Uh-oh

I shouldn't bite, but I'm gonna.

This is pretty much exactly what is wrong with FL today. I really hope this isn't gonna be the case in SL too.

LSL has a very, very limited set of functions. Aside from the fact that it's generally not hard to figure out how someone did something without even looking at their script, there are only a limited number of ways to do things.

I sure hope people don't start crying foul when someone uses a channel relay in a particular way that they 'thought of first'.

And what's an original idea? I made furniture that changed color and textures on command in my first week in SL. I had not seen or heard of any other color changing stuff at that time. It was therefore an original idea.

Now I've been here a while and had a chance to explore, I see that loads of people have done color changing stuff. I've had other people come up and go 'cool! I'm gonna go do that!'. And why not? Should no one be allowed to create color changing objects because its been done before? It's obvious. It's inevitable.

Should I delete mine and not continue down that particular avenue because someone did it first? I'm undoubtedly using the same technique as whoever did it before me, because there really is only the one way to do it.

Should I buy a snow script from someone for $50 (or $500 as I've actually seen) when I can write one in 10 seconds flat for nothing? I guess I should. Someone elses idea. Someone elses 'copyright code'. It doesn't matter if I've seen it or not. It's all gonna be done the same way. It has to be.

Sure... Darklife, collectively, should be protected. It's a fantastic work. As are so many things in SL. But I wholeheartedly and totally disagree with Jacks assertion that any 1 line of code is worthy of copyright. Not in a language like LSL. It can't and won't work.

I wish people would stop shouting IP and copyright at each other and fighting about who owns what rights. I thought we were here to have fun. Not beat each other up. You know what? People will buy what they perceive to be the best version of something or the best priced if there is little difference. There is room for competition. So what if two or three or four people make guns? ALL guns basically do the same thing, don't they?

Me? I'm gonna continue to build and script stuff as I or my friends/customers think of them. And if someone did it or something like it before me or does it after me, well good luck to them, too.

Admittedly, I wouldn't tend to copy other people blatantly like some seem to do, because with all the creativity and freedom that SL allows, what's the point in going out and making an exact replica of something that's already there? (Excepting of course if the original creator feels the need to charge a ridiculous price for it )

My 2 euros, anyway.

It seems...

Intellectual property rights came in on 11/14.

Davada's script was written long before then.

Jack Orlowski was making OpFor guns with the script before then.

Which means Ryen made the modifications sometime in between "before then" and "long before then", meaning no IP rights.

This is why I never gave out scripts pre 1.1 unless I was sure i didn't want to be able to exert control over them.

This is why Bos (sorry to drag you in this) would offer to put his vehicle scripts in people's objects and give them back to them.

So, to finish my "It seems... to be a moot issue"

i knew Davada, he was pretty free with his scripting info.

hell just take the numerous existing examples and write your own script I mean why not.

Just like to point out that it wasnt actually Eggy who said that....

and no, I'm not on crack. I don't think I can explain what I said any better, really. Sorry if I didn't adequately get my point across.

Yeah, protect your stuff - but you really cant expect that no one is ever going to come up with the same routines when we're all working within the same limited framework. There may be more than one way to skin a cat in SL, but there really arent all that many. I'm just saying it's not practical to expect that no one will do the same thing in the same way you did, and therefore its not practical to expect to 'own' the IP on every line of code. All IMHO. And yours obviously differs. But that doesnt make me a crack addict.

So *any* line of code is copyrightable?

lol I'd like to see someone claim original copyright over any of the following lines:

llSetTimerEvent(0);
llListen(0,"",llGetOwner(),"";
llStartAnimation("dead";

or how about just:

default

or even:

{

or how about an empty line of code?

The word "any" literally applies to all of these. When you start talking about copyright and other legal matters, literal meaning counts.

BTW, to compare with traditional copyrights on creative works of english text, I highly doubt someone could win a case of copyright infringement over a single sentence alone among a larger volume of text.

1 PWNED j0o RyE|\| !!1!1!1!! dont try to start a flame war if you dont have any hard facts to back you up!

LoL

Ok, Jack. I see there is no point in trying to debate the matter with you, evident by the fact you chose to disregard every point and example I made and accuse me of being on crack for a single line of my post without any consideration for my reasoning which was made at length.

And evident by your response to Kex, who managed to say in far fewer words exactly what I was trying to get across.

Do you honestly think that what you have said is viable, here, in SL? Who is on crack?

This thread was made as a warning, telling my situation as an example, please make it no more then this, can Linden pleasel lock this thread?

If this is correct, then the copyright on the gun scripts in question is owned by Linden Labs, and Ryan doesn't have a leg to stand on. He can't try to enforce someone else's copyright, and since he voluntarily sold the scripts in question, he can't claim trade secret protection.

