My Letter to M Linden About BuilderBot

Well, it could be compared to the registration of the builderbot, to see if this object is (ugh, I'm starting to hate this word) "owned" by the builderbot operator. I'm only being realistic and saying that, were someone to move to a new platform, they'd probably like to take some stuff with them that they've bought. ... hmm, maybe builderbot needs a delete function, to "move" content from one platform to another?



Yes, you're correct. "Not allowed" is not enough to stop a thief, however. I'm not suggesting that removing that level of functionality will stop thievery, but I'm all for not making it one iota easier than it already is.

Edit: see, I'm piecing what I think about all this as I go along, here. Can I take what I've bought? Legally, no, unless I have copy permissions.

Just to clarify: Greenlife and Meerkat specifically check perms. Unless you have full copy/mod/transfer permissions, the export function is disabled. Second Inventory takes it a step farther, it will only allow you to export items that you created.

I know this is a separate argument from having the actual rights to transfer. Just did not want to muddy the water any.

Well, going back to the beginning of the thread, what's Rezzables's duty? The purpose of this tool is to to bypass the restrictions SL has placed on transferring content. The intent is that it be used legally, for example for Rezzable to use it to transfer the sims they owned and created to another grid. Does that mean they have a duty to limit the restrictions they bypass beyond that? If so, where should that restriction be?

When SI came out, according to their documentation it only allowed you to copy content you created, and only allowed you to re-rez it as the creator or a registered alt of the creator. That was a reasonable attempt to actually follow the letter of the law and the SL permissions system, using the tools SL provides. As far as I'm concerned, anything less restrictive than that is already putting the onus on the user rather than the tool to follow the rules.

Do they have a duty to be hung for a lamb instead of a sheep?

I think you're muddying the waters. (half kidding, but only half)

No, I understand what you are saying. Just pointing out the choice of words in this sentence:

"BuilderBot, SI, GreenLife, Meerkat, all of these tools can be used to copy content you don't own to other grids"

That sentence is completely wrong in regards to Second Inventory because it specifically allows you only to copy what you actually created and by default have the rights to transfer.

Someone could also look at that and deduce that Greenlife and Meerkat allow you to pick any object in SL and export it, ala Copy Bot. This is not the case because they both check ownership and perms, although I agree that there are no checks as to whether you have the rights to transfer outside of SL.(half awake, not half kidding )

I have a big problem with putting the burden of responsibility on the user, because there is no way to ensure that's what every user will do. It's like giving a gun to everyone who wants one and telling them not to shoot anyone. While there's many actions we can take, legally and medically, after a shooting, in the end it's an event we probably could have prevented with a little proactiveness.

We can't remove the onus from the user in any case, but we can put a safety on the gun. Limiting functionality to the permissions system is one way to do that. Somewhat more lax limitations would take group builds into account. The release of a tool that ignores the permissions system altogether is what concerns me. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Which is good, because "for backup" is the worst of all excuses to use these things. Here's why...

Say I use a tool to make a "backup" copy of some full-perm item I own but did not create. Today I can't find it in my inventory (because I'm not looking in the right folder), so I swear at LL, raise the indignation flag up the pole, and use my tool to re-create the object.

No harm done? Problem is, now there's a full-perm duplicate of the object on the grid, with *me* as creator.

So, the ability to re-create the object, with a different creator, has been put into *my* hands; me, who can't be arsed to go through proper channels to replace a copy. Me and some know-it-all coder. It gets worse if that coder has also decided, with his superior intellect and superior set of ideals and ethics, that I have the right to copy something that isn't full-perms. Or that isn't even owned by me.

The only reasonable use of these tools is to copy things you created.

You don't think they take a peak to see how things work? You don't think, in the privacy of their bedroom, in the middle of the night, with the code just sitting there, that they don't take a peak to save themselves hours or days of experimentation?

But since we were talking about libsl people and not open sim people, I'll say again that I found in a mailing list archive a bounty for creating a function that does the opposite of the one in the viewer code that uploads animations.

To think the libsl people don't use the viewer source to speed their development is just silly.

