Cocoanut Koala

Well, the ones who want walled gardens could still HAVE them, is my point. There's nothing wrong with being a walled garden.

Without walled gardens, as I said earlier, you have only primordial soup.

coco

__________________

Gigs

I almost hesitate to get into this, but regardless of what it means today, the framers all strongly believed in the concept of natural rights.

The bill of rights is meant to restrict the actions of government that may infringe on the inherent rights that all people posses.

There was considerable debate regarding the bill of rights. Some of the framers thought that by enumerating the rights, people would misunderstand and believe that they were rights granted by the government, instead of merely a list of inherent rights that the framers thought it was important for no government to ever infringe upon.

PS - They added two more amendments, the 9th and 10th, to allay the concerns of those people. The 9th and 10th say that the list shouldn't be considered to be an exhaustive list of human rights, that there are many others and that these are just the important ones.

__________________
-
-
"It is the paramount duty of governments and of politicians to secure the wellbeing of the community under the case in the present, and not to run risks overmuch for the future" - JM Keynes

Cocoanut Koala

Rob who? Rob Linden? Tess Linden? (I know Zero is a Linden.)

Well, if the Lindens have the idea that they are going to let merchants' things go to other grids, where there may not be any permissions - WITHOUT letting us choose - WITHOUT giving us a simple checkmark that says, "these goods can be taken to other grids/cannot be taken to other grids" -

- then they should be prepared to lose a lot of their merchants of pixel goods.

Then again, that may be exactly what they desire. In fact, I have long thought they are trying to kill us.

From what you say, those Lindens apparently want to CHOOSE FOR US whether OUR goods to to other grids or not. They apparently wish to DECIDE FOR US that we get to depend "on the power of copyright law" (har har har), rather than put in a simple checkbox.

Which we, by damn, would most certainly put in if we could.

How extraordinarily arrogant.

coco

Gigs

They can't decide for you. Like I said earlier, the creators own the copyright, not linden lab.

If it is a copyright violation to do this (which I'm not sold on the idea that it is), then linden lab would be facilitating a massive violation of copyright.

Cocoanut Koala

By deciding for us - I mean, they decide NOT to put in a checkbox, because they choose to let OUR goods go to other grids.

And then they decide FOR us that we get to depend on the "power of copyright law." When they could have just put in a checkbox.

Which we would put in if we could!

It would give us a CHOICE. They - if what you say is correct - want to make that choice for us, a priori.

Very patronizing, very control-freak, very presumptious, and very arrogant.

***

Not putting in a checkbox - might constitute copyright violation - is that what you mean?

LL - by allowing goods to go to other grids over the creator's objection - might be facilitating a massive violation of copyright, is that what you mean?

Well, no wonder it irks me.

coco

Gigs

You were always relying on copyright law. I don't remember Linden Lab ever taking responsibility to enforce your copyright, through technical or any other means (other than what is required by DMCA, and we know how well they do there).

No. I mean that if LL themselves actually copied assets on the backend to a third party.

I don't think it would be, if a legitimate licensee did it. If I own a hat, I should be able to wear my hat while going to another grid. Same way as if I buy an MP3, I should be able to load it on my ipod (regardless of RIAA screaming).

If the MP3 download site started sharing their entire collection with third party affiliates, that would be a different matter.

Gigs

I wouldn't assume that either. Something like a way to attach one of several real world licenses (some open source/CC, and many not) seems much more likely.

Cocoanut Koala

I'll thank you to allow me to tell YOU what I have always relied upon!



And what I have always relied on was (a) the permission system, and then (b) the statement from LL that using copybot and similar programs to copy items without permission was against the TOS.

That is what I have been relying on. If that hadn't been there to be relying on, then I would not have been in SL.

I would not continue to make things in SL if we had no such checkboxes. If I had come into this world and anyone could copy anything, and you were supposed to rely on copyright law (and perhaps launch on numerous soul-sucking campaigns to "humiliate" those who copied), I would not have been here in the first place.

Because it would have been STUPID.

Yes, you should be able to load it on your ipod, I would say. And you should be able to wear your own hat, I would say.

However - you are not, irl, going to arrive in another area where all of a sudden you can - at no cost whatsoever to yourself - duplicate that same hat or piece of music and give it away to thousands, or even sell it to thousands. Your hat just isn't going to do that, and even the music would require a modicum of investment on your part.

If I made you a hat, I wouldn't mind you wearing it to other grids. But I would mind you wearing it to another grid where you anyone could click on it and get a copy.

Maybe items could be made transferable to another grid, but not RE-transferable once they get there. A non-transfer item, then, would remain non-transfer, even though the person could take it with him. (Note that would require the other grids to maintain the same permission system.)

What a person should be able to do with an item they own for the most part rests on the concept that it will be the ONLY such item they own. When I buy a car, it doesn't come with any self-replicating feature.

If taking that item into another environment means it magically becomes reproducible at no cost and available to anyone who wants one, then you are no longer in the realm of doing what you want with what you own, but in the realm of turning what you own into something free for everyone.

coco

Cocoanut Koala

Oh, and in any case, this has been a fun discussion.

