People, I have read this thread:
/108/63/113120/1.html
And I have come to realise, there will always be problems with things being copied in Second Life. There will always be one more flaw in the system.
I thought briefly about creating an immobilizer system for creations, but I think this is needed so much, I don't care how many people make a working system, as long as there are several for people to choose from. So here are all my algorithm thoughts on this. Please, people go to work and make this. We all need immobilizers for our stuff.
Here's the plan:
* Every creation, say a table or a chair or a slot machine or dance box or something, is registered on a particular security vendor's site. After registration, the item is given an ID number, which is hard coded into a script inside it.
* Every time someone uses a vendor to buy a copy of that item, the central database is emailed saying "authorize this avatar to use product X".
* Every time the product is rezzed from inventory, it's permanent security tag script emails the central server saying, my current owner, are they authorized to use me?
* If the current owner is not authorized, the item self desctructs (ie. kills itself).
Transfers could be handled by the owner logging into the site and formally renouncing ownership rights to a new owner, via some process. This would need to be a slick, easy to use process, and I'll bet people have several differing ideas on how to implement. That'll be good, cause competition will lead to a really slick service for the people.
Alright, go to it people. What we need is a service that is as common as the Linden dollar. We need it ingrained in teddy bears. In jewellery. In umbrellas, boats, planes, chairs, tables, little prim based knives and forks.
This way, people have a stronger layer of security backing them up. To a point, it's OK to bitch at the Lindens when their code falls short. But we're also a community, so at a certain point it's up to us to get the job done right with the tools available (XML-RPC, email).
Let's do it. Discuss.
Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
Immobilizer For All Creations In SL |
|
|
Jsecure Hanks
Capitalist
Join date: 9 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,451
|
06-11-2006 02:51
|
|
Zepp Zaftig
Unregistered Abuser
Join date: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 470
|
06-11-2006 03:12
Couldn't someone just rez the item in a no-script zone and remove the script?
_____________________
    |
|
Lucifer Baphomet
Postmodern Demon
Join date: 8 Sep 2005
Posts: 1,771
|
06-11-2006 03:17
The asset server strugles as it is, lets just add another layer of delay and lag on top of things eh?
What we really need is a decent permissions system that works. _____________________
I have no signature,
|
|
Jsecure Hanks
Capitalist
Join date: 9 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,451
|
06-11-2006 03:20
Couldn't someone just rez the item in a no-script zone and remove the script? If the item was no edit, they couldn't. They could rez and use the thing in someone else's no script land, but there's a chance it might poke into a tiny bit of script enabled area, and then it'd be gone, so immobilizers would get them in the end. |
|
Jsecure Hanks
Capitalist
Join date: 9 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,451
|
06-11-2006 03:23
The asset server strugles as it is, lets just add another layer of delay and lag on top of things eh? What we really need is a decent permissions system that works. We've needed that for a long time. An email dispatch won't make the asset server any worse. Neither will querying who the owner of a given prim is, as the owner's details will almost certainly be in the current sim's cache of the asset servers' assets. So it won't take anything away from Second Life, but it could provide a system designed to target any leaks in the Linden's system. One system can never be relied upon to be absolutely perfect. If this takes off, we'll have one system to watch the back of the first. |
|
Eata Kitty
Registered User
Join date: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 387
|
06-11-2006 03:24
It's a hell of a lot of work to do for anything thats not a very valuable item.
|
|
Jsecure Hanks
Capitalist
Join date: 9 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,451
|
06-11-2006 03:26
It's a lot of work to do for anything thats not a very valuable item. The hard work is establishing the whole system itself. If it's done right, it should be a simple thing to just pop a new creation on a security system. The idea is to make it take merely seconds to protect each item you release for sale, or even some you don't release, but you just want protected. If you want peace of mind, this could provide it. |
|
Starax Statosky
Unregistered User
Join date: 23 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,099
|
06-11-2006 03:40
If the item was no edit, they couldn't. They could rez and use the thing in someone else's no script land, but there's a chance it might poke into a tiny bit of script enabled area, and then it'd be gone, so immobilizers would get them in the end. No Edit? Is this something I'm unaware of? I'll assume you meant 'No Modify', but we can still delete the scripts in no modify items. |
|
Siggy Romulus
DILLIGAF
Join date: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 5,711
|
06-11-2006 03:41
Firstly the thread you link to (mine) isn't about copying items - its a bout the transfer of items into the teen grid.
