21. Personally, I'm going to go out on a very shaky limb here, but frankly, I believe in the principle of First-Sale rights. Once I've bought something, it's mine. I own it, and I can see fit to do with it as I please.

If I buy a book RL, I'm free to read it, to write over it, or to burn it among other things.

If I buy a CD, I'm free to listen to it, to write all over it, or burn it among other things.

If I buy a texture ingame, I'm free to use it, to write all over it, or to burn it among other things.

This is not stealing, nor shall it ever be. This is Fair Use and is completely protected by US law (which inherantly governs SL). I've personally ripped hundreds, if not thousands, of textures out of SL for my own personal curiousity and use. (No, I'm not going to tell you whose work I've taken.)

The world of SL is very much like the internet, and I'm tired of all these primadonna creators crying theft and misuse when you don't pay them for everything. Well, I hate to tell everyone this big secret, but anything in SL can be recreated and taken as your own. Every texture can be taken out and remade. Every prim can be recreated. Nothing is 100% safe, and it never will be. That's the way Second Life was made.

I make a point of buying people's creations that are worth it, but content creators need to know that once I buy it, it's mine. I own it, and I will continue to feel free to use it, write all over it, put eyeliner on it, or burn it among other things.

It's the world we live in, and it's perfectly legal. Deal with it.

Posted at 2:18PM on Sep 9th 2006 by Nala Galatea

22. Johnny Ming is showing his love and support for Torrid over at Second Cast:

http://www.secondcast.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=49

Posted at 2:52PM on Sep 9th 2006 by Aimee Weber

23. The other day I was finishing a build for a new sim& selling the pieces. When it was soon discovered that my permissions were set incorrectly. The owner of that sim said oh dont worry about it, we can get a Linden here to force perms on it, I told them Lindens, you, or anyone else is not to be forcing perms on my things! Period.

That is what was done here. Mistress took the skins and forced her own perms on them. If Starley wanted to make skins that had Chips head, Lost's hair map, and her own body, Im sure they would have formed a coalition to do this. You cannot merge 3 skins into one from your appearance menu. Its IMPOSSIBLE. You have to be able to save the skin to your desktop; along with the 3 other skins, to open in ps. You have to be using a program designed to Rip textures from the game, to get them to your desktop. So she had this program, and knew how to use it, thats obvious. How is that NOT theft?

Now, onto the juicy bit. Do I feel like I'm a thief? Nah. I'll give you two analogies here. Lets compare it to real life... Say I go to Best Buy, or some similar store and buy a shiny new cell phone... Although this phone is fantastic as is, I just want to jazz it up and add my own twist on it.. so I rip off the faceplate and spraypaint it yellow with pink stripes... Now, if it were sold that way, obviously that's how I would have purchased it... and if the creator of the phone allowed me to call up on demand and say hey, I want my phone to look like a carebear threw up on a taxi cab! - and he would oblige, then yes, it would be so much less trouble to do it that way.

This area right here is a real problem to me. You can rent a DVD, and when you dont like the end, you cant change it then return it to the store without consequence. Thats essentially what happened here. (The cell phone analogy is not a good analogy for what really happened) When you buy a skin, you do not own the rights to it. For profit or not. If it is mod, it in understood, that is still against ToS to rip it to your desktop. If it wisent, that would be a tool set in place by Lindens themselves.

~Grim

Posted at 3:09PM on Sep 9th 2006 by Grim Misfit

24. I have the sneaking suspicion that there is more to this story than meets the eye. Granted, Torrid is a great designer, and sure, we can argue about rights until we're blue in the face, but you gotta respect the wishes of designers, or I fear we may lose some of them as well.

Get well Torrid!

Posted at 4:46PM on Sep 9th 2006 by Kalia Meiklejohn

25. Alex, I'm sorry if you read all that into this blog.

To confirm and eliminate any confusion:
There is no evidence proving that the anonymous users who called Torrid a thief (among many other nasty things) was actually Lost, Starley, or Amby in alt form.