I'd like to thank you, Gigs, for an interesting discussion.

coco

Gigs

They told you from the very beginning that that is only a temporary band-aid, and that they have no desire to take on the job of defending other people's copyrights.

My MP3 can be duplicated and given to thousands of people as easily as I can put it on my ipod. I have thousands of MP3s. I don't put them all on my website, even the ones that are by small bands that could never afford to sue me.


That cuts both ways, they can't sell the same car over and over an infinite number of times with very little marginal cost. It's pretty insane that someone working on an auto line works 8 hours and gets paid for 8 hours. A computer programmer or musician or artist works for 8 hours and gets paid for the rest of his life, and when he dies, his kids continue to get paid!

Copyright law is already very very strong, and you seem to want to make it even stronger, taking away the rights that consumers have to fair use.

CaleVinson

"Crippled" and "fraud" eh? Yep, this is all about objective, technologically-based issues here, no ideology at all, no sirree.

In any case, my preference would be for all flags/permissions to be shown to the potential purchaser automatically (without creator intervention), before they clicked on an "OK, Buy" button.

My items won't dissappear *just* because you TP. They may dissappear if you TP to a particular place. My guess is that I currently spend 99% of my time inside less than 10% of SL sims. My conjecture is that the "early-adopters" are largely all here now, and that when SL and its follow-ons grow significantly from here, it will be by the introduction of grids/sims that appeal to a mainstream demographic. I hardly visit any mainstream websites now, why would I be spending much time on mainstream SL-like sims in the future? So, yes, there may end up being vast numbers of sims out there on which my (owned, not created) stuff won't work, but since I won't be visiting them, it hardly matters to me.

I might be the only one who feels that way, but I doubt it. And you don't need *that* many people to keep a minnow niche-market operation running.

Cocoanut Koala

They told me that using copybot to copy people's items was against the TOS.

And it is.

And that, presumably, is not temporary.

Neither are the permissions boxes.

I'm not asking them to take on the job of defending other people's copyrights (other than take down stuff due to receiving a DMCA, and there, they are not what you would call "defending" anyone's copyright, as if they get a counter notice, they have to put the stuff back up).

I'm asking - well, expecting - them to (a) retain the permissions boxes in SL, and (b) keep on banning people who use copybot or similar programs to make unauthorized copies of things.

I'm further asking them not to allow other grids to get ahold of creators' things, without the creator's permission; particularly other grids which have no permissions system.

You're right. The only expenditure you would have there is having a website. And defending yourself in the lawsuits, because a website is a static thing that is hard to hide.

Copying people's things in SL, though, once done on a wholesale scale, would be easy to hide, and it would be very difficult to track down the original perps. (Similar to the problem LL has with laundering money.) Unlike someone with a website passing out music.

Not really. It might look like it, but being able to rest on one's laurels and live off one's recurring income from royalties and the like is a luxury only the very top money-makers of those fields can afford.

For most, you're only as good as your latest effort, be it a song, a book, or perhaps a computer game. Otherwise we would see thousands of regular, workaday artists, musicians, actors, and writers retiring at 30 to their private islands.

There really isn't much call for most creative efforts after their initial splash. Royalties fall rapidly off, and residuals are pathetic for most, I would say.

You might be better served by comparing, say, the exceptional creative type (Barbra Streisand, Margaret Mitchell, Paul McCartney, etc.), who is able to continue to rake in money from past efforts, not to the worker on the auto assembly line, but to the owner/s of the auto company.

How would you have it work? The publisher gives the writer an initial sum, and that's it, no matter how popular the book becomes to be? (And the publisher gets all the profit?) Or after a set amount of time, the work becomes free to all, no matter how much in demand it still is?

Or even if it's not in demand, you would begrudge the creator the income from what *they* created, just because they did it five, ten, or fifty years ago?

In addition, creating something is .... oh, it is just SO much different from working for an hourly wage. You can put skads of hours into things that just aren't hits, just to get eventually to the ones that are. My point is, for many in creative fields (though not me) nobody pays you while you are creating the thing, and maybe no one ever will.

I think copyright law is by its nature a very difficult thing to assess, and usually has to be assessed on an individual basis. Some rulings I agree with; some I don't.

But the fact that copyright laws exist - I obviously very much agree with. I think the writers and the publishers should get the profits, not some some writer in Daytona who decides to plagiarize the work.

Without copyright law, there would be no intellectual property. And without the concept of intellectual property, you can't make a living as an artist, musician, writer, etc.

I don't want to take away any rights to fair use whatsoever. In a lot of ways, I wish they were looser (particularly for teachers).

But I think your idea of "fair use" is a far cry from mine. I think your idea would put just a whole lot of people out of business - and again - you would only wind up with very little of value to make use of.

Earlier, you listed fair use, and I don't believe I posted about that. But, I have saved the post, so I'll look around for it, and maybe post it later.

coco

CaleVinson

Which is why, IMHO, content creators should look to add value to their products with scripts. I'm *not* saying to add scripts just for their IP-protection role, but to add value.

