Ann - (who said) "The vast majority of the "vigilantism" you decry that I see involve people actively looking for people wearing obviously copybotted items. They are not hard to spot. Wearing an obvious dev kitties wig yet the wearer is the creator of all the prims"

Okay - try this: buy some prim hair that is copy/modify.
Rez it on the ground.
Edit it.
Shift-drag.
Then INSPECT the copy.

It is OBVIOUSLY a copybot copy.
Right?

Even though you purchased it legally.
Even though the creator has give you the power to copy it.
Even though the creator has given you the power to modify it.
It is still *wrong* to shift-drag-copy what you have legally purchased and are allowed to do... because it is an obvious copybot copy.

I have two friends who did this very thing - they were AR'd for copybot infringement. Fortunately LL investigated and it went nowhere. It doesn't matter why they did that, only that the so-called "do-gooders" ... aren't doing any good.

My entire point is: there is *no such thing* as a "obviously copybotted" item.

Three ways to *legally* create an "obviously copybotted" item:

1) - in any of the "legal" grid viewers that support it: back-up your stuff to your hard disk drive. Then restore your stuff. All prim time-stamps are seconds apart = *obvious* copybot.
2) - Use a fully legal (by Linden Lab's own blog-posts) prim-replicator to mirror that one right shoe you spent a week creating. The left shoe prim time-stamps are within seconds apart. Make a change to that left shoe - whoops - re-mirror for the right shoe. It doesn't matter: they are copybotted - it's *obvious*.
3 - Take *anything* you have copy/modify rights to. Rez it and edit. Shift-drag a copy. The copy is *obviously* copybotted.

So even you, Ann, a Second Life user for years with adept experience on the grid and knowledge how SL works have fallen into the fray of misunderstanding about what is a problem and not a problem at the same time. And is why all "do-gooders" should go straight to the allegedly infringed creator and report only to them as they are the ones who will know whether an infringement actually occurred.

And in the case of someone with "obviously copybotted" shoes because the wearer is also the creator? - if you don't really know who the "original" creator is, it is really best you just leave well enough alone. Or better yet, what if you actually asked that wearer where his shop is so you can see the shoes he's wearing because he created them? Then maybe you'd actually know (if he doesn't have a shop or otherwise brushes you off as that's what a thief will do).

But no - it is easier to start drama in a group and mass AR's against the guy who created his own shoes (yes, true story also) - with no one even asking the guy where he got them.

:|

I am not arguing with you, or intentionally "dissing" you or any of that. Just pointing out where there is no such thing as "obviously copybotted" and how a lot of people who might mean well, are actually causing more problems for others.

@Tateru: thank you. This article is and has been sorely needed for a very, very long time. I wish Linden Lab would take it (with permission of course LOL) and make it a forced-read for every user on the Second Life grid. Like a requisite before logging in or something.