A process for minimizing texture theft!

Oh I read that, but more too...
You forgot to mention he was Reselling those.
That is not personal use.
I have stated that modding for personal use is not and probably never will be illegal.
Yes, circumventing protection in a chip might be illegal, making a NEW chip (based on Linux/flash for example) that does the same as the original is not.
Replacing parts of the xbox with what you want is not illegal.

I'd love to see MS/Sony to try a trial on cases based on THAT (which I've stated over and over before). But they just don't go there. You know why: they know they would loose.

What some fail to grasp is that, as Anthony explained, using that using modding to put illegal content (ie copied games) is illegal.
Not the moding in itself. If one mods the XBox to run Linux instead of M$, it's totally their right to do so. Nothing M$ can do about it.

If one would use the modding (as your example for the convicted kid/student in UK) to put in a larger HD with illegal games and then resell the boxes, yes, that's an infringement that should be punished.

But not those hobbyists or people that mod the things they own for fun. It will never happen!

Read this link, section 5 about modding.
If you replace motherboard with a default PC one... You MAY. Replacing HD? You MAY.

For your example: if I'd buy a shirt from you, I do not buy the texture. So if I replace the texture with a slight altered one (one mobo for another, same functionality, bit different), it is NOT illegal. Not even if I ask someone to alter the original texture for me if I can't do it myself.

If you feel that is your right then respect that my right is to;

a. ban you from buying anything from me ever again - ban in vendors and land.
b. submit AR to LL.
c. file a DMCA with LL.
c. Circulate your name on a notecard to every merchant in SL to add you to their ban lists.
d. Publish your avatar name all over the internet in various blogs/forums.

Yep.
No more than I buy a ROM from Nintendo. You can't sell something made out of multiple components and then claim you didn't sell the components.
That's a problem for Linden Labs to solve.
Ah, this is where you keep someone who is following your request from doing business with you because they're telling you an unpleasant truth.

Err, no, that doesn't happen to be true. High street shops don't sell modded consoles for the same reason they won't sell you anything else "modded", from shirts to stereos, toasters to TVs. Their margins are too low to let them take on the cost of providing a replacement for the manufacturer's warranty.
Beacuse if you break it they're not going to fix it for free. You void your warranty if you crack open almost any consumer electronics device. My monitor, cellphone, stereo, and alarm clock have the same warning.

What kind of warranty do your T-shirts come with, by the way?

(do a bunch of 'abuse the consumer' stuff)

You have every right to trash your own good name that way. Companies that act that way tend to find themselves looking for a face-saving way out as soon as the word gets around, but I certainly wouldn't argue that they're not allowed to do it.

Though there are limits to what you can do... even under the DMCA.

Sony decided that they were going to install backdoors in people's computers in the name of protecting their intellectual property. They've backed away from that, offered compensation to the people who bought their boobytrapped CDs, and are now facing multiple lawsuits from state Attorneys General over it.

And, you know, someone who was selling modified shirts wouldn't be deterred by any of that, because he wouldn't be buying them from you in the first place. He'd just hang around your shop or walk past your customers and you'd never see his name attached to anything.

Yes, these measures are excessive but don't confuse it or try to portray me as the evil party.

I very often give free items to people - ask most of my customers. If someone comes in my shop and buys 3 or 4 outfits I IM them and ask if they want to choose something for free.

Further, if someone wants say a pair of underpants converted to the pants garment i'll do it for them right there and then without question or charge.

Similarly if someone wanted a modification of a texture I would consider how time consuming it would be and then let them know if and when i could do it.

I've also done this for people free of charge.

What we are talking about here however is someone taking/reselling/modding things they are asked not to and without any regard to the creator.

Extreme measures taken against these people is not in any way 'abusing consumers' - because what they are doing is abusing me.




I'm not disputing that - debate about LL stopping texture theft is futile because they can never stop it. Thats a fact we have to live with.

While I do appreciate what you're saying up to a point. I would like to point out 2 things.

1. As I stated in my post, I've gone to a lot of trouble to get permission for every single one of my textures. Accusing someone of infringement is not somethign to be done lightly, and frankly I resent it.

2. What I was asking in terms of the name/date stamp, is whether or not it would be sufficient proof to say to LINDEN "Hey I had this one first" if an issue of texture theft came up.

Well, it's nice to hear that you consider them excessive. I was wondering.
If someone's reselling stuff, or even giving it away for free, or taking it without buying it, you're welcome to treat them as crooks... because they are crooks.

All I'm asking is that you draw the line at actual copyright violations. This is to your advantage as well as your customers.

You missed the whole point. LL does not have the time, resources, or really the authority to all of a sudden become a small claims court that deals with copyright dispute. You say "I uploaded this first", they say "so? it was photosourced off the net, mine was too".

and that really is the crux of the matter isn't it. you and I will never agree on this point.
From my point of view regarding modding - ask me. If a person wont ask and decides to do something on their own then I see it no differently.
Its not even an issue of legality really. Its one of morality and respect. If people can't respect my wishes then why should I show any respect for theirs?

