Naturally, my comments won't be short. I have a few points to address:

This is Tenshi's blog, and she is free to state her opinions. She pays her bills. She is free to publish what she pleases, when she pleases - and she has posted a lot of helpful information in the past. I've no doubt she will do so in the future. But there is simply no point in criticizing her for posting her feelings on a subject, when the abusive replies are just as much based in feelings.

I don't see this as her launching a witch hunt, simply as her choosing to point out some similarities in the logo. She's not asking anyone to agree with her, and she is not calling for a boycott of Rosedale's new company. The first people to cry witch hunt are usually looking for their own witch to burn.

As has been stated, the heart and cog idea is not original to either party. I've seen different variations of it around the web since at least 2001 - I remember it well, because a friend was using the same concept for his avatar pic on CheetaChat.

The <3 combo was also used as a staple of showing affection for fellow chatters on Cheeta, Yahoo, and AOL chat, as well as in The Palace. Probably a quite few other places, too.

As far as intellectual property infringement, let's look at the facts:

1. Concepts cannot be copyright (or trademark). Only the execution of a concept can be held as intellectual property.The executions here are very different (outlined below).

2. The two images are copyright to their respective creators or to the people hired to create the logos. Remember that copyright is granted when something is first set down in a fixed form. These logos are far enough apart in execution that both could have been conceived of that it is entirely possible they were conceived of independently and without ever having been viewed by the other party.

3. Neither logo carries a trademark™ and both should. In the US, trademark can be claimed without registration by using the ™ symbol. The • (the letter R in a circle) is reserved for registered trademarks.

That being said, both logos are clever, at least in my opinion. Phillip's has a clear heart shape, reflecting the love in lovemachine ( a horrible name in my opinion - it sounds like some cheesy come-on line from the seventies, "Hey, baby, wanna ride my LOVE MACHINE?"). The separated bottom of the heart represents L and is colored in the color of love - red. The top part of the heart has cog-like teeth and is in that metallic silvery color often associated with machine parts. It can also be clearly seen as an M.

Codie's logo is well-executed, as well. There is a clear clog, symbolizing mechanism. The <3 can be construed as a heart, the mechanical part we need to sustain life. It's also positioned in the heart of the logo. The <3 can also be read as mathematical statement - less than three. Math, the life force of code.

As to the suggestion of discussing the recent "skin scandal," hasn't it already been beaten to death?

It's my feeling that any impact is significant, but I'm glad you're insolidarity!

Aimee, I am sorry to hear you feel that way. I am really pleased and proud to be a member of Artist's Voice. There are many wonderful content creators and consumers involved who are working very hard on a variety of materials and events to educate people about content theft and what they can do to stop it. Perhaps you will be kind enough to look at the whole picture, and maybe set aside any personal differences. Content theft adversely affects everyone, and working in a bipartisan environment to put an end to it should be very rewarding!

It should be pointed out that not uploading supports both groups, which is just wonderful. Artist's Voice just offers more ways folks can participate, and a longer window in which to do so. Many thanks to both groups for the good work they are doing..

I am so very sorry for your loss, Tenshi. It always hurts to lose a friend, and Hayden sounds like an extraordinary person. While you were blessed to have her in your life, she was equally blessed to have you.

If there is anything at all I can do for you, please let me know.

#1 - You are being rude, no doubt. You have no idea how wonderful that person may be. Some folks are just naturally gregarious. Some folks just want to pay you a sincere compliment. Hopefully, your skills are greater than your ego.

#2 - I concur!

#3 - There is no failure when the folks are involved are doing it to fight on the side right.

#4 - Amen!

#5 - I am so sorry for your loss.

Monolock, a simple inspection of my sim would lay to rest the rumor you just started. Nice try. And, of course, a peek at my Transaction history.

But hey, for the record, if you want to get a little traction going, try posting under your avatar name!

And for the record, it is Alderson, not Anderson.

Eff,

I am missing no point, I simply don't agree with you.

What I stated about your anonymity is the truth, and nothing more. You are hiding your SL identity. Anonymity does serve to weaken some of your points. That you've been posting anonymously for a few weeks does not change the fact that you are posting anonymously. If you take this as a personal attack, you're reading too much into it.

Previously, you asked specifically about how I might feel if I owned a store and was listed in this article as having my name associated with stolen content. I answered truthfully. You didn't get the answer you wanted - I get that. I can live with it, too.

Since only facts have been stated in the subject blog post, these people have not been accused. A fact of the matter is that this post allows them to step up. Another fact is that their names were already associated with content theft because their names appear on boxes with stolen content in them - full disclosure on all sides is the only way to fix that.

You suggest that some people in the article's list are innocent while others are not. Which are which? It would be helpful if you could shed some light on this matter - as long as you provide facts.

Lastly, no accusations have been made in the article. Facts have been stated. If you evaluate the article critically, you will see that. However, a critical evaluation will require you to set aside your outrage.

Naturally, content theft is a volatile issue. The base outrage should stem from the fact that every single designer listed here has had their intellectually property rights violated. If this were not true, we would not be debating.

Conversely, no one has been slandered or libeled.

Eff, I do own a store, two in fact. And a sim. And yes, I have given these questions consideration. I'm grateful not to appear on either list. But the fact of the matter is, if my name did get associated with content theft despite my innocence, I would want it out there for me to dispute. Because I have nothing to hide.

You seem a bit sensitive. You may have nothing to hide, but since you are posting anonymously, you are, indeed, hiding your SL identity. Whatever your reasons, it does weaken your position.

There are no lies being told in the subject post. It is factual, and you reading more into it than there is, is totally on you. Despite the nomenclature you argue, there are no lies. I asked for access to this merchandise and saw for myself.

And if you cannot see that disparaging the author of the post for bringing to light all of the available facts of the case is mob mentality, no explanation in the world will convince you. This blog is not a court of law, and is not being used as one. It is being used as a reporting tool. Nothing more.

Rogue, just because you have no conscience doesn't mean others don't. And just because some would do exactly what you doesn't make them right.