A process for minimizing texture theft!

Still, the client build in Editor can show the sources (so there is a decoding routine)...
Some scripts (bytecode) run in Sims (= on server, not in client memory) whereas other scripts (on avatar?) will run in client?
I don't know,just hypothetical brainstorming...

It probably is not that the scriptcode will be stored as some sort of plain text in the local files on a client PC.

No, what you see in the script editor is not derived from the bytecode. The bytecode is never downloaded to the client, and no scripts run in the client.

Getting a bit off topic here, but then it would be that the textual stream of the script code would be send from server to client over the network connection.
Which is interceptable, open for interpretation and scrutiny...
-- will leave it at that.

Well, Considering some skins by BIG skin designers are ripped from poser packs.
*blurp*
Once you load something into SL it's anyones game. It's very rare you see hand drawn,hand painted items. So if you want to protect *your* darling little texture that you worked hours on? It's simple... DONT UPLOAD IT! I certainly would not.

Yes, when you open a script in the editor it downloads the original source code to your cache. But there's no point sniffing it... if you can download the script you can edit it anyway.

Scripts you don't have rights to view are never downloaded, according to LL. I've seen claims of exploits that can trick SL into downloading scripts you don't have rights to, but I've never seen evidence and I can't see any reason LL should even implement this capability to BE exploited.

I'm sure some are, but that's not justification for redistributing them yourself, OR for ripping them from Poser.

I've also seen images from Wikipedia being sold for hundreds of Lindens, and I can't believe how much I spent on animations before I realised how much of that was going for pirated Poser anims.

That is your problem you will have to put up with. Once someone buys something from you they can do with it what they wish (except copy and resell of course) unless you have some sort of written contract with both parties agreeing they cannot mod it. Then it would be more like a license to you use your skin/whatever like what Microsoft does with Microsoft Windows. You don't own your copy of Windows you just own a license to use it. Like most software. music and vids.

Do you have any Friends or family that buy a car and modify it (even has it repainted)? Know anyone that buys a PC and modifies it? Know anyone that buys cloths and modifies them? have you ever bought something and changed it to your own liking? Seriously your kinda being narrow minded about it.

If no one modified the stuff they buy then what separates them from everyone else? You should be happy they buy YOUR items to mod and not your competitor.

Also to everyone else copying and reselling is a real life world wide problem that cannot be controlled. Expecting LL to control it is a fantasy.

I understand your guys frustration but saying someone cannot modify something they bought and OWN is asinine.

I understand hard work in searching for textures, cutting them, uploading to SL and etc...
But the issue really remains... are those YOUR images to begin with? If they are your own, originally created digital art - you can always put properties on the images to define as such and protect after upload. (my girlfriend does tattoos and those images are not transferable?)

Anyway, if we're talking about ORIGINALS to you - there are ways.
If we're talking about 'I found the image on internet and uploaded it FIRST'... that's a whole different animal. Free images are everywhere and unless you PURCHASED the rights of ownership - that same image is for any/all to copy/resell/redistribute, etc....

Putting complications into the SL interface to do this? I'm not sure worth a vote. They've got bigger fish to fry such as 'breech of security' attacks from hacks, etc... improving the stability of the grid, etc.. 1000+ things more important then creating something so that one can watermark and protect their textures.

Read your help files, would be what I suggest. Figure out how to protect your images if they are your ORIGINALS. There are ways.
gluck.

Digital work of ANYKIND is hard to prevent from copy/theft/reproduction. I work in software development and here's the game.

"THIS IS MY ORIGINAL THINGIE" <---- someone wants it....
"THIS IS MY ORIGINAL THINGIE " <---- this is no longer MY original thingie. Can u see the difference? there is one.

One small change in pixel, spacing, character, color... how do u prove to be yours? Got lawyers? Did I properly copy write my junk to begin with? Wanna go to court over it? Or should I just take a chill pill and determine if it's worth it all?

If the work took hours on end, months and years... then yeah, i'll go thru the copywrite.
If the work 'isn't that biggie' deal... then hey, it's a game in here, i'm a professional and i understand the nature of computer land.

EVERYTHING CAN BE STOLEN, CHANGED, ALTERED, REPRODUCED, REDISTRIBUTED..etc.
If it's that important to you - then loading it up into an open source environment such as SL... not wise to do eh? Sell it elsewhere.
Save yourself the grief.
Besides... didn't we all start doing this with term papers in high school anyway? Oops..did I say that? Sweetie - this is hardly the place to DEMAND protection of your digital art. ...

This is the kind of thing that backs up court systems, managerial desks, and the lindens for no reasons.

To have proof its yours, produce the copywrite. Then sue them for infringement. If you don't have the copywrite then there must be some reason why. 9 of ten times that because you "downloaded some naked girl's skin" to produce what you have, or other means of stealing off the net to get what you want in the first place. The tenth time is because you don't feel its worth copywriting.

If it isn't worth copywriting why do you have such a problem when somebody steals it? If you can't copywrite it then shush because you stole it first.

