Copying objects and textures by reverse engineering the cache

Anyone tried doing this?

Would a sophisticated program that did this make copryright protection pointless?

it's not worth the trouble. it's too easy to zoom a straightforward camera shot, save the texture to disk, size it, apply a seamless application and upload it.

or so i'm told well by um those people over there /points

Hmm .. Well, for duplicating complex prim objects that doesn't work so well.

However, I suspect that extracting prim data from the cache may be a task of great complexity. Though I must admit that I don't know how SL communicates prim info, I'm fairly certain that it isn't just plain-text. Even if you could extract some descriptive info about a prim, what guarantee do you have that you would be able to use that information to reproduce the object?

Then again, I suppose I should never underestimate the tenacity of people eager to tinker.

Prims are not cached AFAIK. This can only be used for textures, sounds & animations[?].

In theory, you could reverse-engineer prims even if they aren't cached. I'd like to quote a post I made back when Cory Linden proposed a new permissions system:



(From /120/86/24858/7.html#post238167)

when it gets to that point, it will cease to be a "problem".

Defeating copy protection is a release valve for monopolism.

This is why i make it harder to steal any textures I may sell by putting a bunch of text onthe display photos. If they do steal it they have to put up with all my store giberish on them and with the way I price things its not worth stealing.

If someone figures out how to reverse engineer the cache, do tell!
I have a 1-year old cache lying on a spare HD here!
Imagine the historical artefacts we could uncover there!

Just a silly Question as a "Release valve for monopolism" does this mean that I cannot protect a image that I create for my sole distribution and sale of said texture?

If this is the case there is really no point in me creating anything anymore now is there.

This would be sad if every creator took up this stance but then again I digress...

Shadow

Yeah, Shadow. There are folks who believe that everything, and i do mean everything, should be absolutely and without bounds, 100% public domain.

These are generally people who have never created anything through long hours of "blood, sweat, and tears", just to turn around and see someone else take credit for it and make a profit off of it.

Few of the "everything should be open and free" folks I have met would ever say, for example, "This object I liberated, via breaking DRM, from (author name), and I hereby give full credit to (author name) for his/her creation, but believe it should be public domain."

No, generally, they put it up for sale and claim they made it.

The "everything should be free and open" folks tend to hide behind the "Robin Hood" guise, but when push comes to shove, they rarely uphold the spirit of that. I'm not saying that "breaking and redistributing" is suddenly okay if they take the "redistribution of wealth" mindset -- it isn't.

It just would add a bit more nobility if at least they honestly thought they were doing it for a good cause.

They often aren't. They're often doing it because they *want* what you made, and simply want the credit and/or profit that you are getting, and they aren't.

This is one of the reasons why on one hand I hate the RIAA and music DRM - I can't stand it, and think it's horrible,

but on the other hand, the kiddies who think that "all music should be free" also disgust me; they'll hide behind a wall of "But it's art, and it shouldn't be chained!" dogma, but really when it comes down to brass tacks, they just don't want to pay for it.

Say, for example, person A in SL is selling, I don't know, a shirt, that everyone likes, for L$200. She's doing really well because of it. Person Z comes in, hacks the cache, and <trumpets blare> "LIBERATES!" that shirt, and sells it for, oh, I don't know, L$10.

Person Z could say they're "taking down a monopoly", but when in reality it wasn't really a cornered market; it was simply a creation a lot of people liked, and person Z couldn't create something to best or compete with that creation. So, they get angry and "liberate" it.

People confuse "monopolizing" a market with someone "just being really good at what they do and who is hard to compete with." They aren't the same.

Of course, most protection schemas will be broken, if there's enough demand for the content that they protect.

And those who break them will continue to feel themselves deserving of the content they extract.

Take the DMCA for example: I disagree with it when it comes to getting 12 year olds arrested for downloading Britney Spears tracks.

