Disable script-moving

I'm really bothered that I cannot disable script-movement when I sell object. I also really don't understand the idea behind it. It also give that warning that sais 'it might break the object' which I see as really poor... design of SecondLife. I really wished they would just disable that feature. It really costs a lot more effort to secure games etc. in secondlife

I agree. No mod should mean just that. NO MOD!

However, as I understand it (and that's a limited thing, let me tell you) there's a significant change coming soon for the permissions that will address this and other flaws and shortcommings.

A permission per script that controles if you can or cannot move the script would be fine.. if nessesary put it on by default. But I really wish I could disable it...

Though the permissions system does indeed need a rehash, this is far from one of the most pressing problems. If the script is flagged as no copy, then the end user still can only use the original script. The user isn't modifying the script in any way. He's merely using it in a new application. While he's using it in that capacity, he can't use it for anything else. The rights of the author of the script are not infringed in any way. Though I know that it will inevitably happen, restricting users from moving scripts which they have purchased ultimately flies in the face of both first sale and fair use. But it's not like trampling on the rights of the consumer isn't the number 1 corporate past-time in America. Why should SL be any different?

For now, you can always write a little bit of code to ensure that your scripts are in the "proper" place before they begin running. Much like other anti-consumer ideas, it's only partially successful. While you will be able to successfully stifle innovation amongst tinkerers, the most egregious script-movers will find ways of circumventing your measures. It will ultimately take LL intervention to ensure that SL copy protections are as fascist as possible. Godspeed.

I think that little problem is going away in the proposed permissions system overhaul (coming next year).

LF

and there's always the old:

if (llGetCreator() <> "3e79876123-1234-5678-7890-abcd12345")
{
    llInstantMessage(llGetCreator(),"Someone just b0rked their " + llGetObjectName());
    llInstantMessage(llGetOwner(),"You just lost use of this script by removing from 
it's intended item, (see your licenesing agreement received when you purchased this
item) contact (insert your name here) for a new one or for a license to use this script in
your own items.");
    llDeleteInventory(llGetScriptName());
}

(disclaimer, totally uncompiled script off the top of my head and I dont actually put this kind of code in my own objects... yet)

I know, I know, not nice but as coders we have the right and the ability to keep people from abusing our code. And hey maybe you'll get a few extra scripting jobs on the side.

L8r,
UU

Ok... but what about animations?

ummmmm... make the root prim a tiny cut, dimpled, hollowed cylinder (someone called it a Primicule) and bury it in an onion-skin style stack of full alpha sphere prims so once it's not unlinkable you cant possibly select the prim that contains the anims?

Dont get me wrong I'm not at all against a *better* permission system, but as primarily a scripter I dont think Creative Commons is the best possible option and I'm worried that they're going to get worse before they get better and that they're never going to be simple.

L8r,
UU

Mark, I'm assuming this is about link messages? That's the only thing I can think of that would make script moving a problem.

I think a llSecureMessageLinked would be great.

Upshaw your my hero..

Just kidding but what Up is saying is true...start preparing for the worst before it gets better...past history has shown us that so far to prepare for the worst and pray for the best.

Sincerely, Shadow

> bury it in an onion-skin style stack of full alpha sphere prims so once it's not unlinkable you cant possibly select the prim that contains the anims?

Errr.. you know you can just use Hide Selected to dig down through the onion right?

Azelda

I meant put the anims and script in a *child* prim of course, and if you bury it more than a couple of layers deep and use select individual you reselect the top alpha prim again when you try to dig that way and selecting a Primacule (I've got to find that post and give the trademark to whoever used that term ) when it's offset to one side of the center in the middle of a bunch of other invisprims would be quite difficult, I never said impossible but quite difficult at least.

UU

When I discovered that people could take scripts out of my cars and put them in their own creations, I debated adding llGetCreator protection but decided it wasn't worth it. The scripts are no-transfer, so anything containing the scripts will be no-transfer as well, and that's all that matters to me. This is as close as I can get to allowing modifications without actually enabling the modify bit.

That having been said, script moving does ruin a large class of content such as DarkLife. Whether this is a "class of content" that the Lindens "think will be important to SL", however, is anybody's guess. (Read: script moving doesn't break the security doors to dance clubs, while phantom avatars do. )

There's currently an even BIGGER flaw in the permissions system that is similar to the ability to remove contents from no-mod objects. (If you removed part of it, it's been MODDED people!) But I'm not going to reveal what the flaw/bug is, since doing so would compromize many people, and there is NO way to prevent it, so forwarning doesn't help. It's been reported, though, so all we can do is wait and hope the less scrupulous don't find and release the info, or worse, exploit it directly.