Well, the topic has wandered and come back a bit. LL of course does not have time to be a small claims court, but that was why I mentioned that it would require us users (or at least those who have enough of a problem with it) to form an sort of organization. The time/date stamp would help to prove to that organization some proof of creation. However, I do think that Wanda's choice of action seems a little excessive. She is welcome to act however she likes, but remember that slander is a form of crime as well.

One side note, reselling is not a crime. If you buy something, you have every right to resell what you bought (unless you made an illegal copy of it).

DMCA applies if someone reverse engineers something that is digitally encrypted. The crime is actually breaking the encryption, not necessarily the copying part. Now, I'm not sure since I haven't seen how some of these textures are being stolen, but it seems that if it was encrypted it wouldn't be as big a problem as it seems to be. Encryption might help, but I'd bet it would cause HUGE lage issues.

One other issue, and I'm sure that plenty of people will get heated about this, is that sometimes it is legal to take someone's work, change it and release it as their own. I'm not a lawyer, but I have heard of cases where that has happened with software (covered by copyrights), music, books though not of art (maybe in photos). Anyways, what I remember is that your music can have a certain number of notes, or a certain number of lyrics that are the same as someone else and you are OK. If you have too many however, that is copyright infringement.

From what I've seen, no one has accused Aubrielle of infringement, but the argument of people copying web items and being the first to bring it into SL is just a point that shows how complicated this system can get. If I copyed the nike logo and was the first to bring it into SL, would I have the right to take action against others if they stole the logo from me? Nike probably wouldn't even bother suing me in RL since it would be extremly expensive unless I was making tons of money in SL but I would still be breaking the law. What if the texture wasn't something to obvious though? Would the SL court have to invstigate every claim to make sure that the accuser wasn't breaking the law too? I'm sure that would make no one willing to act as part of the judiciary system then.

If people were to join and become part of an impartial judiciary system, would they get real life legal protection from claims resulting from verdicts that people got upset about?

It's not me you need to convince, it's the Supreme Court of the USA.
Because they're the Supreme Court?
Why?

Do you think I should ask Harper Collins before making notes in the margins of a textbook?

Should I ask Ford before pinstriping my car?

Go back to the architect before painting my house?

Have you ever taken in, let out, dyed, or otherwise modified your clothes in the real world?

Why is it different in VR?

If they have abandoned copyright. Or else you're confusing "fair use" and secondary copyrights. I can do a cover of a song and my version would be copyright both by the original artist and myself, or I can make a collection of songs and have a copyright on that particular collection.

It is different in the fact that I can hem my own real jeans ,I cannot copy my jeans a billion times and resell them for a profit . If a creator in second life hands out their texture for people to modify they are basically screwing themselves because somone somewhere will abuse this.If I hem the jeans I bought from A&f it does not effect the company sales one bit.A&F wont go broke because of my actions .If I hand out my textures in Second Life it will kill my sales and make all my hard work worth nothing . Ill have to compete with myself for sales(since i am the original creator)along with the thousand other merchants I already compete with.

You know, I'm totally fine with that. I will also know that NOTHING is going to happen and well because of reasons said before:
a) I'm doing it for PERSONAL USE
and
b) It's NOT to make a profit

I've said this numerous times, but you and others just don't get it. Your next post highlights this problem of understanding again. The part saying "We're talking here about people modifying it to re-sell". That is illegal and I won't commit to that.

In fact, if you would file complaints, I will file complaints of violating my customer rights as well as spreading false rumours and trying to give me a bad name.

As you say, in your next post follwing this one (because I don't feel the need to even reply to it): "you are willing to do alterations for free"... Well consider this, if I wanted a UNIQUE skin, I'd happily pay for it. You would consider it too. If you didnt want to make it I'd go to another... So what's the deal then?

Commerce is changing, it's no longer "Business Dictates Market" but "Consumers Define Market". It's request demand, not the product offering that is making Economics 101 work (both SL and RL).

Actually you can... Why are there a gazillion types of jeans, most of them with similar markings but from different companies.

The only ones that are caught and prosecuted are the ones that are really infringing: using a well established mark/logo/tm (like for example Nikes) and trying to sell those FAKE pieces.

So again, no difference in SL.
I have no problem at all that those who want to copy/resell are being dealt with, as long as the innocent customer who wants to customize his/her property gets punished for doing so.

And that is the tone I hear being set here. And I furiously will defend my right as a customer to do the H*ll I want with my property!

If you don't like that, then don't sell to me. If you want all your stuff not being able to be altered in anyway, don't sell at all. If you want to make money still, then ask LL to implement the LEASE system. With that system the customer (lessee) is NOT the owner of the product; the seller (lesser) is. As such, within the LEASE contract, it is often depicted that the lessee may not alter the product in anyway.

That's the difference from buying something.

I'm now finished with this topic because it isn't going anywhere.

