Is 'THIS' the future of Second Life ?

Sad thing is in sl, or any bit of worlds like it..

Textures are going to be ripped off. Likely come out in a lesser quality from the rip by most (the hardcore thief will get the high grade ones)

Builds will be duplicates one prim at a time...

Scripts will be ripped off unless you lock them down to no mod

The problem most fail to realize: if it goes from the servers to the local machine it will be capable of being stolen.

Especially with an open sourced viewer that can be altered to bypass many of the protections offered by an encrypted cache and the like (not to mention they still allow older viewers that wouldn't have said protection). Plus the data still has to go to the computer's systems in an unencrypted manner

Hell I've had things I've built stolen, scripts I've written taken and copied by others and sold openly. I still build and script some, for folks on a case by case basis.

One reason many keep coming back: service and quality. I'm more than willing to edit scripts I wrote years ago on a moment's notice to fix/change them to suit the owner's. I've tp'd to people's homes to help adjust poses and placement of items

Most thieves don't offer service, because they can't do anything but copy the masters...

Not true.
I personally know SL artists that don't own/rent land, are on basic accounts and still contribute in a significative way to the Second Life communities and to the artistic in-world experience.

This is completely true.
It could disappoint some of us, but the faster we accept this, the sooner we will learn how to survive / stand in the digital era - even from the economical point of view.

This is a suggested reading:
BETTER THAN FREE - by Kevin Kelly

I totally feel what Lilith says in her original post. Unfortunately a lot of her products get copybotted from my sims as they take buildings and plants as a *package* deal.

I view the issue in various ways.

Practical: First the logistical nightmare Linden Lab have in resolving these issues.
DMCA can deal with infringement, however the people involved in these situations have in the past simply re uploaded and recreated the build. They also leave the mods anybody can take a copy making grid distribution easy and through multiple accounts. This leaves the creator in the position of simply not being able to fully police their IP rights due to the scale involved.

I am also going to add into this the false claim situation, not via DMCA but of the statement somebody copybotted my work. With blogs posting up *skins* that have been stolen (which then turn out to be simply photosourced legitimately by both creators) there is an extreme amount of noise around the reports I suspect they receive.

Technology: Viewers which can connect to Second Life are various formats. Linden have maintained the ability for this to happen. I am not an expert on the history, from commentary around the reverse engineering through to the pros and cons of having this - open source and bug fixes vs controlled environments. There are also different tools outside viewers which even if the above only allowed the official Linden viewer to connect might negate the benefit.

Community / User: The question of contribution by a free account (e.g. Artist creating on a group owned sim sponsored by x) versus a more formal content creator style account that allows distribution of assets made. Various solutions and arguments have been made in this space around restricting the free accounts to no asset inworld transfer except snapshots etc. And when they wish to distribute or sell Assets they must upgrade to a Content Creator Account. Still free, but requires full validation of identity and address (and yes that will mean a good way needs to be found to ID people, the current system has issues).

Responsiblity between Linden Lab and Content Creator: Here, I see the failing as lack of trust. We help build this world we love, many of us do commercial side, but a great many of us also put in many hours simply for the love of what Second Life *could* be. We are optimistic and love creating.

Linden Lab, M LInden made a speech at SL5B around content creators. To date, I have not seen any follow up and that was 9 months ago. I have sent an Open Letter to M Linden asking for a follow up on this.

Whilst we accept that the above make it an incredibly complex situation to manage and perhaps the legality of doing nothing is their only option (which I doubt) if they can resolve the trust issue and give creators the support side needed that would probably resolve the emotional side of this.

TOS needs to be improved on the topic to change the wording to stronger terms that Copybot used against another person's creations without authority is immediate ban not the loose wording currently in there.

In terms of the end of Second Life on Lilith's post. The bottom line is for Second Life to remain evolving and retaining users it needs quality content. If people like Lilith are getting disheartened this is a good yard stick of the creator community. I am certainly paying attention.

All of the above is not a financial viewpoint. Good branding, strong presence and community integration will always support a good creator over some numpty (and I will use that word) ripping a design and sticking it in a horrid sim. It's about trust and good faith between the creator and Linden Lab.

