My Letter to M Linden About BuilderBot

BuilderBot as it was initially intended would have made a difference because it would have been another tool to copy content with. I know people who have had it upto their neck with their content being copied, another tool might just push them over the edge.



As someone pointed out earlier in the thread there have been inconsistent rulings on tools for sharing and copying, Napster lost out, even though Napster itself was merely a service to enable sharing.

Bittorrent sites do get closed down when people notice, BuilderBot as originally blogged about was a tool that from the offset recognised the dangers of allowing people to copy other people's content, as a respectable company, Rezzable should have nothing to do with that tool. If someone else wants to create a tool that allows copying of other's content then on their head be it, but Rezzable shouldn't be that company.

Go back and read his statement again Anya, his complete statement instead of a part. You can not make the statement that Copy Bot has caused creators to leave and stopped new ones from entering the market and then turn around and state that Copy Bot is not the culprit. Which is it?

The world economy sucks now and no place on earth is thriving. We are on 32 hour weeks for the foreseeable future. It is not because of Copy Bot though.

Go back and read my statement again Jesse; my complete statement instead of a part. I did not say copybot has caused creators to leave and stopped new ones from entering the market.

I'm just saying you can't dismiss someone's opinion that it has happened because of copybot based on the strength of the creator market. I don't believe there is such strength. Who or what I blame is irrelevant. I'm just saying there is no such strength to base an argument on.

Not quite. People who use this to violate copyright within SL can be ARed, because they're breaking the ToS. People who use this to violate copyright outside SL should be DMCAed (which is where I was coming from), and if the operators of the grids ignore the notices then it should be elevated to their ISPs.

The majority of people in SL are bots and forgotten alts.

There's no such organization. The DMCA is a law, and the process of filing a DMCA takedown notice does not involve anyone but the content owner and the ISP.


Because there is a substantial non-infringing use, for content creators who work at the *sim* level.

Not only that, but the asset servers are made of ass, and I've spent many hundreds of real dollars on stuff over the years. I've got avatars that aren't available any more, if I had to recover from a catastrophic loss, I'd never be able to recover them. I'm sufficiently worried about losing it to Linden Labs screwing up that I'm really tempted to get this just so I can recover from the almost inevitable incident.

If Linden Labs provided some kind of reliable off-grid backup and restore, I wouldn't worry, but they don't.

Do you have a CD or DVD recorder, a VCR, an MP3 player? All of these products have the same problem.

Correlation does not demonstrate causation. There's been so much other stuff going on over the same period, some of which had a huge and direct effect on the economy: the rise of freebies and hunts, the banking bust, the casino ban, the adfarm fiasco, the openspace/homestead kerfuffle, the current Zindra thing.

They have their own in-world court, it's called the G-Team. They'd have to beef it up, yes, but they could do that.

They could also provide their own archiving and disaster recovery solution, and reduce the demand for tools like this.

Just consider how many of those people using Freebie Skins that DO NOT KNOW they were originally ripped without creator permission.

Which kinda underlines my request for more info to help educate people, detect the frauds, and get them off the grid.

This is why I regularly tell people about those "noob" statues everyone loves so much, and try to get them the legit, non-copybotted versions.

I want to point out one thing since it constantly gets twisted around, to the point where even the usually well-reasoned Desmond fell into that trap:

Being against a blanket ban on tools *does not* mean that you feel entitled to rip off people's work.


On a slight tangent, but actually quite relevant... I am just a small-time creator, so I can probably be dismissed as not knowing what I'm talking about, but: The times where the wind has really been taken out of my sails and I've been thinking "why am I even trying?" have been Linden-initiated policy changes, notably the openspace wipeout and the adult continent, both of which hit projects I was working on hard, and has led me to slanting creation towards things which can either be moved directly to other platforms, or at least is training for such, so as not to lose all invested effort if and when the next policy change hits them.

Bullshit scare-mongering statistics created by the gun-control lobby, maybe.

