Builders Beware

I think Noels suggestion is that only. If you want a solution to the issues discussed here, that is a possibility not explored. I don't agree with it either, and frankly I don't think there's going to be any solution to copying/reverse-engineering objects built in SL that won't in some way help to deteriorate the freedom of creativity we all have come to enjoy here. This is a very deep issue that involves legal nomenclature that I can't even start to wrap my head around. But if you want my two-cents, i would rather live with the risk of someone copying stuff I've created (which btw in most circumstances come from RL things that I have in turn copied myself) than live with some 'lock' system that stymies my curiosity on how a persons mind works...how they manipulated a prim for certain effects...and basically teach me all the skills i know to create things in SL.

Ah yes, why don't we do that...punish innocent people who may not be able to fork out $70 or so dollars a month to be able to build and own a bit of land. You are saying, leave the building to the people who can afford it? I thought I had heard it all up until now. I kinda thought one of the major points of this game was to build...according to the front page of the SL website.

I have been learning to build the past few weeks and am rather enjoying it. I have never thought of building things to sell in the future, just building, learning, and making myself some things is enough for me, I really don't need to make any money off of it.

As far as copying/stealing someones creation that they worked hard on...I'm not sure what to think. I don't like 'theft' and the reselling of said item per se... but we all have access to the same SL tools so it's not like it is totally impossible that more than 1 person would have the same building idea. I don't see why innocent people be punished because of what dishonest people have done? I don't believe it is right to 'steal' someone elses work and sell it as your own...but only allowing certain people to build just isn't fair.

Of course Lordfly and others are correct. The idea stinks. Every bad idea was someone's good idea once. But that one is just bad. It takes all the problems now that we are now experiencing in SL and magnify them tenfold. Competition and fighting between various merchants would become more cuthroat and any new players who wanted to build would look for cheaper a game. I was curious who all would seriously pipe in to support it. Are some people willing to kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

well said Ardith

Hey, Ardith, now who doesn't know "what [they] are talking about, you ignorant little wanker?" Hahahaha!

Thank you, Noel.

That would be Noel, and you by proxy. Note this part,since you selectively read:

without actually copying anything from the original.

Sensual, though you might agree with her implication, I thought we established that her interpretation of 'reverse-engineering' was flawed?
I think the only real protection against this kind of behavior (ruthlessly copying a creation to the last possible detail and selling it as your own) will eventually backfire on the merchant in the long run.

Well, then it comes down to this: we're talking about two things.

1. Reverse engineering

2. Boot-legging and copyright infringing.

I don't advocate the latter, but I don't think the former should be hamstrung or destroyed because it might possibly, maybe could be used to copy something. My "virus" uses llGiveInventory in a way that could fill up a sim and possibly be used to crash it, should we get rid of llGiveInventory because it might be used wrongly?

I don't think so. It's not a technical problem, it's a social/legal problem. I'm argue, scream, and everything in favor or "anarchy" because I want anarchy to have a voice i the argument, with the ultimate hope that some kind of balance can be struck. I'm not trying to say Sensual should be a helpless target for IP theft, but this hypothetical theft shouldn't be enough to have linked-prim-editing removed.

If Lindens want SL to thrive, they need to be more vigilant, they don't need to hamstring the toolset.

If the ability to script copy prim by prim, and to view prim details were removed on FLOOR MODELS for sale ..

.. would this alleviate the problem for the sellers, while still providing for the reverse engineering concept that the detractors of "protectionism" are expressing a need for?

If I ever get told I have to pay to script or build beyond what I'm paying now, I quit. No drama, no whining. I find someplace else to spend my money on.

Nothing else to say on that.

Now about someone copying a person's build prim by prim?

It's rude, and I will have nothing to do with such a person. Why? Because it not only shows a lack of moral fiber, it also shows a lack of respect for someone else that I just cannot tolerate. Nothing more complex than that.

Mind you, finding a design style you like and emulating it... That's a bit differant.

And doing it on her doorstep? Unforgivable.

Jarod,

You never answered my earlier post to you in this thread, which addressed what you just repeated, so I will repost it:

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.

Well, Jarod was a model in my first fashion show. No one else steal him for that purpose please!

And wow! I'm torn and I"m not on this issue. I don't like the idea of people being able to duplicate, but copying from the eye and having easier abilities to learn are something I don't want to see taken away either.

I suppose what is still really needed is just many, many, more options for permissions for creators. Then those who want to share it all can do so freely (and many still would) and those that did not would not have to worry.

That sounds almost too simple though.

Pen,

Unless we somehow lose the ability to see, duplicating something by looking at it is always an option, and not one that can be taken away. Modify objects can already be unlinked and you can look at each prim and learn from it - you can even do so without unlinking. The problem is that no-modify objects have lost that protection - you can see the details of ever prim inside of it, so they can be copied. The permissions were correct up until 1.6 - now this short sighted change has made everything visible even in no modify objects, providing zero protection for them.