Kris Ritter said:


You cannot copyright an idea. That is a benefit to all.
You can patent an *original* idea, which has been created (not just on one's head), but that's a much more indepth process than copyrights.

Also someone brought up copyrighting one line of code. Of course that's silly if you want to copyright a standard function or convention. such as "default", you simply couldn't uphold your copyright for using standards.

But picture this, I write a one line poem:
A blue bird chirp chirpie chirps and poops on your window.
..I copyright that because it's my original work.

I make $1,000,000 selling it to Poetry Today magazine. You read about me making big dollars and you say to yourself, "I could do that!". So you write:
A black crow caw cawie caws and lands on your window.

I sue you for infringement upon my copyright, I do have a strong case here, I just have to prove that you took my words, removed a couple, added a little, and called it your own work.

The idea about writing a poem and writing a poem about birds isn't protected. But my original style, words, syntax, grammer, etc that form and create the poem are. Taking that from me is what's illegal.

Inventing a scanner to search for a player named Bob within 50m isn't copyrightable.

Taking someone's script that does that and renaming some vars, making it look for Fred, changing the timer, increasing/decreasing the range, is an infringement.

Writing the same routines, from scratch, isn't a copyright infringement. You have taken the idea, and have created your own method. The idea isn't copyrightable, it's the method that is. The work.


Bos

From the US constitution:
The Congress shall have power to (snipped non-copyright-related powers of congress) promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

It follows that if you are an INVENTOR, meaning, you dont own the copyright on "default" or "{" because you didnt invent it, and you do something that PROMOTES PROGRESS, meaning that "llSay(0, "Hello World!";" is equally uncopyrightable material, you have the exclusive right to replicate it, for a limited time, after which it falls in the public domain which means anyone can copy it and do with it what they see fit.
This does not in any way mean other people arent allowed to make their own versions of something you made, of course, as long as its made from scratch.
So if anyone out there sees something horribly overpriced, come to me and I'll probably be able to make you a free copy
The good thing about capitalism is that cardboard tigers dont last long in a free market.
( loved your post Kris )

From copyright.gov:

WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT?

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

*

Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)
*

Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
*

Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration
*

Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)

Uhm, I thought the term was 'paper' tiger?

Whateva
My english is so much better than your portuguese, Devlin. How is Maerl? I miss her so much

I believe this is in reference to Patents and not Copyrights. Patents are secured "for limited times" to the inventor. No one can hold a patent indefinitely, at least not in the U.S.

Copyrights, as far as I know, have no time limit, even if you die your copyright remains. Throughout time... At least that's my understanding of it.

Bos

Wow, this thread's topic sure has changed, hasnt it?

Everything you said makes a lot of sense, Bos, and was pretty much what I thought was the case. Having said that, I still say it's still a blurry area when it comes to something like LSL, as highlighted in your own conclusion - you say that writing the same routines from scratch is ok. Then you say that the method is copyrightable.

See thats where I have a problem.

And I might be beginning to sound like a stuck record, but I don't think it alters what I said before. You can only script something in so many ways - it you write an original script that performs a given function, and that functionality has already been done before - with or without your knowledge - its not likely that it will differ all that much from the other version, whether or not you have seen their script.

So... I am not infringing by creating from scratch, but I might have come up with pretty much the same code to do it. In which case, how do I prove that I haven't just rehashed someone elses code to do it? How do I even prove 'the work' is mine.

Going back the the original topic of discussion as an example, a gun is a gun is a gun.

Regardless of whether <insert person A> did/did not (delete as applicable) steal/borrow/plagiarise <insert person B>'s script or not... how many ways are their to script a gun to fire physical object projectiles in LSL? I've never seen a gun script. But I bet you that if I scripted one myself and had the chance to compare it with similar scripts, it will be pretty much the same code. Original? Copy? Who knows?

It won't work. And it'll just lead to a whole mess of arguments and accusations (already is).

BTW, copyright is lifetime + 70 years, thanks to Disney.

Copyright was originally to be left out of the Constitution, but at the last moment it was felt it might be a good thing to add a limited monopoly to encourage the progress of creative works.

Unfortunately, the "limited" term has been reinterpreted many times to be practically unlimited.

Also, I am of the opinion that our culture would still produce and benefit from a wide range of creative works even if the copyright law did not exist. Perhaps, it we would all even enjoy even more creative derivative works, as Disney has done with many classic stories.

In practice, I generally try to avoid duplicating anyone else's efforts as much as is practical. I prefer to express my creativity not only in my work but in the distinctive novelty of the work.

If I were to encounter something which I wanted but could not afford, I would probably attempt to create it myself, but I often would not distribute such work in respect for the original designer's application of novelty.