You don't need "close combat training" for such; that is "overkill", to put it mildly. All you need is a weapon familiarization and safety course, plus some regular range practice. You make it sound like you have to be in the military or a civilian officer of some kind. Also, as you note in your "example", crooks don't ALWAYS have planning and the element of surprise. In fact, I would argue that they regularly have neither, as most crooks are stupid.



Oh please. Save the gun-control BS for someone who cares.

While you are at it, stop trolling/hijacking the thread with that garbage. You know better than that.



I am a content creator, not unlike the thousands who are also content creators. I very much have a vested interest in not seeing my content ripped off. However, unlike you, I understand the nature of the problem, and what actually can be done about it that will MAKE A DIFFERENCE, while allowing CONTENT CREATORS the most freedom to use the tools they choose to create, manipulate, distribute, and dispose of their content the way they wish.



Then you should be very actively supporting what I am proposing, because it will have the most positive effect across the board, while maintaining freedom to use any tools content creators desire. No matter what you try and ban in terms of tools, it WILL NOT stem the flow of infringement, because it DOES NOT effectively address the issue. Linden Lab KNOWS this and, if there is nothing else they have ever done right, this is the one thing they have done right.



The analogy is correct, in the context that they are wrestling with the EXACT SAME issues; the only real differences are in terms of scale and resources. Not only that, they have spent YEARS and MILLIONS (if not BILLIONS) of dollars fighting "piracy". Guess what? They haven't even put a dent in it, and their efforts at suing the "little people" have yet to produce much other than a huge legal bill and hideously bad PR for them.

If the music and movie industry can't do anything about it, what does that mean for the small "mom and pop" content creator? What it means is that they have to take a different track in protecting and distributing their content. Now, SL isn't the "Wild West" of the Internet; it is a closed, gated community, so things are be a little different. However, we still must focus on things that will have the best effect, while not wasting energy on things that will have no, or even a negative, effect.



The FUSS did some damage, but it was not attributable to the USE of copybot; it WAS attributable to the HYSTERIA over it. Not only that, but that self-same HYSTERIA brought with it such wonderful things like "Copybot Protection System v3.1825389625389: !quit" spammers.



I suppose we should just delete the "copy" function from Windows then, too? It is probably the most abused "copy anything" tool in the world. It was irresponsible, nay, downright contemptible, of Microsoft to offer such a tool to EVERYONE.

The HYSTERICS are griefing; instilling fear for fear's sake. That's why it is time people come to their senses and actually do something about it that works.



It isn't "baloney", it's the LAW. That's what ALL content creators EVERYWHERE have to do. It's your stuff; YOU are the most responsible party for protecting it. All that the government (or, in this case, LL) should have to do is to provide you with an expedient and effective means of doing so, making it as easy and painless as possible FOR YOU, without putting any undue burden on anyone else on your behalf.

Aminom (your example) releases full-perms products like sculpty textures. No one needs copybot, builder's bot, prim mirror or ANYTHING OTHER THAN the standard SL "copy" function to resell his stuff. As such, no policy about tools will EVER help him. EVER. It MAY even HURT him, denying him the use of a tool that saves him time or money.

In my letter, I outline the things which will make it significantly easier on content creators to put an end to the infringement of their content. No, it's not a "perfect solution", so don't go there. However, it IS in the same breed as any "BEST solution", under the circumstances.



They are called "lockpicks", and they are very easy to obtain by anyone. It is illegal in most places for anyone other than licensed locksmiths to possess but, in reality, that stops no one. Now, if you commit a crime USING said lockpicks, then you'll get busted for having them IN ADDITION TO being prosecuted for the crime in which you used them.



Good. Now let's agree to get LL to make a GOOD one that helps all content creators without hobbling them.

I have been running greenlife for some time but never noticed it till now so I did that test to humor you.
It will only copy if you have full perm and only the prims, textures are not copied so you can't use it to export to other grids and because you have full perm already you could also just pick up a copy of the build, the only thing that is different is that you are set as creator.offcourse greenlife if opensource so if you can code (most scriptkidies can't) then you could make a special version for yourself to bypass permisions but by then it would be simpler to just get a copy of copybot.

meerkat viewer takes it one step further and makes a backup that can be imported into other grids because it copies the textures as wel. stiil only for fullperm items.

