Linden Lab today blogged : Updates to Section 2.3 of the Terms of Service. I’ll come to the changes shortly. The terms of service also include changes to section 3.3 of the terms of service. Previously this dealt with age verification for adult and mature content. They’ve now merged Skill Gaming terms in there too, which is sensible to be fair.
However I’ll be honest, I’m not really sure what has changed with regards to section 2.3 in reality. I can see some words have changed and there’s mention of Second Life but when it’s read as a whole it still looks very unfriendly to content creators.
Old TOS
Except as otherwise described in any Additional Terms (such as a contest’s official rules) which will govern the submission of your User Content, you hereby grant to Linden Lab, and you agree to grant to Linden Lab, the non-exclusive, unrestricted, unconditional, unlimited, worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, and cost-free right and license to use, copy, record, distribute, reproduce, disclose, sell, re-sell, sublicense (through multiple levels), modify, display, publicly perform, transmit, publish, broadcast, translate, make derivative works of, and otherwise exploit in any manner whatsoever, all or any portion of your User Content (and derivative works thereof), for any purpose whatsoever in all formats, on or through any media, software, formula, or medium now known or hereafter developed, and with any technology or devices now known or hereafter developed, and to advertise, market, and promote the same. You agree that the license includes the right to copy, analyze and use any of your Content as Linden Lab may deem necessary or desirable for purposes of debugging, testing, or providing support or development services in connection with the Service and future improvements to the Service. The license granted in this Section 2.3 is referred to as the “Service Content License.”
New TOS
Except as otherwise described in any Additional Terms (such as a contest’s official rules) which will govern the submission of your User Content, you hereby grant to Linden Lab, and you agree to grant to Linden Lab, the non-exclusive, unrestricted, unconditional, unlimited, worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, and cost-free right and license to use, copy, record, distribute, reproduce, disclose, modify, display, publicly perform, transmit, publish, broadcast, translate, make derivative works of, and sell, re-sell or sublicense (through multiple levels)(with respect to Second Life, Inworld or otherwise on the Service as permitted by you through your interactions with the Service), and otherwise exploit in any manner whatsoever, all or any portion of your User Content (and derivative works thereof), for any purpose whatsoever in all formats, on or through any media, software, formula, or medium now known or hereafter developed, and with any technology or devices now known or hereafter developed, and to advertise, market, and promote the same. You agree that the license includes the right to copy, analyze and use any of your Content as Linden Lab may deem necessary or desirable for purposes of debugging, testing, or providing support or development services in connection with the Service and future improvements to the Service. The license granted in this Section 2.3 is referred to as the “Service Content License.”
The part I’ve bolded under the new TOS is the change, that appears to be it. This also only seems to apply to the terms prior to the statement about this being with respect to Second Life. The part after that still seems to give Linden Lab permission to do anything they like with user generated content and seems to contradict the limitation.
I am in agreement with Inara Pey when she says :
While this may be an attempt to clarify the meaning and intent of the ToS, I cannot help but question it’s overall effectiveness – although I do so with the clear statement that I am not a lawyer, so this is simply unqualified opinion.
Yes, the revised wording does apparently set out limitations, but the context in which this is achieved seems to be confusing.
Like Inara I’m not a lawyer but the wording seems to be confusing with regards to context and if the part after the limitation still means Linden Lab can exploit content in any manner whatsover, without limitation, then we’re really not much further forward here at all.
The Linden Lab blog post said :
First, the modified version limits our rights with respect to user-created content in Second Life by restricting our use “inworld or otherwise on the Service.” Additionally, it limits our right to “sell, re-sell or sublicense (through multiple levels)” your Second Life creations by requiring some affirmative action on your part in order for us to do so. This language mirrors the corresponding User Content License currently in Section 2.4, which has been part of the Terms of Service for years.
The part of the TOS about limitations to the Second Life service is in the middle of the paragraph, does it continue to apply to the rest of the paragraph? If it doesn’t, then really, nothing substantial has changed here.
