Second Life Lawsuit Over Copied Goods Settled
from the just-like-that dept
Just after we discussed yet another bad situation involving bringing real world laws into virtual worlds involving World of Warcraft, it looks like there's an update on another such case we discussed last year. In this case, it was a dispute between two members of Second Life, one of whom had "copied" items made by another and started selling them. This seemed perfectly ridiculous, since being a virtual world where there is no scarcity, nothing was being stolen. Indeed, it looks like the participants in the lawsuit more or less came to the same conclusion. They've "settled" the case, but by settling, it sounds like they really meant giving up the case. No money is exchanging hands and no one is admitting to any guilt. That sounds a lot more like they're just dropping the case.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits, second life, virtual worlds
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"Perfectly Ridiculous?"
Second Life, however, chose a different ruleset, under which people have IP rights in what they create. SL and its users opted into the copyright system. Call it an experiment, whatever - that's the market at work. You don't like the ruleset, you can go somewhere else. It isn't clear why that's ridiculous.
Yes, there's no scarcity in a virtual world. But there's no inherent scarcity over copyrighted works in the real world, either. It is copyright that manufactures scarcity so creators can get paid. If one has a problem with manufactured scarcity, that concern takes issue not merely with Second Life; it takes issue with the entire concept of intellectual property rights. Frankly, that's a lot to bite off over nothing more than a virtual sex bed, but, hey, whatever floats your boat.
The reason the parties settled is that the damages were probably less than the cost of the lawyers, not because they "came to their senses" and decided copyright was ridiculous. That doesn't mean the legal philosophy of using copyright in a virtual world is wrong. It just means that our current legal structure isn't optimized for small claims disputes. Instead, it's optimized for giant trade associations to shake down students.
In fact, what is ridiculous is that this appears to have been a fairly straight-forward case of copyright infringement by someone who knowingly opted into the copyright ruleset and violated the rules, but because the system lacks any kind of "small-claims" structure, the plaintiff couldn't recover.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "Perfectly Ridiculous?"
Not necessarily; IP is a broad term that encompasses things like Trademarks and design of actual scarce goods. In any case, it's free market economics that has a problem with manufactured scarcity, and it's been argued time and again here that copyright is not necessary for creators to get paid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Virutal Problem, Virtual Courts
Either that or go to Judge Judy since this sounds like a small claims court issue anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's not "just a game." Second Life isn't a game at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Virutal Problem, Virtual Courts
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The Original Post stated "where there is no scarcity, nothing was being stolen". This certainly contemplates copyrights, not trademarks -- although your point is well-taken that the concept of manufactured scarcity does not apply well to trademarks... or trade dress, for that matter.
Nor do I disagree that copyright is *necessary* for creators to get paid, but it is the mechanism (for better or worse) that Second Life has chosen. Once SL users opted into that ruleset, it seems peculiar for the Original Post to imply that it is somehow "ridiculous" that the ruleset should be enforced.
One might come to the conclusion that the copyright system doesn't work; fine. But, once someone has decided to play by those rules, we can hardly justify their violation of the rules with that argument that the system which they agreed to doesn't work.
While the article doesn't say anything about trademark, the presence of a trademark claim only strengthens the argument that IP rights - whether it is trademark, copyright, or patent - can have an appropriate place in a virtual environment. Some here subscribe to the view that copyright doesn't work -- is trademark similarly broken?
In fact, trademark seems even more appropriate in this environment. Consumers' association with a brand experience is internal; one can invoke that association in any context, virtual or otherwise. (My previous experiences with Coke don't change depending on whether the Coca-Cola trademark is presented to me on the computer monitor or the television screen.)
In short, the Original Post errs in suggesting that this demonstrates that real world laws don't port well into virtual worlds. In truth, there are some serious problems with our IP laws, but they have little to do with Second Life. Understanding that the problems are internal to the rulesets, rather than context-specific, is a necessary prerequisite to fixing what we've managed to screw up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "Perfectly Ridiculous?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
[ link to this | view in thread ]
2nd life
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "Perfectly Ridiculous?"
Um. Yeah, that's why I've been writing a whole educational series on intellectual property.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080228/003450379.shtml
I'm sure he'd scream and howl if I took his articles and republished them on my website under my name.
Actually, no, I wouldn't. I've made that quite clear:
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20070412/183135#c612
I have no problem if you decide to do that. At best it'll just give us more publicity. At worst it'll make you look bad.
