[Opensim-users] Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

[Michael]

>
> the goal is still to increase the content or 'works" available to everyone.
>

I fully support the spirit behind this statement. Too bad it doesn't always
seem to work out this way, though. :(

In other words content or "works" must be considered freely available to all
> unless there is evidence to the contrary.
>

IANAL, etc...

My impression has always been that the way copyright works (at least as it
works in the U.S.) in broad terms is that all rights are reserved unless a
use is explicitly allowed or given up by the owner of the copyright.
Copyright is automatic... if you create something (i.e. it is not just an
idea, but left your head in some form), it is protected by copyright law. So
copyright should be assumed, and you must have evidence that something was
placed in the public domain or somehow licensed via a notecard, acceptance
of a repository's submission EULA, or something. Even full perms aren't a
release from copyright. Permissions are just that... permission for some use
cases. They don't relinquish all rights protected by law, including where
and how they may be distributed.

However since you raise the issue, the US Supreme Court has defined patent
> laws as applying to "anything under the sun which is made by man".
> Electronic content certainly falls into this category.
>
...<clip>...
>
This has always been the presumption in any form of ownership dispute. It is
> up to the person who claims ownership to assert those rights before they can
> even be considered. There really is no such thing as the "IP police" unless
> outright counterfeiting and fraud is going on.
>

Patent, Copyright, and Trademark law all share similarities and would
probably make for a fascinating Venn diagram. There are definite differences
though. For example, a patent or trademark must be explicitly filed for,
while as I mentioned previously, copyright just happens. Since it is a civil
and not a criminal matter, it is up to a copyright owner to pursue violation
of his rights. If they've filed a copyright then they've got a great case,
and in the case of automatic copyright they'll have to prove authorship. But
unlike a trademark, failing to assert rights can not cause one to lose
copyright.

And honestly, that's where we come to the heart of the matter. Putting my
very amateur (and yes, quite possibly mistaken) legal theory aside, right or
wrong, with or without merit, OSgrid and/or OpenSimulator can be slapped
with a civil suit by some ambulance chasing dingus with legal expertise on
par with my own. Safe harbor exemptions or not, lawyers will rattle sabers
with each other. I'm not saying we should be cowering in constant fear, but
any reasonable policies by OSgrid or OpenSimulator that will weaken a false
accusation is a good thing. Lawyers cost money neither group has, and the
quicker they can dismiss it the better. Otherwise it will drag the
developers, grid admins, their supporters and users into a time wasting
black hole of hell better spent coding, testing, and improving the platform.
That's my worry, anyway, and I find it no wonder that Adam errs on the side
of caution. I don't blame him one bit.

Marcus Llewellyn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-users/attachments/20091213/92629f7c/attachment.html>