begin to be pushed aside as the whatever it is begins to become mainstream. There will be tensions as the frontier is civilized, on all sides, of people who like it the way it is, and people who want it to be what it might become."
(http://www.3pointd.com/20060820/mitch-kapor-on-the-power-of-second-life/)

and the sooner the better..

Want to worry about something.. worry about your RL - AV connection being disclosed by another, far more serious, digital theft..
(http://blog.secondlife.com/2006/09/08/urgent-security-announcement/)

Posted at 2:33PM on Sep 8th 2006 by Shaun Osborne

10. This is a mess. Ultimately things in SL are not just like things in RL from a copyright perspective. Thus you may not have the right just to do what ever you want with virtual property, just because you can do it with real property. Ther is also the question of ownership of the original image from whihc the skin was taken, and of course, trade mark issues should the skin be sold or transferred.

Fortunately for skins there is a pretty good technical fix: more skin layers. this would allow people to superimpose tyhier modifications over an existing skin, with out ripping an modding it.

SL is not quite RL and its hight ime we stopped pretending it is. SL is a virtual world and in virtual worlds, preperty is intellectual and not tangible. While it is true that ther ehas not been a test case regarding copyright in SL, my guess is that the courts will take a conservative approach at interpreting the law, and thus I would err on the side of treating things inSL as art, not goods.

Fair use is very specifically defined and it does not mean that you can simply take someone's ip and do what you will with it. Usually when you deal with IP, even video rentals, you are getting a license, not the item. In SL this has never been made clear. We think if we buy somethijng we are owning all the rights, but that is not the case, we may simple have a license to use that object in the form presented. Ih has not yet come down to each creator having a license agreement for every purchase..but it may come down to that.

I would treat every purchased object as unmodifiable (except maybe as pertaining to fit)just to be safe. I do hope LL recognizes that thjis sort of fight could be fixed with a few extra texture layers on the skin.

Posted at 7:21PM on Sep 8th 2006 by Jake Reitveld

11. Fortunately for skins there is a pretty good technical fix: more skin layers. this would allow people to superimpose tyhier modifications over an existing skin, with out ripping an modding it.

But this doesn't fix clothes, or object-costumes, or or or...

Though, if you like your skin, you can always mix it with a different body that you did alter. Some of the skin parts won't match up (like knees) but chests and faces are easier...

Now that could be fixed by having textures positioned by central position and 'cuts' be in the middle of the texture instead of on the edges - like shirts having a cuff segment that ran up the sleeve, etc.

Of course, those are features that need a Linden's special attention. Buy yourself a Linden today?

Posted at 7:47PM on Sep 8th 2006 by Crissa

12. I would post a comment here, but the copyright notice below says that "All contents copyright © 2006, Weblogs, Inc.". This means that as soon as I submit the "Add Your Comments" button, this comment is now the legal property of Weblogs, and I have forfeited my right, as an author, to use this comment in any other way whatsoever, unless I have written permission by Weblogs, Inc. to use these comments.

There you go — another case of the way digital media perverting the way the real world works :) So I can't plagiarise myself? Hmm... :)

In any case, I tend to side with Jake's comments, just because that's the way that "content" is usually defined on web pages — they're not "goods", but "art". This ultimately means that the "content" is under the legal protection of the author's intent. While the multiple examples above are all correct for "goods" — if I buy a chair, I can smash it up and spray-paint it, and resell it much higher, and nobody can protest — they fail when dealing with "art". If I buy the Mona Lisa, I *cannot* simply paint it over or draw some moustaches — without the painter's explicit consent (who, fortunately, is long dead :) ). While I own the *material support* of the art piece — ie. the physical painting — I don't own the artistic work, and am not allowed to modify it to suit my taste — without explicit permission to do so.

The best I can do is to create a derivative work — like simply taking a picture of the Mona Lisa, paint on top of it, and add my moustaches that I so much enjoy. Well, it's a derivative work then! And the copyright is now *mine*.