A creator should be able to decide if they want to let people learn from their object - if I make a script, I can choose to not make that script visible. There is no longer any protection for prim built items - hair, shoes, furniture, buildings can all be easily copied. It takes a little effort with a no modify object, but patience is rewarded with an exact copy. That is just wrong - there is no justifyable reason to allow that. The arguments about edit linked parts are invalid - you can't edit the linked parts of a no modify object anyway.

Sorry about that. Thanks for re-asking! Seriously, I hate it when I ask something and people don't reply, and doubly so when I'm guilty of it. So, thank you for re-asking.

This is where my anarchist kicks in... So what? Don't all these prims gets cached to my harddrive anyway? I'm pretty sure textures and prims get dumped into the Second Life cache, and I'm pretty sure that if I work hard enough I can extract all the same information from my harddrive even if something is no-mod/no-copy.

Correct me, please, if I'm wrong.

Allowing people in-world to look at something just makes it easier for builders to learn. I dislike citing pop-technologists, but go find Cory Doctorow's talk he gave at Microsoft, he says the same thing I am about DVD DRM: you can't securely encrypt or even hide data if it's being streamed onto your drive, and prim measurements are being streamed onto our computers. They either go into that cache or they can be captured as packets, but saying, "now thanks to this change, you can still steal it anyway by duplicating all of the numbers," to me is tantamount to saying, "Now that we've installed this window, you don't need to walk out the door to see if it's raining."

It's a change in the interface, but the data has always been present.

I hope this answers Colette Meiji as well. This wouldn't alleviate much, it would just shift the vector of theft.

Every script in SL should be opened up, but that's another thread.

There is a justifiable reason: it makes everyone aware that exact bootlegging is possible. Few people acknowledge the cache or the use of packet capturing for the sake of stealing someone's design. Now that people are aware of this, because of the change in the interface, copyrights will be scrutinized more closely by creators, pirates and theives will have to be more wary about stealing. That's my take anyway. There is a need for a social/legal change in Second Life, and I yell and go off half-cocked because I'm concerned that for the sake of ease and ignorance it'll be viewed as the need for a technological change.

Well, the argument was that reverse engineering was performed with or without detailed knowledge about the object being copied. I can have complete understanding of the object I am trying to copy and come up with a new creation. There is also the possibility that I can have no knowledge of the object being copied and by chance create a copy of it.

We could draw up a Boolean list of the possibilities:

A. I know how x works and I create y as a copy
B. I know how x works and I don't create y as a copy
C. I don't know how x works and I create y as a copy
D. I don't know how x works and I don't create y as a copy

"A" people are thieves and stink. "D" people are irrelevant. "C" are about to be caught in an unfortunate situation. And "B" people... These are people that might rub some creators the wrong way. They are going to be the ones to pull stuff apart to see how it works.

To be fair, there are cases when you are researching new technology when you do and do not want to know how other people have done it. Knowing how others have done it can influence your own thinking too much. However at the end of the day, you need to know how their system works as well as yours. Patent lawsuits are probably not fun things.

Unfortunately, and I'll admit that I let the idea get lost amidst the bluster of my post, reverse engineering something directly from something else tends to be a legally dangerous proposition. There is nothing absolute about copyright law, and what one person views as fair use may be infringement to another. The reason why most engineers resort to clean room reverse engineering is because it's much easier to defend against allegations of infringement, especially if your implementations happen to be similar or identical.

The point is that in order to reverse engineer, one takes an object with a known function and attempts to determine how that function is achieved and engineer a new way of accomplishing that. It is not, contrary to the claims of Jared and others, copying an object or creation exactly.

My apologies for being an obstinate asshole. Years of Slashdotting have instilled in me a great deal of enmity towards anti-copyright zealots who spout half-truths about the state of the system. The truth is that copyright law, and the permission system here as well, is in need of a major overhaul. However, the answer is not to abolish intellectual property entirely.

No, it's my fault. Sometimes I think I am helping people and I tend to lecture at them. But, yeah I agree on the current copyright/patent system. I was thinking, "Boy, I getting neg-rated for sure for this one."

Go back to the second or third page and read what I said. I said, "Eventually, by monkeying around with an EXACT COPY of some code, they can spawn off entirely new programs. ... [Reverse engineering] works the same way in real life. People take things apart, understand how they work, and build new stuff from the understanding." From the understanding.

Have you never taken a programming class or used a programming book? The entire point of code examples is to let people "reverse engineer" the code, fuck around with a for...next loop or an if...then conditional that someone else has written, gain an understanding of how it works, and then write their own.

Show me where I said it was for "copying an object or creation exactly." I said people could use linked-prim-edit for that, but it would do them sod good since the bootleggers name would be on the sofa and not Sensual's.

From the understanding. You've probably never taken something apart in your life, have you? Wannabe.