BTW, as far as I know, copyright and patent law do not apply to works that you create yourself as deriviatives so long as you do not stand to profit from them beyond your individual enjoyment of the work, and do not dilute the value of the original.

IANAL, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.


If you aren't terribly concerned about someone 'stealing' your scripts, your on your own.

If you are concerned about it, you have 2 options, as I see it.

Label it 'copyright'. This is problematic, in and of itself. Why? Because you'll have to give permission to anyone else who wants to have a copy of it.

You don't really have to, there is a concept of 'tacit' permission whenever you give it to someone, but there are always the questions of what rights you assign to them.

One could argue that if you left modify/copy on, then they can do what they like with it.

You could also 'copyright' it, and package it with a license.

It's a rather ardeous task to write a license, but so it goes Your license can be something very simple, such as "So and so people have the right to use this script. This smaller list of people have a right to copy it."
Blah blah blah. Make a text block, put it on a notecard.

We have a fair number of copyright issues I have to deal with at work, so I have some degree of experience with this painful subject.

In my mind, if you aren't terribly concerned about people using your script, you could GPL it. For those who don't know, the GPL=General Public License. It is kind of the 'golden rule' license. It says: You can use my source code (in this case script) for ANY purpose, so long as if you give it to ANYONE else, you are required to give them a readable copy of the text of the source code [script].

Anyone is allowed to do anything with your script, so long as they give others the same privledge, so no stealing something ReallyCool(TM) and putting it in your own no-modify no-copy L$ 20,000 objects.

Be warned: If you sell items with GPLed scripts, you have to be ready to give any of your customers a copy of the script that they are able to modify.

In my mind, this is the best option for most easy scripts (things like the gun scripts), that should be free (scripts in the scripting forum, for example). Its a very community oriented license.

As long as you are the SOLE author of the script, however, you can dual license it. This means, if I make a script, and I license it under the GPL, and you want to use my script in your airplane, and you want to be able to sell your airplane, you can ask me for an exception.

I would tell you 'yeah, sure', charge you a certain amount of L$, and give you permission to use my script for any purpose you want, without having to give it to your customers.

Anyways, just my 2 bits,

Perhaps I'll start a SL law practice,
Bit, Inc.

;P

Err...not really true. The ONLY exemption to copyright law is 'fair use'....

Fair use is hard to define, basically, if you are using the copyrighted design for research, or are only using a small, immaterial portion of it in a substantially different derivative work, you are fine.

Otherwise, you are technical in violation.

THIS IS THE BIGGEST REASON I THINK LOADS OF STUFF SHOULD BE UNDER THE GPL
The problem I see is: Person X creates y (either in RL or SL). Person X sells this y. Person X charges a fair and reasonable price for y, and everyone is happy.

2 years later, person X stops selling Y. Now for ~130 years, Y is not avaliable to anyone.

All know designs/copies of Y will probably fade into dust before we are allowed to copy it again.

The community actually LOSES something because of the copyright extensions---This hinders the arts/sciences, in my mind.

Patents are even worse. No ifs, ands, or buts. Can't duplicate the patent protected process.

Luckily, patents usually only last 7 years, and patents are kept on file---after 7 years, you basically have the instructions necessary to build whatever device was patented.


Bit

Seeing something, observing how it works, then making your own from scratch is called reverse engineering. People do it all the time in the technology industry so it must be legal. In fact, I think that's how AMD made their first x86 compatible processors; by reverse engineering Intel's (I might be wrong on this point).

There's a big difference between "doing the same thing as someone else" and "copying someone else". Lot's of companies make cars. They aren't copying each other. If someone does all original work and the result is similar to someone else's I think they're free and clear even if it was their intent to make it similar.

Otherwise we'd better go way way back and find out who was the very first person to make an attachable object that shoots a projectile and pay them royalties for all the guns ever made. The problem is, that person was probably a Linden so all of you who make guns better stop selling and start paying them restitution for your plagiarism.

Note #1: Patents are for 20 years from the date the patent is filed (formerly, it was 17 years from the date it was granted, but some corporations abused this by extending the application process for as much as a half-century).



There are two ways of protecting a technology: patenting it, and making it a trade secret. Patenting it give you 20 years of protection from competition, but in exchange, you must file detailed instructions on how the technology works with the government, so that after the 20 years is up, anyone can duplicate it. Making something a trade secret means that you keep how the technology works secret for as long as you want, but you give up a great deal of protection in exchange. Patents protect you against almost all methods of duplicating your technology, including independent development and reverse engineering, while declaring something a trade secret only gives you protection against industrial espionage -- and once the secret's out, you can't make it a secret again.

How AMD, Cyrix, and others made Intel-compatible CPUs without violating the Intel patents was they made work-alikes: CPUs that externally worked the same as the Intel CPUs, but used none of the patented techniques.