No-Copy No-Mod Notecards Can Still Be CTL+C Copied, Why?

No-Copy No-Mod Notecards Can Still Be CTL+C Copied, Why?

I believe that those mods should allow the text to not be selected to the point where we can copy it using ctl+c so that text can be distributed without fear of someone just stealing it.

Any backers on this functionality?

Can't say I back this, sorry. Raw text is just one of those things that really has little or no protection beyond Copyright Laws, and there's very little protecting anyone from straight-on transcribing that text, anyway.

It's another one of those "nice idea, but kinda doesn't work that way" things.

I can't recall ever running into a no-copy notecard, but if I did, the Edit menu's Copy should be disabled. Transcribing by hand is still an option, but Copy/Paste is MUCH easier.

No-Copy should mean no Copy, don't you think?

I dont care if someone transcribes it by hand, have fun with the couple hundred K of raw text, however I just think that as it is marked no-copy you should not be able to use the ctl+c function to just copy it.

I disagree, because I feel this is one of those "spirit of" things that are occasionally a tough call in SL. If anything, "No Copy" is extended to notecards as a systemic thing more than a usage factor, as you can see.

Anyway, the problems include:
- Preventing copying of this nature cross-platform, since text is managed differently by different OS platforms (for example, Second Life uses clipboard with Windows).
- Direct transcription milage may vary. I know I can transcribe words fairly rapidly, as can anyone with an opposable thumb and a brain that works.
- Occasionally, long strings of text are pertinent for notecards, and users are occasionally forgetful of permissions (though, arguably, I believe notecards are flagged all permissions by default). I find it remarkibly counterintuitive, for example, if a person were to leave a web link in a notecard that the user was supposed to follow... but it was No Copy.
- Finally, it's a convention thing. On the internet and in general, text is typically fair-use if the source is cited, with exception only to privacy. Period. Paragraph. End of story.

While it is arguable that large bodies of text, for example, books - are protected by copyright laws, small bodies of text like notecards would be foolish to implement such a system over. I'm seriously not just trying to be the voice of dissent here - I just don't like this idea.

As I said, I've never even MET a no-copy notecard. What's the harm of making it act like a picture of text? Like Amazon's "Look Inside" feature for some books that shows the first few pages.

It's not like this feature will be used much, but it would make the sale of newspaper-like notecards possible without the equivalent of people Xeroxing the paper and handing the copies out to one and all.

I don't see how this request would be a bad thing.

Just because raw text has "little or no protection beyond Copyright Laws" doesn't mean we can't allow the addition of a speedbump to copying. It's like hiding the URLs to streaming media: it can be gotten around by the tech savvy, but it makes casual grabbing difficult.

Active links in the notecard should still work when clicked on, of course, as always.

Again, I feel it strictly depends on your outlook. To me, there's a difference between a solution that's effective and feasible versus one that's cutting off one's nose to spite their face.

Thankfully, yes, active links do typically work inside text, and yes, this becomes a barrier to casual copying, but at what cost?

I see this argument similar to someone advocating that text copying should be completely disallowed from IM conversations, by virtue of that being against TOS. Sure, consent is allowable for text quoting, but that's typically more a courtesy than a right. This places what I feel would be an unneccessary, systemic burden on simple spoken language, and for all the reasons it can "be right," there are plenty that I feel would make it jarring, unnecessary, and annoying.

However, I would be all for a PDF format for text in-world, both for textures and longer strings of text than simple notecards. That's something I would personally back, because it has a relevant reason for existing beyond severing usability.

And remember, of course, that this is just my opinion.

Yes, making IM window contents non-copy-paste-able for all time is silly, I agree. There are cases where both parties WANT to be able to copy it. Plus, half of the text in there is likely your own. If it were an issue (which it is not) only some elaborate system of permissions would allow there to be any restictions on who can copy IM text and when. But this is a non-issue and no such IM permissions exist.

With notecards, they HAVE permissions. Three of them: COPY, MOD, and TRANSFER, just like every other object in the game. As long as we have these permissions, and only these permissions, they should work the same way for everything. If a prim is no-copy, you can't copy it. If a script is no-copy, you can't copy it. If a texture is no-copy, you can't copy it.

Right now, if a notecard is no-copy, you CAN copy it.

Seems broken to me, all philosphy on copy protection, fair use, and my right to do whattever the hell I want aside...

Just my opinion too, Jeffrey.

EDIT: PDFs would be cool.

I agree that no-copy notecards should be no-copy.

When you get loged out, I remember on some versions of sl you can not hilight text in IM windows.

Couldnt that simply be the answer. NoCp notecard = scroll to read, but cant select text.

I make use of No Mod, Copy, Trans notecards as write-once contracts/agreements that can be shown to others as un-modifyable proof that XYZ person said ABC. The person writes one and gives it out, and vice versa in two-way agreements.

Enforcement is another issue though.