SLUniverse Forums

CaleVinson

I never take Prok's word for anything, but I do find his blog useful as a pointer to other discussions. Here is what Rob Linden had to say about the prospect of introducing a "Allow/Do-Not-allow Export of this Item to Another Grid" flag.

( https://lists.secondlife.com/piperma...st/011525.html )

(Bolding is mine.)

Aki Shichiroji

What I take from take from that quote is mainly this: LL hasn't really sat down to think of it and arguing back and forth on a mailing list isn't really appropriate to the discussion. It's not as though they haven't been open to discussing it, however, and I know Zero's office hours, as well as the AWGroupies discussions have discussed these things before. (Sadly, i don't think unmoderated office hours - chaotic at best - are the best venue for these discussions either)

So yeah, maybe one central area where many individuals (not just members of the SLDev mailing list) can view and respond to these issues in a more organized manner is in order.

__________________

Also See: Kitheres Industries (scifi avs, skins, and accessories) | Organica Updates | Blog

Gigs

They have thought about it, there's just no debate. It's pointless to do anything other than just tag content with the license, just like everything else on the web (flickr, wikipedia, etc).

Cocoanut Koala

Yes, well. Since we have copybot and various similar programs, they should remove the permissions from all objects in SL as well.

coco

__________________

ARABIAN NIGHTS by Shagz Anubis

Gigs

I agree, permissions are a horrible way to express a copyright license. With the exception of the few permissions that actually accomplish an effective technical control, they should be removed.

I think that would leave us with mod/transfer on objects (controls how people can manipulate the object on the server-side), and mod/transfer on scripts. All the rest are just an illusion.

Aki Shichiroji

While i don't believe permissions are the be-all/end-all of intellectual property, I do believe the mark *intent*, even if only in a very limited sense. On my wish list would be the option to drag&drop a EULA right in to the object properties, while keeping the existing permissions. I would also like to see permissions options for transfer to both trusted and open grids.

Cocoanut Koala

Let me ask you a question, Gigs. Why do you want everything to be free?

Why do you want - when we could (and do) have a system which, while not perfect, puts permissions on items - why do you want to abolish this?

Why, when there are technical means, do you want to get rid of them and take away what protection we have, and the protection we all started SL with, just because some people can find their way around them?

Do you dislike the fact that people make money off the things they make and sell, or what?

coco

Gigs

I absolutely don't.

The current system misleads the uninitiated into thinking it's possible to control the copying and transfer of downloadable assets through technical means. It is not.



There are no technical means.


Yeah just ask Richie how big I am on socialism.

Gigs

They do that, but they are pretty bad at it. They also communicate to ignorant users that it's possible to prevent copying, which isn't true. That's a pretty bad side effect.

BTW- an EULA is not the same as a copyright license. An EULA is a contract, subject to contract law. A copyright license is not subject to contract law, which means it's binding even lacking things like an exchange of consideration or meeting of the minds. You don't need to "Agree" to a copyright license, it just "is". It's an important point.

CaleVinson

Yes, this is why when you go to any major site, they have a button saying "feel free to download all our server-side programs and scripts here!".

CaleVinson

Thought Experiment.

Tomorrow, LL annouce on the blog that although they are leaving permissions in place in the sense that you can see and set them, they are removing their effect. All objects effectively become copy/mod/transfer.

Do people think object sales would go up, down, or stay the same in such a scenario?

Cocoanut Koala

But the reason you give - in the second paragraph there - isn't sufficient enough reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The permission system *is* a technical means. Not a perfect or foolproof means, but then, what is?

Coupled with rules by the powers that be that copying other people's items without their permission is against the TOS, it serves quite well. It does control the copying and transfer of things without the maker's permission.

So you would get rid of the technical means of preventing wholesale copying (the permission system), just so a few people wouldn't be "fooled" for a time, thinking their things couldn't possibly be copied by rogues? Then you would have even less control, for very little benefit.

To show you what I mean, I'll put it all in purely hypothetical numerical percentages.

(I'm totally making these percentages up.)

(1) People in SL at any given time who are "uninitiated" (i.e., who don't realize Copybot and the like exists): 40%.

Merchants in SL at any given time who don't realize Copybot and the like exists: 10%.

(2) People in SL who look at the permissions and surmise that copying a no-copy item would be illegal: 99.99%.

People who look at the "no-copy" and think it would still be perfectly legal to copy it anyway, once they find a means: .01%.

(3) People in SL who use Copybot programs to copy other people's things: 1%.

