Cristiano

This is a very controversial topic with strong feelings and arguments on both sides of the debate. So far this has been civil, please keep it that way.

__________________
"At least he died doing what he loved most - blogging on the Huffington Post" - 30 Rock

* slu stuff *

Joshua Nightshade

It doesn't block it though, they're all in your cache neatly organized for you.

That's also irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Joannah Cramer

"Neatly organized for you" in proprietary undocumented file format, that requires you to parse directory with 3rd party tool, outside of the SL viewer in order to access the content. The tool generally known under name of 'cache ripper'. Come on, if you are going to say with straight face this is somehow client not blocking you from accessing content of these files straight from the client itself (like it allows you with any texture you actually own) i really don't know what to answer to it if it's to be kept civil like Cris requested.

Joshua Nightshade

My point is you're trying to make this an issue that it isn't.

When I sell people my robotic avatars, I'm not selling them the UUID to the original copy I keep in my inventory. Regardless as to whether or not that's how it's technically organized by SL's database, which I somehow really doubt because that's implying a level of organization they've never demonstrated before (not to mention if each skin ND sells is a single reference point for one UUID then that doesn't explain how when there's an inventory loss it doesn't wipe out the skin for every single person), the fact is I'm selling them the avatar, which I made and boxed and created little pretty pictures for in photoshop. Nowhere in my store do I draw a distinction that they're only purchasing the use of a reference UUID. No one does. All of SL is made up of database references, if we really want to dig in and draw these distinctions nobody's buying anything.

Now my items are no-mod. If someone doesn't want to wait for me to get back to them about changing the colors and decides to take copybot and rip the avatar and change them themselves, that's fair use. I'm fine with that. If they try to resell that avatar as their own creation though, that's a problem.

In a real world example, I can take my laptop and repaint it whatever color I want and Sager can't come at me for copyright infringement. It's fair use. Software has similar allegories; you're typically allowed to make backup copies of software you purchase.

No court would ever rule that someone who ripped a skin they paid for to apply a texture on top of it, for their own use and not given to anyone else or used to make profit from, is in the wrong.

Io Zeno

Joannah, the problem is that people view this the way they would any rl item they pay real money for. If I buy a chair in rl I can repaint it, I can mix the make-up I buy, I can do anything with something I've bought and paid for. Even if it's a complicated thing, I can take it apart and do what I will with it.

What you are saying is we are only paying for a license to use a skin, rather than outright ownership. Which may be a good argument but it's not in any TOS.

Joshua Nightshade

Now some people do make a sort of distinction like this, but it's not supported in the ToS nor have I ever seen any skin merchants making this argument before. It's not in any shop I've ever seen. I have seen a few scripters sell content like this though.

Samantha Fuller

In the other thread about POL i argued that people should be making off grid backups of their content in a form compatible with Project Open Sim. How do most of you feel about using riped copies of Skins you have bought on an Open Sim for personal use

prinţesă nină

if that aint fuel for the fire...

Joannah Cramer

Ahh, absolutely. The problem is very much caused by the same confusion many people have about skin/shape, just taken to even more nerdy level if i can put it this way.

It's not even that you buy 'license' for a skin in SL -- this is more like, you buy a copy of what's "recipe" that tells the server how to paint your AV and i can't even think right off the bat of any RL equivalent to that. In a way, a fairly close analogy would be buying a compiled script in SL. The script when put in a prim will cause this prim to behave and/or look in certain way, by telling the server what to do with it. The skin file is very much like this except it applies to your AV rather than a prim. So now using the 'fair skin use' to this script analogy, if i buy a compiled script i should have full right to modify its source code, to make my prim look and behave in a way i like... right? Except, unless the script is set 'modable' by its maker then i can't. Not only because the script i receive is protected from it within SL, but also because such process is considered 'reverse engineering' and typically prohibited (also by SL TOS if i remember right) Because the script maker isn't selling you the source code, they are selling the ready-to-use product. And strangely enough this is okay with general public and no one is screaming bloody murder how the greedy script makers are limiting the fair use rights, here. It's quite accepted you either like the script the way it is, ask the maker for modification, find the alternative or do without.

This is basically the funny/tricky part. The only technical difference between this analogy of 'fair use' of SL script and the 'fair use' of SL skin is, it's trivial thanks to custom tools to extract the underlying 'source' of skin for potential modification, while it's currently not possible to extract source of purchased script. But without understanding what the skin file is people aren't looking at it this way, and simplify it to skin = textures and go from there into the world of RL analogies which are unfortunately based on this false simplification.