They don't OWN it, they own a NO MOD, NO TRANSFER copy of it. The attitude that you can do what you like with it is appalling, the permissions set on it should be respected as a contract of use. That really is a point that a lot of people here who are arguing about their 'rights' to mod are missing. If you want a mod version find one and buy it, if you find a no mod version and still buy it you need to respect that. The car analogy is completely out of place in this scenario. If you buy a car you are buying a car, it doesn't come with or without modify rights, however if it did come with a 'no modify' clause you would have no right to mod it. The no modify check box in Second Life is as valid a contract between creator and customer in a virtual environment as a clause in your car agreement would be.

I gave up on this thread a long time ago as some of the posts were bordering on the ridiculous, but think on this if you want any content from games like second life. If our wishes aren't going to respected in the use we set on our products, why would we bother to make them at all? The majority of people DO respect them it seems only those few with a very poor attitude problem who feel they can do what they like.

In another scenario, there are artists who make a small income out of selling textures on the net, if you buy their textures and use them in a top, you have an agreement that you can use them but it doesn't mean that the guy who buys the top has the right to use them too.

If the rights system was fine grained enough that you could define the rights you want to grant in it, that might be a reasonable point. The problem is that the SL rights system is so far from that point it's silly. I've bought two copies of the same piece of clothing on occasion because they're "no copy" and I can't put them in two "outfits" any other way. Making an item "no mod" means you can't rename it to organize your inventory. Making an animation "no copy" means you can't use it in a gesture. Making a texture so that people can use it in building for sale means setting it "full perms", even if you don't want to do that. Setting clothes "no mod" to declare "I don't want you changing the texture" would mean people couldn't adjust them to fit their avatar.

These are all cases where 'the permissions set' can't possibly be considered any kind of contract. Right now, if you want to specify the rights you really intend to grant, the only tool you have is a notecard in the box or a comment in the script. And I will (and do!) honor those when they're provided... even though so many people (including builders, including Linden Labs on occasion) don't.

That would not be enforcable in RL in the US (where LL is located)... and there's good reasons for that.

So whether that's true or not, I don't think that means what you think it means.

*sigh*

Look, I'm one of the ones who bends over backwards to honor those wishes WHEN they're actually expressed. I spent three months working on a subset of X-Flight and gave it away to anyone who wanted it because that was the best way I could see for getting the author's wishes honored. Framing the discussion in terms of "a few people with an attitude problem" is just not reasonable. The real life rights that creators have are more limited than you seem to think. The ability to express those rights in the SL rights system is even more limited. The only way to get anything like the kind of control what you want is to accept this and build from there, see what needs to be changed and what you need to do to make your goals and the real world match... and that may well involve changes in the law that you're going to have to fight for, changing the way you distribute your work... or even changing your goals to match what's possible.

One of the large misunderstandings running across this thread is the difference between copy-resale and purchase-resell. If I buy 100 shirts from a person for 50L ( I spend 5000L)and I modify each of those shirts in some way and sell them for 60L each, that is not against any law in the world that I am aware of, nor should it be. On the other hand if I purchase one shirt from a person for 50L (50L is all I ever spend with this person) modify it, make 99 digital copies of it and then sale those for 60L each, I have broken the law and should be punished. This is what the spirit of the DMCA is about as it pertains to this. It came about due to the expansion of a digtal world where items can be copied easily and then commerced.
Any Amercian child of the 80's can see this in effect. Remeber when "shades" (sunglasses) splattered with paint were the rage? Oakley did not make those. People bought umpteen thousand pair of cheap glasses, and some cheap miss-mix paint, laid the shades out on a sheet in the back yard and went to splattering the paint. Next stop was the local fle-market/jocky-lot. This activity was not illegal, no DMCA needed, there was no way to create digital copies of sunglasses.
Now (in SL and other internet mediums) a digital copy of a pair of sunglasses is a reality, and those are the things the DMCA is designed to protect. Fair use still applies even in with the DMCA.
In order to prove an infringment you not only have to prove that you are the original creator, you also have to prove that the suspected infringer did not purchase from you, the item they are reselling. If I bought 100 of your shirts and you then see them in the SL world for resale don't DMCA me, there's no use in it. You got what you wanted out of it, you sold 100 shirts, that's what you were after.
If your intent is to create art that you are respected for create art and treat it as such. But like Thomas Kincade, once you make your art a retail item, that's exactly what it is. A retail item and no more. If your desire is to enter into the world of buisness accept what comes with it and be a buisness person. If Dior was worried about someone making a scent "like" one of their purfumes, they would not supply it to the mass market. But since they are a buisness and their sole purpose is profit, they sell it to anyone with enough money, and don't worry about the knock offs unless they are using their name.
For large companies, filing infringement cases against knock-offs is not done because they fear they are loosing customers to the knock-off manf. (this is not an everytime statement just a generality) it is done because they do not want their name being associated with an inferior product.
Again I restate, copy-mod-sale (or just copy-sale) BAD. Purchase-mod-resale (or just purchase-resale) GOOD. But as for what LL should or could do? Who knows. Most likely they are just going to do what they HAVE to do. Same as most companies. You ultimately make that decision for them, as long as you pay to play, they are getting what they want, you're $. And as long as you are paying to play you are obviously getting something you want out of it as well, or you wouldn't be here. If yuo don't like the way LL does things you have the option of not playing in their sandbox. Take your money elsewhere, because that's what ultimately changes companies, loss of revenue. That is the bottom line in any decision made by any buisness, revenue. Same reason Sony dropped back door copy protection. It cost them sales. When the news hit sales of the questionable CD's nearly stopped. So they changed. If people had continued to buy the CD's, even among complaints, they would still be selling them with the same protection on them.
All Buisness 101. Anyone in SL or RL will find life trying to walk the line between artist and buisness a very difficult one to walk. Very few people throughout history have been able to do it with any success. My advice is to decide which you want to be and run with it. You will be happier for it.