For the idea - Zepp is right - you could rez and remove the script. even if its no modify you could take the script from the item or delete it outright. The most you'll get is a warning message. Skins etc would have no protection obviously. Items are easier copied 'by the numbers' so this would afford little protection to that. If an item was being copied due to buggered permissions, it MAY provide some protection, but only if the items script weren't also buggered. If they were - edit out - if in a seperate script - delete. I don't see this being practical - just a minor annoyance to people who do copy things, and a major annoyance to end users. The level of protection it give (small) in my opinion doesn't justify the inconvenience of the end user (large). _____________________
The Second Life forums are living proof as to why it's illegal for people to have sex with farm animals.
I, for one, am highly un-helped by this thread |
|
Jsecure Hanks
Capitalist
Join date: 9 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,451
|
06-11-2006 03:42
No Edit? Is this something I'm unaware of? I'll assume you meant 'No Modify', but we can still delete the scripts in no modify items. This might only be useful for items with scripts as a core part of their implementation then. Bah. Was a good idea while it lasted. |
|
Jsecure Hanks
Capitalist
Join date: 9 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,451
|
06-11-2006 03:46
The level of protection it give (small) in my opinion doesn't justify the inconvenience of the end user (large). The ability to edit the scripts out of no modify creations does in my mind limit the usefulness of the idea. However, if an item was something like a boat, and a script was a significant part of the implementation, and the script had the security code in it, the system would be valuable. The end user would never see the security system. Their purchase of the product would be logged by the vendor they buy it from. Every time it rezzes and checks the owner's validity to use that product, it would say nothing, and only take action if the server replied firmly, "not authorized". So the end user wouldn't actually see anything. At all. It could work for significantly scripted items, but it's not the wholescale breadwinner I at first thought it might be. |
|
Starax Statosky
Unregistered User
Join date: 23 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,099
|
06-11-2006 03:52
This might only be useful for items with scripts as a core part of their implementation then. Bah. Was a good idea while it lasted. Yeah, it seems odd that we can delete scripts from 'No Modify'objects. I think any sane person would assume that we couldn't.  |
|
Candide LeMay
Registered User
Join date: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 538
|
06-11-2006 04:06
Yeah, it seems odd that we can delete scripts from 'No Modify'objects. I think any sane person would assume that we couldn't.  _____________________
"If Mel Gibson and other cyberspace writers are right, one day the entire internet will be like Second Life." -- geldonyetich
|
|
Aleister DaSilva
insert witty phrase here
Join date: 19 May 2005
Posts: 168
|
06-11-2006 04:10
Why should I as the porchaser have to go to some site to give a gift of an object I OWN? It's bad enough that most items are no transfer. On a regular basis I'm out shopping and find something I'd like to buy for My wife or My girl, only to find it's no transfer. Giving them the $$ and telling them go here and buy this takes the surprise and joy out of gift giving. I've made it a habit to buy as little as possible from vendors whose items are no transfer. The copy issue is understandable, but everything should be at least transfer/mod. The vendot has been paid for it, now the item is Mine. I should be able to modify and/or dispose of it as I see fit.
