Taser International Sues Second Life

[BobisOnlyBob]

...Linden Labs and their service for selling goods are being blamed for their user's violation.

it dosent matter in the end its there fault.

Is Google responsible for copyrighted content being uploaded to YouTube?

If you honestly believe that, that's okay, that's a reasonable opinion to have, but the media companies shouldn't be suing Google over it either. They should be issuing DMCA Takedown Requests, and only progressing to lawsuit after that. I suspect this case will be resolved quickly, without damages awarded, and the offending product removed throughout both XStreet SL and the asset server of Second Life.

 

[Leorex]

...Linden Labs and their service for selling goods are being blamed for their user's violation.

it dosent matter in the end its there fault.

Is Google responsible for copyrighted content being uploaded to YouTube?

If you honestly believe that, that's okay, that's a reasonable opinion to have, but the media companies shouldn't be suing Google over it either. They should be issuing DMCA Takedown Requests, and only progressing to lawsuit after that. I suspect this case will be resolved quickly, without damages awarded, and the offending product removed throughout both XStreet SL and the asset server of Second Life.

i agree, by the sound of it they have jumped into a law suit, with out asking for the removal of any offending meteral.

 

[BobisOnlyBob]

A resounding Ooooooh ok. Well thanks for explaining that. Sounds interesting, actually it sounds like the sims meets-craigslist-meets a dirty massage parlor. But what do i know

Hah! It is a little like that in places. People build houses and roleplay, and sometimes even meet fellow roleplayers and end up with their own game of "House" online where all the imaginary rooms and such are physically represented and interactive...

Others, like IBM, use it for high-priority international meetings with their staff, managers and programmers alike, and use the 3D tools to build diagrams, prototypes, or express complex slideshow-like elements without the need for a conventional projector or live video feed. The mix of text, video and audio inworld can be a mixed blessing; for them, it's a definite boon.

Yet more, like myself, use it as a social-learning platform: I write code, create small trinkets, make 3D maps and chat to likeminded people about Transhuman ideas and the future of the species.

Others are just there for the gambling, sex, and violence. Tringo and the Casinos used to flood the land, cut back recently; perverts abound in every corner of the Grid not marked "PG"; trolls, griefers and spammers round out the motley 3D web.

It's a messed-up Second Life.

 

[scotth266]

BIG SNIP

Well, at least that makes sense now. And I know that Amazon sells tentacle porn: for a short time it was in my recommended list for some odd reason. I think it was because I purchased a volume of Gantz. That's the only thing that I've bought off Amazon even close to tentacle porn.

My adventures with Amazon aside, at least things are a little clearer now thanks to you.

 

[BobisOnlyBob]

BIG SNIP

Well, at least that makes sense now. And I know that Amazon sells tentacle porn: for a short time it was in my recommended list for some odd reason. I think it was because I purchased a volume of Gantz. That's the only thing that I've bought off Amazon even close to tentacle porn.

My adventures with Amazon aside, at least things are a little clearer now thanks to you.

Ew. I think it's because Gantz gets pretty damn heavy at times, and a lot of Japanese Adult Animation actually has the pretence of having a plot. They're almost invariably bad, but then you get a series like Elfen Lied - which for all its blood, nudity and violence is actually respectable in quality and story. Amazon gets them all confused, and lists them invariably with things associated.

The same "unintelligent listing" results in the problem Taser is claiming: listing product "Scary Weapon X" alongside "Adults Only Y" on the same site that hosts "Children's Book Z"... it's inevitable with massive sites like Amazon and XStreet SL, but inevitably the predatory lawyer invokes this "fact" in order to put the bias in their client's favour. Judging by the replies before my rant, it affects the unaware crowd just as much as the judge and the jury... it may be truth, but it's entirely out of context. Were I the defence, I would invoke the similarities with Amazon's practice to dismiss that claim out-of-hand. The copyright and trademark infringement, however, is a different issue...

 

[bkd69]

The copyright and trademark infringement, however, is a different issue...

Those are the claims I find most interesting.

As far as copyright goes, there isn't any. I mean, unless people are scanning in and posting Taser's service and operations manuals into Second Life, but I don't think anybody's doing that in this case.

Trademark, otoh, is quite interesting, and the thing that makes it interesting, is that Taser Intl's trademark is based on a word coined in anow public domain book.

Trademark law is designed to fight counterfeiting and consumer confusion. Taser Int'l has a 30 year history of using the term Taser to refer to electrical personal protection and law enforcement devices. They have a pretty solid trademark claim there.

If the SL creators are creating virtual electronic stunning devices that are visually similar, and have the some product names and model numbers as Taser Intl's products, and are using the name 'Taser,' then they're SOL.

However, that trademark certainly wouldn't extend to cover the use of the term TASER to identify a weapon in a hypothetical video game adaptation of the original source, Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle, or, Daring Adventures in Elephant Land.

Now the question becomes, where in between those two poles, deliberate virtual models of actual Taser Int'l products on the one hand, and a virtual model of the original TASER in the context of its source material on the other, do these virtual objects lie, and would a reasonable consumer actually consider that the virtual objects in question are being offered by, or are products of, Taser Int'l?