While these attacks did coincide with the eruption of this drama, I personally do not think that the three aforementioned residents were the alts in question. My article did not accuse them of this, and Torrid and Moo did not intended to imply this in their quotes.

Sorry for the confusion.

Posted at 4:50PM on Sep 9th 2006 by Aimee Weber

26. I find this story manipulative, at least in part. It's meant to tug at our heartstrings and make us feel badly for Torrid, and maybe it should -- certainly she did NOT deserve to be wished dead, and I would imagine she didn't deserve a lot of the other attacks she may have endured.

However, I dislike the way this story slyly ties that in with the unrelated and arguably very legitimate complaint these other designers had regarding what she did with their work, implying that they personally endorsed, or may even have been behind, vicious attacks up to and including death threats. It doesn't even have to actually say that, and indeed it doesn't. It just implies it very skillfully.

I'll admit it: it worked on me at first. I found myself bristling with anger, thinking, "Why, that Lost! I'll never buy anything of hers again! Who else was on that list again?!!" That's the beauty of manipulating by appealing to emotions: it works. It works really, really well. And it took a moment before my rational side stepped in, grabbed me by the shoulders, spun me around, and made me slow down and think it through a little more.

Aimee, I'm sorry that your friend left, and I'm doubly sorry that she was attacked so viciously. Whatever else happened here, she didn't deserve that. But let me ask you this: do those other designers deserve to be indirectly accused of making or endorsing those death threats, even if it's only by implication?

Posted at 4:53PM on Sep 9th 2006 by Alex Fitzsimmons

27. Well gee, Aimee. Let's look at how you started this thing:

"War is Hell.

Fashion war is Hell with catty, bitchy, petty little ankle biters.

SL Fashion War is a venomous surgical strike against somebody with a sensitive and caring disposition timed perfectly with their recovery from major surgery. It's a plan that can go a long way to bolster the grand opening of a business project with calculated results in the 'devastating' category. Take out the enemy, promote the business. Checkmate.

All that's left is the body count, which is the subject of this post. Torrid Midnight is leaving.

For those just receiving word from the front line, there is a war going on by Ambyance2 Anubis, Lost Thereian, and Starley Thereian against Mistress Midnight and Torrid Midnight ..."

Let's see ... so:

1. We have nothing less than a war. Check.
2. It features catty, bitchy, petty little ankle biters. Check.
3. It is a venomous surgical strike against somebody with a sensitive and caring disposition timed perfectly with their recovery from major surgery. Check.
4. It is furthermore a plan that can go a long way to bolster the grand opening of a business project with calculated results in the "devastating" category. Check.
5. The goal here is to take out the enemy, promote the business. Checkmate. ... Check.
6. The body count is Torrid Midnight. Check.
7. This is the result of war going on by Ambyance2 Anubis, Lost Thereian, and Starley Thereian against Mistress Midnight and Torrid Midnight. Check.

From there, we move on into other delightful tidbits, including and especially the comment about wanting Torrid dead.

What did you expect people to think? Hm?

Posted at 5:11PM on Sep 9th 2006 by Alex Fitzsimmons

28. "I make a point of buying people's creations that are worth it, but content creators need to know that once I buy it, it's mine. I own it, and I will continue to feel free to use it, write all over it, put eyeliner on it, or burn it among other things.

It's the world we live in, and it's perfectly legal. Deal with it."

I guess the potential problem with this line of reasoning is, in RL for your money you generally get _single_ item you are then inded free to do whatever with. If you burn it, paint it in pink polka dots or throw away, that's it. The appearance and/or condition is changed forever and changes usually cannot be reverted without effort as extensive as the modding itself.

When it comes to textures ripped from SL items, what you instead get is base item which can be modified into as many options as one pleases, without affecting the original purchased item. Suppose a content designer is selling outfit in multiple colour options. If i buy green one, then rip off the texture and re-colour it to red one... suddenly i have two perfectly valid options -- the green original, and the red version that i'd otherwise have to _pay_ for, to get from the original creator.