|
|
Starax Statosky
Unregistered User
Join date: 23 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,099
|
06-11-2006 04:13
I'm glad we can. I've removed all the scripts from your wand - it's a nice object but it was constantly creating things for some reason and dropping them on my head I'm sorry about that. I've no idea how those scripts got there. |
|
Jsecure Hanks
Capitalist
Join date: 9 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,451
|
06-11-2006 04:18
Why should I as the porchaser have to go to some site to give a gift of an object I OWN? It's bad enough that most items are no transfer. On a regular basis I'm out shopping and find something I'd like to buy for My wife or My girl, only to find it's no transfer. Giving them the $$ and telling them go here and buy this takes the surprise and joy out of gift giving. I've made it a habit to buy as little as possible from vendors whose items are no transfer. The copy issue is understandable, but everything should be at least transfer/mod. The vendot has been paid for it, now the item is Mine. I should be able to modify and/or dispose of it as I see fit. The freedom to pass around any objects without any hurdles causes the supplier to lose out in piracy. Sometimes even for the supplier, the freedom of passing things around is more valuable from a sales point of view than the cost of piracy. Microsoft sells Windows with a license saying you don't own it, you are licensed to use one copy on your machine. Give it to a friend and you're breaking the law. The same isn't true of a tshirt from the high street. In Second Life I think this system would be good, but it would be up to content creators to think how their invention might be used, and what for, and if security is appropriate to their particular thing, whatever it is. |
|
Aleister DaSilva
insert witty phrase here
Join date: 19 May 2005
Posts: 168
|
06-11-2006 04:26
Whaaaa? Piracy? How is giving one item I paid for piracy in any sense of the word. I'm not copying the item and giving it away...I'm giving the item that IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. At the point of sale it becomes Mine does it not? Simple example.....I go to Wally World and buy, let's say a watch, to give to you for Xmas, I don't copy said watch and keep the original for Myself. I cheerfully wrap it, and hand it to you with a bow and a tag with your name. Did I steal from Wally World? Did you steal from Me? No Wally World got paid, I'm happy cause I gave you a gift. You're happy cause you got a gift. Right? No piracy, simply giving the item I bought to you and VOILA! it's yours.
|
|
Fade Languish
I just build stuff...
Join date: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 1,760
|
06-11-2006 04:31
Why should I as the porchaser have to go to some site to give a gift of an object I OWN? It's bad enough that most items are no transfer. On a regular basis I'm out shopping and find something I'd like to buy for My wife or My girl, only to find it's no transfer. Giving them the $$ and telling them go here and buy this takes the surprise and joy out of gift giving. I've made it a habit to buy as little as possible from vendors whose items are no transfer. The copy issue is understandable, but everything should be at least transfer/mod. The vendot has been paid for it, now the item is Mine. I should be able to modify and/or dispose of it as I see fit. Aleister, what I do in this instance is IM the creator, pay them and get them to transfer the gift. Some things need to be no transfer, if they're copiable, like most hair, as you noted, but it is a bit silly when it's not copiable and is no transfer. _____________________
|
|
Jsecure Hanks
Capitalist
Join date: 9 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,451
|
06-11-2006 04:31
Whaaaa? Piracy? How is giving one item I paid for piracy in any sense of the word. I'm not copying the item and giving it away...I'm giving the item that IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. At the point of sale it becomes Mine does it not? Simple example.....I go to Wally World and buy, let's say a watch, to give to you for Xmas, I don't copy said watch and keep the original for Myself. I cheerfully wrap it, and hand it to you with a bow and a tag with your name. Did I steal from Wally World? Did you steal from Me? No Wally World got paid, I'm happy cause I gave you a gift. You're happy cause you got a gift. Right? No piracy, simply giving the item I bought to you and VOILA! it's yours. Yes if you buy it, it's yours. But if a vendor takes away any barriers between you giving it to others, that means a failure in the permissions system will allow rampant piracy i.e. our exact current situation. With flaws in the permissions system, total freedom to pass things around leads to piracy when flaws are found. |
|
Aleister DaSilva
insert witty phrase here
Join date: 19 May 2005
Posts: 168
|
06-11-2006 04:40
My suggestion to fix the whole mess and keep buying simple, instead of having to IM the creator, thereby adding a layer of complexicity to the purchase....is enable the vendor to have not only buy, but buy as a gift like SLBoutique. I'm an impulse buyer, if the seller is offline, I would move on to another product, rather than having to wait hours or possibly days to complete the transaction. Hmmm, maybe I'm a proponent of the KISS system?
|
|
Yumi Murakami
DoIt!AttachTheEarOfACat!