The new TOS still contains extremely content creator unfriendly terms such as :
exploit in any manner whatsoever, all or any portion of your User Content (and derivative works thereof), for any purpose whatsoever in all formats, on or through any media, software, formula, or medium now known or hereafter developed, and with any technology or devices now known or hereafter developed
To put this in context, the old old terms of service used to say :
You agree that by uploading, publishing, or submitting any Content to or through the Servers, Websites, or other areas of the Service, you hereby automatically grant Linden Lab a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicenseable, and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the Service.
You understand that this license enables Linden Lab to display, distribute, promote, and improve the Service. You agree that the license includes the right to copy, analyze and use any of your Content as Linden Lab may deem necessary or desirable for purposes of debugging, testing, or providing support or development services in connection with the Service and future improvements to the Service. The license granted in this Section 7.2 is referred to as the “Service Content License.”
Now that is a lot more friendly to content creators, clearly points out that these permissions are required by Linden Lab for providing the service and has clear limitations. Alas the same cannot be said for the new terms of service.
Whereas the Ebbe Altberg era has heralded greater transparency, better communication and in many ways a feelgood factor, the TOS issue has been the one area where Linden Lab have not been very forthcoming and have not been open to sensible discussion. Linden Lab have not once attempted to explain why they need such a content creator unfriendly terms of service and I find this a tad disappointing.
I’ve long said that I believe Linden Lab when they say they have no ill will regarding content and have no plans to do anything untoward, but from where I’m sat, the new terms of service still doesn’t reflect that intent, which is a great shame because when I saw this blog post had been posted earlier this evening I had great hope that the matter would largely be resolved, unfortunately it still seems that the waters are very muddy.
I’ll be more than happy for someone to point out that I’m reading this wrong.
I actually missed something else.
The revised ToS can still be read as laying claim to rights to any derivative works a content creator makes to items once they are uploaded to SL. That is, you make a mesh house, you upload a version to SL, the TOS appears to say LL have the rights to any subsequent derivations of the model you use elsewhere.
..or at least, missed expressing *clearly*. My brain is fried I’m going to bed.
The changes seem to be very minor, or just plain badly presented. I’m hoping it’s the latter but fear it’s the former.
I believe that Weird Al would call the ToS “change” a Word Crime.
-ls/cm
Yes, Ebbe’s transparency is so much better now. Instead of you guessing that the ship might hit an iceberg, he comes out and tells you straight out that you will indeed hit an iceberg and sink into the North Atlantic and perish.
Isn’t that kind of transparency and communication just great?
The users got what they deserved. They were screaming about the sell/re-dell clause, which was NOT the issue (as Vaki Zenovka/Agenda Faromet and others pointed out – see Section 2.4), but who would listen? The hysterical agitators? Or the “LL IS TRYIN TA STEAL MAH STUFFZ!!!!!!11111” brigade?
The problem was the “for any purpose” clause. The Lab listened. To the idiots. And gave them what they wanted, and very richly deserved.
Correction: re-sell, not re-dell (that’s what you get when you’re commenting from a mobile device).
That’s a little unfair, as I recall Agenda said that sell/resell shouldn’t really be in there and she wasn’t sure why they were in there. However they are still in there, albeit in perhaps a more limited fashion.
The UCCSL were one of the louder voices and their issues were not with the sell/resell clause. Other groups have contacted Linden Lab and again the issue wasn’t the sell/resell clause.
At this point I really don’t think Linden Lab are listening to anyone and that is disappointing.
It shouldn’t be there, because it didn’t have to be there in the first place. LL already had that covered.
As for the UCCSL, all they did (because of their leader, who eventually bolted, blaming the people who followed her for the group’s failure) was push letters out and demand meetings with LL staffers (fat chance of that happening). In the forums, the vast majority of people were concerned about the sell/re-sell clause first and foremost. “LL IZ TRYIN TA STEAL MAH STUFFZ AND SELL IT THEMSELFS!!!!!!11111”. Ad fucking nauseam.