Now, this is reasonably obvious in RL, on all things that are considered art (and, yes, computer software is "art" too!), although lawyers still fight about it. For instance, you can buy a CD, and resell it physically. What you *can't* do is to open the CD; extract the contents, replace them by things you prefer, and resell the new copy :) That doesn't work. You *can*, however, listen to the music, sit at the front of your piano, and now create a brand new piece of music "inspired" by your CD, and sell it as your own. Derivative art again. There is no problem there!

But even if you don't *sell* the CD, you still can't take it, rip it to your computer, and change the music there. While of course you can do whatever you wish with the physical item — ie. paint the CD in green, break a bit of it, use an X-acto to cut out triangles, etc.

Jake very correctly points out that "SL is not quite RL". Were the creations in SL compared to physical goods, then, yes, you'd be able to do with them whatever you want — once you buy them, they're yours to change, modify, break apart, resell, as you like. But that sort of legislation doesn't exist yet. It has to be developed first. It could, in theory, be something on the Linden ToS: clearly stating that all content created using SL, and to be used inside SL, is subject to the same legislation ruling *physical goods*. It would also mean that people would *not* have copyrights over them; they could, however, patent the way they create things (ie. a patented method of developing chairs using prim torture). This would indeed be a way to apply all legal protection on free exchange and trade of goods and items to things created in SL.

The usual argument about the issue of intangible goods ("art") vs. physical goods is usually confused by many. After all, I can buy a CD at a shop, a book at a bookstore, or a painting, or a sculpture. I can, at any time, resell it if I wish, and nobody can stop me. But in reality, I'm not buying the *copyrights* that way — just the physical support that holds the content with that copyright (or, like Jake said, I can rent a video, and in that case the physical support is not even mine to resell, but I just have a license for it). So, I'm just licensing the copyright for my private use, in a manner allowed by the copyright owner. Since in RL all copyrighted content has always a physical suupport, the laws are simpler — I can always change and resell the support, no matter what the copyright owner says. What I can't change is the *content*.

Second Life — and, to an extent, the whole Web — is totally different, because on a digital world there is no physical support — there is just content! In its most pure form. This is what causes so much confusion in the minds of people. When I'm buying a dress in Midnight City, I'm not buying the physical embodiment of a conceptual design by a clothier — like I would do in RL, when buying a dress made of physical cloth. Instead, I'm licensing the pure content directly, without any sort of support, and paying royalties for its use — according to copyright laws. Which, of course, the content creator can add some extra rules (most don't). Second Life is also exceptional because you can flag, to an extent, what you can do and can't do with "content" — ie. content is flagged copyable, modifiable, or transferable, and the content creator can immediately assign a set of "licenses" to their copyrights.

Still, the grey area is way too big to give concrete answers to these complex legal questions. To those that promote SL as a virtual recreation of RL, there is no difference between a physical dress and a virtual one, so the laws on "goods" should apply, and not the ones on copyrights — no matter what the RL law (and the Linden ToS!) says. If the law says otherwise — well, the laws are meant to be changed, and adapted to work more reasonably in virtual environments. This will most certainly happen, with a billion human beings connected to the Internet, although only 0.06% are on Second Life, of course.

This particular case of "skins" is even more complex, because it addresses one serious shortcoming of SL's interface, one that, however, would be technically quite easy to solve with multiple layers. Designing skins is a particularly hard job. They're sold, for instance, on sites like Renderosity, DAZ, or Content Paradise, for a few dozens of US$. And I can imagine that they might have a few dozens of thousands of potential buyers — the community that develops 3D content for a specific purpose. Contrast that with 650,000 potential users of skins, and, well, it's a completely different order of magnitude.

You'll see that skins for things like Maya, Poser 5, etc. suffer from the same problem. All that the author can say, when supplying a notecard with the license, is that you're free to use the skin as you wish (once downloaded, it becomes pixels that you can manipulate), just not redistribute and sell it as your own. That's the licensing agreement between you, the buyer, and the content creator. On a small scale of perhaps a few dozens of thousand users, this works rather well. In any case, having access to Photoshop, you can tweak the skin to your content, before using it on Poser or similar tool. No problem there.