Yes, there are a relatively small number of artists who are supported by communities or others, but there are far more who are not. (And those who are have a very unfortunate tendency to act as "Kersten spoilers", spreading this unrealistic expectation to others, and leading to those others being put off by what are in fact perfectly normal circumstances.)

Second Life won't ever have unbreakable DRM because, even if it was technically feasible, it would be far too restrictive. For example, you wouldn't be allowed to take a snapshot of your avatar standing too close to someone else's texture, even if the texture was at an angle - because the perspective transform is documented and reversible, so the texture could be potentially recovered from that.

What I think is needed to restore respect is an easier way to create materials that can be used by others in creating their own things. The business of having to set textures full-perm is already a major problem with this, but I'd like to see more functions too - like, let's let you lay out the floor-plan of your house and have the walls designed in for you. IMVU and Metaplace are both trying to implement things along these lines. It's necessary because it prevents the specialization problem disenfranchising most people from creativity, leading to lack of empathy with and disrespect for creators.

There are very limited technological means of detecting illicitly copied content (specifically images and sounds). I now think LL is likely correct to "wait and see" about these, unless and until something emerges that is both computationally tractable and not trivially circumvented.

One thing they could do is prevent the very same RL individual who's been found in violation of copyright being able to create a new anonymous account and again compromise creator IP. This may sound as if it should be a no-brainer, but in fact it's pretty difficult, and probably not appealing in its implications.

The hopelessly simplistic approach would be to just suspend accounts and prevent new account creation by any RL target of an outstanding DMCA takedown notice. That's very wrong because there's basically no legal penalty for issuing bogus DMCA takedown notices, so this would be a griefer tool par excellence. (A hypothetical countermeasure, penalizing bogus DMCA notices with similar account suspensions, etc., is unrealistic because we know that not every claim that is dismissed or settled-out-of-court is willfully bogus.)

So it would be necessary to wait until a legal determination of actual copyright violation, but I'm not sure LL could really come to know these outcomes.

If they could know this, hypothetically they could join a network of content-protecting services that trusted each other with what amounts to a blacklist of known violators, preventing them from ever again accessing those services or distributing any content.

And all that assumes that it would be possible to reliably track RL identity across accounts (and across content distribution services). Would we be willing to sacrifice this amount of privacy for the permission to create content? I suspect not.

Depends. Some of us would be. I'd be willing to give up all privacy in exchange for being allowed to "sell" items. I know not everyone would - but there don't seem to be any other options if the goal is to lock down content theft and stop others from profiting illicitly from someone else's work. Either we learn to live with the theft and do the best we can to shut it down when we find it or we accept a draconian system where only "registered & approved" users can sell content.

See if I think if you are selling items you are a business.

You'll pay taxes on any profit, you'll keep accounts etc. Therefore regardless of it being Second Life you should be transparent.

Any RL company for a pound I can get their registered accounts, directors etc. This includes Linden Lab in the UK who are registered here (UK only). But as a guiding principle, transparency in a company/business lends to a healthier market imho.

It's a hugely tricky balance of art/commercial/non profit/virtual identity. There is nothing to stop somebody having a *personal* account that can be a non creator and be anom. The creator one would require the transparency.

One thing I have noted is that Linden are stricter now on exiting USD from themselves so they are making it slightly more difficult to profit from these situations.

I am a huge supporter of the platform and what Linden Lab provide us with. I think there are some steps that can be taken that will help on the trust and emotional side. I don't think they can solve the issue because of the complexity.

But sometimes perception of support and understanding is enough. We all accept how vulnerable content is in the digital age. And per my original post, it's why brand, community and your integration are your USP over any botter trash.

and don't forget 'Free to copy'. A lot of kids will get a kick out of copying stuff and enabling 'Free to copy', then dropping it into a sandbox or giving it to their friends.

So it's not just about "illegal" selling. If anything, the naughty sellers are easier to deal with than the pesky griefer types that enjoy causing havoc.

I think creator accounts are a horrible idea. Unless you are going to ban people without creator accounts from building anything at all (which would attract all kinds of problems with modify products, adjusting attachments, etc), the likely result is that it would create even more of a perceived schism between users and creators.