Join date: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 6,860
|
06-11-2006 05:24
What you've described is what SL basically already does with the asset server and inventory system.
Was the post referred to a copyright issue? I thought Siggy was just angry that his content had appeared on the teen grid, not necessarily that it had been copied or sold there. |
|
Wanda Rich
Registered User
Join date: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 320
|
06-11-2006 07:07
It's bad enough that most items are no transfer. On a regular basis I'm out shopping and find something I'd like to buy for My wife or My girl, only to find it's no transfer. Giving them the $$ and telling them go here and buy this takes the surprise and joy out of gift giving. I've made it a habit to buy as little as possible from vendors whose items are no transfer. Thats the specific reason I bought a nice gift voucher system. I learned in the first week people want to give gifts and I think anyone selling no transfer items should invest in one. |
|
Jennifer Christensen
Registered User
Join date: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 112
|
06-11-2006 08:29
Great Gorean Auction! What we certainly don't need is more scripts added to items.
For anyone with Estate Mgr access, look at the script load some time in a sim. The strangest objects will sometimes bring a sim to its knees. For example, (pre new-lighting), there were 3 little lights, Sconces, they were called, that were bringing our sim's script load insanely high. Removing them solved a lot of crashing problems. As for 'piracy', I've just not seen this as a major problem. Other than some texture theft, is there really a rampant piracy of objects going on? |
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
06-11-2006 08:50
Couldn't someone just rez the item in a no-script zone and remove the script? Just base it off the old burn script. Once that bugger has been in an object nothing short of deleting the object will make that god awful crackling sound go away. Deleting the script doesn't do it. In fact, a simpler system could just BE the burn script. Unauthorized users of an object would have to listen to that mind numbing sound whenever they used it. _____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight |
|
Jonas Pierterson
Dark Harlequin
Join date: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 3,660
|
06-11-2006 09:01
People, I have read this thread: /108/63/113120/1.html And I have come to realise, there will always be problems with things being copied in Second Life. There will always be one more flaw in the system. I thought briefly about creating an immobilizer system for creations, but I think this is needed so much, I don't care how many people make a working system, as long as there are several for people to choose from. So here are all my algorithm thoughts on this. Please, people go to work and make this. We all need immobilizers for our stuff. Here's the plan: * Every creation, say a table or a chair or a slot machine or dance box or something, is registered on a particular security vendor's site. After registration, the item is given an ID number, which is hard coded into a script inside it. * Every time someone uses a vendor to buy a copy of that item, the central database is emailed saying "authorize this avatar to use product X". * Every time the product is rezzed from inventory, it's permanent security tag script emails the central server saying, my current owner, are they authorized to use me? * If the current owner is not authorized, the item self desctructs (ie. kills itself). Transfers could be handled by the owner logging into the site and formally renouncing ownership rights to a new owner, via some process. This would need to be a slick, easy to use process, and I'll bet people have several differing ideas on how to implement. That'll be good, cause competition will lead to a really slick service for the people. Alright, go to it people. What we need is a service that is as common as the Linden dollar. We need it ingrained in teddy bears. In jewellery. In umbrellas, boats, planes, chairs, tables, little prim based knives and forks. This way, people have a stronger layer of security backing them up. To a point, it's OK to bitch at the Lindens when their code falls short. But we're also a community, so at a certain point it's up to us to get the job done right with the tools available (XML-RPC, email). Let's do it. Discuss. We need to keep things easy to use. People will shy away from buying no modify objects under that systerm, just to get rid of the overhead. You only penalize 'lawful citizens' under that..its like gun laws. |