Builders Beware

I like Jarod's point because it gets at a point I have trouble articulating. Something about the difference between a game for everyone and just another real life business for some.

Having those two things mixed up causes no end of problems for SL, I think.

If it gets too business-y, there won't be any game-y types left to buy the work of the business-y types.

I also agree with Sensual. I wouldn't sell someone's item as my own, but I would see nothing wrong with copying all the numbers (just like taking a measuring tape into the furniture store to copy that table), then going home, building it, and learning from it. I haven't actually gone to all that much trouble over anything, but I have taken objects I already own and taken them apart, studied them, and practiced building them myself.

And I do very often go into edit to look at the details of someone else's item. I haven't sat there and copied down the numbers, but I could if I wanted to. So that the ability to see these numbers is a sort of learning thing.

Which brings me - and pardon me for being so poor at articulating all this that it is taking this long - but that brings me to another business/game dichotomy I see pulling here: That between learning and business.

I almost always come down on the side of learning rather than of sequestering knowledge. This doesn't mean that I don't agree these numbers should be hidden until you have purchased a thing. Just that I think people learning how to make things is more important than individuals making a profit on things. And that fun trumps all.

coco

The point is, they can't pass it off as the real thing. A "Sensual Casanova knock-off" won't say that it was created by Sensual Casanova.

But it will be, for all intents and purposes, Sensual's design and thought process and creative energy.

LF

We've had this discussion many times before, albiet about different things ingame. What it boils down to is protecting people's ability to learn to build by reverse engineering, and protecting builder's ability to not have their stuff copied and resold for less somewhere else.

Since any instances of "freebie resell" places or stores where a person is selling "copies" get reported in here fairly quickly, i'm not sure that the latter is much of a problem. People are getting mad at outliers.

Compounding the problem is the fact that, in theory, all "content" will eventually be beamed to and from servers similar to what's done with the traditional internet.

----

Like "piracy" on the internet, this is nothing new. How many companies do we see going "bankrupt" over it?

Is it fundamentally wrong that products like Blender are copies or "knockoffs" of programs like Maya?

The fact of the matter is, these practices have their own set of strengths and weaknesses. "Copies" and "Derivatives" commonly are unable to get a large market share simply because the "thieves" don't quite have the volition or vision of the original creators. Sure, they might make a couple sales - but in general, that pales to the business the creator is doing by word of mouth alone.

Exceptions do exist, of course. Microsoft comes to mind.

I seriously tire over this issue. Not only for being nearly openly flamed over it before, but because of the simple fact making one object does not entitle someone to an income stream off it for life. Seriously.

Hell. All my content is freely distributed and able to be copied. All the same, how many people do I see trying to take credit for my work? I can count the instances on one hand.

So, like it or not, people will have to cope with this issue eventually. If it makes people feel "better" to kill the messengers over stuff like that, then more power to you.

Case in point: Innovate. Keep innovating. You'll never have to worry about your bank account again.

I own an iPod, as do a large majority of MP3 player owners. My iPod cannot play WMA or OGG files, it can't pick up FM stations, it has no external microphone, but I love my iPod more than any Muvo because my iPod has the most important feature of all: a picture of the Apple logo on the back. Those knock-off couches may have everything going for them, but they won't have come from a Casanova store. They won't BE couches by Sensual Casanova.

Her sales will not be hurt because people copy her design. The only thing that would hurt her sales would be if people learned how to make couches by copying hers and then started making better couches because of it.

Are you arguing that it's a bad thing if people learn from her couches and start making better ones? Are you saying that only one person should benefit from her expertise?

I'm saying that the creator of an object should have the right, within the system, to prevent tampering of the inner bits of their creation.

Your iPod, your xbox, your television, and your digital cameras all have something in common. The companies making these products don't want some bright-eyed, bushy-tailed person ripping apart their designs and figuring out how they work. They have patents. They have copyrights. They have warranties that are immediately voided as soon as you crack the case.

Can I open up my Sony television and figure out how it works in a show of Damn-the-Man anti-corporatism? Sure.

But, were I to copy it piece for piece, and then sell my creation in the local Sears store, and name it the Sorny Television, Sony would be on the horn within seconds with about 304 patent violations and perhaps even more copyright violations. Not to mention various civil suits for dilution of the Sony trademark, and so on.

Second Life has no recourse nor resources for content creators to protect their work. There is no warranty to void, no copyright enforcement, no patent system to enforce.

I understand where you're coming from, Jarod, but I still want the POSSIBILITY of making an entirely-closed system if someone really wants to.

LF

Great, fine, whatever. Then they should fucking build with Poser, Blender, Infini-D, 3DMAX, AutoCAD, etc. They shouldn't build in a collaborative, public, digital world; get upset because someone copies their shit; and then demand Linden Lab remove a tool that builders can actually use. And no, she didn't demand they remove it, but follow this argument to its logical conclusion: if Linden Lab offers a tool for copyright piracy, if they're liable for any misuse of the tool, then the safest way to keep themselves out of court is to remove the tool.