In Second Life, however, you can't do that. Which means that you're at the mercy of the content creator, who might — or not — create just the right type of skin to suit your taste. If they don't, you have to shop elsewhere.

An interesting solution was presented on the first version of Namssor Daguerre's Second Skins. You could buy a "normal" skin for the usual price, or you could pay around L$6000 for a special license — a copy of the texture, in TARGA format, that you would download from Nam's site. You'd be entitled to change it to suit your taste (even some nice suggestions on using templates on Photoshop were added), but, of course, you couldn't resell it — it was for personal use only. This allowed me, for instance, to get just the right shade of red on my eyebrows ;)

I suspect that Nam comes from the community that sells skins at all those 3D content designer sites, and this is the way things work there.

Sadly, having the texture on high-resolution TARGA format, would also mean that everybody without the least scruples could simply copy Nam's skins and sell them off for a profit — and the creator tag would show it as their own! Nam launched a new version after half a year of very careful work, and this time, the 2.0 skins are sold like any other skin in SL, with lots of possible customisation, but which is done by Second Skin Labs, not by the user. You're limited to the choices presented to you, and that's it.

The appeal to grab the texture from OpenGL (or from the SL cache) is thus very great; I'd love to change my makeup, for instance, since none of the choices presented actually appeal to my taste. But I can't do that. Also, I positively hate the notion that almost none of the items I've got are non-refundable and non-transferable. I have lots of clothes and skins that I'd love to resell, or at least give away to newbies. Or even to an alt. That's impossible to do these days. Everybody is paranoid about the high level of fraud committed, and there is no way to prevent it.

To recap — we need new laws that deal with virtual worlds, but if the real world is unable to provide us with those, we should get them first from Linden Lab. On the other hand, placing unreasonable limitations on the way things work in Second Life will make breaking the (virtual) law so much compelling. If we had a different model for texture layering, most people would just buy a basic skin, and select makeup and eyebrows from a wide range of possible selections — even from other creators — or create their own. The same could happen to clothes as well — if you want an extra pocket or so on your coat, juts add one on a layer with that pocket, and there you go, your own personalised style just with a L$10 upload!

Defining, once and for all — on the Linden ToS or even on RL laws — what a "virtual good" is becomes crucial as SL grows in number. When we hit a tenth of the Internet population (100 million users or so), people simply won't be able to ignore these issues. It would be much more reasonable to define things *now*. If we want a virtual world where content is treated as goods and not as art, it should be stated on the ToS — and enforced by LL. If we want a way to deal with licensing agreements, we should be able to have a special field on the item properties, not unlike the Covenants for land sales, where you could state what the licensing agreement for a particular piece of content is. And, again, this should be enforceable.

Posted at 8:20PM on Sep 8th 2006 by Gwyneth Llewelyn

13. What attracts so many content creators to SL is the creative nature of the platform. Many of the most creative designers have boring RL jobs and they use SL as their playground, a safe place to express themselves creatively. It's what attracts new designers and builders to come here every day. That creativity provides a richness to the world and in many ways fuels it.

That said, the world can't stay a creative haven if it's not safe. Art needs a safe environment to flourish. Theft, deceit, name calling, rumor-mongering, and all of the hideous levels of nastiness and rage that I have witnessed over the past few days have the potential to destroy this place. To rob it of it's sanctity.

It is every designer's and and every person who appreciates design responsibility to keep this place safe. The public display of "unaffection", the defensiveness, the reopening of healed wounds... all of this is damaging, but not just to the people involved. What is being destroyed is the desire in all creatives to put themselves out there, to contribute, to create. Look at the small number of new releases during the past two days. This is not an accident. The hearts of designers who have witnessed this bloodbath are broken, but so are the hearts of your customers and your admirers.

So, this is my call, to everyone: Stop. Let it go. Heal yourself however you need to. But you don't have the right to destroy this haven. You don't have the right to make this an unsafe place. If you are angry, hurt, sad, I am too. But everyone involved must understand that this has now become bigger than your anger your sadness, your hurt. This has become bigger than you.

