SLUniverse Forums

Gigs

Yeah WTF was that?

Coco: my point is, by the words you chose, you implied that all copying that contravened the permissions system was infringing on copyright. That is not the case.

Colette: I can pick locks in real life, I know how easy it can be to pick the typical lock. That's not the point. Computers copy data. That's what they do. That's the *only* thing they know how to do, really. You can't make a computer that doesn't copy data any more than you can make a knife that doesn't have an edge. It's just not possible.

Lordfly Digeridoo

The difference is if I break into your house and take your shit, it's gone.

If I "break" into someone's content with Copybot, nothing is lost except a theoretical sale.

I don't really see any secure way to transfer assets from one grid to another without there being a dozen weak links. People are going to have to accept that they can't lock down their content forever.

Seriously.

__________________
http://www.lordfly.com/wordpress
http://www.digeridoodesigns.com/

Gigs

People naturally want to be honest and will generally follow copyright law. The people who will pirate stuff will pirate stuff. Most of them weren't going to give you money anyway. Getting over it is really a good way to go.

The software industry has gone through cycles of trying to use copy protection, then realizing it's impossible, then trying it again. It's come and gone many times over the last 30 years. Every time it's tried, it mainly just hurts legitimate users while never stopping piracy.

Colette Meiji

You are reaching to hard to deny a similarity.

In Real life,
If you use locks, some people can steal your stuff, but it stops some others.


In Second Life -
If you use permissions, Some people can steal your stuff, but it stops some others.

Colette Meiji

Not only can you lose a theoretical sale

You can lose dozens, hundreds, thousands of potential future sales if your item becomes a freebie.

A problem that is only exaggerated by more than one grid.

Gigs

It stops no one because it's a flawed analogy. In RL if one person picks a lock then one person gets access.

With data, if one person picks the lock, then everyone else automatically picks the lock too, because the formula for how to pick the lock can be copied in one click, as can the data that the lock was protecting.

Gigs

An item can't "become a freebie" unless you license it that way. A copyright that is widely infringed upon doesn't suddenly become invalid.

Colette Meiji

Do you like log onto Second Life ever?

Gigs

Well, I'm not proposing that. I'm saying we should keep the permissions that work, and get rid of the ones that don't.

It's critically important to continue enforcing the "mod" flag on prims, at least in the short run, not to prevent their parameters from being modified, but to prevent insertion of spy scripts that can snoop link messages. That could be broken out into a better named flag like "Modify object inventory", though. In the open grid scenario, this flag goes away too though. People who run stuff like web services need a lot of notice before changing this behavior though.

Likewise, script mod/transfer is enforceable for now, and can remain so in the short run. In an open grid scenario, script transfer is meaningless, but script mod is meaningful. The source code to scripts can be secured, however the compiled CIL bytecode must be shared with people that run grids (i.e. everyone). This creates a lot of challenges when hard coded passwords are in scripts, as those will carry through to the CIL.

Anyway, if all the broken permissions were removed, but all the effective ones were kept, I'd say the net effect on the SL economy would be near zero. People that sell textures already do so full perm. The same is true with many people that sell pure assets.

Cocoanut Koala

OK, I'm glad we're clear on that now. Using copybot or some similar mechanism to copy without authorization is considered against the TOS, and that is the letter of the law we must follow in SL.

TOS supercedes any other law, insofar as actions in SL are concerned; unless it can be shown that a law in the TOS itself is illegal in the greater world.

For example: You might go to a costume party, and people are practically unrecognizable. There's a Big Piece of Cheese there who is the life of the party, but nothing shows but his beady little eyes!

Your friend points to the Big Piece of Cheese and says, hey, who's that? And you say, "Well, he wanted to keep it a secret, but that's Joe Blow, the one who lives above the delicatessan on 4th Street. His number's in the phone book, if you'd like to get ahold of him."

Now, while Big Piece of Cheese might never speak to you again for blowing his cover, you have broken no real life law.

In SL, though, if you divulge the real-life name, address and phone number of another resident, you have broken TOS and can find yourself kicked out of SL.

That is an example of how additional rules of TOS can exist that don't exist in real life. Baring being illegal themselves, the expectations provided by TOS are what govern us.

So, the fact is, it is currently against TOS to use copybot or some other mechanism to make copies of other peoples' things without permission.

Given that, there's not much need to go into the special circumstances that might be termed "consumer's rights," but I want to anyway, and I'll get around to the first of those you mentioned in a little while.

coco

__________________

ARABIAN NIGHTS by Shagz Anubis

Cocoanut Koala

The copy permission is not broken.

It is, moreover, illegal to go around it.

What you mean is, there is a way (and a limited, time-consuming way, is my understanding) to copy something that is marked no-copy.

"Imperfect" is different from "broken."