This is a very slipperly slope you're talking about. People can't build HD-TV compliant computers after July because of this slippery slope. Linden Lab is WELCOME to defend a creator's right to keep people from getting to "the inner bits" but then they're also welcome to cut off their own fingers, neither of these seem like ideas condusive to furthering Second Life as "the metaverse."

Not for long if Sony has its way. See my above sentence: People can't build HD-TV compliant computers after July because of this slippery slope. People have been ARRESTED for decrypting DVD and Adobe Reader encryption schemes. If you start calling down DMCA on Second Life, who knows what we won't be able to do anymore.

If we start villifying people who reverse-engineer stuff, it will be a closed system. Closed down.

Impossible, Lordfly. However, I will agree that "practical" protection would be a good idea.

In essence, the ability to make it really hard to "copy" something - to the point that making your own from scratch is more practical.

To use your example, Lordfly - if you were to "reverse-engineer" a Sony television and take a new one to market, you'd discover that it would cost you way more than it does Sony to produce one. Economics 101. The "copyright" crap is just icing on the cake.

However, the creation of televisions - that is, how they work from a research point of view - is open to everybody. As was mentioned earlier, drawing the line is what's fundamentally important. I feel LL has drawn an unpopular line with the "selling elite," but their doing so serves a point.

I also feel that we're headed toward the realm of "real" 3D modelling. See this thread for a more detailed analysis. From a layman perspective, the level of data you can store with a real model is astounding, given the relatively small size of the actual file.

We're not there yet largely because streaming technology and, indeed, Second Life technology in general is not there yet. But it is getting there.

For sake of argument, I will be attaching a copy of a simple 3D model I have made, in OBJ form, to this reply. I will task anyone to try and take the time necessary to "copy" it vertex by vertex. Indeed, be my guest - I honestly hope you have no plans this weekend doing so.

CrystalShard's Dance Foo
Sensual Casanova's own dance machine(s)
Owen Khan's Chimera... (like CrystalShard's, can be worn or dropped on ground, etc)

Um... sure there are others.

(edited to add: Which is not to say that any of these were "copies" of anything.)

Sorry to nitpick, but that was struck down in a federal appeals court today.

LF

My bad. I wonder, though, did those hurt Kris Ritter's sales? Did those destroy the dance-o-matic market? Are those better than original versions?

Oh, it was? Awesome! I hadn't heard. Thanks. Good to know that the slipperslope has some handholds.

I hardly ever pay for a build. I pay for textures on builds and scripts in builds.

The first exception to this is something that is cute, easy and cheap - yeah, throw some cash at it and BINGO - is mine. The second exception is something that is prim dense, complicated, and tedious - throw a bunch of cash at it and I'm saved the trouble and effort.

So no, I am not going to buy your 3 prim chair that has a simple texture and no scripts. I also don't care if you copy my items. Make all the plywood clones ya want. People buy my items because of the details and excellent textures and scripts they have.

Case in point - one of my biggest sellers is my crystals. They come in all sorts of colors with detailed and useful descriptions on the chakra and healing crystals, and the excellent use of textures and scripts the entire line has. I see others crystals around, the build is simple enough, but mine are among the best out there because of the texture and script work that went into them.

So go ahead, make all the plywood crystals you want - have fun.

Ok, one last bit before I go home for the day.

The reason why Sony has so many copyrights is that there are a bagizillion things inside the TV that Sony's R&D department either built or reverse-engineered. Multiple parts of varying natures. Switches and tubes and gizmos (oh my), all of which either Sony created on their own, or licensed/purchased from another vender.

Now, this analogy doesn't apply to SL, because everything is built out of one thing, a prim. And the only people that can actually claim ownership of a prim is LL.

To me, it's not akin to trying to copy and sell a Smony TV, but more like someone built a TV out of painted plywood, and then you measured the plywood, took pictures of the paint, went back home and made your own version of the TV from what you got. You didn't invent anything in the process, and LF, you've been around long enough to know that everything that can be made has been made in one form or another at this point.

It's honestly very much like the argument against the recording industry's attempts to DRM music: if it can be seen or heard on a computer, it can be copied.

Your hostile tone is insulting, since you're advocating that people be allowed to readily steal other people's work. It's one thing to reproduce something from scratch in an attempt to improve your skill at reproduction and building. It's another thing to mindlessly copy properties from one prim to another. It's even yet another thing when that replica is sold or presented as being an original. People can learn from a build without the exact prim proprties being present.

Also, you've misunderstood reverse engineering. The practice of copying an object prim by prim is not covered by the reverse engineering exclusion. Reverse engineering is only protected so long as care is taken to maintain a "clean room" while the technology is being reverse engineered. All work on the reverse engineered clone must be performed in the absence of knowledge about the object/process/technology being cloned. Otherwise, the act of reverse engineering is not an act of independent invention and the clone is not protected. DeCSS is reverse engineered. A Rolax brand Rolex is not reverse engineered.