However, I do NOT disagree with it when it has helped, (and it has helped people in this situation): -- independent "mom and pop" photography shops that have had their photos stolen, used professionally, and profitted from by large magazine and book publishers.

Case A is using the DMCA and rights management to enforce a monopoly and unrealistic pricing practices.

Case B is using the DMCA and rights management to keep a struggling operation from being ruined.

....
Many of the proponents for DRM and rights enforcement would say that it's right to treat Case A equally to Case B, because it shouldn't matter "who" is being protected.

Many of the people who are against any form of DRM or rights enforcement would also say that it's right to scorn Case B just as equally as Case A, because it doesn't matter who it is and why they're doing it, NO content should be protected.

Personally I think it's a lot more nuanced than that, and has to do with actual damages caused. Maybe if that was looked at a little more, we'd have more equitable footing out there -- but unfortunately you can't put into policy who is an asshole and who is not.

And there are pro-DRM assholes, and anti-DRM assholes.

Do you want to be despised around the world?

Do you want to be known as $hadow Weaver?

You should release your textures as open source so that we can all examine and 'improve' them.

All your work should be given out for free, as in beer.

- T -

I've got more'n a lil bit of experience 'liberating' binary content from unknown file types and i'll tell ya know its not going to be as simple as opening the thing up and extracting each image/sound file in turn... LL is abit smarter'n that and things are bein archived in a way that its probably not going to be possible to jus 'pop' them out like people used to do with old tracked music and bitmaps from games a-la 1992 (aka its not a simple binary record)

That and what yer askin to do is immoral, actually via the dmca illegal, and is jus pretty scummy to begin with. Once ya stole a couple of things that way you'd prolly find yerself banned, and the cache re-encrypted according to a different schema anyway.

Now that I've gotten some comments let me expand on what I said.

I didn't say that copy protection was bad.

What I was implying is that when content gets very monopolized and very expensive, it becomes more worthwhile for those on the shadowy side to try to de-protect it. And more valuable to come up with better protection schemes, et al. An equilibrium is reached. I could go into more detail on the economics, if you'd like.

By the time you reach that point, the top level content producers are already fantastically wealthy by any standard. The average producer of content is already not making any money at that point because the bar is raised so high. Which is why I said it wouldn't be a "problem".

It's like the RIAA crying about mp3s. People aren't going to stop making music even if there is no "music industry" the likes of which we see today.

I'm not "taking sides"... I don't think we are at a point where we in general can brush off the risks of content copying right now. But I also don't think it will ever be possible to totally secure it either.

So I wasn't advocating copying stuff in any way. Just pointing out a phenomenon. Sorry if that wasn't so clear.

See my post at the end of /20/c0/25648/1.html where I propose some ways of getting around the issue, eg object copyrighting service within SecondLife.

Azelda

Michi, I totaly agree with you on all your points.
I was just making a point of hindsight reference my blood sweat and tears.
I knew the answer but I wanted her to answer.

Tito, ghod knows I hope you were joking. If you truly mean this then there is a lot of creative stuff I have this world will never see because of the "Assholes" Michi mentioned. Sad that creative minds have to resort to that formality but if its not accessable then it cant be copied or redistributed now can it.

Eltee, I have done some reengineering as you have spoken about in the past in Civilazation a game I played on my PC.

But the images I created were for my personal game enjoyment and just to see if I could do it for my use.

But I guess it goes back to morality, as Michi mentioned about those that are Green with Jealousy and being SL is based on the almighty $LBack then maybe its time for me to stop producing content. I mean I have already had stuff stolen credited by others and out and out ripped off so whats the point anymore why should I create a damn thing anymore. I have friends that quit producing content and left the game for this very reason. Shakes head sadly and I miss those guys too.

In all honesty I guess I shouldn't create anything else either.
Because, apparently my hours of toil my hours of sweat my hours of creating something I am proud of is merely $ for the thieves.
Maybe this is a cynical view but ghod help me ever come across something like that RL as my Lawyers wouldl be all over that person like stink on shit.
But then agian a Thief's Shit does not stink does it considering the legal systems of the world.

