I received an interesting comment from someone last night. He said that his first impression of me, from reading this blog, was that I was an “angry SL pessimist”. You know the type: no matter what happens in SL, they’ll bitch and moan about it. Continue reading »
-
18Jun
-
11Jun
I hate to say it, but SL5B (Second Life’s 5th Anniversary) looks to be a bust. (I was going to use a different word there, starting with an F and ending with a D, but decided to refrain, in the interest of good taste.) Continue reading »
Tags: sl5b
-
01Jun
I don’t envy Linden Lab’s situation. Try to dodge the self-serving politicians and reporters nipping at your heels, and the Residents bring out the pitchforks and torches. It’s an impossible job, so it’s no wonder they’re doing so poorly at it. I’d have plenty of sympathy for Linden Lab. I really would.
Except that they put themselves in this situation. Continue reading »
-
30May
Just when the trademark issue started to fade away from public consciousness, Linden Lab has provided us with an even bigger fish. Continuing Linden Lab’s campaign to strangle your inner child, it seems from all evidence that Dusty, Everett, and/or other Lindens are stepping in and barring the SL Kids community from participating in, and possibly even attending, Second Life’s 5th Birthday celebration. Continue reading »
-
23Apr
4.4 Without a written license agreement, Linden Lab does not authorize you to make any use of its trademarks.
So reads the summary sentence for the now-infamous trademark clause in Second Life’s Terms of Service. That unfortunate choice of words, and the similar phrase contained in the full text for that clause, might just be the source of the confusion that has myself and other concerned Residents up in arms.
The full text of section 4.4 reads (emphasis mine):
You agree to review and adhere to the guidelines on using “Second Life,” “SL,” “Linden,” the Eye-in-Hand logo, and Linden Lab’s other trademarks, service marks, trade names, logos, domain names, taglines, and trade dress (collectively, the “Linden Lab Marks”) at http://secondlife.com/corporate/brand and its subpages, which may be updated from time to time. Except for the licenses expressly granted there or in a separate written agreement signed by you and Linden Lab, Linden Lab reserves all right, title, and interest in the Linden Lab Marks and does not authorize you to display or use any Linden Lab Mark in any manner whatsoever. If you have a written license agreement with Linden Lab to use a Linden Lab Mark, your use shall comply strictly with that agreement’s terms and conditions and use guidelines.
Here again we see “does not authorize”. But how are we to interpret it?
To a lawyer, it probably means, unambiguously, that Linden Lab does not grant special permission for you to use its trademarks. It’s not a restriction on your rights, just letting you know that you don’t get extra permission simply because you pressed “I Agree”.
To a layperson, though, it can easily be interpreted to mean that Linden Lab will not allow you to use its trademarks. You can’t write or say any of Linden Lab’s trademarks, anywhere, ever, in any form, or Linden Lab will ban you faster than you can say “nominative fair use”.
I’m sure it’s a perfectly benign phrase, when translated into plain speech. Heck, they even granted us a license to use “SL” and “inSL”! Linden Lab’s General Counsel is probably utterly baffled as to why we’re not genuflecting and thanking LL for its supreme generosity.
But, in general, we’re not lawyers, and we’re not fluent in the twisted dialect known as Lawyerese. To many (if not most) of us, it reads as a restriction of our rights, and a threat of legal action. And as Residents watching the gradual “crackdown” on various freedoms we had enjoyed in Second Life, we’re especially prone to interpret Linden Lab’s legal moves as being hostile and restrictive, even if they were not intended to be.
There is one sore point, though, that isn’t directly attributable to poor communication: the “taking-back” of the phrase, “my Second Life”. Linden Lab doesn’t want us to talk about “my Second Life” or “our Second Lives”, because of the potential for confusion and/or genericide. That issue is a legitimate concern on the part of Linden Lab, as well as a legitimate complaint on the part of the Residents.
However, I’m willing to find an alternate phrase (”my virtual life,” maybe?) that does not have the potential to damage Linden Lab’s marks. And just maybe, Linden Lab will be willing to find an alternate phrasing that is less prone to being interpreted as overtly restrictive. Then maybe we could put this whole mess behind us, and get back to living our virtual lives.
Tags: trademark issue
-
19Apr
The three-day bloggers “strike” ended yesterday, and Linden Lab issued further clarification on their new trademark policy. I wasn’t really sure what to say or how to feel about it.