I must question your belief that non-enforcement of copyright law will somehow benefit the establishment of SL as the metaverse. If SL is sued into a steaming pile of slag by rabid attack lawyers, then it's going to be tough to reach the metaverse level of existence. If users cannot create new or interesting objects without a million other people taking the object, then there will be less impetus to build. In the end, you've got to compromise. Copyrights are not pure evil. Though they can certainly be abused (and are daily), the answer is not to impose an open source anarchy on the entire of the world. The answer is to repeal the ridiculous legislation which has arisen, drop the duration to 10 years, and to pass laws guaranteeing the rights of fair use, first sale and other consumer exemptions.

You want an insulting tone, try this: sod off. Where in this thread have I advocated the theft of anything? Quote me, Ardith. SHOW me the quote where I have advocated theft.

I've advocated the use of the linked-prim-editor. I've insulted people who thought such things were terrible. I've said that even if people copy one of Sensual's couches prim-per-prim, she won't lose sales because people know her name well enough to look for knock-offs. Show me where I have advocated theft? You can't, because I haven't.

People can also make knock-offs "without the exact prim proprties being present" too. I'm just amazed that people in Second Life would complain about prim-copiers or linked-prim-editors at all, because those are useful tools!

Or maybe I'm just taking my frustration of DVD manufacturers out in the forums. That's entirely possible. I mean, all I wanted was to grab a single frame of Natalie Portman from my Attack of the Clones DVD, but because they used some new codec the PowerDVD player I paid $30 for a year ago won't play the movie because of my video card.

That's the kind of crap builders and scripters might have to deal with if Linden Lab starts listening to people who wring their hands about prim-copiers. There's no telling what future hoops, technical and/or legal, we'll have to jump through if they start removing tools because it irritates their store owners. Grife, half the things we've asked for are on hold because the Lindens theorize they might be twisted into griefing devices.

What exclusion are you talking about? Is that a legal term?

Protected from what?

I still maintain that I've not decried copyrights, except in cases where they infringe upon the use and availability of tools. A hammer can be used to smash a window so someone can break into a store, but should we outlaw them? The linked-prim-editor can be used to steal a design, but the uses for it far, far out-weigh the potential wrongs.

As for "less impetus to build", I laugh at you mightily. True builders build because they want to build. Even with out any monetary reward, they build. I don't play Second Life because I want to make money, I play to hack and code -- well, I used to anyway. People who only build for money are not evil, but when their cries of "theft" threaten to take tools away from me my tone does get hostile.

How about I put it like this: You don't know what you are talking about, you ignorant little wanker. How's that for cheerful?

I only caught "sod off little wanker" out of those last two threads...

but, I'd like to offer a suggestion for builders who don't want someone sitting in thier shop making duplicates of thier work:


do not put the 'real' product on display - put up pictures.

If this discussion means . . .

we get to edit linked prims separately ONLY if these numbers stay visible to everyone

. . . then I vote they stay visible to everyone.

coco

There's no reason it should be an either-or proposition. A simple check to determine whether someone has mod permissions is all that is necessary. That check is already performed when you select an object for editing, and the proper editing options are grayed out. All that is necessary is to not display the prim properties if the person viewing the object does not have mod rights.

This isn't an egregious abuse of copyright law. If you don't have mod permissions, you have no right to view that info.

What about my home? My furniture? It's all unique because I made it myself. I don't sell it, because I don't want to see my exact same living room set anywhere else. Unfortunately, that wish is irrelevant. Evidently, my wish to cherish my own build is overruled by Jarod's right to an open source anarchy.

The point, Jarod, is the linked prim editor now shows all the details even if it is no modify. Keeping that restriction in place, which was there until version 1.6, in no way inhibits the ability to use the linked prim editor - because you can't edit the linked prims of a no modify object anyway, just as in previous versions you could not unlink. . You can't use the duplication script on it because, IT'S NO MODIFY, you can't unlink it because IT'S NO MODIFY, but now thanks to this change, you can still steal it anyway by duplicating all of the numbers of every linked prim because they are visible. You have spent an entire thread insulting people, mixing a whole bunch of metaphors and going off half cocked. There is no justifiable reason for the details to be displayed on a no mod object. If that is the case, then every script in SL needs to be open source as well - why should they be protected, or textures either. Hell, according to you, we should just remove the entire fucking permissions system. Yeah, that's innovative.

Attached is an example of what can be done in less than two minutes. It's been reduced in quality so that it is difficult to actually read the properties.

That might support a feature where if you do not have permissions to edit an object, you should not be able to see any of the dimensions of that object.

Most people will not 'copy' another's work - some will and there's little we can do about it given the current set of tools.

I'll maintain that Ardith and others do have a valid point about the editor changes - they were kinda out of the blue, and while I actually brought them up already - not many people noticed that.

So, at least asking what happened with the editor is relevant - if nothing else, because the change was essentially undocumented.

Otherwise, go have a cold one and chill out, folks. Life's too short to keep worrying about things like this.