A safety on a gun doesn't prevent you from using it to break the law, it's more to keep you from accidentally breaking your body. OK, I know what you mean, but I don't agree. If you're going to limit things, you're going to end up encouraging copyright violation because people will think that whatever you're allowed to do by the tool is what you're allowed to do in law. No, I'm not kidding at all here, because I've had this argument with too many creative idiots who think that "there's nothing stopping me, so it's OK" is the whole of the law.

I don't know. It's a side issue, but I know people who make a living writing code that way, without peeking, so it doesn't seem terribly unlikely. And it's a side issue. The point (as I have already pointed out) is that it's not the open source viewer's fault, it would have happened anyway. As proof, it DID happen anyway, before the viewer was released. Whether the open source viewer LATER made it easier doesn't matter... it would have happened anyway.

I'm not talking about Linden Labs here, I'm defending the open source viewer and all the people in the community who have done good work on it.

Absolutely, I've had that discussion as well. But the same argument can also be applied to the SL permissions system in general. I'm not going to buy into that line of thinking because of this. If limiting the bot encourages copyright violation, it'll have to encourage it in a manner that the software doesn't permit as is.

If clarification of points in a discussion/debate is going to be considered "dirty", then you're likely just as "dirty" as anyone else here.

"No, just because Franimation Overrider is full perm, that doesn't mean you can use a modified version in a no-mod AO"?

I don't follow that. SL doesn't permit you to copy content out of SL, so it doesn't permit the copyright violation we're talking about.

It is called "responding in kind". The person I was responding to was being pedantic (or deliberately obtuse), by ignoring the entire context of the discussion to make an obtuse, literal point. "Your ALT wasn't the owner, so neener-neener" is how I saw his post.

The point was to drive the obtuseness to ground, not say "I'm right".

I don't concede its use to copy anything that I am not licensed to copy, regardless of the permissions. That includes most especially copying it to another grid. I'm only talking about copying MY OWN stuff, and any stuff that I don't own to which I have a valid license to copy. As such, don't concede that point to me, at least in those terms.



I am opposed to that *use*. Being opposed to that functionality would depend on whether or not said functionality was SOLELY designed and intended to infringe. If it is simply an artifact of a more general set of functionality (i.e., can be used for either, but designed/intended for non-infringing use, a la your VCR/CDR/DVDR/MP3), I am not opposed to the functionality.



Then I apologize for my misunderstanding of your post; it appeared rather obtuse to me.

I don't. I am a firm believer in personal responsibility. That means "be responsible for yourself and your actions, and expect (nay, DEMAND) that other people are responsible for themselves and their actions".

As for your gun analogy, aside from making a proactive effort to determine whether or not the person asking for the gun is a criminal or mentally unstable (and following whatever other proscriptions the law specifies), I have no problem selling that person a gun. It's not my responsibility to go any farther than that. I might make some suggestions regarding training and safety to someone whom I estimate might be inexperienced, but that's as far as I think anyone really *should* go.

In the case of copying tools which can potentially have both non-infringing and infringing uses, I have no litmus to deny access to them to anyone, nor do I think I should. At this level, the burden of responsible use of the tool falls squarely on the shoulders of the user, not the creator/seller/platform owner/anyone else.



The problem is that, again, a generic-functionality tool may not have limitations built in, because the limitations may make the tool not useful for someone with a legitimate use (as in the various examples that have been given). Thus, if it makes sense to include such limitations where it won't curtail non-infringing use, then I am for it. Even still, a generic-functionality tool without limitations that has significant non-infringing use should never be banned, and that is the crux of the issue. No one here has (or should have) issues with tools that are designed to limit functionality to non-infringing use only.

As such, that's why I (and others, of course) think the focus of the effort put forth by LL should be on behavior policy and swift/effective remediation, rather than attempting (with futility, I might add) to ban the tools from existence, let alone use.

I agree, and you'll note that I have not supported the notion of using such tools for backing up anything other than content you have created/licensed. Unfortunately, there is no good way to truly "back up" content in SL. If you have a no-copy Starax sculpture, for example, it is a precious thing. Many people don't bother rezzing their copies, because they are afraid they will get eaten in a sim crash, or when rezzing. Once no-copy stuff gets hit by bitrot, it's toast. If it was created by someone who is no longer around, there is no remedy/recovery. It's wasted money and, to the owners especially, a very sad situation.