Every mod-enabled prim skirt I own has my "SkirtSitter" script in it. Hair is now being being made with scripted "worn up", "worn down" options, etc.

You are clearly a very wise and knowledgable person Anya, and let me assure you that I'm not just saying that because of ....



(Quote in reference to Coco.)

Actually, I don't think that is true, at least, not for all of her houses. I'm 99% sure I remember Coco talking about issues to do with door *scripts*.

More generally, although doors scripts may be small and prim-localised, a number of houses make use of quite sophisticated scripting.

CaleVinson

And a question for Gigs: is a compromise possible? Would you be happy with the following? :

1) Cale makes the "Super Dildo 2000".

2) It, like all objects, has an "IP" tab when edited.

3) The IP tab has a check-box for "Use old-style permissions". If checked, this brings up a new screen, in which I set copy/trans/mod as I've always done, and also a Off-grid-transfer-allowed? flag.

4) If old-style permissions are not selected, you get a different screen, in which you can select from a number of text statements describing how the object can/can-not be copied, traded, etc. You also have an option to enter your own text license. This information stays with the object at all times, is viewable by anyone, etc.

......

In other words - I have no desire to deny you the support you need to put in place your preferred treatment of IP protection ((4), or something like it), I simply ask that I have the same right.

Cocoanut Koala

Yes, I have a new scripted door system I've just finished putting into all my houses, and I also have a nice teleport system for those which have teleports. They are also all in rez-faux scripts. And other house builders have more complex scripting in their houses.

But - I don't think scripting everything is the answer, or SHOULD be the answer. (I don't need my hair to go up and down, though that is nice for people who might like that.)

And here's another thing - from what I've read, scripts aren't going necessarily to be safe, either, in other people's grids.

So, I think what you're saying is, I've relied on some scripting thus far, within SL only, to secure my items (whether I thought of that angle or not). But that doesn't necessarily mean scripts would be secure in other grids, as far as I've been able to understand. Right?

coco

Gigs

No, not really. It's not a technical problem and it doesn't have a technical solution.


Edit- Well I take that back. Tools that help detect infringement are possible.

Gigs

"[Tools to help residents enforce their own copyrights] are important features because the implications of copying should not be about Linden Lab’s approach to copyright enforcement. We are not in the copyright enforcement business. "

"Please recognize that using the Terms of Service is not a permanent solution."

So I don't know what "they" told you, but the official policy is "It's not our job to enforce or protect your copyright, but we'll work on tools to help you enforce it."

Psyke Phaeton

Scripts are easily visible and copyable by whoever has access to the simulator/region and also whoever has access to the asset server.

In OpenSim when a script is saved the text of the script flashes past on the screen where the sim/region is hosted.

__________________

Cocoanut Koala

I already said they are not in the business of protecting copyright, except insofar as honoring DMCA takedowns, and booting those who copy other people's things illegally.

But: "Terms of Service is not a permanent solution."

Sounds omninous.

I would accept that it is not a total solution, or a pefect solution.

But the suggestion that they would intend to dispense with the terms of service augers ill for any content creator on the grid.

On the other hand, Cory IS gone.

coco

Cocoanut Koala

[quote=Psyke Phaeton;369314]Scripts are easily visible and copyable by whoever has access to the simulator/region and also whoever has access to the asset server.['/QUOTE]
That's what I thought.

You mean anyone can see it?

coco

Psyke Phaeton

The people with access to the systems running the sim/region/asset software (could be local or logged into the machine remotely), not the people in SL, but the people who can access the underlying OS (whether that be Linux or Windows).

Gigs

No, but his point is other grid owners will have at least some access to scripts. (Not necessarily the source code though) And since anyone can own a grid, that puts scripts roughly in the same class as other assets.

Cocoanut Koala

OK, that's what I thought.

My other question: Why would anyone want to make grids where assets (and scripts roughly in the same class) can be taken by others?

I mean, what's the point?

coco

CaleVinson

Or, less extremely, it does if you make two additional, entirely non-technical assumptions:

a) "Anyone" can connect their grid to any other, and

b) Grid owners make a policy decision not to implement a "Allow-grid-transfer?" flag.

What is "it"? If "it" is "I'd like my scripts to stay on my home grid" then we do in fact have a technical solution as discussed above. And this has some flow-on protection for scripted objects, in proportion to how important the scripts are in establishing the value of the object.

What I'm proposing meets what I want, and, as far as I can see, meets what you want (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Where's the problem?

Raindrop Drinkwater

My usual perms are copy/mod. I wouldn't mind people buying my stuff in SL, and tp'ing to another grid with a similar permission system -- as long as my stuff is *still* copy/mod there.

Now if they TP to a grid where everything becomes copy/mod/trans... that's another kettle of fish.


I don't think scripts are the answer to everything.
A well-made tree, for example, doesn't need to be scripted. I also prefer my shoes, hair, hats... without scripts. And my favourite tee-shirt can't be scripted, for obvious reasons.

__________________