I see other creative areas of SL are given protection - scripts I cannot see, objects I cannot modify etc. That some people are offered protection while others aren't is hypocritical to me.

This is not even an issue of legality for me anymore. Its an issue of respect and morality. Some people here simply refuse to respect other peoples wishes and to me that is the most damaging thing.

We can argue forever over microscopic legal details but it doesn't alter anyones opinions and unless you are a legal judge then your opinions (and mine) are nothing more than that - opinions.

Simply put, I would never consider stealing/re-selling or even modifiying someone elses work without their persmission. I had hoped others would be the same.

In the end all that matters to me is that LL have publicly told me I can choose who I do business with - and thats enough for me.

Sorry, but you can't prevent texture theft.

As soon as a texture is shown on my screen, I can take a screencap of it and turn it into a new inventory item. That texture now becomes mine. You can't prevent it technologically.

Second, even if you were using the texture first, that doesn't mean you created it from scratch. We could have both obtained it from the same place.

I'm not saying it's okay to steal -- it's not. But you can't just put an end to it that easily.

Er...

Um, I'm not copying any jeans a billion times and reselling them for profit. We're fully in agreement that that's crooked and illegal and immoral and fattening. Stepping back away from the flame war, can I ask you why someone who is *not* doing any of that, but is just doing the equivalent of hemming their own jeans, should be treated the same way.

Absolutely, and I'm fully in agreement with the proposal that LL track textures with watermarks and give people the ability to use that tracking ability to find people who ARE abusing them and DMCA them.

What I'm trying to figure out is why there's this tremendous push-back against the idea that simply using a texture is not crooked, and shouldn't be subject to an automatic takedown... that redistribution needs to be an essential part of "what makes it crooked".

You're right, there should be mechanisms to allow people to modify everything in SL so long as they do no harm by redistributing the modifications without permission.
Which "some people" are you talking about? I am most scrupulous about respecting every creators rights and *expressed* wishes. I'm the guy who publicised the abuse of X-flight and Franimation Overrider, and spend months on a replacement for X-flight so that people didn't even have the excuse that there was no alternative. I've got two requests pending I've sent to people who are selling T-shirts on the web, asking them how much it would cost for permission to copy the patterns to wear in SL.

This isn't a "microscopic legal detail". This is the reason you can buy a VCR, DVD recorder, or CD burner. It's a major issue, and you can't ignore it and hope it goes away.
And what abou the opinions I quoted from a supreme court judge?

Wanted this QFE, because this is what should be examined. Not the individual altering the items they owe for their own personal use.

I'm not an artist by nature, I make scripts and do builds so this comment made me go and check in SL. What I found was that Textures are offered the same protections as scripts and objects, so I'm not sure what hypocrisy is taking place...



Everyone's idea of respect is different, that is why we have the legal part. You think it is wrong for someone to take something you've given or sold to them and change it. The customers are likely to be offended that once they own it, you can tell them what to do with it. (I can buy a paininting and spray paint if I so choose.)

The illegal part is copying your texture when you haven't given permission and reselling it (piracy violations) or modifiying what they bought and reselling as actually coming directly from you which I believe is misrepresentation or something like that.



There are mechanisms to prevent people from modifying things without permisson. What has also been discussed is that uploaded textures are timestamped. In my opinion, I don't think LL needs any more mechanisms then this. Also, when something has been created, it has two tags: Owner and Creator. With this information people who think something has been stolen or some other rights violated, they could use in a court. I think that court should be within SL, but if someone is losing lots of money, they could take it to a RL court and LL would be subpoenaed to provide the information.

The other thought I had for people to help with texture theft, and proof is to upload the texture multiple times and give them slightly different names. I believe this will give the texture a unique asset UUID. When the texture is sold, the asset UUID and person who bought it should be recorded (by the seller) using a script. The seller can then maintain a list of those UUIDs. The seller can the perform "Authentication Checks" using a simple script to verify that a texture is Authentic and from the original author. This of course requires the customer to care that it is authentic, but it is at least another method. If a discrepancy is found, the customer could then inform the seller who the creator of the suspected Texture is, and the seller can establish dialogue or mediation to determine if it is a case of theft, piracy, or a misunderstanding.

If someone stole the texture from memory, and uploaded it. The UUID would be different and would not be on the original creator's list. If the seller doesn't get unique UUID for each copy sold, then how would they know if someone is using one of the textures that was legally purchased...

She means, that it is possible to steal the texture by other means then the default in game options: video hacks -> getting dumps of the video memory buffer... With scripts (compiled binary code, main memory) it's much more difficult.


Amen to that.

Well, I don't see how that is hypocrisy, since it may be possible for people to steal lots of stuff in SL. I am curious to know if it is possible for people to steal scripts or objects. I mainly concerned with scripts. They also have to run in memory (though on Linden servers), but if so then maybe there is a way to protect them.

Scripts are referenced by a bytecode and no actual script data is sent to the client.