Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoanut Koala  I disagree. Here's why:
1. The permissions box DOES "mark intent."
2. In addition, you could always include something that more clearly marks intent, such as a license (and include a coded way of doing that, if you like, so that it goes along with all your items).
3. It isn't an "either/or" thing. There is no good reason for removing the box entirely, aside from what Gigs pointed out (keeping the uninitiated from believing that copying was impossible), which I don't consider anywhere near a good enough reason to get rid of that box.
4. You can never stop people from breaking things, breaking rules, and in general taking things without paying for them. You will never, ever, ever in this lifetime, achieve "1" on that score. No matter what. (Unless you kill everybody, I guess!) But that doesn't mean the only sensible default position to take is "0". |
1. It does - it's not very good at it, but it does work there. RL licenses are going to require more complex limitations (certainly things like say Trademark policies, etc are going to be needed by RL lawyers on licensed content for example.) - A simple/advanced mode may be a better replacement (Simple =
SL-style permissions [maybe a couple of extra boxes], Advanced = Free-form text field for inputting RL copyright licenses/legalese.)
2. Yes - an automated way of parsing license compatibility is a good idea. I put a proposal on my blog a few weeks back for a modified programming language to allow that.
3. I'd agree there's some validity in being able to quickly and easily tag a license on something (or generate a license where appropriate). I do however strongly recommend LL puts a disclaimer on there however to the effect of "This box generates a license for your content, however please be aware that the only foolproof method of enforcing this license is through international copyright law."
4. No-one's proposing a 'zero', but the
SL permissions as they stand today are around a 0.01 on the 0.0-1.0 scale. People are suggesting this gets replaced with something a little more enforcable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoanut Koala It already IS grounded in RL copyright law. The permissions checkbox doesn't in the least discount the ability of a person to turn to real-life law; in fact, LL keeps telling everyone they can, and (by law) does their part re the DMCA process.
The permissions checkbox is simply an assist to that law. It's not an either/or thing.
If a thing can be done to make it easier to comply with said law (i.e., permissions boxes; clear statement of intent by the people running the online environment), then so much the better. |
No. This is the catch -
SL "Copy/Mod/Transfer" is
*NOT* a license. It's a couple of bits indicating how
SL should handle it on the backend.
The problem is - you never license content to your buyers. If someone buys a piece of content, it's updated in the
SL system to indicate that that user has certain abilities over it, but it never ever gives them a license grant to it.
This needs to be changed to something like:
"You are buying a license for content X.", and then generating appropriate legalese/documentation to back it up. Right now - when you buy something in
SL, you arent buying anything in legal terms.
There's a good case to say that LL dont actually have to enforce DMCA requests for inworld content, because you already uploaded it to the service, and grant Linden complete rights over the content for distributing it as they see fit within the service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoanut Koala For example: If there were a way to completely prevent copying in SL, would you just not do it? And rely on a piece of paper declaring intent instead?
So - since there is a way in SL that does prevent a lot of copying, why throw that out?
No need to throw out the physical impediments to copying simply on some philosophical grounds that it shouldn't be needed, when it can, and does, serve the purpose quite well
In addition, you are discounting the huge psychological difference between a letter that says, "you may not copy my item," and a built-in checkbox that prevents you from copying the item (without an outside program), coupled with a statement from the people who run the online world that you will be kicked out if you do.
Let's be practical. You come into a world where things are available for sale, but everyone knows you can just copy them. No problem at all - just click, and click "take copy." How long do you suppose it is going to take before the economy tanks?
We aren't even talking about words in a book here; we're talking about actual items that receive actual use and in fact are the underpinning of nearly all that is ever done in SL - worn, lived in, traveled in, used for fun as a gadget, sat on at a meeting.
If SL decided to junk its permission system just because copying is physically possible, then there will be no more economy as we know it.
Now that doesn't mean other worlds can't try for some brave new economy! I just don't want this one ruined for the purposes of the economy we now have.
Nor do I want LL taking my things and setting things up so that other grids can easily use them without permissions, and without my approval.
And I truly don't feel that a new world which purposefully blinkers itself to what technological means it could use to prevent copying will succeed as an economy consisting largely of pixel items. (It might succeed as something else, though.) |
Right, no-one is proposing removing permissions, but we are saying there's a *lot* of informing to go on where they have limits, and people need to realise that they are going to get weaker over time, especially as population (and hence anonyminity) increases.
The heart of it is -
SL's not going to change too much over the long term. Honest people will still buy legitimate content, dishonest people will do the inverse. Thankfully most people are honest.
The main point here is that people cant ask Linden Lab to make ultra strong protection, because what we have now is about as far as it can go (I do mention the licensing issue above which is a 'must fix' item.), there's nowhere that can be much stronger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoanut Koala I have a question: A lady I know had her entire island of houses copybotted, and recently! I asked her if it would help to have the houses unlinked, that I had heard that, and she said it would.
She said that the copybot would deliver the whole thing in pieces, and it would be better to leave things unlinked, which is what I thought.
Is that true? Cause it's a pain to leave everything unlinked.
coco |
Yes, it will copy it in the state that it sees it -
But I dont think that's really a strong protection, because it would be possible to copy the whole unlinked clump, and then just hit CTRL+L on it later.
Realistically, the best protection is:
a) Treating copyright infringement as a cost of doing business (and dealing with it accordingly).
b) Counter with brand and marketing - consider the case of Versace, Rolex, Loius Vutton, etc. They cannot copyright their designs (clothing and fashion designs dont qualify for copyright), and thousands of 'fakes' appear in 3rd world countries. Their solution to the problem of fakes has traditionally been to try raise the value of owning the legitimate item.
In
SL, you could do this through things like periodic upgrades, the occasional freebies for people in a 'legitimate buyers' mailing list, etc.