So you're 0 for 2 on your claims here. Would you like to try again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "Perfectly Ridiculous?"
You seem to have fallen into a recent trap regarding "intellectual" or "imaginary" property.
There are trademarks, which protect the CONSUMER from buying crappy products pretending to be made by a company that are known for making good products.
There are patent laws, which are to protect basement bound inventors FOR A LIMITED TIME (which has long since been raised to ridiculous levels, and are being granted for ridiculous reasons) and only financially. You can still use the idea, so long as you pay the patent holder.
Then there is copyright. What your example entails is PLAGIARISM which has hundreds of years of precedent behind it.
If you bothered to read or even know what you are talking about rather than just troll the 'Net while you are bored at work and being oh-so productive, you'd realize the NUMEROUS issues with applying copyright laws to objects in a video game/virtual world environment.
Here's the hint: They ARE NOT the "real world" and they are trying to use RULES DESIGNED FOR the "real world." The rules that govern the worlds are not the same, the legalities can not be the same.
You're probably one of those guys that thinks downloading music without paying for it is stealing. Stealing, with its very clear legal definition, despite the fact the copy you have cost the creator of the song/recording nothing they haven't already payed for.
No loss, no theft.
Juts because you can make money on Second Life doesn't mean it isn't a game. Hell, people have made money playing COUNTER STRIKE nearly since it came out (once upon a time Team3D were making 24-32 thousand a year in winnings playing Counter Strike, look it up).
Second Life is a video game. It is a MMORPG. It may not be based in a sword & sorcery fantasy world, or in the far reaches of space in the future, but it IS a video game. It WAS designed for ENTERTAINMENT.
I'd LOVE to see Blizzard try to sue someone for using the "dupe" cheat in Diablo II. Same issue, copying an object in a video game. It took the developers time and money to make the object.
No one even would get banned for that crap before. The only difference between then and now is greed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is not much about virtual worlds that real-world law cannot handle.
Look, kids, IP is here to stay, like it or not. Downloading music without paying for it deprives the owner of the right to sell it to you. You copy, you infringe. If you don't appreciate that, you are henceforth prohibited from calling yourself a capitalist.
-publius
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um...no, it doesn't. The content owner retains the right to sell his music to whoever he wants. The owner's work was certainly infringed upon, but establishing what was lost or gained due to that infringement is hardly as clear-cut as you make it out to be.
You copy, you infringe.
That's much too general a statement to be correct, but I'm going to assume you mean that copying without an accompanying purchase or other transfer of ownership constitutes infringement.
you are henceforth prohibited from calling yourself a capitalist.
Where did you get the idea that copyright is a necessity for capitalism? Copyright actually provides a temporary monopoly on a particular expression of an idea, which runs counter to the principles of market competition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh please. Information wants to be free, right?
> Copying is not always infringement
Granted, not always. Your assumptions are correct. Also fair use.
> Copyright = monopoly capitalist
I have always hated this comparison, which is tossed around all too casually. Monopolies are about unlawful market power. Copyright is about marking and preserving property ownership, indeed the very essence of capitalism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not a "comparison" it's factual. Even Thomas Jefferson, the father of the patent system, called them monopolies.
Monopolies are about unlawful market power.
Not at all. There have been legal monopolies throughout history.
Copyright is about marking and preserving property ownership, indeed the very essence of capitalism.
Again, this is not true. Content is not "property". Copyright is about creating an artificial scarcity in the form of a gov't granted monopoly. It's not about protecting property at all.
It's the very opposite of capitalism. Capitalism is about the free market setting the price properly. Copyright is a gov't granted monopoly. They're opposites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh please. Information wants to be free, right?
That isn't what I said at all. You stated, incorrectly, that if someone downloads music without paying for it, it "deprives the owner of the right to sell it to you." I said nothing about information wanting to be free or any such rhetoric.
I simply said that your assumptions are incorrect. You were trying to paint this is an incredibly simple infringement = loss situation, when that isn't the case. The fact is, some people are simply never going to buy the music - no loss there. Some infringement will lead to further sales, and yes, some infringement leads to actual loss of sales. The equation isn't nearly as simplistic as you stated.
> Copyright = monopoly capitalist
I have always hated this comparison, which is tossed around all too casually. Monopolies are about unlawful market power.
As Mike said, it isn't a comparison. Additionally, the term 'monopoly' in the economic sense has no legal status. It is an economic phenomena that occurs when a company or individual comes to dominate a market, removing any significant competition. By its definition, a capitalist economy thrives on market competition, which is in direct opposition to a monopoly such as copyright provides.