Because of this ability to 'eat your cake (mod the item) but still have it (keep the original)' the line between "fair use" and theft can be quite a bit more blurred than what happens in RL, imo. Now, if someone has enough integrity to destroy original item once they have modded copy, that's one story. But honestly, how many people actually do, or even consider this aspect in the first place?

Posted at 6:01PM on Sep 9th 2006 by Joannah Cramer

29. Elspeth wrote: "I can do anything I damned well please with it, as long as I'm not making bloody copies of it and selling them. If I want to purchase a skin, then modify it so that the words 'HAY I MODED THIS SKINN' cover every square inch of it, the designer of the skin *has no right to stop me*. Same thing as if I purchase a RL car and spraypaint 'I RULE!' on the hood; Ford *cannot* tell me not to do that."

That's not correct. SL assets are not tangible goods. They're part of the software. Ford can't tell you not to spraypaint your car, but EA, Blizzard, or any other game developer or publisher can tell you not to rip art assets from their game, and they do.

From the WoW TOS: "You agree that you will not (i) modify or cause to be modified any files that are a part of a World of Warcraft installation; (ii) create or use cheats, "mods", and/or hacks, or any other third-party software designed to modify the World of Warcraft experience; (iii) use any third-party software that intercepts, "mines", or otherwise collects information from or through World of Warcraft"

Look at the Terms of Service or EULA on any game from any non open-source developer and you'll see a similar clause. SL has one too but not as clearly worded. Using a GL hack to gain access to the textures being sent to your video card constitutes intercepting and mining content. If you'd like to challenge Blizzard in court let us know how it turns out. Clothing and skin content in SL is no different. The fair use argument is bogus.

Posted at 6:41PM on Sep 9th 2006 by Chip Midnight

30. This article has really started to bother me.

To say that Starley is at war with anyone is just wrong. I've known her for over 2 years now. We aren't close and we talk from time to time but she is one of the sweetest people around. She is always nice and considerate of others. She also worked hard on the same team as Torrid for the RFL. To insinuate that she had anything to do with the comments made by some random person is just wrong.

I read her blog (the post has been removed now) but it never named names. I had no idea what was going on till I read this blog to be honest. If you are going to call this article and the other one about this situation "news" then I think its only fair you treat it as news and not personal opinion or half of the story.

I just want to make it clear that I in no way agree with the nasty turn this thing has taken but to be perfectly honest I don't see it from the actual people in the situtation. I've seen it from the people commenting and not leaving their names to these comments. Wishing harm to anyone is wrong.

Posted at 8:55PM on Sep 9th 2006 by Shinesse Madison

31. Torrid, as John Wayne once told Kattie Hepburn: "Don't let the bastards get you down." Fair use is just the, fair use. I for one have always loved your designs and will really miss them. I am sending lots of love and hugs your way! Take the time you need to feel better and just let all that nastiness go. There are plenty of people that love and respect you that just never had a reason to voice that till now. *hugs*

Posted at 11:22PM on Sep 9th 2006 by Vares Solvang

32. I find this as was put by a previous commenter above extremly manipulative as well. Over and over I read how Torrid has done so much, how she's raised so much money for relay for life but people seem to forget that it was a TEAM of people that raised that money and part of that team was Starley as well as a number of other designers who put in alot of work and effort.

While I'm sorry that Torrid was ill, it is irrelevant to what initiated this whole situation and is being used as a way to create sympathy and whitewash what started this. Frankly the intial carrying on about this was started by Mistress and Torrid's blogs, both who seem to crave the drama and attention that maelstrom has created. Both of whom violated TOS to take something that did not belong to them instead of working it out with the designers and it appears from their own admissions have done so more then once.

People keep saying that once you buy something because it has mod rights your free to do as you wish with it. That is true within game, it is not Linden Labs or most Designer's intention for it to be taken out of game.

Mod means mod in game not use a 3rd party program which is againt TOS to take other peoples work and change the perms on it to suit yourself.

