Trying again on N'Burg & Copyright

[Justice Soothsayer]

Before the RA decides to change the name of “Neualtenburgâ€

[Aliasi Stonebender]

On another note, I believe that - in the US, at least - there was a law passed making it illegal to provide false WHOIS information.

... and in any case, most registrars are supposed to remove such entries.

This might make Ulrika's ability to hold onto neualtenburg.org to be very shaky indeed. (I'm presuming the address info on neualtenburg.info is correct, since, as I recall, using a single consistent alias is perfectly legal where Gwyn lives.)

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":1k62dl3b](I'm presuming the address info on neualtenburg.info is correct, since, as I recall, using a single consistent alias is perfectly legal where Gwyn lives.)[/quote:1k62dl3b]

On that note, the address & phone number for the neualtenburg.info registration are actually taken from one of my workplace, http://www.arci.pt/ — which is a non-profit association which not only uses SL for its many RL projects, but it also happens to own the physical server where this domain is hosted

There is no problem in that regard; all the people at ARCI work with/in SL in a way or the other, and they'll know who "Gwyneth Llewelyn" is

The use of a single pseudonym for legally signing creative or artistic work (and weirdly enough, software programmes...), as well as sports activities, is actually a right that comes from the Berne Convention on IP, and is transposed to both European and national law around here: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/bern ... P192_37445 — Art 15, (1)

[Aliasi Stonebender]

Yes, in any case, it's certainly valid contact info for you; Ulrika's "600 Privacy Lane" and similar obviously false information is not.

It may seem a technicality, but there's been something of a push to restrict domain registration fraud here... although, looking more closely, the law merely adds additional time if you falsify a WHOIS and commit a felony.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

I'm not too worried

Although another thing is certainly worth discussing. We should start the good habit to write down the terms and conditions of using things in N'burg, ie. I should have a written statement, notarised, that the "neualtenburg.info" name is property of the City of Neualtenburg, that I'll host it free of charge while there *is* a City of Neualtenburg, etc. etc., that sort of thing.

The same applies to the host of helpful builders who have been around rebuilding the lost bits of the city. While I understand their eagerness to build, and we really need and appreciate their work, we should also make sure under which conditions they're building for us. Some of those have exceptionally good texturising work, outstanding design, and are the labour of hours and hours of highly talented individuals. The cost of this work should not be forfeited easily, or if it was, there should be a document to that effect.

We don't really want to make the same mistake twice (and this is nothing personal — just trying to be a bit more careful this time)

[Salzie Sachertorte]

Iwould suggest payment by the City of a token amount - say $L1 - and obtaining a signed release would handle this problem quite well.

[Rubaiyat]

Just for the record names cannot generally be copyrighted see http://chillingeffects.org/copyright/faq.cgi#QID9 for a reference and http://chillingeffects.org/copyright/faq.cgi#QID8 "Names, ideas and facts are not protected by copyright."

There is also liability for misusing the DMCA for takedown.

Further the license that she has placed on her copyrighted material cannot be revoked, if she released it under the non-commercial, attribution, no-derivatives license she does NOT have any say in who uses it and for what (unless those terms are breeched). She probably meant to put it under a traditional copyright where she would have that control, which is too bad.

To sum up: There is no infringement, and any information we might choose to use from her current or previous website is covered under her license. If she wants to change her license that will affect content she releases in the future.

rubaiyat

[Rubaiyat]

If we actually receive a cease and desist letter we should post to chilling effects: http://chillingeffects.org/input.cgi

It an effective way to get help without paying a fortune. My apprehension is that either the filing was a bluff, sent to the wrong address or Linden laughed at it. In any case we won't hear anything.

I would also encourage people to think of the following: http://www.onlinepolicy.org/action/legp ... v_diebold/ where, though a much more extreme case, the claimant was trying to take advantage of the Safe Harbor provision of the DMCA (much like this case). The claimant was eventually forced to pay court costs.

[Justice Soothsayer]

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":d7tyeha1]Yes, in any case, it's certainly valid contact info for you; Ulrika's "600 Privacy Lane" and similar o
obviously false information is not.[/quote:d7tyeha1]

Such obviously false info would be useful in a dispute over domain name registration, as it could be proof of "bad faith" intent.

[Salzie Sachertorte]

It is great to explore and discuss the legal aspects of the current situation, I am learning quite a bit about copyrights and such. This type of discussion gives us all an understanding of how these things work and the way to proceed in our future plans.

However, let's mind our Ps & Qs when it comes to discussing our specific legal strategies in this particular instance.

[Rubaiyat]

Hmm, my intent is not to really post a strategy, that is for the lawyers. I personally feel that this issue is going to continue until the other party has exhausted every possibility.

I don't want to see N'burg abandon its name because of some ficticious claim, I do want to see us proceed in an honorable, ethical fashion even if the other side is not interested. To this end I am interested in discussing what little I know about DMCA, copyright etc. If y'all think this will hurt our case I will politely refrain from doing so, even in our forums.

On the other hand I don't think this will be the end of it, and would rather just get on with it. Let the wind out of this one and wait for the next revenge scheme to surface.

Furthermore I really believe in the government, not that I think they are perfect, but I believe they are committed to the task. And beyond that I am willing to abide by the rules of my government, and if the suggestion is "don't talk about it" I shall be quiet. I am not a lawyer, but have architected the site policies for my work and dealt with our responsibilities regarding the DMCA Safe Harbor provision.

I am for meeting this claim head on, even proactively and showing it for the bugbear that it is. (though perhaps I am late to get in the game, I just found the forums)

Rubaiyat

[Salzie Sachertorte]

I didn't mean to say don't talk about it, just be careful in what you state.

I, too, am wondering why we haven't been served with anything.

[Rubaiyat]

Sort of dealing with this as a thought experiment, I wonder how my work will handle it when we receive our first notice that someone has unfairly posted copyrighted materials.

An incentive for swiftness is built in to the law but I am sure we will attempt to evaluate the claim before willy-nilly taking action to remove the work or contacting the person who posted it.

The Linden Labs person responsible for handling these claims IS a lawyer which leads me to believe that they will be able to act swiftly and within the letter of the law. I am sure they are not interested in any bad press (as DMCA takedowns often become) so they will examine the claim first.

That said it is my opinion that the claim was never sent, it was sent to the wrong address, or it was found to be questionable at best (see my previous posts). Likely it is some combination of the above.