People feel OK stealing content or buying stolen content because it only hurts "them", and it doesn't really hurt "them" because "they" are rich and super talented anyway, right?

I too believe more transparency is required for those in any position of trust and yes i do see being a merchant or running any service in SL or RL for that matter as a position of trust.
How to implement this fairly is another question however and im not sure i can even suggest a solution but i completely agree that this would lead to a healthier marketplace. Also i would add this may seem all good and well for those who make money in SL and awfull for those who dont etc "us and them" or whatever but please consider that as a consumer you too would also be able to trust and have more confidence in any goods or services provided. The option of having a creator account and another anon account though would basically make the concept pointless. I think anyone should still be able to create objects though in reply to the poster above so modifying items etc wouldnt be a prob nor would anything else at all the crux would simply be if you wish to then go on and sell those items.

Responsability always comes at a price and there simply has to be further consequences in place for those abusing SL right now.

I too suffer from copybotting and it really has nothing to do with money i highly doubt it even affects my sales. However if you want content in SL from people who trully put their heart into their work then currently its far too easy for people to take chunks of this heart and treat it like crap with little or no recourse and i feel that is what really hurts people.

Again i really dont have the answers and i try to go with the flow accept that its impossible to fully protect anything especially when it comes to a digital medium also maybe i am a hypocrit since i will d/l mp3 of music often so yea its a less than clear "moral" situation all in all. However i dont then sell these mp3 and pretend im in that band.
Maybe people only pay for my stuff because they have to maybe if i gave people the option some would still pay but the majority would just take the content so this can raise questions on the actual value of what i do. So money is a motivating factor for me to do what i do here when i reflect on it in this way because without it i simply would not be able to justify the time and effort spent we all need to pay bills , eat etc. Is SL a valid place to make a living however should we "expect" that it is or can be? Personally i love working here and i would hope that it is and can be for some time i also believe encouraging and protecting those who want to approach SL professionally can only be a good thing for the platform as a whole.
Whatever the details are however do you want SL to be a full of scammers/spammers/ thieves etc or is it not better to help encourage and nurture real talent and authenticity.

On a more positive note i trully believe that the vast majority of people in SL are good and honest and wish to do things the "right" way. Its incredibly easy im sure to copybot or steal but the majority of us dont because we just know its plain wrong and we respect each other so here here for us. If this wasnt the case SL would never have gotten where it is now and i believe that we will take it further than this still because the community here is the most supportive and creative of any anywhere online or off and i always do my best to keep this in mind.

/end ramble

This kind of content theft is horrific and sad.

I wouldn't mind seeing our service provider adding more layers of punishment to fit the crime.

Anyone caught using copybot for nefarious purposes gets permabanned, I thought... did this go away?

As stated previously, the main issue is identification.

Personally, my vote is to get rid of free accounts. I know it sucks, that some people are too poor (no matter the cost; there's always someone who can't "afford" it), but it solves many problems related to griefing and anonymous behavior.



I don't think so; I have seen a few entries on the incident report related to "copyright violations", so they are still ganking people for it when they catch them.

Why can't non creator accounts build and mod stuff they have purchased? Nobody said that - they just can't sell items.

Why do people struggle with the concept if you sell things you are a business. It's a privilege to be able to make money from Second Life, not a right.

That's kind of getting off topic anyway as most botters I have royally read the riot act to don't do it to make money. They do it because (a) they can and (b) rarely will get banned.

Linden struggle with detection and proof of copybot use generally.

That's hard to enforce, though - money can be paid to them in all kinds of ways. And, as you've mentioned, stopping people making money wouldn't likely stop copybotting.

I agree.

I don't think there is one solution, it's going to be a layering of different elements that simply build more trust and accountability by a range of methods.

There are too many fragmented groups in SL, it's why I do like the idea of content creation accounts much like a SLDEV format we use already that starts to build that out and increase communication and transparency.

Perhaps, M Linden will read this and get a council together to work on the viewpoints, options and how perhaps we can all move forward.