And don't get me wrong here, i understand where they're coming from and why it's such easy mistake to make. But it doesn't make it any less of mistake... and that's the only point i'm trying to make here, that the argument of fair use here is wrong because it's applied to wrong element of the whole equation.

Joshua Nightshade

Well, I very much disagree with you, and we'll have to leave it at that since I'm going to bed now.

prinţesă nină

if i could reverse engineer a script to add or alter some functionality for my own personal use, i likely would.
example: alter hipporent to inform my group bot to invite a renter to a rental group.
if something like that was possible i would do it in a heartbeat without a second thought.

Io Zeno

Think about licensing software. That is similar to say, a locked down script. You can use it but you aren't allowed to modify it, unless it's open source.

The thing is, the real reason people lock down their creations is to stop theft, for the most part, not because they think their creation is so super special it should never be altered in any way, even if you bought and own it. Those who do feel that way are just being idiots, to me, frankly.

Like my clocks, they are no-mod because I'm afraid of people screwing up the hands, not because I'm afraid they will change it's color or my builds are sacrosanct. And I will give mod permissions if asked.

Also, the majority of people wouldn't know how to mod a script or alter the skin file, either, so it's not like there is a great demand for this. But they *would* like to have a tattoo without using a clothing layer and I can understand someone paying for that service if the skin maker won't do it. Why not.

Joannah Cramer

Quite so. I'd say it goes beyond 'stopping theft' actually -- part of it being concern there's potential sales lost both when people use the extracted version of source data to make number of variations on their own, rather than acquire them from the original maker... and/or when they start to 'share' this data with their friends who in turn 'share' it with their etc. Then you also have the possibility people take number of such extracted sources to mix and match into something they then sell as their own, thus creating additional competition on market that wouldn't exist if they had to put in full work required in such creation. Unless you include both of these in the overall concept of 'theft' of course.

Overall it's quite simple and boils down to the same reasons why you cannot buy full source code to say, "World of Warcraft" for the same few bucks it costs to buy a copy of game that allows one person to play it. And it's because once you have the source, you have essentially ability to produce unlimited number of copies and variants of finished product. Something that doesn't exist in RL where "it's mine, i paid for it" crowd can indeed paint all over their original Picasso or cut their car into tiny pieces, but once they do it, that's it. That single item is permanently altered rather than give birth to something new while leaving the previous version(s) intact.

mcgeeb Gupte

That is how I see it.

__________________

Elgyfu

I hadn't really thought about this before seeing the thread. Funny, considering I have 6 tattoos in real life, I have never worn one in SL, hehe.

I guess I assumed that a skin maker would happily add a tattoo to a skin on behalf of a customer for a small fee.

I have made skins for other graphics applications and adding tattoos is not exactly rocket science. Wouldn't take very long, then just reupload the texture.

Don't skin makers offer this service?

__________________
Tin Teddy - so much more than just a store

mcgeeb Gupte

If someone had a tatoo in mind I wouldn't mind doing it for a small charge. Rather than them uploading the skin to their PC for sure. I think the problem is that some buy tatoos in SL and they can't give it to the skin creators to put on the skin.

Michael Bigwig

Ohhh...Drama, I love drama. Certain drama. I have to go back and read all that...getting ready for work though, don't have time.

__________________
~Michael Bigwig
___________________Lead Designer, Glowbox Designs

Menchor Barbosa

As someone who loves and owns Joannah's skins, I want to make the following observation. We have Joannah, Josh, and mcgeeb, all of whom make something similar to a skin, disagreeing on this issue. The issue is what right does a person who has purchased a skin and tatoos have to modify it. Josh says for personal use is legal and complys with TOS, Joannah and mcgeeb disagree. Everyone seems to agree that beyond personal use is theft. If I have this right I will put in my 5 $L. If the maker is willing to add the tatoos at a reasonable fee, then this should be the route taken. If not, then it is reasonable, if the person has the technical skills, to do the work themselves, FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. I could see someone wanting a copy of a skin with tatoos to play pirate, and another copy that is suitable for other environments. Joannah's skins are copy, mod no trans, and respecting the creator by treating any skin they have modified should be accepted, since it is allowed.

__________________
Baroness Menchor, the Deadly, of the Great Army of the Invincible Infidel, Whose Great Swarms of Evil and Horror Laid Waste to the Souls of a Million True Believers and Left Their Souls Rotting in the Summer Sun for the Buzzards to to Ravish as Their Souls Sunk to the Depths of Torment and Hopelessness, Abandoned by Their Gods.

Youth and strength can almost always be overcome by old age and treachery