I think no-mod objects' contents shouldn't even be VISIBLE, even if you own the object. No-mod should equal "black box".

Absolutly agree with you tiger...
For the others who are not with me... telling a story about how your object that you sold did NOT need the permission can not be called an argument...
Think about this. You cannot unlink an no-mod object right? so you cant take a part of that object out and link it to something else (correct me if I'm wrong). And everybody agrees that that is a logical choise that LL made.
Why would it be any diffrent with scripts?
What the problem with selling an object with locked inventory??? You see the object before you buy it. You probably know what the scripts does... and you pay for it...
why the........would you HAVE to be able to remove parts of the inventory?

...And this is a big issue for games like ours.

Underlying script-to-script communications could be examined and possibly used to reverse-engineer comm protocols, figure out how objects do certain clever things, etc. In the case of, say, a weapon for an MMORPG, you could take the scripts, put them into another object, figure out (let's say) how to make the weapon fire 5 times a second instead of once per turn, etc.

You want to talk about "anti-consumer?" Hahaha. How about the other consumers who are playing said MMORPG and can't figure out how the hell Player X always annihilates them, consistently kills all the monsters, and collects all the pickups 100% of the time, even in conditions that make it highly unlikely?

I'm a developer and I support strong script protection.

Mark,
I know a scripter that uses a code that allows his scripts to only work in an object created by him... I would recommend you do the same.

I am in favor of any enhancements to the permission system that allow the creator more options in deciding what may and may not be done with their creations.

Regardless of how each of us feels about removing scripts etc. from our own objects, we should recognize the absolute right of the creator to decide for themselves how they wish their creations to be used / sold.

-AP

Antagonistic,

The absolute right of the creator? Pardon, but there is no such thing. If there were, the Tivo would be illegal. If there were, then the VCR never would have been allowed. If creators have absolute control over their creation, then the entire field of journalism would be nonexistant, as journalists would no longer be able to quote people. The courts have long recognized that the rights of the creator are limited in scope in order to foster progress. Unfortunately, this hasn't stopped certain entities from ignoring those restrictions. Let us not join the likes of the RIAA or MPAA.

Ardith, you are talking about fair use.

However, fair use as it applies in RL does not directly translate to SL. In addition, this particular discussion is not about copying under fair use laws but instead about the creators right to determine how their creation may or may not be used. Such things do in fact exist in RL, especially with regard to software, which most closely approximates the original issue of script removal.

I firmly maintain that creators should have the *freedom* (yes freedom!) to dictate how their creations are used. If person A wishes to make it so their script may not be removed from a particualr object, that is indeed their right. If I choose to make it where my scripts *must* be distributed under the terms of the GPL ( http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html ), that is my right. The important thing is that each person gets to *choose* the terms of distribution.

Again, I understand about fair use et al. However, in this case it is comparing apples and oranges, if you will permit the cliche'.

-AP

You are right in suggesting that fair use is not applicable here, Ant. However, there are a whole slew of rights extended to consumers. I think the more relevant right here is that of first sale.

-http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/scc/tutorial/basics2a.html

This is an almost exact parallel to the current discussion. If you've any further doubt, review the now-infamous Betamax case. This case not only provided us with the fair use defense for time shifting, which is important but not entirely relevant to this topic, but also upheld the tenets of first sale.

-http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/B/htmlB/betamaxcase/betamaxcase.htm

In this case, the copyright of the original creator of an object is not infringed, because no unauthorized duplication takes place. There is only one copy of the script available, and by taking the script from the item, he renders the original item inactive. Thus, there is no infringement.

If the script is copy+no transfer, the script can be copied out of the item and placed into another. In this way, it is possible to copy a script into many objects that were not made by the creator, while still having the script running in the original object. Creators can object to this on grounds that they intend their scripts to run as a single instance. This is a well-established precedence in the software industry. If you want to install Windows on five machines, even if all the machines are yours, you need to get five licenses, or negotiate a site license.

Don't get me wrong, Huns. My intent was never to defend the current permission system. It is flawed, and I look forward to seeing it revised. My intent was merely to defend the principles of fair use and first sale, and to dissuade people from the legally inaccurate opinion that creators have absolute control over their creations.

This was an unsolicited rant from an EFF wannabe. Now we return you to your regularly scheduled dose of Infocratic propaganda.

There are some pieces of software that are licensed to run on only one *specific* CPU. I mean that literally. The software is keyed to that CPU's serial number and is not permitted (and indeed will not!) run on any other CPU.

That's prolly the closest comparison to this example & is how software can work in RL .. legally. The creator has absolute control over how their creation is used. Which I advocate.

-AP