Personally, I would LOVE to have a way to "vault" content like that, so that it won't ever be lost. However, as you say, using a tool like CopyBot just isn't the right way to do it, for backup purposes.

That said, I can't say I blame someone for doing it anyway, as long as they are still as respectful of the creator's wishes as they possibly can be if they do.



..and that you have a valid license to do so if you did not. I'm not trying to be pedantic; it is an important clarification/distinction.

I wish RobbieDingo had builderbot for this reason alone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSb1gVFtQPA
How many sims must fall?
LL does not save them for posterity.
WE MUST!

No, there is no litmus. That is exactly why the tool should be limited; because unlike a gun, you cannot identify and prevent anyone at all from legally obtaining the weapon.

How are you going to limit it? There are no legal remedies in the form of stopping the company from releasing it if they so decide. There is no way to detect that it is stealing content if it has been released. As pointed out before here, it does not make stealing any easier then the myriad of tools already out there. If everyone was able to convince the company into stopping the release then all you will have done is instill a false sense of security into the residents and businesses.

Instead you should be concentrating on enforcing the rules and petition Linden Labs to increase the staff to expedite DMCA take down complaints. You can not stop theft but you can limit the damage. Linden Labs also has the power to remove every instance of a stolen item across the grid and from everyones inventory instantaneously and easily. They have done this before but for some reason they are not doing that in all cases. All of the ripped freebie skins in the freebie boxes people have mentioned here? There is not one single reason that they are still in world.

FWIW...

The ability to back up one's complete inventory - no-copy items, scripts, textures, the whole kit and kaboodle - has been high on the wish lists of just about everyone who has played SL for a meaningful amount of time. Given such a high demand, and given how long the viewer has been open-source, it begs the question of why this demand hasn't been met yet.

Just because the viewer is open-source does not necessarily mean it opens the door for anyone to hack the grid or render the system insecure. Linux is open source, as is most of the software that runs on it, but still it is arguably the most secure small-computer OS available.

You *really* don't like software engineers.... Do you.

*sighs*

...and I was only 45 credits away from my BSIT-SE degree...

And I would add that the open sourced viewer is not really the source. It is highly unlikely that Rezzable has integrated their tool into a viewer. Now we have two open sourced viewers that do have the ability to export items you have perms on. I have heard of two other viewers that have the ability to export items you do not own or have perms for. In each of those 4 cases it was not the viewer code that made this possible. It is actually libsl components being melded into the viewer.

Lord Greg Greg and crew really made it possible when they created PAR which included libsl's Grid Proxy. This was then integrated into the Greenlife Emerald viewer and people have been using that code to create Meerkat, which is the other "legal?" viewer and the two illegal ones. Now I am not entirely for sure on the timeline of the two illegal viewers, Cryo and I forgot the other name, and whether they came before or after Greenlife. But as I mentioned, they are using the PAR code and now everyone is just looking at the Greenlife Source.

I will mention that I have nothing against Greenlife. It is by far the very best viewer that is out and it is the one that I use. And it also just so happens to have code built in so that no one can rip your clothing/skin layer. Just trying to illustrate that LL's decision to open source the viewer did not change the game. libsl and it's bastard child; Copy Bot are really the fountain from which it all flows. I say that and I LIKE libsl, it is just a tool that has many uses and without it and the people that created it we would not have Open Sim which may be all we have left if LL does not mend it's evil ways.

First, I cannot limit anything.

Second, correct, there is no way to detect that it is stealing content. That's why it should be limited.

Third, just because everyone has access to a tool that can be used to steal content, that's not a good reason to let everyone have access to two tools that can be used to steal content. At what point does anyone consider setting a different precedent than releasing tools that can be used to steal content? O.O

Unlike a gun, the consequences are not as dire when it comes to misuse, either.

The level of concern is where it should be; as a tool. It's a power drill. I can use that drill to poke holes in public bathroom walls, or through people, too. However, a power drill is a damn useful piece of equipment which is not regulated in any way, nor should it be.

Hell, with a generic-functionality copy tool, I can't actually bodily harm anyone.