I am a content creator as wel as estate owner but most of my products depend on scripts so as long as no bug creaps in that alows scripts to be dowbloaded I'm not all that worried , most costs are not in creating something, at least if you create as a hobby anyway, rather it is the cost of selling things and those costs are the same for everyone weather they create themself or steal to sell.
for that reason I doubt copying will have to much effect in sl

You are wrong. Consider yourself corrected.

OK, OK. I'll try to play nice; it's hard with all these sharp claws and teeth.

As someone else already pointed out, DMCA is not an "agent", it's a law and, in the context of LL/SL, a shorthand for a process under that law for the takedown/removal of infringing content.

LL does regularly get involved in matters regarding copybot and copyright issues (there is no such thing as "virtual copyright".

LL says it is legal, just like they say that their own copy function is legal. Illegal usage of the copy function is and should be treated the same way as copybot, prim mirror, or any other tool/function. If we take the tact of making tools disallowed, simply because they could be used illegally, pretty soon we won't have ANY tools to get anything done. Well, actually, we will, because we will all be using illegal tools to do our legitimate work to create and distribute content. The policy won't stop the use of illegal tools, so it is a waste of time and enegy better spent fighting the real problem: the actual infringement.

Full perm, or only for items for which you are the creator?

You are falling into the mixed context trap, and even your own evidence is demonstrative of what we're saying.

Nobody is making any such arguments, Des. Infringement is wrong, regardless of whether it is one person making an infringing copy, or the entire population of SL doing so. It's not OK, and LL needs to provide us, both as producers AND consumers of content with EFFECTIVE and EXPEDIENT means to identify and eliminate infringement when and where it occurs on the grid. It doesn't matter how infringement occurred, or what tools are used; what matters is STOPPING it.



No it won't; it hasn't yet, and copybots, prim mirrors, GLintercept, cache viewers, and other tools have been around for YEARS. There is little to no evidence (that I have seen) which shows CORRELATION, let alone CAUSATION, between the state of the SL economy and the existence of infringement tools. Hell, a large percentage of infringement can be shown to be caused by stupid bugs in SL's own permission system, which is STILL happening RIGHT NOW (see SVC-4444).



I beg to differ on this point. As a percentage, I don't see infringement any more prevalent now than it was in the past (please show me some sources for statistics otherwise, if you have them). Yes, the QUANTITY of infringement has gone up, in accordance with the population growth; however, I challenge you to show the percentage per capita for the residents has seen a significant increase. Further, I challenge you to show strong evidence of correlation to the availability of tools.



Thing is, they didn't make any new policy over it. Infringement has ALWAYS been against the ToS. It didn't set any new precedents or create any new policy; it was to quell the hysteria over the issue. So, yeah, it was a good thing LL came out and reiterated their policy, as unnecessary as it should have been.



Thing is, there are legitimate reasons why I would want to use a tool which bypassed the SL permissions system. Let's say that I make an object, and have my alt put them out in a sim; say a hundred of them. Down the road, I have to pick up and move my content. Unfortunately, I can't easily just pick it all up, because some of it was put out by my alt, and I didn't to make it full-permed for whatever reason. If someone provided me a tool to pick up and move ALL of that content, I would be grateful, because it saved me time and hassle, and it is NOT infringing anyone's rights because it is STILL *MY* CONTENT.

You continue to paint a dismal picture of the "dark future" with a "copybot around every dark corner, just waiting to jump you and copy your SOUL!!!!". It hasn't happened so far. However, it MAY happen, regardless of what tools are available, if LL fails to help us stop it.



That's rather disingenuous of you. Jesse made no suggestion that you HAD to try it on your main avatar. You're a smart fellow; you're just as capable as anyone else to make an alt to test such things with, and/or only do so on a non-critical computer.