Shakes head sadly and dismayed walks out of thread.

Shadow

im jus sayin the cache isn simply a binary record .dat style file like the old 90's games used to use. Its not like you can jus browse over to it with yer local editor and start pullin out .bmp's and .ogg's

Copying objects and textures by reverse engineering the cache ...

If I see a texture of mine out there being sold by someone else, I will hunt them down and castrate them in the real flesh.

Passes Lash a Beer Can and M80 firecracker....Might need this to keep from bloodying up a good knife. Oh yeah make sure they count to 10...with their hands.

Also remember that objects which depend on scripts for their value will not be copyable under the SL architecture, and that this will apply to any other internals of an object which are seen only by the developer. So for example particle systems will be much harder to copy, as would audio clips played by an object. Since the emission/creation of these things is under script/interactive control, it would be very difficult to write an automated process that captured those items.

My gut is that complex/valuable objects within SL will be very well protected by the architecture.... for example vehicles, guns, jewelry/attachments with behaviors, etc.

I also agree with Michi's post. Shadow, I just wanted to say: don't let a few immoral/insolent/infantile characters make you lose your joy in the process of creation, the satisfaction of pursuing an art form. If all the artists in the real world stopped producing because of the actions of a few counterfeiters, then that would be a dark day.

I'm not saying that $ is irrelevant, but sometimes in frustration/despair, artistic people lose sight of what brought them in the first place. Of course, artistic people also tend to be exploited terribly by less scrupulous characters... oh i'm talking in circles...

*Bodyguards Phillip*

Humorous that you responded after me passing out Beer cans and M80's for castration tools Phillip.

However, in all honesty as a sincere question what is LL Stance on Ownership and Public Domain?

I mean from my stand point I percieve that Linden Lab is trying to do everything in your power to protect the copyright of creators.

Although quite a few of us have been severely hampered by past effects of bugs and such some are becoming disallusioned as to whether we can be assured that things such as data stream encryption and reverse engineering will not be the future "BUG". Even though neither are truly a bug but thievery on the highest level.

Phillip I may seem indignant at times and appear subversively hostile when it comes to copyright protection. But as you remember when I was negotiating for a Trademark License agreement I had to do research on all of the copyright laws to see what the Limitations of what I could or could not do.

I know LL as a company understands this but there are many others out there in SL that continually infringe upon this. They do not understand the consiquences of what could happen to them were one of the creators to pursue a bonified trademark or copyright infringement case.

So How do we rectify it?

Putting more code in place as Cory suggested in his permissions revamp? Unfortunately this leaves still far to many loopholes to be extorted. Its also very cumbersome in its initial format to percieve every coincidence of application.

Trust in the honor system? Unfortunately this has failed as well.

Do we set a date and wipe the servers of all textures and start over? That uproar alone would be the demise of SL.

I really don't have an answer because I am on the Creator end of the spectrum not the end user thus my views are skewed by that bias alone.

Admittedly I am flustrated. In lieu of recent events, continual notification of my old product being sold without my permission, it continues to dishearten me as a creator.

How do I solve not only my delima but, the delima of other creators that have been taken advantage of as well?

anyway I will step back for now and continue to ponder as I really don't see a solution short of a full blown wipe and restart with the new permissions. But again thats just my personal opinion.

Sincerely, Shadow Weaver

You dont need to zoom in on an object, or reverse engineer the cache, for textures.

Open the texture, enlarge it... snapshot

> My gut is that complex/valuable objects within SL will be very well protected by the architecture.... for example vehicles, guns, jewelry/attachments with behaviors, etc.

Wellll.... yes, these are protected because the scripts are protected, but with a few exceptions *cough*seburo*cough* my impression is that the majority of items sold in SecondLife are clothing and avatars, both of which are copyable in the current system, because they are available from the client?

Azelda