"Broken" would imply it doesn't work at all; not imply that it can't be circumvented by illegal hacks.

coco

Cocoanut Koala

Although the TOS as it currently stands circumscribes our ability to use a program such as copybot to copy other people's things without permission, which renders moot the issue of whether one could do it legally in the real world or not, I still want to consider some of the exceptions you brought up, and whether they could be a significant factor in SL; and thus a possible reason to get rid of the copy permissions box.

Starting with "in the public domain."

Well, nothing done in SL is going to be in the public domain (unless the creator declares it so), and won't be for a long, long time.

One thing to remember is that you do not have to register for a copyright in order to have the work considered yours. I knew this as a writer, but I looked it up anyway, in order to pin down the date better:

"After March 1, 1989, an author's copyright in a work begins when it is fixed in a tangible form; neither publication nor registration is required, and a lack of a copyright notice does not place the work into the public domain."

(I think that's from Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States
but I'm not sure I copied the source right for that one.)

The period of time required to elapse before an item comes into the public domain has been consistently extended in the U.S., culminating with the Sonny Bono legislation, or the so-called "Mickey Mouse law," as I recall, because it prevented Disney's mouse and other works from coming into the public domain, as they were about to.

(Which irritated me no end, because I'd waited ages for a different work to come into public domain so I could write a sequel, which was ALMOST there, and that put the kibosh on that.)

Anyway, currently, the rule is:

Created 1-1-78 or after: When work is fixed in tangible medium of expression - Life + 70 years

Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States

Works published before 1923 are in the public domain, these sources say.

So no work created in SL could possibly be in the public domain yet, and could in no way be in the public domain for at least 70 years (assuming its creator already died right away).

More details:

As a general rule, most works enter the public domain because of old age. This includes any work published in the United States before 1923. Another large block of works are in the public domain because they were published before 1964 and copyright was not renewed. (Renewal was a requirement for works published before 1978.) A smaller group of works fell into the public domain because they were published without copyright notice (copyright notice was necessary for works published in the United States before March 1, 1989). Some works are in the public domain because the owner has indicated a desire to give them to the public without copyright protection. The rules establishing the public domain status for each of these types of works are different and more details are provided throughout this chapter.

Stanford Copyright & Fair Use - The Public Domain

So, the idea of the permissions system in SL possibly obstructing an individual's right to works in the public domain is a non-starter, and should remain so for at least the next 65-70 years. As I understand it.

coco

Colette Meiji

/pwn'd

Gigs

Coco, all your walls of text will not change that fact that merely bypassing the "copy" flag is not necessarily illegal.

And besides, I already know all that stuff, I'm actually very well versed in copyright law, contrary to your apparent belief

Also, merely uploading a public domain work doesn't take it out of the public domain, even if I put all the flags and DRM on it that I possibly can.

Cocoanut Koala

Using a program to mechanically copy an item in SL, bypassing the copy flag, without the owner's permission, is, in fact, illegal in SL, according to SL's TOS.

I don't like to be a hardass about all this stuff either, but the idea of using copybot or similar program to copy another's work in SL without their permission can't possibly be defended, either on TOS grounds or out in the real world in the courts.

However, I will stop with going through the other things you listed.

All I'm saying is, there really isn't any good reason at all to get rid of the copy permissions box! And lots of good reason to keep it.

(And a lot of good reason to make sure it survives transfer to any Linden-approved world, as well.)

coco

Gigs

The announcement from the blog said "using copybot for copyright infringement" not "using copybot". They recognize that that sort of copying can be legitimate as well as infringing.

"use of CopyBot or similar tools to create infringing copies within Second Life will be treated as a violation of the Terms of Service."

Adam Zaius

The problem here isnt really whether it's a good idea or not in principle - it's a in practice thing.

Permissions should be switched to a 'mark intent' model which is enforced where legitimate servers are running, however - you simply cannot stop people from breaking those permissions one way or another. (And yes, breaking them *is* very simple to do if you know how, it's not complex nor time consuming with the right tools)

The problem comes back to numbers:

I have a number. Let's call it 34. I give you that number, then tell you you cannot copy it, or give it to anyone else (and dont you dare change it!). The only thing stopping you from doing any of those things is my request.

It's the same here - your objects, items, textures, etc are just very big numbers (1 byte = 8 binary digits) - but at heart, the above holds. Permissions were a good start for while SL was still small - but now we need something better, and that means grounding it in RL copyright law rather than the SL TOS - that way it survives "out of SL".

__________________

Quote:

<Joshua> if I relied on adam to plan anything the wedding would consist of nobody knowing where to go because adam forgot to book a venue.

Cocoanut Koala

I thought I made it quite clear that using copybot to copy items without authorization was against the TOS (and included quotes from the blog saying so).

I never said "using copybot" was against the TOS, and neither did the blog entries I quoted.

coco

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".

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.

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 are allowed to 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 and policy means it could use to prevent copying will succeed as an economy consisting largely of pixel items. (It might succeed as something else, though.)

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. (Apparently she didn't.)

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

Adam Zaius