No, actually, it can't. No effective policy is ever going to be able to be enacted which will prevent the misuse of tools for infringement, nor even tools INTENDED SOLELY for infringement. ShoopedLife is proof of that.

As for the rest of your examples, I would hardly say any of them were a rousing success, either, but they also don't address enablement technology; they are simply behavioral policies, just like what I am talking about. Bots weren't banned; misuse of them was. Microparcels weren't banned; misuse of them was. Advertising wasn't banned; misuse of it was. Banking wasn't banned; unlicensed banks were. Gambling was most definitely not banned in any real way. Child avatars and ageplay weren't banned; sexual situations involving child avatars were.



More disingenuousness. You can't possibly believe that Jesse or Argent, or even I, feel that way. If you do, then you've become pitifully misguided and jaded.



Any troll can parrot a viewpoint in a forum. If you think that's all there is to a discussion then, yeah, you're likely better off bowing out.



Probably. If you do, it would likely be better off in its own thread.

Anything that is full perm and you are the owner of, regardless of who created it, I tested it on a mole building.

Then they still enable copyright violations, if you rez an object in another grid without the explicit permission of the original creator. The ToS only grants Linden Labs (or anyone else) the right to copy creator's content within the Second Life service itself. Setting an option to "Full Permissions" does not place it in the public domain.

What evidence is there that there is even a significant correlation? If you agree with Des, surely you have some evidence to support it, right?

You have a "distinct impression". OK, I have a "distinct impression" that the slowdown of the SL economy is due to a range of factors, none of which include infringement as a significant component: a RL recession-bordering-on-depression going on, oversaturation of certain markets by legitimate competition, seasonal market variances, flat resident growth, high resident churn, LL's bungling of policies (Zindra, openspaces, land market saturation, adfarming, etc), and platform issues. Did I miss any? No, infringement isn't one of those factors. That isn't to say it is *NOT* a factor, but it is *NOT* a significant one, from at least *my* "distinct impression".



Ease of copying doesn't necessarily correlate with increase in infringement.



I disagree, but that's to be expected.



The DMCA is a large, multi-faceted upgrade to copyright law. Many parts of it I also despise, but the parts which actually support the expedient execution of the rights of original authors I am for, as long as irresponsible abuse of such expedient execution is heavily penalized, which is sadly lacking from the actual law. In other words, it is very easy for someone to file a DMCA takedown on actual non-infringing content as a harassment tactic, with little fear of reprisal for the perpetrator.

If the DMCA didn't exist, they could very easily administer a similar policy, which supported the existing law prior to the DMCA. In fact, what I asked for in my letter was such an administration to make the whole process easier, more expedient, and more effective. Something a "ban the tools" policy won't achieve in any real measure.



I don't believe it is in LL's best interest to use whatever influence it can to discourage distribution and use of tools which have significant, non-infringing uses. The law tends to agree with that stance in general, too. As for the rest of what you say, we're in agreement.

That's what the SL permissions system does.

LL doesn't have to endorse or even supply such tools. Neither do they have to ban them. The permissions system still does its job of discouraging opportunistic or "casual" theft, even when such tools exist.

Do you know that people lock themselves out of their houses and cars? If lockpicks and slimjims were totally illegal, you'd have to resort to the brick-through-the-window to get access to your own property. Well, until bricks were outlawed, anyway. Draco help you if you have a brick home in that case.

Likewise, in SL, such tools have SIGNIFICANT, NON-INFRINGING uses. Rezzables even SAYS why they developed it; as a tool to copy THEIR OWN content from one grid to another. They say NOTHING about people using it to "copy whatever you want, infringing or not".



The only common denominator between those two concerns is people's behavior. In that sense, hysterics are no better than people using a tool for infringing purposes. What does that tell us? Shall we ban anything that could potentially cause hysteria, too?



