Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Taser International Sues Second Life Creator Over Virtual Replicas

Posted by Soulskill on from the wait-what dept.

Massively is reporting on a lawsuit filed by Taser International against Linden Lab, the company behind Second Life, over in-game sales of virtual replicas of Taser's products. Quoting: "Basically, a few people in Second Life make some digital replicas of Taser's products that do not have the same function as Taser's products, or props that have the Taser name, but do not have any functions or resemblance similar to Taser products. Some of these content creators also manufacture/sell material that Taser describes as pornographic, or offensive, and they feel that their brand is being linked with these prurient materials, and that they're losing business and sales to Linden Lab. ... Normally you'd just have the content creators named as defendants. Taser's complaint doesn't show much (if any) understanding of what's going on, but it does seem as if they have inadvertently hit a nail on the head. Since Linden Lab's acquisition of Xstreet SL, the Lab is no longer mediating transactions between buyers and sellers. Xstreet SL arguably retails on behalf of sellers, and takes a commission. It's going to be difficult to argue that the Lab/Xstreet SL is not selling these items. That potentially places the Lab in the liability loop."

19 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. second life? by Turiko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    when you register, linden labs clearly states that what the people make is their work, and linden labs doesn't interfere... so why does taser try this? They need to contact the maker, but of course it's easier to get linden labs.

    1. Re:second life? by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some nutcase judge is probably going to rule against LL.

      Judicial ignorance of modern technology is at an all time high these days after all.

    2. Re:second life? by jamesh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      when you register, linden labs clearly states that what the people make is their work, and linden labs doesn't interfere... so why does taser try this?

      Because having that disclaimer there doesn't (necessarily) mean squat.

      If you have a sign in your shop that says "we don't give refunds", and a court orders you to do a refund, then you give a refund.

      If you have a sign in your playground that says "enter at own risk. we are not liable if you hurt yourself", and someone hurts themselves, and a court deems that you were negligent, then you will be liable.

      Forget about the "right thing" here because Taser don't care.

      They need to contact the maker, but of course it's easier to get linden labs.

      I think you've answered your own question there. Not just because it's easier, but because it's more likely to succeed.

      It could be an interesting court case though...

      Taser: Someone is making Taser branded dildo's in your game. Make them stop and give us some money for damaging the image of our products.
      Linden: You can't sue us, you have to sue the person playing the game who is responsible for infringing on your trademark.
      Taser: Okay then, who is that?
      Linden: We're not going to tell you, without a court order.

      time passes...

      Taser: Here's a court order, give up the details
      Linden: Hmmm... all we seem to have is a name "I. P. Freely" and a post office box in Sweden. Maybe you should contact their ISP?
      Taser: What is their ISP?
      Linden: We can't give you that information without a court order

      and so on.

    3. Re:second life? by jamesh · · Score: 5, Funny

      Taser: Someone is making Taser branded dildo's in your game.

      Actually instead of suing, maybe Taser should start making them in real life?

      Taser - Electrify your love life!

    4. Re:second life? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is trademark infringement, not copyright infringement. The DMCA doesn't apply at all, trademark law does.

      There would be little to no case if the items hadn't been branded "Taser". I believe there are cases for trademark infringement on the design of the device, if the original is distinct enough and the immitator is close enough.

      If it were a copyright case it would be pretty open and shut - Taser doesn't sell a digital version of their device, so recreating the device in the game is fair use. Selling it should even be fine, as long as you don't brand it Taser or pretend you are from Taser, cause that's trademark infringement. Hence, this case. ;)

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    5. Re:second life? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd be shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:second life? by Hellershanks · · Score: 2, Informative

      well it's in the ToS for SL and SLX

      Plus it's not LL/SLX's job to look for possible infringement, that is the burden that rests on the owners of said rights.

      There is a button on every SLX item that allows them to be reported for infringement, like when a ton of NFL content showed up (and you think Taser is evil... you ain't seen nothing compared to the NFL's trademark lawyers... and yet all they did was report it and get it removed.)

  2. Trademark Scope by maroberts · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Trademark scope is narrowly defined and may not be recognised in a virtual world...

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:Trademark Scope by julesh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Trademark scope is narrowly defined and may not be recognised in a virtual world...

      Forget for a moment the entire virtual world aspect of this, as its legal ramifications are (at present) totally unknown.