We all have responsibility to be kind to each other. To say sorry when we've made a mistake. To accept an apology when it is offered. And to let go when the issue is dead. Because the World needs happy, creative designers to fuel it, feed it, and make it grow.

Posted at 9:51PM on Sep 8th 2006 by Choice

14. Aimee, if you are going to cite other people's opinions on the subject as part of your commentary, please at least try to not make the selection so blatantly one-sided.

There's been long thread discussing this very issue on the official forum not so long ago (okay, i suppose a week can be like century around some places)

http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread.php?t=133531

... in there you can see people like Chip Midnight speak strongly against utilization of texture ripping, even for personal use like it happened in this particular case.

Just to point out that no, not everybody sees it a trifle matter that can be simply brushed off as advertising thinly disguised as drama. And while fair use is certainly aspect to consider, another would be the feelings of original creator... to cover another angle of the "more human side of the debate", so to speak.

Posted at 12:05PM on Sep 9th 2006 by Joannah Cramer

15. Jake, you really shouldn't be speculating when you have no cases to cite, and not even any law, but mere conjecture based on RL cases. By siding with those like Chip who are against texturing ripping even for their own personal use, you are ceding the world to the creator-fascist movement that seeks to privilege creation and copyright over consumer rights and seeks to put the creators in an unjustified and ill-deserved position as rulers of the world.

I continue to maintain that basic concepts like fair use doctrine, first-sale doctrine, Bobbs-Merrill regarding resale of items bought in bulk, etc. should be invoked in dealing with this world. It's a world not merely an environment of intangibles. The items can not only be seen and heard; they can be manipulated, moved, acted upon, stored, transferred. Those acts and functions that acrue to these items means their nature is different than the intellectual property of the real world which you characterize as art or design. These items are more on the side of goods -- and in any event, you don't have cases nor law to cite precisely about this realm.

When someone instinctively lies first to cover up their action, they sew doubt about their original intentions. Yet it seems highly unlikely that Torrid, who has her own reputation without having to borrow or steal another's design, would have resold copies of this item that was "ripped".

I see all of this as the revolution eating its children. The instinct that made the original skin maker get all hyper about the ripping is the same controlling instinct that guides the FIC in general to take and keep control over the forums, and for specifically Torrid and her friends to turn something like Second Cast into a giggling, gossipy, girls' glee club with all the inside jokes and cattyness you can expect.

I think this entire discussion has to avoid being dragged into the emotional blackmail implied when people begin to say things like "but I'm recovering from surgery" or "but I'm going through difficulties in RL". I don't think you get to invoke RL as a currency to get sympathy in SL. It's sad, it's unfortunate, but it's immaterial to the subject, which needs to be debated freely, without attempts at emotional blackmail.

Posted at 4:50PM on Sep 9th 2006 by Prokofy Neva

16. Torrid, I hope you get better soon with no more complications. Please don't fret over the crude remarks thrown your way.

And I agree with Jake. The only way we can make good use of a skin or giving it our own look is by asking the designer for a custom (which nowadays is hard to come by) or having MORE options in customizing our look which only the people coding SL can provide. Instead of rallying against each other, rally together on LL to get their lassiez-faire management moving and make real changes to their platform.

And it's truly saddening to see ourselves get ripped apart by these mis-directed frustrations. I think everyone involved is a talented person. And this "war" just feels wrong.

Posted at 4:50PM on Sep 9th 2006 by Lash Xevious

17. I keep hearing that modifying a skin - that you purchased - is somehow wrong. I have a hard time understanding how anyone can be hurt by this action, either financially or emotionally.

Some say that LL adding layers would solve this problem; I find this an odd thing to say, as the result would be the same. The end result in both cases is that the skin would look different, as the purchaser wanted - but not as the designer intended.

So, what is the difference?

Just because LL has made it difficult to modify skins - when the creator has the intent to forbid it - doesn't make it wrong to modify something you purchased for your personal use.

People want to write on their shirts.

Find it in your hearts to be happy that they picked (and purchased) your shirt to use as the base for their art.