*disclaimer - The views expressed in this post are the views of the poster and in no way reflect the views or opionions of LL, or any of the other participants in this thread. This intention of this post is to provide an opionion only, it's purpose is NOT to inflame, harrass, degrade, insult, or in any way cause physical or emotional harm to any one person, gender, orintation, religion, or ethinticity. While the sentax and exact wording of this post are subject to intelectual copyrights, the ideas and views are not. This post may be copied, quoted, modified, but NOT sold for profit or otherwise, as it is a free expression in the public domain.

I wont repeat the process as I am a designer and have made art posted on the net and have had it ripped.

But... in this game it is very easy to just screenshot and photoshop the texture you want and then watermark it your damn self, you want to not have someone steal your texture good luck... been there

so far i consider every items i sell, are licensed only to the end user.

i wish i could be of more help to prevent texture theft but its just impossible to implement a technical solution. The only way i see is a harsh and mean social solution when LL or an entrusted mediator will determinate if there is thievery or not

Canimal, Sit Down and Shut up for 5 seconds.
I hate texture theft, I abhor it. BUT it happens. as to Minimizing it, THAT will never happen.

Theft happens all over in the real world and yet so many people get away with it. It's the same here in SL.
However a InGame Texture editor, no... like you really want to make the client Larger? Technically that would be a viewer update, AND the file would still be saved to the Harddrive and STILL requiring a upload. The raw data going back and forth from just painting a simple brick editing it live on the grid would send the network into chaos if they were live updated and not actual uploads. To upload ANYTHING requires a file to be saved or already saved THEN put up on the server that your uploading it to.

Now, the person who said "Evolving Artwork" means about the same as Wierd Al making parodys of completely ligimitate songs, like somebody taking lets say....hmmmm... something YOU uploaded if you had perms set that actually allowed someone to download it to thier harddrive and edit it, Granted it was Originally your work, but the moment somebody else did work to it and changed it then reuploaded it, it became thier work.

now, as for no editing of the work at all... You really think LL will take all that time they put into developing this game, fixing the bugs and handling the servers to check all 100,000+ Users inventory for textures that have diffrent names but are fundamentally the same pixel by pixel? Hell no. Stop acting like LL should listen to you before the world ends because its not. Your celing isnt gonna come crashing down on your head just because somebody saw a texture they liked and reused it in thier product. Cause if somebody did, that means theres about 20 others out there using it too.

As a Texture designer myself if I saw somebody walkin around with something with a texture on it I know I designed I would wonder where s/he got it from and perhaps ask them about it. The whole saying don't shoot the messenger goes here. As for all the Textures in SL... I would figure theres about at least a million images uploaded from all over that LL would have to go through one by one to find out if they are identical or not then, contact the creators of the textures and have to arbitrate on just who is the original content creator. Then warn the offender.

Not a good way to use time when it could be used for so many diffrent things.

Hence, Bad Idea, Won't work, Will never be implemented so just let it drop.

As for Mliss Ristow...
*sells the post they made to a friend for a pack of smokes*

<edit>
Copyright law for a portion of what was said in this thread.
Texture theft without knowledge of theft
§ 1309. Infringement
(c) Acts without Knowledge. - It shall not be infringement under this section to make, have made, import, sell, or distribute, any article embodying a design which was created without knowledge that a design was protected under this chapter and was copied from such protected design.
-----Therefor, if somebody is using a texture that you created, but doesnt know that it was stolen in the first place is not liable for any type of copyright infringement.

(f) Establishing Originality. - The party to any action or proceeding under this chapter who alleges rights under this chapter in a design shall have the burden of establishing the design's originality whenever the opposing party introduces an earlier work which is identical to such design, or so similar as to make prima facie showing that such design was copied from such work.
-----My scripting, add-ons and, prim manipulation made my helmet unique from the one I did a side-by-side design of therefor not a copyright violation.
As well you can't go around yelling at people using your textures because they are selling a product using them Technically there has been considerable change to your texture because they are now using them in a object/clothing/bodypart substanstially diffrent from your own. If they sold the texture as-is then you might have some recourse but I highly doubt it.

Wow, that was a well laid post Mliss.