Second Life Lawsuit Over Copied Goods Settled

from the just-like-that dept

Just after we discussed yet another bad situation involving bringing real world laws into virtual worlds involving World of Warcraft, it looks like there's an update on another such case we discussed last year. In this case, it was a dispute between two members of Second Life, one of whom had "copied" items made by another and started selling them. This seemed perfectly ridiculous, since being a virtual world where there is no scarcity, nothing was being stolen. Indeed, it looks like the participants in the lawsuit more or less came to the same conclusion. They've "settled" the case, but by settling, it sounds like they really meant giving up the case. No money is exchanging hands and no one is admitting to any guilt. That sounds a lot more like they're just dropping the case.

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits, second life, virtual worlds

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Mike (profile), 17 Apr 2008 @ 10:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: IP: socialist monopoly or capitalist prope

    Next, innovation from competition in the way that you sight it is an inaccurate use. It should be innovation arises from the incentive that competition spurs. If competition no longer provides an incentive to innovate, innovation will not arise from competition.

    Can you explain when competition does not provide the incentive to innovate?

    Also, you quote Jefferson and Madison's worries but overlook the fact that they eventually did believe that some sort of protective measure must be implemented. This is no small overstatement.

    Er, how did I overlook it. I explained in quite clearly:

    But I note they were clearly ambivalent about it.

    This argument is posed over and over again and is consistently rejected and countered through congressional findings.

    Congressional findings aren't exactly rigorous research. What Congressional findings show is a correlation.

    And could you find more sources than Levine's book and Bessen's book, they are only a small portion of the community involved in this discussion and they are not exactly objective.

    I have mentioned Bessen's book twice, maybe three times. I do quote some of Levine's book, but mainly because he points to a ton of other research. I also point to the research of Eric Schiff (even more than Levine). And the research of Petra Moser. And Eric Maskin. And Mark Lemley. And Joe Steiglitz. And Paul Romer. And Michael Perelmann. And Milton Friedman. And a bunch of others. To say I only talk about Levine and Bessen is simply incorrect.

    This is not to say that our current system is perfect, or that competition is not beneficial; it is, but a statement that if you are not incentivising (sic.) people to spend vasts amounts of resources in creating these innovations, you should not be surprised when progression ceases.

    Let's see. I pointed to actual research to prove my point -- even if you disagree with it. Your response is to simply say it's untrue and point to nothing to back it up.

    Which is more credible?

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.