At first, I was excited. We (bloggers, whether “strikers” or not) managed to evoke a response from Linden Lab. And a seemingly sympathetic response, at that. It was a well-spun post, I’ll admit. I was suckered in for a while. I so very much wanted to believe that everything was all good now.
But it’s not. Linden Lab has now confirmed that they are waving the banhammer threateningly at anyone who doesn’t comply. Their assurance that they will issue warnings first, reads like a sherrif from an old cowboy movie, brandishing his gun and saying, “Come along quietly, now. I don’t wanna have to shoot you, but I will if it comes to that.”
Linden Lab has also said, in plain terms, that they will use the Terms of Service as a tool to enforce compliance both inworld and offworld:
The Terms of Service are the conditions under which Linden Lab offers the Second Life services. One of those conditions is adherence to our trademark policy, meaning that any use of our trademarks–both inworld and outside of Second Life–must comply with our policy. (emphasis mine)
Clearly, this is a gun aimed squarely at the Residents, since the Terms of Service doesn’t apply to anyone except Second Life users.
And lest there be any confusion, this isn’t something that Linden Lab had to do to protect its trademark. This policy reaches beyond all logic, and beyond the requirements of U.S. trademark law. (As always, remember that IANAAL — I am not an anal-retentive lawyer. I’m just a concerned Resident with two ears and a brain between them.)
Firstly, non-commercial use of a trademark (e.g. on a fansite such as this one) is not considered infringement under United States Code, Section 15 (a.k.a. the Lanham Act) which spells out U.S. trademark law as we know it. The Lanham act also explicitly makes an exception for “All forms of news reporting and news commentary” regarding the thing the trademark refers to; that’s why newspapers don’t have to ask permission every time they print the words “Microsoft” or “Second Life”. Whether blogs qualify as a “form of news commentary” is not legally well-defined yet, but I think there’s a strong case to be made that many blogs do, depending on what’s posted. (This post, for example, is clearly news commentary: I’m commenting on the news of Linden Lab’s policy clarification.)
For the curious, I’ll excerpt the relevant text of the Lanham act:
The following shall not be actionable under this section:
(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.
(B) Noncommercial use of a mark.
(C) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.Secondly, the risk of “genericide” from bloggers referring to Second Life by name is patent nonsense: not only does it fail to dilute their trademark, it actively strengthens their trademark by establishing and reinforcing the connection between the name “Second Life” and the services offered by Linden Lab. This non-dilution is recognized under the doctrine of “nominative fair use,” which has received significant support from judges in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the time since it was first applied in 1992.
The deciding factors for determining whether something is nominative fair use are as follows (excerpted from this PDF by Chad J. Doellinger; and also spelled out on Wikipedia for your satisfaction):
(1) the product or service in question must be one not readily identifiable without use of the trademark;
(2) only so much of the mark or marks may be used as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service; and
(3) the defendant must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder(And mind you, this is for commercial use of someone else’s trademark. Noncommercial use is already in the clear under the Lanham act, and doubly in the clear if it passes these tests.)
You’ll notice that I’ve said “Second Life” quite a few times in this blog post. Am I liable for infringing and/or diluting Linden Lab’s trademark? Let’s check.
- Since I cannot readily identify the Second Life service or world without using the trademark “Second Life”, the first test is passed.
- Since I’m not going beyond the bare mininum, e.g. using the eye-in-hand logo or the font used in the Second Life trademark, the second test is passed.
- And since I’m not implying sponsorship or endorsement by Linden Lab (and in fact, I’m going to extra measures to expressly disavow it), the third test is passed.
I can therefore be quite confident that a judge would find this to be nominative fair use, and thus neither infringing nor diluting the trademark. Add to that the fact that this blog is noncommercial, and that it also might qualify as a form of news commentary, and I’m in the clear under the Lanham Act, too. In other words, Linden Lab has no legal basis to object to my use of the words “Second Life” throughout this post.
But as I mentioned above, Linden Lab’s legal department has decided to reach beyond the law, and add further constraints under the terms of service; they have decided to be bastards above and beyond the call of duty. Noncommercial use, nominative fair use, news commentary use… they don’t care about the law, they just want you to obey their nonsensical, self-destructive whims.
Well, I’m going to continue to talk about Second Life and Linden Lab. And I’m going to call them by their names. And I’m going to continue to do all the things that I and other Residents did to give life to Second Life and get Linden Lab where they are today.