I can empathize. I am a content creator as well. The difference is that I have been creating content all my life, not just in SL, and I "know the business". I can understand how people just getting into it may feel bewildered at the thought that their creations can be easily illegally co-opted by whomever against their wishes.

Just like going into business. Many people have no idea how hard it is to build and run a business, which is why so many of them fail. They aren't prepared for the legal, financial, and managerial challenges of doing so. There are RL "business in a box"-type books that attempt to make the process as easy and painless as possible, but it still cannot properly expose people to the fact that the actual implementation is hard.

The same is true of being a content creator, at least in terms of producing content for public consumption, especially in return for money in doing so. Those who simply create for the joy of creating and give all their stuff away, not caring what becomes of it, are exempt from this, but I presume we are talking about people who are interested in this in terms of profit-oriented motives.

At the end of the day, no matter how easy or difficult it is for any particular content creator to actually create their content, what is for sure is that protecting their rights to it is a hard fight. One for which they should prepare early and prepare well. No one should expect others to fight to fight for his/her own rights, nor should anyone seek to deprive others of tools to legally and fairly create/manage their own content, simply on the premise that someone might infringe their rights with said tools.

That applies more to RL than SL.

In SL, one person copybotting something and giving it away as a freebie can quickly add up to the original product being nearly worthless.

In RL, the theft of a thing, casual or not, usually does not mean that stores selling that thing suddenly cannot sell them any more.

The line blurs when you talk about digital products - music and videos and such - but for most RL products, you just can't compare their theft with the theft of an SL product.

This is incorrect. The reason Napster lost out was becaused they actively promoted copyright infringement in their advertising. "Upload your songs and share them with your friends!", more or less.



Bittorent sites may get shut down for hosting/tracking illegal content, but bittorent as a tool has NEVER been outlawed.

In fact, I would even suggest that Builder's Bot is SL's equivalent of bittorrent. Anyone can argue that it is HEAVILY used to truck around illegal content, but yet it has significant, non-infringing uses, and should NEVER be outlawed because of that.

I dismiss someone's opinion based on a lack of evidence. I think that is fair.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Claiming that copybot has been a major factor in tanking the SL economy is an extraordinary claim. As such, an opinion without the requisite extraordinary proof I find easy and fair to dismiss.

1. Black Swan.

2. Greenies.

Most people have the common sense to leave a spare key with a neighbour or friend. Although I do know one person who had to resort to breaking in through her own back door!

EDIT (I don't understand what you mean about brick houses. My house is brick. All houses are mostly made of bricks where I live.)



Granted, you cannot ban hysteria. Human nature is what it is. It is more a matter of the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. We already have enough difficulties with all manner of business issues in SL. If one can be avoided, that makes one less obstacle on the path to success.



I am sure people will fight hard to protect their rights. Every product has a finite lifetime - it's a matter of maximising that period to create business success. So this _will_ be fought.

One of the problems is the way the permissions system works. If you take for example a train in SL (though the same thing applies to any object you can think of), the *only* difference between a full perm and a no-mod version of that train is, that the data entry field in the object edit window has been greyed out. But, the data is all there and up for grabs for anyone who knows how to code a custom viewer.
Ideally, the whole permissions thing would be more layered or modular. The viewer part doing just that: enable things from seeing them, but sending any other info to other modules *only* if the permissions exist for that knowledge. This seems only a minor thing, but right now, everything works more in the order of the viewer sending data to the editor module, and then the editor module gets to decide whether it should be shown or not.

It gets worse with not even the server knowing it's permissions right, seeing how people have managed to create objects and somehow spoof the creator and owner info to make it look like someone else made the object (yes, this hack exists, and is done without using third-party prims: people have actually managed to *change* the creator and owner data on prims!)

Permissions are regulated too much at "front end" side, where they are vulnerable, while they should be regulated as far back as possible, and ALWAYS be re-validated serverside in the case of altering in-world object properties.

Effectively, there should not be a method for people to get usable object data if the permissions set on the object do not permit this, and similarly, the server should block people from altering objects that they do not have permissions for to alter.