Lindens to Replace Allegedly IP Infringing Content With Placeholder Animations, Sound Effects

Last week the Lindens launched early testing of a new Intellectual Property Complaint Process, to handle in-world allegations of content which infringes another's copyright/patent/trademark rights. Under the current regime, allegedly infringing content is often yanked from Second Life entirely, leaving blank spaces in the world. In the new system, Pink Linden announced, the Lindens will leave generic placeholders where the disputed content once was. For example, "Animations will be replaced with a special rotating animation by Blue Linden. Sounds will be replaced with a new sound recording from Torley Linden." This is a novel approach, since these placeholders will act as community-facing evidence of an ongoing IP infringement dispute. In practical terms, this will probably encourage much more public awareness of and conversation over the particular case, and IP rights in general.  (Not to mention heightened controversy.)

Question is, what should the placeholders be? All respect to Blue and Torley, here's some I'd personally like to see:

Maybe a bit too much? What would you suggest, for sounds and symbols that are sure to become iconic?

Comments

[Crap Mariner]

Texture: Rick Astley's face
Sound: chorus from "Never Gonna Give You Up"
Animation: Rick's dance from the video

-ls/cm

[Lizzie Lexington]

Hahahaha, I love the kitty! That's a super idea!

[Thorn Witrial]

I can see this as a new griefing tool for someone to file a false claim with LL and get a competitor, or just someone they don't like, in serious trouble. If Linden Labs doesn't do a rigorous front end look at the complaint, and just does the switch without checking first, it could seriously hurt someone's reputation to have their shops suddenly filled with this new IP Content Theft mark of shame.

If LL does take care to not inflict this on people who are innocent of wrong doing, it has the potential to be a great warning to avoid the dishonest. If they do not take care and fire it blindly wherever they are aimed, it's going to bring the grid to a new low.

[Doreen Garrigus]

Thorn has a point. This could definitely be used as a griefing tool.

LL isn't required to check to make sure the allegations are accurate. They do not verify the legitimate owner of the copyright.

The DMCA only requires that they take content down when someone alleges it is infringing. If the party who has their material taken down files a counter notice, LL has to put it back up. No verification is required. No conflict is resolved. Linden Lab is done with their part.

I hope that the Lab has some process in place to identify people who are abusing the DMCA, but I have not seen any evidence that they do.

[Metacam Oh]

So now when people falsely claim infringement, everyone will now be able to see it and believe it?

[Doreen Garrigus]

That's the gist of it, Metacam.

[Resident Pixel]

sadly - i don't think LL has much leeway in how they respond to a DCMA complaint - the law is written to heavily favor griefing like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Criticisms

[Myf McMahon]

Exactly. The DMCA requires a first response of takedown. Regardless of follow up investigations, the initial response is to treat the claim as genuine.

Without a punitive response to frivolous claims, this will result in some pretty nasty messes. Even with punishment, it will be used to grief.

[AnnOtooleInSL]

Generally griefers have avoided actually violating the law in ways that could result in them being imprisoned and made the cell block "toy". What makes you think they are going to suddenly begin risking becoming a cell block sex slave over a video game?

Sure the possibility exists but it is never going to be worth risking your freedom over some SL content. Hopefully some low level sanity reflex will stop people from committing suicide by convict justice.

[Doreen Garrigus]

False DMCA claimsare pretty common everywhere.

[Connie Sec]

I predict a spike in Tit for Tat.

[Talwyn Mills]

While the fast-track DCMA might be a good idea, but it apears the only way of getting the content back against an incorrectly and/or maliciously DMCA notice is to follow the old DMCA rules.

10 seconds to take down, days/months/who-knows-how-long to get back?

If a maliciously filed DMCA takes out a large portion of a merchants products, that merchant could loose quite a lot of income while things are being sorted out but they still have to pay for (for example) land they were using as a store.

Plus DMCA's are a great way of getting peoples personal information, I don't know if the receiver of the DMCA gets the accusers info, but if you want to file a counter-claim, the claiment gets your RL details.

[Arcadia Codesmith]

To answer the original question... while the kitty is appreciated, it might be best in this instance to stick with something fairly stuffy and conventional like, "Content Under Dispute" - maybe with fine print to make it clear that while LL is compelled to take action on the basis of a DMCA notice or face liability, taking such action in no way represents a judgement that infringement has taken place.

DMCA needs an overhaul. It's a Mickey Mouse law drafted in corporate boardrooms, intended to legitimize intimidation tactics against non-infringing fair use, and to undermine the very concept of the public domain. It's ill-suited for the online environment, where corporations are a dying remnant of the last century and any user can be a producer.

[Arcadian Vanalten]

Well, and worse, the DMCA was written mostly by people who had very little understanding of the nature of digital media as a whole. It was, as I recall, never intended to be more than a temporary stopgap until a better law could be developed, but then they never really revisited it. Granted, I'm not a lawyer and my recollection of this could be flawed.

I agree that it would be a lot wiser to replace it w/ a notification that indicated unresolved dispute rather than implying presumed guilt. A reputable designer could find him/herself destroyed in the court of public opinion with a store loaded with notices falsly depicting them as content thieves. Not that the SL fashion scene has anyone drama-inclined or vindictive enough to consider doing that to someone, right? *smirks ironically*