      Ignoring that, what we have is a company (Linden Labs) selling data which when loaded into software that runs on client PCs causes that screen to display an image of something that looks like one of Taser's products. When selling this data, they are explicitly stating that it is modelled on one of Taser's products.

      Frankly, I don't see the difference here to somebody selling a stock photo of one of Taser's products, for example. What Corbis are selling in that link has no significant differences that I can see from what Linden are selling. Except that Corbis's looks better, while Linden's is more useful because you can view it from any angle.

    2. Re:Trademark Scope by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a difference. Imagine all that you said, but replace Taser with Mercedes. The virtual world part cannot be ignored. What LL is doing is 'selling' something that when combined with the virtual world has the ability to look like someone's product. LL did not create this 'something' nor do they promote it any differently than they promote any other products being virtually sold to virtual people in a virtual world.

      The DMCA (w/s)ould apply.

      BTW, I can create something that is modeled on anyone's product and sell it. I believe that a great number of artists have done this in the past. There are a great number of watches that you can buy which are recreations of some other watch or are modeled on other watches. This list of things goes on and on. Being modeled after something means nothing. Being an exact replica and being marketed as the copied object... that means something.

      In SL there are replicas of a great many things. Should they all be illegal?

      Now, if Taser wants to apply the DMCA and start selling their own products in SL the original devices can be renamed "The Shocker" which I'm sure will sell just as well.

      I don't think Taser has much, if any, legal grounds here. Regarding the SL market? They have nothing but FAIL. There are a lot of folk on SL that are similar to /b/. Chances of Taser getting anything good out of this now? Zero.

      --
      Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
  3. I think it pertinent by Starmengau · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ....that I had absolutely no idea there was such a company, and have thought for at least 15 years that "taser" was a generic term.

    --
    Please help me pay for room & board.
    1. Re:I think it pertinent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The company itself became famous on slashdot and the internet for attempting to influence coroners' reports to suppress theories that their products killed people

  4. does not compute by ChienAndalu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it my hangover or is the sentence?

    Basically, a few people in Second Life make some digital replicas of Taser's products that do not have the same function as Taser's products, or props that have the Taser name, but do not have any functions or resemblance similar to Taser products.

    So... what did those few people do?

    1. Re:does not compute by asdfx · · Score: 2, Funny

      I like that the sentence begins with the benignly presupposing phrase, "Basically...", as if the material following it is set to simplify and clarify the content of the article. Then it goes on to make things more incoherent, with poor use, of punctuation, in, the explanation,. comma, comma, period.p

      In other words, "blarf grrblle grble, lasne en fragne, rabble rabble rabble, chuck norris."

  5. Re:Everyone in Second Life is gonna yell by Barradrewda · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't sue me bro!

    Fixed it for you.

  6. GTA version is the "Teaser" by dohzer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just the other day I was wondering why the Taser was called a 'Teaser' in the Nindendo DS game 'GTA: Chinatown Wars'. Now I know. :)
    I was thinking it was just a joke.

  7. Re:Get a life! by Bashae · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, they should give up their second lives and get first lives.

    Then they could spend them here on Slashdot like the rest of us.

  8. It's about protecting trademarks & brand ident by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This seems pretty cut and dried to me. This is not like Monster Cable suing a mini-golf place. Monster is a word that existed in the English language long before it was ever used to describe cables. Taser on the other hand is an invented word and is therefore trademarkable and should be protected. It no different than somebody trying to pass off a Zune as an iPod, virtual or otherwise.

  9. Re:It's about protecting trademarks & brand id by Hellershanks · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here is the thing: It is more akin to youtube than the classifieds

    If someone on youtube uses trademark or copyright materials, youtube as a corporate entity knows nothing about it because they do not vet or veto any content uploads.

    They have no hand in the content creation at all (unlike say There where everything has to go through corporate governance)

    So till the corporation brings it to LL/SLX's attention they can't act because they know nothing about it (a good example was during the superbowl there was a ton of NFL related merchandise put up on SLX, but was taken down swiftly both there as soon as the NFL contacted SLX with the links to the content.)

    The links on SLX include report item button, for just such issues.

    It is not LL or SLX that has to look out for the infringement, it is the legal team of the corporation that holds said rights.