Linden Lab can go ahead and smack me with the banhammer and send me as many baseless Cease & Desist letters as they want. The moment they do, I’ll willingly stop talking about Second Life, contributing to Second Life, or logging in to Second Life, because at that moment I would know that Linden Lab had fully deluded itself into believing Second Life can exist without a community.
-
15Apr
This blog is on strike from April 15 to April 18 as a symbolic gesture of protest against Linden Lab’s™ ambiguous and over-reaching new trademark policy and change to the Terms of Service (section 4.4). From the Terms of Service:
Except for the licenses expressly granted [in the Second Life® Brand Center] or in a separate written agreement signed by you and Linden Lab, Linden Lab reserves all right, title, and interest in the Linden Lab Marks and does not authorize you to display or use any Linden Lab Mark in any manner whatsoever. [emphasis mine]
Due to the ambiguous wording of both the policy and Terms of Service clause, they could easily be interpreted to mean that one is not allowed to even mention the words “Second Life” or “Linden Lab”, even in non-commercial contexts such as a fan site.
Normally, the effects of such a ridiculous policy would be mitigated by their unenforcability in courts, where nominative use — using a trademark for the purposes of referring to the product, service, or entity it represents — is recognized as fair use.
However, Linden Lab has put itself above the courts for determining fair use. If Linden Lab decides that it does not like how you are using its trademarks, even outside of the Second Life service, you are in violation of the Terms of Service, and they may may simply ban your account, shut down your business, and reposess your land. In such an event, your only means of redress is a costly law suit against Linden Lab to restore your account.
I find this policy therefore objectionable, and quite frankly foolish. Linden Lab has, at a glance, killed off its most effective marketing tool: the word of mouth of its fans. No longer can I write freely about all the cool things that happen in Second Life. I must be on guard at all times, making sure I place the proper trademark notices just-so, at peril of my virtual life.
But in actuality, the simplest way to avoid infringing on Linden Lab’s trademarks, is to make no mention of them. Ever. So, no longer do I reside in “Second Life”; I now reside in “a Certain Trademarked Virtual World”. I can no longer recommend “Second Life” to my friends — even if I had the goodwill to recommend it.
Thus, to protest this policy, and to symbolize the silencing of Second Life bloggers, no new posts will be made until after April 18, and this blog shall instead display this explanatory notice.
-
06Apr
It seems the good folks in the networking department aren’t the only ones having connection issues.
Tags: silly
-
31Mar
I’ve created an image. I hope you find it amusing. If you so desire, you may download it in your choice of image format (listed at the bottom).
They are copyrighted, but permission to use the images (and any derivatives thereof) is granted to you under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license. The images are not trademarks, and you won’t be sued or legally threatened for displaying them on your blogs, web pages, in virtual worlds, or in other places. You can even make good-natured parodies of them with absolutely no fear of retribution.
Enjoy.
- Mouth in Foot (JPG, small)
- Mouth in Foot (PNG, small)
- Mouth in Foot (PNG, large)
- Mouth in Foot (Inkscape SVG) with ‘fancy’, black-on-white, and white-on-black versions.
-
01Feb
Scripters (myself included) have long bemoaned the lack of any way to write text to a notecard. You can read text from a notecard (although it’s a PITA due to LL’s non-blocking dataserver lookup; and it’s also apparently not possible with notecards that have any embedded inventory items like landmarks), but there’s no way to write to it. That means you can’t save script settings or data to a notecard so that they persist between script resets.
Scripters, being naturally clever folk, have instead relied on the fact that you can change an object’s name and description. So, just save the settings/data to the object’s description, and it’ll be there the next time the script runs! This was especially handy because the servers have previously allowed much longer descriptions to be saved than they were supposed to.
Of course, anyone who has been following the Linden Blog should now be aware that the name/description size limits will now be enforced. I won’t say much about that, except to note that this is another instance of “Very useful exploit-turned-essential-tool that occasionally caused problems, so the Lindens removed the tool rather than fixed the problems”. See also: Megaprims.
What I’m more interested in right now, is the excuses the Lindens give about why we’re not allowed to write to notecards. For example, Prospero Linden wrote:
Re: storing persistent data : the way the asset sever works, a UUID is a unique identifier to an asset. If you change anything, it has to be a new asset– because if somebody else, say, had the same notecard before it was changed, you don’t want your edits to go to this other person’s notecard. It can happen that different people with the same object in their inventory in fact just point to the same UUID in the asset server. If you were to be able to write to a notecard from the script, *every* write command would create a new asset, which would create a load of additional problems.
I call bullshit.
Tags: scripting
Recent Comments