The other groups that contacted LL, pointing to the real issues, were not listened to, even though some of their people – real attorneys, mind you – offered their time, pro bono, to offer proposals (instead of… “heartfelt letters”) in order help rewrite the offending section.
Hell, even at VWBPE, people who addressed Ebbe were concerned about the sell/re-sell clause and not about the really problematic ones.
In the end, they were not listened to at all. Their work, their proposals, everything, was thrown into the document shredder. LL took the easiest route: They chose to address the noisiest part of SL’s user base, which was jumping up and down about the sell/re-sell clause, drowning out (and shouting down) the level-headed people who studied their eyes out and worked their asses off to negotiate with the Lab on a new wording. Incidentally, in a negotiation, the parties involved present their proposals, offers, counter-proposals, counter-offers.
So, the drama whores contributed in a BIG way to this (non-)change to Section 2.3, and helped LL deliver an insulting slap in the face of those who actually did some constructive work.
At first glance it appears to be an attempt to appease but still leaves content providers uncertain. The Terms of Service were drawn up by lawyers, the only way for content providers to be comforted is to get a legal opinion in the US on the wording, ie if content owned by a provider was used in a way which the provider felt breached their rights could they take Lindon Labs to court and on the basis of the wording of the TOS get satisfaction.
Absolutely spot on about legal opinion, LL even point this out in their blog post.
The change does appear to look to appease, but on closer examination it doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.
Well i guess any that logged today already accepted the new TOS, i did and to be honest, i dont even bother to read it, my soul mate tried and was clear for her that nobody would understand what it says. So i guess point proven, Linden Lab owns Us all!
🙂 Most people will agree to the terms and LL know this, as do all those other companies with controversial TOS, Some of them back away when it’s highlighted.
But i guess any i post can also be dismissed under the article 2.4of ZZ Bottom Tos:
“The hysterical agitators” have no right to think, to believe, to express, to make their voices heard above the ones of the Linden lab cheerleaders!
Why, ZZ? Why is it that, whenever something controversial happens, you always choose to make me facepalm? And why do you always have to confirm everything I wrote here?
If the new revised TOS was to clarify LL’s intent and spell out limitations of what LL can or can not do with User Content then LL has failed to do this. Blaming SL residents for LL’s failure is just plain wrong.
The TOS that came out in 2013 was badly written so no wonder there were different opinions as to which section of the TOS needed revising the most or which was the most important. When groups of residents get together their levels of expertise and effectiveness is going to vary greatly. This does not matter.
The general descent towards the 2013 changes were quite easy for LL to hear. It was up to LL to discern what the issues were. It was not the responsibility of the residents to organize into effective groups to fix the problems LL created.
There is no legal reason why the wording of the TOS has to be so confusing and difficult for the laymen to understand. In one blog written by an attorney has had a very difficult time determining what the new limitations are.
So the only one responsible for the TOS mess is LL not anyone else.
Why is it that it seems that Linden Labs feel that we the ADULTS of Second Life need to be protected from ourselves as if they know whats better than those of us that are grown citizens of second life ? I dont understand why they wish to make people leave Second Life because of Nazi Fascism Mentallity protecting us from ourselves ! If someone chooses to go play a game and make money in a said fashion then why cant they ? Where does Linden Labs get that they have the right to tell people who have invested alot of money in Second Life what we can or cant do but yet allow child avatars in here when this is supposedly an simulator for adults not children ! I dont understand this kind of thinking ! If someone wishes to go play a game that may make them some lindens then why not ? Instead of buying Lindens at an inflated rate when other worlds such as Second Life offer much more for alot less . I personally have been in Second Life a long time and dont wish to have to resort to moving to another Simulator and start all over . These views are only my personal views but i have heard alot of people expressing views on this subject much like mine !