Posted at 6:51PM on Sep 11th 2006 by Gando

18. Well, this is certainly a fine mess. Can it be reduced further, to the point of absurdity ... or is it already there?

What creates the pixels that originally made up the textures or clothing or skins that were ripped? I'm a technical ignoramus ~ following my ignorance of most EVERYTHING, technical or not, to be sure ~ but (or maybe therefore) I wonder about this. Who originally generated those pixels? Is it the Lindens? Is it the people who built the processors in your PC or Mac or whatever? And good golly, have you TAKEN those pixels, have you ultimately ganked a bunch of ONES and ZEROES (for whom we must thank our distant Arabic predecessors) and twisted them to your own dark purposes? How DARE you?

And for that matter ~ Gwyneth ~ if I COULD buy the Mona Lisa, it would belong to ME. The physical Mona Lisa would be ~ mua ha ha ha ha! ~ mine, all mine. And if you think ~ or some group of ppl thinks ~ that I then don't have the "right" to add a mustache to the fucking thing, and even *sell it to someone else after I've added that improvement to it*, then which of us is confusing the "material support" with the "artistic work?" (Suggestion: It ain't me, sister.)

If you mod the "material support," that doesn't change the original "artistic work" at all. Or, if it does, then they're one and the same thing. And you've BOUGHT ~ and therefore OWN and can decide the disposition of ~ BOTH of them.

Or, what? Is there some kind of fuzzy logic that I'm too stupid to understand at play here?

Especially when you're not RE-SELLING something ~ a shirt, a car, a skin, in RL or SL ~ and therefore not profiting from another's initial labor (to which you've added your own), why shouldn't you be able to "mod" that something any way you desire for your own personal use? Or, c'mon, never EVER add a stitch to your favorite skirt, never EVER write your name (or apply an Ex Libris sticker) on your copy of GRAVITY'S RAINBOW, and don't even think of desecrating the design sensibility of umpteen automotive engineers by putting an "F THE PRESIDENT" sticker on your car's bumper! Draw little red horns on all your Hello Kitty paraphernalia? FUHGEDDABOUTIT!

And, and, and ~ bah. Something like this has me agreeing with the likes of Prok? Oy. Dark days, indeed.

Now I'mma go have a li'l conniption on everyone's behalf.

Laters,

Posted at 6:51PM on Sep 11th 2006 by Memory Harker

19. It seems to me that any creation on SL is really just computer coding. I think there probably already is law on the legality of modifying legitimately purchased computer code for personal, non-retail use. Microsoft, as a interesting example, does not try and stop anyone from modifying Windows to suit their needs better. They will give you a warning that you may break it when you start messing around in the program files, but they don't try and stop you from doing it.

It seems to me that Linden could easily make this type of personal modification a TOS restriction, but legally, in the RL, it is probably going to be a non-starter.

Posted at 11:25AM on Oct 31st 2006 by Crystal

20. I am responding a few months late but better late than never, right? I normally don't post or get involved with forum or outside SL drama because its a drain and I am here to escape stress not find more of it. This time I simply must speak out. I find these people such as Starley and those like her to be hypocritical screaming about someone modifying an overpriced digital image which can only be used in a place like the matrix aka virtual reality aka secondlife. Most of the so called top designers here are ripping others off in order to create their designs in the first place. Ok yeah so they modfy the ripped off image they either stole from a clothing website (without permission or paying for it) or even porn site so they could superimpose body bits into a rendering program in order to make SL skins or virtual clothes for holographic avatars. Let's get real here folks.. the only people who have a right to claim ownership are the real artists who draw their own work and not just copy, paste and edit. Even then, if I buy a skin or anything else be forewarned that I will do whatever the F*** that I want to do with it and I won't be leaving SL like Torrid Midnight did. Hey Torrid Midnight, you don't know me but get your A** back to SL now. Don't let anyone chase you off, especially a bunch of hypocritcal wannabe designers. END.

Posted at 10:13AM on Nov 3rd 2006 by Vryl Valkyrie