Of course, the U.S. does not operate on the capitalist economic model, but rather a mixed economic system incorporating both socialist and capitalist concepts, with a general tendency to prefer capitalist ideals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IP: socialist monopoly or capitalist property rig
Ascribing the epithet "monopoly" to the basic right of exclusion enjoyed by a property owner is, in this context, a needlessly incendiary phenomenon.
The Framers coded a limited period of exclusive ownership of writings and discoveries into the supreme law of the land because they figured it would promote progress. Because we have all consented to be governed by that document and its progeny, IP laws are no less legitimate than any others that grant exclusionary rights. (And while we're on the subject, look around; note the abundance of progress. Those Framers...)
Forcing me to permit you to use my constitutionally granted property as a resource for your own profit is a redistribution of wealth that is most assuredly anti-capitalist. And if you copy from me unlawfully, I lose nothing less than the per-copy market price, the price I would have charged you, even if you wouldn't have paid it, because that's the price I have the exclusive right to set.
I'm the decider.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: IP: socialist monopoly or capitalist property
The exclusive right to copy and deal in a work of authorship or invention is a property right.
Thomas Jefferson: "Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
It is not a property right. There are a vast number of differences between copyright and property rights.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080306/003240458.shtml
There are some similarities, but to consider them the same is simply wrong. The entire purpose of property rights was to handle the efficient allocation of rivalrous goods. That does not apply to content. So different laws were put in place, but they are not property rights.
It does not forestall competition, it prevents a form of trespass, thereby encouraging competition through innovation!
You can say that, but it shows you simply haven't looked at the research on this.
You can start here:
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
It most definitely does forestall competition. That was the exchange the government set up: we forestall competition in order to increase innovative output. The problem, though, is that there's little to no evidence that it actually did increase output.
What causes innovation is competition. Taking away the ability to compete through artificial monopolies removes competition. This has been seen time and time again.
Ascribing the epithet "monopoly" to the basic right of exclusion enjoyed by a property owner is, in this context, a needlessly incendiary phenomenon.
It's not an epithet. It's a descriptive term and it is accurate.
James Madison: "But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good."
Thomas Jefferson: "the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression."
It's a very straightforward term. If it was good enough for Jefferson and Madison in creating the clause in the Constitution, it should be good enough for you.
The Framers coded a limited period of exclusive ownership of writings and discoveries into the supreme law of the land because they figured it would promote progress.
Actually, as the quotes above highlight, they were very, very, very worried that these monopolies would be abused. As Madison noted they should be used "in very peculiar cases only; if at all."
Please do not forget that opening clause of the Constitution "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." That means that if it is shown that such monopolies DO NOT promote the progress, then they do not fall under the constitution as being legal.
And, that's a problem, because all of the research shows that they, in fact, do not promote the progress.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080313/031128532.shtml
Instead, stronger IP rights *lag* innovation. In other words, what happens is that innovation occurs, and then companies look to use IP rights to stop the competition. Numerous studies have shown this time and time again. The studies have been both cross regional at the same time, and in a single region over time. And they've all showed the same result.
Because we have all consented to be governed by that document and its progeny, IP laws are no less legitimate than any others that grant exclusionary rights.
Yes, we have consented to be governed by that document, which is explicit: those monopolies must promote the progress. If they are found not to, then they are no longer legal monopolies.
Forcing me to permit you to use my constitutionally granted property as a resource for your own profit is a redistribution of wealth that is most assuredly anti-capitalist.
You've made a very big leap that the use of an idea is somehow a "redistribution of wealth." That's not true at all. For those who understand fundamental (capitalist) economics, you would realize that using ideas as a *resource* rather than as a *product* allows you to make much greater wealth.
And if you copy from me unlawfully, I lose nothing less than the per-copy market price, the price I would have charged you, even if you wouldn't have paid it, because that's the price I have the exclusive right to set.
In the capitalist world, the market sets the price. A unilaterally determined price is not a capitalist marketplace.
Furthermore, to claim that every copy is a "loss" is laughable. Even the RIAA has finally given up on that argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: IP: socialist monopoly or capitalist property
'Monopoly' tends to become incendiary when referring to it in the political sense. We are using the term 'monopoly' in an economic context, which is an appropriate description of both copyrights and patents.
