Some kind of protection from the bloody "Mirror Script"

Right now, there are numerous merchants who have a problem, especially in the Jewelry and prim-clothing arena:

We need to be able to allow customers to resize/modify certain aspects of our products, but not be able to hose/modify/otherwise screw up others.

More importantly, because modify permission right now is all or nothing, those of us that need to allow mod permissions are getting hosed by the mirror script.

Is there not some way that we can at least restrict modify rights on a per prim basis? In other words, you can modify the band size of a ring, but not the gems, and not the texture that adorns the ring.

This will not fix everything, and if someone else has a better idea of how to reduce vulnerability to the mirror script and still be able to give our customers the sizability they need, PLEASE post in response here.

Thanks

AFAIK the mirror script itself isn't the problem. If you have modify permission on a prim, you can see all its settings when you click on them in the editor, so you can copy the object by the ye olde method known as "writing them all down on a bit of paper".

The solution? Have the modification done by spoken commands trapped by a script. Or make it notecard configurable and have only the notecard modifyable. It'll mean the user can't use the GUI to do it, but they can modify it at least. (And it might be possible to do a custom GUI with HUD attachments if you don't mind the whole big awkwardness of HUD attachments.)

If you'd like help writing the scripts for this, I'd be happy to help.

Yumi,

One issue with the mirror script is that, even if you were able to model by hand, it is the TEXTURE that gives much of the jewelry it's actual design. I cannot copy a texture from a prim onto a handmade prim, but the mirror script copies the UUID of the texture in the prims it is copying, leaving jewelers who paid good $$ for their textures hanging in the breeze... the knockoff has the same texture even if the thief doesn't own that texture at all.

I agree that the card, voice control or even a HUD-GUI would be an excellent compromise, but may push the jewelry price past the point of elasticity; since LL did away with the ratings bonus, the retention value of a L$ has become much greater than its expenditure value in the eyes of the average consumer. That means luxuries like jewelry take it in the shorts.

Thank the powers that be that I am a multiple streams of income kind of guy, or it would REALLY hurt.

Lets get together in world some time and maybe we can program that GUI anyway...
I think this is something that we might be able to sell to the bulder-merchants so they can include it in their wares... If we distribute widely enough, it will drop our development/implementation differential to a realistic number, thus keeping the cost of jewelry where the consumers will be willing to pay for it. In addition, we could offer jewelers a way to provide maximum sizability for their products without leaving us vulnerable to knockoffs (Which in this world are better than they are in the RL, because the knockoff is exactly like the original).

According to the Wiki, getting a texture UUID requires full asset permissions since 1.6.5 - does the mirror script really still work just the same?

I haven't ever used it on something I didn't create, so I am not certain.

I will log in tonight and test it on a freebie.

the mirror script is a wonder , since i use it it allowed me to create stuffs with a precision i wasnt thinking i could achieve one day, now on a pair of item i can build one without worrying about the rotations on the mirror pair.
Considering most jewelry in SL looks kinda crappy and cheap, i think that a scammer will not need a mirror script to duplicate it, a paper ans the prim parameters will be fairly enough
Seriously... grow up peoples, on another post some argue about a few prim shoes being copy or not, dont you see the ridiculous of all this?
If you are good, your job will be hard to copy, and if copied, it will be very obvious you have been copied, and in this case actions can be taken.
If you are not, well dont exepct peoples to consider a 3 cylinder dirty job as "original" , personally i dont.

No pity or justice for mediocrity

This is far from true. You could copy a Starax Stravinsky statue by dumping its prim settings. Does that mean he's not good?

yes but the fact you copied it will be pretty obvious considering your item will look exactly like his sculpture, you will have a hard time to make it NOT look like the original enough to be safe.
Maybe doing it from scratch will take less time and less risks then

Hi. I'll assume you're referring to this mirror script or prior version that I wrote some time ago. Allow me to explain what it does and what protections there are.


There are two versions of the script. Both require the modify permission to function. The original version would create a new prim that "mirrored" the original, without the texture. At the time, textures were copiable by a script. As a direct result, it was never part of the released version.

There was also a built-in command in the original that allowed use in objects only created by the owner. Several people were able to circumvent it by removing the command, though.


Complaints were leveled at me that creating a new prim circumvented the "No Copy" and "No Transfer" permissions, which is technically true. This version also erroneously gave me "Creator" credit on objects. As a direct result, I reengineered the script and released a second version that modifies the existing prim only, which allows it to maintain existing permissions. That version is the one from the link, above. This is the only version I still distribute.


The bottom line is this: the permissions system is broken, or at the very least, fatally flawed. The modify permission should be taken very seriously. Setting this permission allows end users, without fail, to reverse engineer your item. This makes No Copy and No Transfer permissions false assumptions.

The only question is the amount of time it takes to do so. The original version of my script allowed this process to be sped up, provided the script was broken by the end user and used for something other than its intended purpose.

At the end of the day, while I have apologized in the past for the misuse of my scripts, there is really only so much I can do about it. That usually involves breaking features, adding failsafes that can be broken in an open script, or closing the source, all options I dislike having to take because a feature of Second Life is broken. If you're seriously concerned about the issue, I suggest petitioning a Linden.


PS. If you're interested in building a modify interface into No Modify objects, you can try my poorly-named-at-the-time Universal Permissions Suite, which adds a dialog-driven modify interface into prims you may then set as No Modify. It's advised for advanced users only, though.

you dont have to apologise jeff, this joke lasted enough

You're damned if ya do and damned if ya don't, pretty much. A lot of users, myself included, won't buy wearable objects unless they do have modify privileges because of previous experiences buying stuff that looks great on the model but doesn't fit quite right on your own avatar. Sure, you could potentially just adjust the avatar settings to make the item look better, but it seems really backwards to have to change your basic physical representation to accomodate an accessory object. The GUI seems like your best option if you're concerned about people replicating your creations. If you do implement such a GUI, be sure to mention it on your vendor displays. Otherwise, folks like me will see "no modify" on the object and opt to buy something else.

Even then, there are some customers who will still be turned off by the lack of modify privileges. I know that I have, upon occasion, bought items primarily for the purpose of learning about their construction. Not really reverse engineering per se, since I have no interest in making facsimiles of anybody's creations, but rather to acquire more of a general "how'd they do that?" design knowledge that I can apply to my own unique creations. I see nothing wrong with that particular practice. Artisans have been doing that for as long as there have been artisans. There's a big difference between being inspired and informed by analyzing someone's design and outright forgery. Ultimately, it seems to me that it is more a social problem rather than a technological one and the real solution is a matter of enforcement. I suspect that if forgery had greater consequences (restitution of L$, revocation of land ownership, banning, etc.) it would happen far less frequently.