Posted in Civil Procedure, Content Creators, Copyright Law, Eros, Eros v. John Doe, Lawsuits, Linden Lab, Providers, Second Life, Trademark Law, Virtual Law, Virtual Worlds & Games |

Related Posts on Virtually Blind

Defendant Named in Eros Intellectual Property Suit: "Eros, LLC has filed an amended complaint (.pdf) naming Robert..." (10 comments)

Eros Copyright Lawsuit Update: PayPal to Identify “Some Kind of N00b”: "As VB predicted two weeks ago, Reuters is now reporting that the ..." (4 comments)

Eros Reaches Settlement With Robert Leatherwood a/k/a Second Life’s ‘Volkov Catteneo’: "Eros, LLC, a Second Life adult-animation creator, has reached a..." (2 comments)

10 Responses to “Linden Lab Produces Documents Responsive to Eros’ Subpoena in SexGen Intellectual Property Suit”

1. on 06 Aug 2007 at 4:50 pm1 Nobody Fugazi
   

   You know, I still don’t see the copyright case… I honestly don’t. Using the ‘Sexgen’ name has been done throughout SL, since Sexgen appears to be the Coca Cola of such things – but there has been no indication that there was any actual copying of things.

2. on 06 Aug 2007 at 5:09 pm2 pbody
   

   No confidentiality agreements…? If so…

   Resident A competes economically in Second Life against resident B. Resident A sues resident B in case without merit. Linden Lab happily hands over a lot of irrelevant information to resident A’s lawyer.

   Chat logs include discussions about new products and personal discussions that could damage resident B’s business reputation, but otherwise are not wrongful.

   Resident A is now within arm’s length of information that can be used as competitive business advantage and other information that can be “leaked” to ruin competitor B’s business.

   Congratulations Linden Lab for respecting your privacy policy and setting such faith inducing precedents.

3. on 06 Aug 2007 at 6:05 pm3 Benjamin Duranske
   

   pbody – Good question. The parties would generally reach an agreement about how the documents like that would be “marked.”

   This gets into the nuts and bolts of litigation a little bit, but basically, whenever documents are produced they’re stamped (now, it’s typically done electronically) with little numbers. For instance, these documents might be stamped LL-1 through LL-200 (or whatever). In addition to the number, documents are frequently stamped with a confidentiality legend. One is “Highly Confidential – Attorney Eyes Only.” Documents marked like that can’t be shown to the client, and it’s frequently done that way to avoid exactly the problem you’re describing.

   The big question is whether Linden Lab would view itself as having any obligation to do that under the terms of service and any privacy policies, and without more research, I just don’t know the answer to that. I’ll do a little digging and see what I can come up with. Any readers already familar with the possible provisions that would govern this?

4. on 06 Aug 2007 at 6:18 pm4 Benjamin Duranske
   

   Nobody – I’ve not weighed in on that issue yet, but I probably will at least break down the legal standard and talk about what they’ve claimed at some point. It hit while I was on vacation, and I just never got back to it. I will say this though: I’ve generally found that is that it’s really hard to make predictions on the pleadings. Once the defendant is added (assuming there’s no immediate settlement) we should see a motion to dismiss or two that will provide the first real test of Eros’ case and force a few more cards to the table.

5. on 07 Aug 2007 at 7:38 am5 FlipperPA Peregrine
   

   A few points: the claim states that the offending avatar stole the source code through an exploit, which would clearly be violation of copyright. Also, wasn’t it stated that the SexGen name is trademarked? That would take the question of name out of the realm of copyright.

   Regards,

   -Flip

6. on 07 Aug 2007 at 9:10 am6 Benjamin Duranske
   

   Flipper – those are both accurate points. The trademark claim is to the “SexGen” mark, and the copyright claim is for making and selling “numerous unauthorized copies … and derivative works based on the items.”

   There’s no specifics as to how the copies were made, and a lot of people have focused on that, but it’s less important than it might seem in copyright law.

   For example, if I print up a dozen copies of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, by Benjamin Duranske,” Scholastic would easily win a suit against me whether or not they have video of me typing it into Microsoft Word. They just let the jury look at both and determine if there was “access” and “substantial similarity.”

7. on 09 Aug 2007 at 3:20 pm7 Nobody Fugazi
   

   Benjamin – it is, actually, important I think. This is why:

   I can create a cube prim. You can create a cube prim. We can texture them similarly, and we can put a script in them so that the prim screams when touched.

   Can we sue each other for a copyright violation?

   Let’s say you make a prim as described, and I come along and say, “Oh, he used a library texture and an open source script”. Can I then not use the same texture, the same script, and create the same thing? Of course I can. But would I be violating a copyright?

   The bed itself consists of prims, textures and scripts. The key to this, I think, would be the scripts, as well as animated 3d poses. There was no indication in the filing that the scripts are the same.

   A source claiming to have insider knowledge of all of this swore that the beds were the same. I am unconvinced.

   ‘If the script doesn’t fit, you have to acquit.’

   This does bring in open source licensing, believe it or not – something which Linden Lab has no inherent copyright protections for. Further, it may be able to be demonstrated that the Sex Gen bed itself uses the same script! Which script came first? Ouch.

   This is especially important given that there IS an open source script out there which behaves the same as a ‘sex gen bed’.

   And as far as trademark, even if they get past the fact that the trademark filing happened after the alleged abuse began… in some places, a soft drink is a Coke, regardless of the flavor. In Second Life, a sex bed is often called a sex-gen in the same way. In fact, changing people’s vocabulary that way may work against Eros in a business sense… but in a legal sense… I’m not convniced.

8. on 19 Aug 2007 at 8:19 am8 Marc
   

   Isn’t it a little bit like filing lawsuit for inhumane killing too many monsters in game? Such things should be resolved by their own SL court. Would be much simplier.

9. on 20 Aug 2007 at 1:00 pm9 Benjamin Duranske
   

   Marc – the funny thing about your comment is that there really is a real world lawsuit for killing too many monsters (well, gold farming, anyway) too.

   http://virtuallyblind.com/2007/05/29/…gold-farmers…/

   Where the money is, lawsuits are pretty inevitable.  In this case, Eros was making enough to make this worthwhile.  Also, from what I know of the guy behind it, he’s probably hoping to help establish a legal framework for asserting virtual IP rights with this suit.  Overall, I think it’s good for the grid to get a decision or two behind the TOS provisions that say you get to keep the IP you create in some vitual worlds.

    

10. on 16 Sep 2009 at 1:53 pm10 Second Life Sued. Again. You Should Pay Attention This Time. « Broken Toys

    [...] they will be put out of business by exploits they have no power to combat. Alderman in particular has been aggressive about responding to these via the legal system (Grei joining him in the second suit), and this suit [...]

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail