The Real Consequences of Virtual Theft

Theft of Second Life content creation has been a growing illegal industry and creators have long been frustrated with the difficulty of protecting their products. In many cases Linden Lab has been contacted, DMCA’s (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) have been filed, and in some instances content creator’s have stopped creating altogether or felt so disheartened that they’ve left SL entirely out of frustration.

Things are about to change as a group of well-known designers and creators have taken real life legal action, straight to the US District Court, seeking to set a precedent and to send a message to those residents who are acting illegally by copying original designs by means such as taking advantage of what some have claimed as longtime, well-known exploits.

Utilized as a last resort, filing suit should prove to be the most effective means to settle matters of this sort, however it can be quite an undertaking. But what options are SL’s creators left with to protect their items, creativity, and in some cases, their livelihood? Linden Lab has stood by their claim that SL is not a game. For those that disagree, content thieves especially, game’s over.

In this instance there is not only copyright infringement, but trademark violation as well. It is up to each individual how far they want to go to protect their business and designs, but it can be done via incorporation, as well as by filing the appropriate trademark and copyright claims.

In SL’s few short years of existence the population has exploded, especially in the past two years, and just like the real world bad seeds do inevitably exist within the confines of this virtual community. While the lawsuit in question may not be particularly about seeking monetary compensation, more importantly it should serve as a wakeup call. Exploits do not give you a right to steal or an excuse for doing it. Just because you own a gun, that doesn't give you the right to shoot anyone; just because you own a sports car does not mean you can drive over the limit.

It is my understanding that the defendant was given ample opportunity and reasonable time to settle this matter privately. He continued his non-compliant stance and claims of innocence even after being presented with what many will view as unquestionable evidence, much of which is available to the public via this Flickr collection. Does this appear to be activity of someone who is harmlessly cleaning out their inventory, or someone legitimately holding a yard sale? It is also important to note that several of these images show large quantities of copies from creator’s who have never given wholesale/resale rights.

For more info and details visit Virtually Blind, as well as this Google Document that went public this morning outlining the actions over the past 6-plus weeks that ultimiteley led to the suit being filed just a few days ago.

~QQ~