People in SL who might just take a copy of something if there were no permission system preventing it, even if the maker had a paper they were supposed to honor, and even if it were illegal: Probably a whole lot more than 1%.

So . . . using my totally made-up figures here, you can see that whereas now we have 1% copying going on, if you removed the permission system (the copy part, I believe you are discussing), we would have rampant copying.

And what for? Who would you be "protecting" by removing the permissions system? Certainly not the merchants. The only benefit of getting rid the available technical means of preventing wholesale copying (the permission system), would be just so a few people, mostly incoming new players, wouldn't be "fooled" for a time, thinking nothing could ever be copied by rogues.

I don't think people need such protecting, particularly not at the expense of all the merchants. Most people realize there are hacks and cheats galore in every online game or environment. That doesn't mean that you should remove what protection exists. If you did, most people would no longer make stuff to sell in SL.

I can sit here and tell you that people are idiots if they think locks on doors will prevent all theft forevermore. Because locks absolutely will NOT prevent theft, if the thief is skilled and determined enough. They will, though, prevent most theft, for most people.

Not being foolproof isn't a good reason for throwing the locks out with the bathwater.

And doing it simply to spare the feelings of the naive is an even less compelling reason.

By your line of reasoning, perhaps we should get rid of everything else on the Internet designed to provide security, because hardly anything provides total security. But then - I don't think people would do much on the Internet at all.

So, I don't think your reason is good enough.

coco

Colette Meiji

Considering the proliferation of freebies I've seen in the last 3 years ..

DOWN

CaleVinson

I would have thought that the number of users who play SL, but have never been exposed to the limitations of technically-based copying protection anywhere else (ripped songs, movies, games, etc) would be very small. I think the argument has yet to be made that people have a disconnect, and believe that copying is possible everywhere else, but not in SL.

Colette Meiji

I am with Coco

Gigs do you lock your house?

Your Car?

Joshua Nightshade

Actually I don't agree on this at all.

And yes there are a lot of users, an incredibly worrying amount of users, who believe that copybot is technically stoppable and that LL didn't/doesn't stop it because they like libsl. There are a worrying amount of users who believe you can make GLIntercept not work.

Considering the majority age bracket for SL users is outside the prime Napster generation it's not an impossible consideration.

CaleVinson

"Not an impossible consideration" - I agree.

But thus far in this thread, the only argument that I can recall Gigs putting up as to why having the flag is a *bad* thing is that of misleading people on IP issues. So, that case has to be made. And its a tricky one. Do a survey here, and no-one will tell you that LL can stop copying of *client* side data. Ask the same question on the blawg, and 99.9% will say they can.

Also, how does one rank priority of education of some unknown percentage of ignorant users, versus (possible, see my thought experiment) protection of the economy? There are lots of people who don't understand why SL doesn't run as fast as an MMO with fixed content, but ultimately, so what? Does LL have an obligation to run an educational campaign there too? What about those who believe that child-avatar == sexual ageplayer? Where are the Lindens, and WHY AREN'T THEY ON STREET CORNERS HANDING OUT EDUCATIONAL PAMPHLETS !!!!!111!!!!!

Joshua Nightshade

Actually I think if the Lindens had done a better job of education on that issue it would've solved the huge problems and freakouts residents have had over simple things like even ripping content for personal use, and probably would've looked not as bad when Philip made some bungled attempts at explaining why they couldn't stop Copybot.

To a lot of people his response seemed like a disinterest and not an inability.

But I don't agree with Gigs on this in every point.

Gigs

I dont' lock them using masking tape. That's what the current permissions are, masking tape.

Gigs

OK fine. Lets assume the flags actually did work, that they were an effective measure. The creator doesn't get to decide what rights the consumer has under copyright, not with absolute authority. Copyright is not an absolute right.

The consumer potentially has fair use rights, compulsory license rights, the work may have fallen into the public domain, or the user might even live in a country where it's not illegal to copy things that are all-rights-reserved for personal non-profit use (a lot of europe).

There is no way that a mechanized enforcement method can express the nuanced and sometimes variable and unclear rights that a consumer has under copyright law. The only thing that can decide that are humans.

So we have flags that are bad when they are ineffective, and if it even were possible to make them effective, they are bad in a different way.

Gigs

This is not correct. Using a copybot style program to circumvent the permissions is not a TOS violation. Using a copybot style program to infringe on copyright is. They are not the same thing. See my above message. You seem to believe that copyright is absolute, it is not. If it were, then maybe browsers wouldn't have "save page as" features. But they do.

Colette Meiji