Linden Lab TOS Issues Should Be Rectified Sooner Rather Than Later In Light Of Versu Decision

First of all there are some key differences between The Second Life TOS change and what has happened to Versu. The most glaringly obvious apparently being that Linden Lab are not asking Second Life content creators to give up their intellectual property rights and they are not asking for an exclusive license.

Emily Short who was a main developer of Versu was employed by Linden Lab and would have known the details of providing her content to Linden Lab. Emily appears to have lost control of her own content in the process but that is not something untoward if the terms of the contract stated this was the case.

Terms are important and this is why Second Life content creators are not happy about the TOS change by Linden Lab. One particular cause of concern for Second Life content creators has been :

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. 

Whereas Second Life content creators do not give up their intellectual property rights, they give up a hell of a lot more than they previously had to in other areas. The old TOS for this part read :

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.

That’s a far more friendly reading TOS than the new one. There has been some speculation that the reason for the TOS change was due to SL Go from Onlive. The arguments goes that Linden Lab need to allow Onlive to use Second Life content and therefore the TOS had to be changed to allow this service to run.

However I don’t buy this argument, first let’s look at what Onlive say about their relationship with Linden Lab in their FAQ :

Q. What is your relationship with Linden Lab?

Linden Lab, the maker of Second Life, has made their viewer and service available to customers via OnLive under license for OnLive to deliver it as a service from its data centers. SL Go is a product of OnLive.

Therefore Linden Lab needed the rights to license content to Onlive, but the old TOS gave them that :

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

So I don’t think that’s the reason for the change at all. However what we have seen with the Versu example is that Linden Lab sometimes have to make decisions which seem a little cruel. I mean it would be nice of them to allow Versu to live, I believe there’s a lot of potential in Versu and it’s such a shame that Linden Lab appear to be taking such a hard line on this. However Linden Lab have to make a business decision based on what they feel is best for them.

However, on the other side of the coin this is exactly why the TOS issues should be rectified sooner rather than later. I don’t believe Linden Lab have any ill intent towards Second Life content creators at this moment in time. However the new TOS does allow Linden Lab to play the part of the evil empire if they so wish, it would of course be madness for them to do so but if a situation arises in the future where they need to play the super baddie role, they could. The TOS should be straightened out.

The very least that should be happening is that Linden Lab should be talking to content creators and explaining, where they can, why this change is needed, that would certainly fit in with Ebbe’s desire for Linden Lab to be transparent.

Tweet