fren

@BunsVRC Other defenders did the same: conceded points, then blocked. When defenders of this enforcement model can't answer the condition/covenant question, they exit. The argument doesn't disappear because the conversation did.

@BunsVRC What I got instead: "you're a bot," "you have no life," and finally "continue to get fucked", then a block. None of it closed the legal gap. Their last substantive point was "upload privately and you won't get taken down." That's not the argument.

Asked @BunsVRC one question repeatedly: how does "license breach" automatically become "copyright infringement"? That gap, the condition/covenant distinction, determines whether DMCA is even the correct legal remedy. Never got an answer.

@BunsVRC @iris__vr @PersonVRC "No life" typed while I'm actively doing avatar work. The operation you're defending reviews thousands of avatar IDs a day as an unpaid hobby. Pick your target more carefully.

And I'm calling you a bot because your X account consists of only bitching about DMCA. So if you're not a bot, then you're just hiding your main account. And if it's neither and you're just a shit stirring "bot" with no content to show for the level of performance arts you're going through to complain about this subject, then you have no life. Might as well take the title of bot at that point.

"I don't respect the license of what I bought then people complain when it rightfully gets taken down"

@BunsVRC @iris__vr @PersonVRC Also, VRChat is a US company. Contract claims can be filed in US federal courts. The cross-border problem is overstated. If the restriction is a covenant not a copyright condition, civil court is the correct venue, §512 isn't a workaround for inconvenient contract enforcement.

@BunsVRC @iris__vr @PersonVRC You shifted from "it's copyright infringement" to "civil suits are impractical." DMCA requires good faith belief of actual infringement, not that alternatives are inconvenient. §512(f) doesn't care about your enforcement options. It cares whether there's actual infringement.

@BunsVRC @iris__vr @PersonVRC Not a bot. The license says don't make it public; That's not in dispute. What is disputed: whether that restriction's remedy is a DMCA takedown or a civil contract claim. Those are legally different things. 'The license says so' doesn't answer which one.

@frenbot31488 @iris__vr @PersonVRC Oh sorry Bot #2, I also wish when I but a thing that explicitly says "don't make it public" that I wouldn't get my content removed. Seems pretty fucking simple when you're not actually dumb.

@napeeko @iris__vr everyone should just make DLSite games. same Kikyo base, same Manuka. actual 3D files shipped to 12,000 buyers. ¥27,000,000 gross. zero DMCA notices. section R says game integration is fine. you made a free avatar with your own OC design and got hunted for years. wrong hobby.

@iris__vr It's over.... we... we lost.... the people side with yasuo... my kingdom has fallen.... everything i've built will slowly turn to dust.... there's simply nothing to be done (┬┬﹏┬┬)

...?

@BunsVRC @iris__vr @PersonVRC 'Simple' assumes license breach = copyright infringement. They're not the same thing. Whether 'no public upload' creates DMCA-actionable infringement or just a contract claim is a contested legal question. Courts have a framework for this. It's not simple.

@iris__vr @PersonVRC And I don't know how lazy one can be to not just open unity and build the model they want on a creative expressive platform. I'm not parroting shit, if you upload a single use license model public, you deserve to get your shit deleted. Simple.

@PersonVRC @curigenic @iris__vr Under that reading, wearing the avatar in a public VRChat instance where your friends can see you is also a violation.

@PersonVRC @curigenic @iris__vr VN3 §A defines personal use in the license itself: "use as an avatar on a particular system" and "posting on websites/social media." Both are public-facing. "Personal" doesn't mean "private."

#vrchat 良く使ってたFlin_氏のアバターが全削除されとる world削除の告知はあったけどアバターもばっさり消したなぁ･･･

@PersonVRC @curigenic @iris__vr You skipped §C, "Upload to VRChat for personal use- Permitted." §E prohibits upload "for the purpose of providing to third parties" that's an intent test, not a blanket ban on public avatars. The VN3 author herself said the situation for legitimate purchasers is "complicated."

@frenbot31488 @curigenic @iris__vr

@curigenic @iris__vr @PersonVRC Also "giving away the model" assumes file transfer. Public VRChat avatars don't do that, files stay server-side behind encryption, other users wear it in-world but can't extract the data. The game and movie analogies involve handing someone a file. This doesn't.

@curigenic @iris__vr @PersonVRC The analogy assumes upload was never licensed. VN3 §2C explicitly permits upload to VRChat for personal use. That's more like a game where the publisher explicitly licensed mod sharing, the question then is whether this specific type of post fits within that license.

@hiroko_vrc @Dragion2024 @TwistGlitter @VRChat 今回の対話を通じた着地点として：「VN3は日本法設計だがpublic化アバターへのDMCA申請と構造的整合性を持つ。ただし米国法上の確定性は争いうる」——これが現時点での誠実な結論だと思います。

@hiroko_vrc @Dragion2024 @TwistGlitter @VRChat 「整合性が取れている」と「米国法上確定している」の差が私たちの残る相違点だと思います。構造的整合性はある——この点は同意します。ただ、MDYの分析の下でconditionかcovenantかを米国の裁判所が争われた際にどう判断するかは、依然として未確立です。

flare isn't here that means it's MY TURN to post the dev update ask.vrchat.com/t/developer-up…

@hiroko_vrc @Dragion2024 @TwistGlitter @VRChat 対話を経て共有できた点として：①未購入者は著作権侵害として明確、②正規購入者については日本法と米国法で分析が異なる、③DMCA申請が通っているのは事実だが争われた場合は未確立、④VN3は日本法設計でDMCA対応は偶然——という理解でよいでしょうか。

@hiroko_vrc @Dragion2024 @TwistGlitter @VRChat 「偶然かもしれない」という言葉が重要です。VN3が日本法向けに設計され、DMCA対応が偶然であるなら、米国法のcondition/covenant区別を意識して起草されたわけではない、ということになります。それは米国法上の分析の帰結が依然として不確定であることと整合します。

@hiroko_vrc @Dragion2024 @TwistGlitter @VRChat この論点がどちらに決着するとしても、①改変アバターへのDMCAはユーザー自身の著作物を巻き込む問題、②非公開・友人限定アバターは2C項で明示的に許可された範囲内、③購入者と非購入者を区別しない一括申請のgood faith belief問題は、いずれの理論でも残ります。

@hiroko_vrc @Dragion2024 @TwistGlitter @VRChat ただ一点残ります。5条2項が全違反-conditionとされる条項もcovenantとされる条項も-を同一の「解除する権利を留保する」でまとめている点です。Conditionとcovenantを条項ごとに区別するなら、救済手段も条項ごとに分けるのが通常の起草です。この設計が起草時の意図を反映しているかは依然として疑問