 

[Sigenrecht]

If I was a lawyer, I wouldn't touch this with a pole. A rubber pole, mind you. I mean, so it doesn't conduct electricity, not aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh--

 

[BobisOnlyBob]

The copyright and trademark infringement, however, is a different issue...

Those are the claims I find most interesting.

As far as copyright goes, there isn't any. I mean, unless people are scanning in and posting Taser's service and operations manuals into Second Life, but I don't think anybody's doing that in this case.

Trademark, otoh, is quite interesting, and the thing that makes it interesting, is that Taser Intl's trademark is based on a word coined in anow public domain book.

Trademark law is designed to fight counterfeiting and consumer confusion. Taser Int'l has a 30 year history of using the term Taser to refer to electrical personal protection and law enforcement devices. They have a pretty solid trademark claim there.

If the SL creators are creating virtual electronic stunning devices that are visually similar, and have the some product names and model numbers as Taser Intl's products, and are using the name 'Taser,' then they're SOL.

However, that trademark certainly wouldn't extend to cover the use of the term TASER to identify a weapon in a hypothetical video game adaptation of the original source, Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle, or, Daring Adventures in Elephant Land.

Now the question becomes, where in between those two poles, deliberate virtual models of actual Taser Int'l products on the one hand, and a virtual model of the original TASER in the context of its source material on the other, do these virtual objects lie, and would a reasonable consumer actually consider that the virtual objects in question are being offered by, or are products of, Taser Int'l?

As far as I can tell - if the image The Escapist has provided is the accurate and exact item listing on SLX*, then the item in question is a mere "Prim** Replica" of the real-world design, with either hand-crafted replica textures, or photographic textures taken from real-world items. I doubt the court case will go to that level of excessive detail, but that's where the crux of the matter is.

If this product does not include the name TASER anywhere (and it appears not to, although this may not be the case) then this is a classic case of "AKA 47 [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AKA47]" and the content creator is most likely in the clear on that account. However, from that Wiki:

Arguably, a trademark registration for the gun's shape would be used to stop someone else from manufacturing the product. Without actually using the name, in order to argue 'tarnishment' or some other claim regarding a trademark, the manufacturer would have to show in court that the shape of the weapon was well known by the public - or possibly with gun users - such that the use in the game in some way causes them injury to the goodwill associated with that mark. A potentially much higher legal standard with respect to a weapon's image over its name. There can also be (for games in the U.S.) First Amendment issues with respect to use of an image (or the name) for the purpose of exposition (describing a gun by its name or by an image of it.)

You see, Trademarks can protect shapes and symbols as well as words. I believe the shape of Mickey Mouse's head - the iconic "three linked circles" design - is a trademark under a large number of contexts. In this case, the Trademark in question may be violated by the design of his weapon and the accuracy. He IS copying the design, and he IS selling it, even if not in the same context. The trademark may not cover networked virtual environments, but it probably covers a broader context of "schematic or detailed digital representation" - which this may well fall afoul of. It depends on the level of detail, the texture's origins (photographic or handmade), their incorporation of any logos or TASER Int'l identification, and finally on the level and capability of the lawyers in question. This might very well be a messy case if it plays out to that length.

*XStreet SL was formerly called SL Exchange, or SLX for short. Their site's name, slexchange.com, caused a lot of giggling.

**Prim - short for Primitive - is the fundamental building block of all objects in Second Life.

If I was a lawyer, I wouldn't touch this with a pole. A rubber pole, mind you. I mean, so it doesn't conduct electricity, not aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh--

I hear ya. Messy case indeed.

 

[Doug]

...GAAAAAH!

This is just ridiculous, and kind of creepy. Why are Tasers being mentioned in a sex toy selling area to begin with?

Wait, no. Damnit, I thought of Rule 34, and thus, there is Taser porn. Everybody enjoy!

Someone destroy that rule.
Furthermore....
Second life is VERY weird.

Its not the game, its the people - people are wierd. Add to that a level of anonymity and a place where society can't judge, or barely judges, you get all sorts of wierd crap. *points at rule 34*

 

[thenumberthirteen]

If this actually goes to court and they win then the entire of Second Life will grind to a halt. Virtually everything in there is in breach of someone's copyright.

 

[johnman]

Well at least its not a retardedly high amount, $75,000 is quite small considering that most Americans sue $20,000,000 for somthign as simple as hurt feelings. Its hard to tell from this article but i think second life is a stupid idea anyway and anyone trying to sue it is even stupider

 

[whaleswiththumbs]

A weird lawsuit for a weird game...

 

[samsonguy920]

From what I understand, so far the only two parties who stand a fart's chance in a tornado is XStreet and the person who created that device in-game. Linden Labs makes it quite clear in their legal jargon that they lay no claim to anything made in game. LL through XStreet will probably mail an apology and fix the annoying listing, and Linden Labs will possibly ban the offending creator, leaving the creator at the mercy of Taser's lawyers. But even then Taser has a weak case. Frankly I am at a loss why Taser is spending wads of money on a case against someone who is freely promoting their product in a harmless fashion. If a customer zaps someone else in Second Life for fun, there is no harm. My bet's on the case either settling, or just getting dismissed and most likely someone in Taser's company getting booted for being a moron.

 

[AbsoluteVirtue18]

.............Really? My god......why does this crap ever even get thought up? Next thing you know children are going to sue their parents for grounding them.......never mind.