It appears that many people here urged on by Aimee, are on Torrid's and Mistress's bandwagon instead of looking at the actual facts of the situation. It makes one wonder what it is they need to create all the drama and publicity for.

Posted at 1:55AM on Sep 10th 2006 by Linda

33. There are so many things wrong here, I don't know where to start.

Do you think it might be possible to stop saying "this is stealing/theft"? Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Everyone knows that theft is wrong. Clearly some people feel that this is not theft, and this is fair use protected by copyright law.

No matter how many times I say "abortion is murder" it doesn't make it fact, even though some people would believe me.

I cannot believe that something so trivial and benign as modifying a texture that was bought and paid for, for personal use, could lead to such incredible amounts of drama.

Posted at 2:53AM on Sep 10th 2006 by Francis

34. blah blah blah, etcetera etcetera etcetera. Aimee's awesome, Torrid's awesome. No I don't care about the letter of the law, if it even applies. Yes I think fair use applies. Most importantly not a single person was hurt AT ALL, in ANY WAY. I don't even think trust was violated, nor do I think insult was given. I can't speak for it being taken however :P. Get grip.

This whole thing is so stupid I can't hold it in my mind long enough to make a good argument. It's also pointless because nobody would listen to a good argument unless they already agreed bringing up a whole new layer of pointless.

So, in conclusion, those of you who see this as an important issue, and feel the need to insult anyone at all, for any reason, are morons/idiots/drama whores/neurotic/and generally pissing me off. Go to hell. Yes, that was hypocritical. No I don't care nor are you smart for pointing it out. Feel free to reply. I'll feel free to ignore you completely :). If that makes you feel justified, glad I could help. If you feel I didn't contribute anything to this conversation, congrats, you're right!! Then again, neither are you :D.

Posted at 3:35AM on Sep 10th 2006 by Korin Ingersoll

35. I've noticed a lot of misconceptions about copyright and DRM recently, and I'd like to hopefully clear some of those up.

The idea that Second Life employs a system of intellectual property ownership that trumps real-world copyright law is faulty. Second Life is not a legal jursidiction unto itself, but rather, a series of computer programs running within a set of servers located in California. Interactions mediated by the Second Life servers are subject to California state law as well as US federal law, which is where copyright comes in.

From a legal perspective, Digital Rights Managements models such as that employed by Second Life's permissions system, most certainly does not trump the guaranteed rights of fair use.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management#Other_copyright_implications)

In fact, the TOS specifically addresses copyright ownership and fair use rights.

SL TOS - Section 3.2:
“You retain copyright and other intellectual property rights with respect to Content you create in Second Life, to the extent that you have such rights under applicable law. However, you must make certain representations and warranties, and provide certain license rights, forbearances and indemnification, to Linden Lab and to other users of Second Life.”
(http://secondlife.com/knowledgebase/article.php?id=060)

However, circumventing DRM is also mentioned under the TOS. And guess what, Linden doesn't like it.

SL TOS – 4.2:
“You agree to use Second Life as provided, without unauthorized software or other means of access or use. You will not make unauthorized works from or conduct unauthorized distribution of the Linden Software.”
(http://secondlife.com/knowledgebase/article.php?id=060)

Now, from a technical perspective, using any of the tools available to extract texture data (save for hypothetical future ones derived from libSecondLife) does not involve directly violating DRM, as these are not third-party tools that directly affect Second Life, but rather, involve the OpenGL processes that Second Life decodes its data into. Obviously, were these tools to directly break the DRM system imposed by Second Life, using them would violate the SL TOS.

The assertion that a content creator's intentions are clear when they set an asset no-copy or no-modify is true. Yes, obviously the creators intended for their works to not be copied or modified. However, as we see when referencing both US law (see cited examples at Wikipedia's DRM page above) and the SL TOS, this is not a right the creator is legally granted. By producing a copyrightable work, copyright is implicitly established, and with it, fair use rights apply. Creators' rights do not trump consumers' resale rights established under Bobbs-Merrill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine), nor do they trump consumers' rights to copy or modify a work for their own personal use.

