My Letter to M Linden About BuilderBot

Actually if you go back and look I was laughing about the term Honest - I wasn't the one who threw out dishonest.

That really wasn't her point.

Her point was more along the lines of

When all the Ethical Business people leave and its just the Shady ones left, That should tell you something.

Where have I said anything contradictory to this? I have NEVER denied that theft is not happening.

LL never made Copy Bot a TOS offense. They only reiterated their stance that stealing content was a TOS violation. Am I supposed to just agree with this even though it is false because he is a business expert? Do you agree with that? Is he right or wrong?


Dead wrong!!!!!!! Name one DRM scheme that has not been broken. Stoker may know animations and he may have a genius business sense but he does not know programming and how computers work or he would not have made this assertion. So once again, is he right or wrong? You name one DRM scheme that works.


Sorry you both got dragged into this and she decided to broaden her attack,

OK, what's the litmus for credibility when it comes to *business* and the effects of content theft? Who do we have to be before our opinions matter? Does nothing we say have merit outside of credentials? If not, then let's just let LL form policy based on popular consensus. That will really go over well.

I wasn't "just born" when I joined SL; I have run my own businesses and contracted with some of the biggest companies in the world before I ever set foot in SL, primarily as a software developer. I've had to deal with people illegally copying my products, and having to implement various kinds of DRM in an attempt to curb it, so I have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE with the problem. I advise OTHER software developers on DRM, copy protection, and intellectual property issues on a contractual basis. As such, I am constantly researching to keep current in the field.

Guess what? I'm just another SL resident here, by choice. I don't expect to be treated with any special consideration, but I also don't expect to be treated as a "wet behind the ears noob", either. I can accept that other people have real lives and experiences beyond their SL existence which deserves a basic minimum of consideration for their points of view.

However, by all means, don't take my word for anything here. Research it for yourself. Google is your friend, ya know?

You hear that folks? We're now relegated to being "shady business people".

I would love to know what litmus you/she used for that "judgment".

Must be because my e-buck balance is too low; I can't be possibly be Ethical with less than L$1mil in the "bank".

OK, now HERE I have some business experience to offer.

I've written and sold video games. In the video game business you *assume* that your product will be cracked and copied within days of release... if not before. It hasn't gotten any better since I was in the business.

And yet video games are challenging the movie industry. They may have passed it.

Does "piracy" hurt the video game business? Yes, no doubt. Has it killed the business? No.

Whoa slow down Hyperbole-guy.

I was just explaining a point you seemed to have missed.

She didn't judge you all as "shady", Nor did I.

She did insinuate Jesse was less ethical than Desmond, though.

LOL She has both insinuated and said a lot. As to me being less ethical? Hmmm, well considering I have donated literally 1000's of hours of my time and knowledge to helping others here without taking even a penny out of SL then that should count for something.

I really was just trying to help explain a simple point that seemed to sail right over Talarus's head.

That is all.

-------------------------

Whether you are ethical or not is another matter entirely.

Although if you really were to keep $10,000 cash from someone's wallet - I would argue that you are not.

Another software developer (edit: refering to Talarus). I'm shocked (edit: sarcasm, obviously).

FWIW I got out of software development after thirty years. The field has gotten dirty. It's full of people with big egos and entitlement complexes to match, who can't solve problems for squat. I hope you all are above that, and I hope you'll understand where I'm coming from when I am unimpressed that you're software developers. I've been there. It's not as impressive when you bring to the table the same thing everyone else has.

Yes, I believe you all when you say you can crack any DRM. I'm unimpressed. You aren't representative. Not doing a thing because it can't be made perfect is a cop-out.

Discussing the possibility of LL taking an ethical stand, if not a technical one, is indeed pointless, because LL is also firmly in the slashdot crowd. That doesn't mean I'm going to allow know-it-all coders to lord over the discussion without at least some push-back.

Jesse is the only one I have any reason to believe is shady, and that based solely on his statement he'd pocket a found $10,000 and not feel bad about it. I used Desmond's (ethical, obviously successful in business) leaving and Jesse's (not as ethical, not as obviously successful) claiming authority to carry on the discussion of business as an analogy for what's happening in SL in general.

It's YOUR ALT. What part of "you do not own" don't you understand? >

Nobody will pay for anything. We can still give stuff away, of course, but the only money that will move through the economy will be for land and gambling. All "stuff" will just be assumed to be free--and why not? It will all be available for free, and illicit copies will be more readily available than the legitimate originals.

Right now, things like tip jars and voluntarily paying for no-restrictions virtual products work because people are accustomed to paying for virtual stuff in-world. That can change very quickly.

So you are admitting that Stoker was wrong and there is presently no DRM scheme that has been successful? Despite companies world wide funneling an obscene amount of money and an army of phd's into the problem for over 20 years? Are you suggesting that LL should divert it's limited sources and capital into the problem and forgo any work they have into solving their already crippling problems? You have been skirting around this for a few pages now and you were already asked directly once. You, with your background, should be able to answer it.

Sure seems it would be a heck of a lot better adding a limited amount of resources into beefing up the DMCA complaint department. Which, btw, is what Stoker asked for in one of your links.

