Procyon Games

I'm glad Stroker and Munchflower are doing it over anyone else.

You could visit xstreet today and type in Nike, see so many people ripping off that trademark, similarly type it into the in-game search or better still the CLASSIFIEDS. Yes people pay the lab directly to violate trademarks.

What does LL do? Not much so far, they say they'll act but we're all still waiting.

One day big corps like Nike will come along and join the lawsuits too, that's when you worry.

Heh..Though I must say I don't see any mentions of the Taser brand in Secondlife since their 'dealings'.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/munchflower/3473999673/

No, no of course this is not infringment.

Well, in my opinion Linden Labs under the RL law it is not the problem between the thief and the trademark(Nike). Most of the time that I remember I must be Nike to claim their trademark. I guess with digital creation copies and imitated between residents must be forward and reported 100.000 times if needed, to LL. If they don't do nothing ( as we know they don't do ) then I agree totally in this action, moving the problem to the RL court and let the law decide what is wrong or what it is right.

My biggest question, will DMCA take more action than making too much "bla bla bla talking"?

Very good points, Rifkin. It's quite true that few people register their trademarks and copyrights for items sold in SL; and if Nike hasn't been able to get the trademarked pirated content removed, why should a humble resident have more success?

As you said, there is no easy and simple solution, but, as we all know, Second Life is the only 3D platform that has uncontrolled user-created content out there. All others either use Web-based shops or, well, a manual content approval method. If that gets implemented in SL, the content creation economy will die.

Gwyn,

Do you really think if Linden Lab made XStreet the exclusive means of selling items, that it would kill the whole economy of Second Life?

There are some people who even now sell only through XStreet.

It would certainly hurt the gambling and gaming parlors. They would be instantly eliminated. That would hurt the economy, but I doubt Linden Lab would see that as a bad thing.

Creators who have large inventories (eg 100 color variations of each dress) would be inconvenienced. Some would no doubt leave SL. But many would remain.

Malls would be no more. That would hurt the land barons and any land owner who tries to recoup tier by renting stalls.

Hmm... this deserves another post, I think.

This has been one of the most level-headed and thoughtful treatments of this story I have seen to date. I agree with each and every one of your points, as well as having a few more of my own.

I was an outspoken opponent of Stroker's very first lawsuit, and remain to be adamant in my opposition to dragging real world law into the settlement of issues in Second Life. I remain fairly confident that I'll be able to sit back one day and say "I told you so".

Think beyond the matter of copyright infringement in relation to the "content creators" of Second Life. The next time you visit, turn up your speakers and listen. Hear all that wonderful streamed music? Do you think all of the self-styled disc-jockeys in SL streaming their iTunes catalog through Shoutcast have actually paid the licensing fees required for running an internet radio station?

Move on to all of the televisions and video players and video stores in-world and ask the same question.

But, aside from my inherent distrust of what using the sledgehammer of current IP law will do to Second Life, I'm also very concerned over what the wider implications for the rest of the internet will be. This is not simply a challenge to Linden Lab, it's a test of the DMCA, as well. If *that* particular legal protection to service providers and hosts suffers damage, the entire content-rich internet as we know it will resonate.