How would you suggest going about preventing such accounts from selling? Flag them so that they can't receive L$ from anyone except LL via purchase? If you can transfer money to them, then they can sell.



Ever had a yard sale? or rented a flea market booth to sell your hand-made art/craft creations? Neither require a business license (at least here in the US), but even if that isn't a litmus for a "business in principle", you'd be hard-pressed to define those situations as one otherwise.

The permissions system is the great genius of SL. It’s the thing that makes it live and breathe.

But the achille’s heel in LL’s business model is allowing No Payment Info, annonymous accounts the opportunity to sell and set permissions.

The ability to set permissions is such a powerful feature. You can create but you can also destroy another artists work by releasing full permissions versions and you can do this and more, anonymously and for free. It’s a recipe for disaster.

SL may very well become an impressive example of how NOT to do user content virtual worlds

The ability to build and destroy other people’s work is way too powerful a feature for No payment info accounts.

Now I’m going to suggest something radical.

SL should have 3 accounts available
1. No payment info – FREE - ‘Resident Account’ for visitors and people who don’t want to set permissions. They can build, modify and learn but they would not have access to setting permissions.

2. Premium account members – $69 USD – full RL details on file – they can build and set permissions, modify, copy, transfer, but are not able to set an object for sale unless they also have a full Business/creator account

3. Business/Content Creator Account – $495 USD ? – one time only payment ?
Only content creator accounts would have full access to the permission system and have the ability to set products for sale.

It could perhaps be a one time only payment of 495USD for a license to set permissions and do business in SL and full RL details on file. You would have to maintain the yearly Premium account payment to keep your content creator account open.

SL land is far too expensive, additional sources of revenue could make land cheaper.
Spread the load.

Access to the permissions system is a high value product. I believe LL are underestimating it’s value and it’s importance to Second Life.

There are lots of other virtual worlds on the way, based on other new technology. And for good reason, there will never be another virtual world that lets anonymous accounts build, set permissions and sell.

So what permissions would anything they created have? The default permissions, I believe, are no-copy, transfer-ok. That's still enough to distribute items that could be pirated.



The problem is that there are lots of ways of selling things that don't involve "setting an object for sale". Using a scripted vendor, a bot, or XStreet are just examples.



Many content creators never cash out US$495 in their SLives. This would be a disaster.

Also, blocking creation opposes the whole "Web 2.0" idea - not that the professionalism/specialization isn't already doing that to a fair extent.

I see where you're coming from, Ting. Sounds promising!

Maybe a similar idea would be to prevent newbs from being able to transfer inventory. Although I suspect this is what you meant.

I made less lindens on the items I've made than I've spent into SL

Most of what I do now is either free or tip based.

Be it making a nice profile pic for a newbie, scripting a broadcast system for a sim, making the dreaded click emote scripts for people's butts, or helping make a furnished low prim skybox.

I produce a decent amount on my various accounts (wound up having to make an alt just to avoid certain sim rules to help folks...), not enough really to counter my costs but enough that I enjoy it when I do it.

If I had to pay more than my normal premium for the ability to sale and craft items...

LL would lose my account.

Limitations on the ability to share inventory items, is that what I'm reading? Remember, if people can save a copy of an object, they can just as easily share it on a website instead.

No payment info accounts should be able to transfer money but not inventory.

It is a free account after all. So one should expect limitations. The point being that it's sort of an unlimited (time-wise), free trial account, with an aim to entice you to join and become at least a Premium member

A one time only payment of 495USD for a creator business account including full access to the permissions system is extremely good value, considering the opportunities SL offers. Photoshop is 699USD and you can only make pretty pictures with it.

In SL you can make stuff out of nothing and then sell it. The most remarkable opportunity for digital crafts people and artists ever, in the history on mankind. So how much is that worth as an opportunity ?

MortVent - you could still do all the things you do now with a premium account and people could pay you for your services by hand. pay MortVent xxxx L$

But the ability to set objects for sale inworld and leave them there for repeaded sales shoudl only be available to Business/creator accounts.

^^This.^^

The cost of tier, plus a classified, plus advertising, bots, etc..

Also, I should add - you can distribute items even if you can't give out inventory.