If Linden is the radio station or the file share network, ASCAP is a group of content makers that is not there. Maybe content makers need to get together and make an ASCAP to deal with LL collectively.

*I* *DO* *OWN* IT. What part of *I* am the LEGAL COPYRIGHT HOLDER don't YOU understand?

If you don't mean to say what the words you use do in the context you use them, then use different words.

You attempted an interpretation of her point, from your point of view. If you were intending it as a hypothetical, or asking if that was the case, you could have phrased it differently.

But you didn't.

I didn't miss the point; I just avoided assuming how silly an insinuation it could have been.

Unfortunately, you picked it up and ran with it, so I THEN responded to it, in that context.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable response to me, given the interpretation.

I disagree. I believe, for the large majority of us "voluntarily paying for no-restrictions virtual products", it is out of a sense of moral obligation and respect given to the respective creators.

Name a large industry that isn't "dirty", or "full of people with big egos and entitlement complexes to match". It's not something endemic to the software development industry alone.

Yeah, I understand where you are coming from. I have been in a role called a "mitigation specialist" more times than I care to count. That's where software projects have gone bad for any number of reasons, and they bring in a consulting team to advise management on what to do to get the project back on track (or, in quite a few cases, scrap it; ie, "cut-n-run". You're right, it is ugly in many places, just like in most industries which are both highly technical, and involve LOTS of money.

My statement wasn't intended to "impress" anyone. I'm not unique, but the point I did make is that I DO have experience and history in the subject matter.



You're right. We're not representative of the common person when faced with common DRM. However, we DO make tools to get work done. Sometimes, some of us provide those tools to everyone, for whatever reason. That act puts everyone (artificially) at the same level as we are.



No, but not doing a thing because it can't even do the job at all is not a 'cop-out", especially if there is significant "good" that can come from not doing it.



That's fine; I expect and welcome differing viewpoints. Also to be expected is someone pushing back pushbacks. At least in the sense that I will address points that I know are false, from experience.

We could be reaching a very interesting turning point here.

It's well recognized that LL's main benefit over competitors is its existing content base. LL now faces the situation where people are able to copy that content and move it to other grids - and if they do, LL can ban them, but they _can't_ sue. Why not? Because of the TOS rule that says that IP on residents' creations is owned by the residents. LL don't own the IP, so copying it isn't a crime against them, and I've been told there's no third-party harm allowance in copyright law (which IMHO is a problem in many situations)

So. LL faces a situation where its own product is being damaged, but it can't sue. And although the larger creators will sue, a lot of smaller ones won't be able to.

Will this lead to a policy change about IP ownership or defense, or to the implementation of the client? Honestly, I can't say. There _is_ actually a way in which builds and textures could be protected, but it's probably not viable in current technology (the answer is "the screen is rendered on the server and then sent to the client just as a flat image".

Nah, this has all happened before and will happen again

Yep the server streaming would be pretty rough, really, really, rough. As far as the turning point? I do not think we are there yet. I have not followed AWG since a couple of months after it was started but I know that all of this was brought up waaaay back then, in fact, it was the very first topics. I would imagine it is still a hot topic of debate with no answers.

If I was to hazard a guess........... I would have to guess that the protection of creation is not in Phillip's long term vision for his platform. The signs have always been there. Their lack of caring when it comes to infringement and their absurd lack of support even here in the forums. Name one program that is serious about creation that refuses to give any support at all to helping people to learn how to create with their programs. Photoshop, Autodesk products: Autocad, 3DS Max and Maya and all of the others. Even the opensource and free programs like Gimp all have thriving forums with serious back and forth discussions between users and devs. Everyone has been spouting their doomsday prophecies and this would have to be mine. That one day Phillip is hoping that it is all completely open source, with no protection at all and they will no longer even operate under the guise of processing DMCA complaints. Linden Labs will be in the business of offering server space and that is it. That is what I think Phil's vision is. We are most of the way there already. He has already said as much, he just never filled in the blanks concerning DMCA.

/facepalms

Please go back to my original question:



Content you do NOT own, I said.

YAY! Someone who understood the question!

I'm very sure, in this scenario, these workers would all belong to a group, and perform this build working with group objects, possibly on group land. Why couldn't this tool perform it's function according to group rules, then, and copy everything that belongs to the group - ignoring anything that doesn't?

The point I'm trying to make is that there isn't any reason to release a tool that allows people to copy content that ignores the permission system - or, to put in simpler terms, copy content that the builderbot owner does not own (personally, via the group, or otherwise). It's unnecessary, and as we've seen with copybot, dangerous.

Perhaps the disconnect is in the degenerate definition of the word "own" you appear to be using. As far as I am concerned, the only valid one in this case is the LEGAL definition, as in, *I* am the content creator whom created it. Whatever technical or logical boundaries it has crossed while still in my possession are notwithstanding. As such, *I* OWN it, and *I* should be able to exercise the rights afforded me by Copyright Law as the LEGAL OWNER of said content.

Do you dispute any of this? If so, I think it will be time for Copyright 101 class to begin.