Finally, I've heard a lot of analogies of virtual clothing being similar to real-world clothing: after buying them, you should be allowed to hem the legs of your jeans. However, this is faulty reasoning as well. We're not dealing with physical objects, however much they may appear to be when translated from raw data into a 3D representation on our Second Life clients.

A better analogy would be that you have the right to copy music from a CD you purchased to your iPod. You own the physical media the music was transported on, but not the music itself. However, you do have the right to copy –and even modify it– for your own personal use. This is what the doctrine of fair use guarantees.

To sum up, a shirt in Second Life is not like a shirt in Real Life. In fact, it's not LIKE anything – it's actually an image of a shirt in Real Life, subject to the same laws and precedents that affect a piece of music.

Posted at 3:38AM on Sep 10th 2006 by Catherine Omega

36. "A better analogy would be that you have the right to copy music from a CD you purchased to your iPod. You own the physical media the music was transported on, but not the music itself. However, you do have the right to copy –and even modify it– for your own personal use. This is what the doctrine of fair use guarantees."

I'd be interested in seeing some details regarding this aspect. Since all i can find so far (including the very definition of "fair use") seems to point to the contrary..?

specifically:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Podcasting_Legal_Guide

in particular note details on 'reproduction rights' and 'fair use' which is generally limited in scope and allowed for "transformative" purpose, like criticizing, commenting, parodying, news reporting, teaching. While personal copies and modifications may be allowed by law, they quite certainly don't appear under "fair use" concept, and i was so far unable to find anything specific about it (first sale doctrine is different matter, as it grants right to sell instance of copyrighted work as long as no copies are retained by person selling the item)

Posted at 11:28AM on Sep 10th 2006 by Joannah Cramer

37. Yellow journalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

Posted at 3:28PM on Sep 10th 2006 by Snow White

38. Snow White, I'm flattered you hold my BLOG up to journalistic standards, but it's an honor that modesty forbids me to accept. This is a BLOG, not a journal. That said, it's a BLOG I'm proud of. I've certainly expressed my opinions here just as every other blog has expressed their opinions.

However I did something different that most of the other blogs didn't. I included links to just about every other opinion on the subject I could find, including the Naughty blog near the very top of the post. As new links emerged I posted them in the comments section as I discovered them.

In terms of giving my readers links to the most number of perspectives on the subject, I would pit my BLOG against Canimal's post on Pixel Pinup, Naughty's Blog or any of the others. I really do want you guys to read all perspectives on the subject. Do they? I doub't you're concerned :D

The extra mile I have taken to ensure my readers are armed with these links may have created the illusion of journalism above and beyond efforts by other BLOG writers, but please keep in mind that this is not the six o'clock news.

It's a blog and should be held up to BLOG standards just like all the other blogs.

Posted at 3:52PM on Sep 10th 2006 by Aimee Weber

39. Torrid didnt do anything bad. She wanted some eyeliner. So 3 LOSER WHINERS have to go and bitch about it and we lose one of the best designers in SL period. I mean, COME ON. I've seen LINDENS with modified private skins. Hell, i've asked torrid where shes gotten her skin and shape... She told me she couldnt tell me where she got the skin. She wasnt selling it, and theres no crime in modifying a skin for your own personal use. So, the 3 who had to bitch... you're a bunch of whiner babies... Torrid, if you read this, please, dont leave over it. Too many people care about ya and love ya and dont wanna lose ya.

- Phoenix

P.S. City Girls for life!

Posted at 4:04PM on Sep 10th 2006 by Phoenix Snakeankle

40. This is sad, and there will be more and more of it as SL continues to grow.
I know how it feels to make a mistake, be addressed nicely by the person offended and then promptly crucified by all of their friends...it does make you wonder about that person...how they could be so 'nice' and hang out with folks that can be so cruel.
It sucks, I got over it, I hope Torrid does too.

Posted at 4:49PM on Sep 10th 2006 by Lizbeth