And if you copy from me unlawfully, I lose nothing less than the per-copy market price, the price I would have charged you, even if you wouldn't have paid it
That's not logical. Yes, infringement is illegal. But is not the same thing as theft. You can't lose something you don't possess. So, if someone copies your work, your rights have been violated, but you haven't actually lost anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: IP: socialist monopoly or capitalist property
Long time listener, first time caller.
> The problem, though, is that there's little to no evidence that it actually did increase output.
Where did all the output come from? Did we go from buggy whips to iPhones in spite of IP laws?
Look I appreciate your arguments and I am willing, perhaps even hoping, to be convinced that your ideas have merit.
What does the world look like without copyrights & patents? (I am assuming you're more or less ok with trade secrets and trademarks.) Can you walk me through the IP-free landscape?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: IP: socialist monopoly or capitalist prope
From competition. Competition drives innovation, as producers continually improve to have a fleeting advantage over their other competitors, who innovate to then get a fleeting advantage back and so on. Each time someone catches up to you (or leapfrogs you) it gives you more incentive to move forward yourself.
IP slows down that process by making it much more difficult for someone else to catch up (or leapfrog).
What does the world look like without copyrights & patents? (I am assuming you're more or less ok with trade secrets and trademarks.) Can you walk me through the IP-free landscape?
The short version is that you use the infinite goods (the ideas, the content) to make other scarce goods more valuable and then you sell those scarce goods. What you're effectively doing is using the infinite goods as a freely available resource to pump up the market for many other products.
Here's a quick summary:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: IP: socialist monopoly or capitalist prope
First, Mike, your article on the difference between Trademark, Copyright and Patent; technically you have no remedy at all for a copyright violation until you register it. You have rights upon fixation, but no remedy.
Next, innovation from competition in the way that you sight it is an inaccurate use. It should be innovation arises from the incentive that competition spurs. If competition no longer provides an incentive to innovate, innovation will not arise from competition.
Also, you quote Jefferson and Madison's worries but overlook the fact that they eventually did believe that some sort of protective measure must be implemented. This is no small overstatement.
Finally; "because all of the research shows that they, in fact, do not promote the progress." This argument is posed over and over again and is consistently rejected and countered through congressional findings. Your statement is not wholly false; there is "some" research that shows that these protections do not promote progress, but "all" is a misstatement. And could you find more sources than Levine's book and Bessen's book, they are only a small portion of the community involved in this discussion and they are not exactly objective.
In closing, there is (and always has been) a debate about the limited monopolies that have been provided to copyrights and patents. In generally the statement that competition will solve all is not a very wise one. This is not to say that our current system is perfect, or that competition is not beneficial; it is, but a statement that if you are not incentivising (sic.) people to spend vasts amounts of resources in creating these innovations, you should not be surprised when progression ceases.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: IP: socialist monopoly or capitalist prope
Next, innovation from competition in the way that you sight it is an inaccurate use. It should be innovation arises from the incentive that competition spurs. If competition no longer provides an incentive to innovate, innovation will not arise from competition.
Can you explain when competition does not provide the incentive to innovate?
Also, you quote Jefferson and Madison's worries but overlook the fact that they eventually did believe that some sort of protective measure must be implemented. This is no small overstatement.
Er, how did I overlook it. I explained in quite clearly:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080220/020252302.shtml
But I note they were clearly ambivalent about it.
This argument is posed over and over again and is consistently rejected and countered through congressional findings.
Congressional findings aren't exactly rigorous research. What Congressional findings show is a correlation.
And could you find more sources than Levine's book and Bessen's book, they are only a small portion of the community involved in this discussion and they are not exactly objective.
I have mentioned Bessen's book twice, maybe three times. I do quote some of Levine's book, but mainly because he points to a ton of other research. I also point to the research of Eric Schiff (even more than Levine). And the research of Petra Moser. And Eric Maskin. And Mark Lemley. And Joe Steiglitz. And Paul Romer. And Michael Perelmann. And Milton Friedman. And a bunch of others. To say I only talk about Levine and Bessen is simply incorrect.
This is not to say that our current system is perfect, or that competition is not beneficial; it is, but a statement that if you are not incentivising (sic.) people to spend vasts amounts of resources in creating these innovations, you should not be surprised when progression ceases.
Let's see. I pointed to actual research to prove my point -- even if you disagree with it. Your response is to simply say it's untrue and point to nothing to back it up.
Which is more credible?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who is the clown that wrote this article?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]