My Letter to M Linden About BuilderBot

The way to enable something to be seen, is to send the description of the thing to the viewer. Even if there was no editing capability in the viewer, it would still need to receive all the primitive parameters and textures to display them.

The only way around this would be for the SERVER to do all the rendering, and stream video to you, and if you think the lag is bad NOW...

Perhaps, but that doesn't address the point. Not everyone does, nor should everyone be expected to do "the sensible thing" all the time, at least from a legal/policy standpoint.



It was a bit of hyperbole suggesting that, if a brick used as a tool to gain egress to your house if you were locked out were made illegal, those with brick houses would be in a spot of trouble.



The point is that no amount of policy can ever curb hysteria. The best you can hope for is not to feed it. However, proscribing something that has significant and fair/legal uses just because it will curb hysteria is unreasonable. People need to learn control of themselves, not expect the law/policy to hinder others because they refuse to do so.



As long as they are fighting the "bad guys" and not each other, it will be a net win for all.

Well maybe that but also the fact the courts felt Napster themselves could control the content.




When the creators themselves start out by saying it can be used for illegal content then they've put themselves in a pickle.

actualy that data is being send to the viewer as a whole or else you can not render it on your screen, it makes no difference if you block the data from being shown or being send to the editor module, the data is already in your computer and can be extracted with a client coded for that.


if I remember right that bug was fixed several sim version ago and only exsisted in one version.


Right now people can not alter things server side, the permisions are checked for that, however there is no way to block usable data from prims and textures from being send to viewers because the viewer needs that info to render it, that is why the only thing copybot and backup tools that are build into meerkat and greenlife emerald viewer can copy are textures and prims.

Perhaps, but it was a different situation than this. To draw a proper parallel, Napster would have to be considered the SL platform itself, whereas Builder's Bot would be considered more like Grokster and Morpheus, which won their cases. Hence:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030508_sprigman.html





I am not aware of the creator(s) of bittorent saying it can (in terms of suggesting such) be used for illegal content. If anything, like any other copy/distribution tool maker, it was a tacit admission of the obvious; that it is a tool, and can be used for good OR bad.

Lots of things "hit the profit line", most of them quite legal. That it infuriates companies and costs them money is nothing more than part of life. The smart ones deal, adapt, and survive. The not-so-smart ones dig in with both heels, whine, remain static, and fail.

cf. what is happening to the recording industry today.

As for saving the environment and achieving world peace while hurting someone's profit line, I take it you think that would be a bad thing?

Quick scan today, as I'm a bit busy ~ but this was worth answering.

I am not for a blanket ban on tools. It is entirely possible to create a responsible import/export tool.

Regarding inworld backups, I am paying over 100,000 a year in tier for data integrity and persistence. That makes it pretty clear who I think is responsible to do it right.

* * * * *

I speak to dozens of merchants specifically about business just about every day, talk to even more end users and have done so for years and years. Merchants who make perhaps $L 100 a month, to merchants who make two or three times more than I do annually from Caledon.

As such, if I seem a bit dismissive of some other anecdotal opinions, it's because I am. If I sound like I think I know what I am talking about, then yes, I absolutely do think that. One has to, in order to function effectively in business. Warm and fuzzy? Maybe not. How right or wrong I am is measured every day on the grid.

One final clear statement on the matter: In my view business on the grid has been hit very hard by the culture of casual theft that is strengthening daily. This, however, can be dramatically reduced just like gambling was.

As for the gun drama, the car lockpicks and so forth, that all speaks for itself.

..and it is equally possible to use such a supposed "responsible" tool irresponsibly.



That's nice. Those of us currently without the capability of letting our money talk to the Lindens, getting them to bend over backwards to recover lost content for us can make it just as clear who WE think is responsible to do it right, if at all.



You're not the only one, pal. One doesn't have to be a large landbaron to have many content creator friends who share their daily trials and tribulations with others.



*sniffs* Do I smell a bit of elitism there?

Anyway, with respect to something which can impact a lot of people negatively, I don't care about opinions, I care about facts. Provide some, or your anecdotal "opinions" don't mean any more than anyone elses.



Whether it (the SL economy) has been "hit hard" by infringement or not, I agree there are things which LL can do about it. I just do not believe policies against tools will have any significant effect.



Yes, the use of drama to distract and derail threads speaks for itself. You are right there. It also goes on to demonstrate that NO ONE is above using such tactics.

I've been lucky. None of the stuff I've mysteriously lost has been stuff I couldn't replace or rebuild. And I'm happy to grant that they have a hell of a hard job. But it's happened often enough to give me some concern whether they're doing it right, no matter if they SHOULD be doing it right or not the bottom line is that I'm the only one who's going to care. Now if I was a hundred grand a year customer, things might be different, and if I lost something important they'd send RepoMan Linden into the asset server to recover it... but I honestly can't expect them to do that for me. My stuff is my responsibility.

My "distinct impression" is present tense, and is of what happens when IP is infringed without effective deterrence, based not on what has happened in SL's past, but on Madison's rationale for establishing the Copyright Clause in the US Constitution: to encourage innovation. I agree that there are all sorts of reasons that innovation in SL may have faltered in the past, but denying effective protection to innovators is a sure way to kill it.
Perhaps not necessarily, but when Rezzable launches this thing to help customers populate its otherwise content-impoverished grid, I think it's a fair assumption that it's intended to copy stuff, and it simply will not be only the copier's own creations getting copied. If the "tool" succeeds, it increases infringement.

I'm not sure about "very easily", but yeah, there's certainly nothing to stop them, and we agree that LL should take some more active role in enforcement, independent of the "tools" issue.

Where I differ from you guys is that I just don't see the tool adding enough value to make up for the harm I fully expect it to bring to content creators and the SL economy, at least in the absence of effective action uncharacteristic of Linden Lab.

This is not a stance on principles, but on pragmatics. It's not as if any one of us couldn't take openmv and recreate the tool anyway--the Rezzable folks aren't the only coders in the metaverse--and we'd use it responsibly. Would we distribute it to anybody who came at us waving a few dollars? I wouldn't. I very much doubt that Himoff's eagerness to do so is motivated by philanthropy toward builders.

So is the depression, so is the Zindra fiasco. These are in SL's present.

Please don't start waving the copyright clause in my face.
* I'm not opposed to copyright, and copyright protection.
* That's a whole separate can of worms, and I don't want to go there.

Good thing that I'm not advocating that.

The problem is that there's lots of guys who've already created much more effective tools than this one, who are already using them irresponsibly, and who are happy to sell them to any black hat who can find them... and it's not that hard to find them. On top of that there's tools that people are *claiming* are white hat tools, that people are *claiming* are designed to be used responsibly, that are *currently* available for free, that promote copyright violation.

"Full Perm" doesn't mean "public domain".

That's a pretty far stretch for a "pragmatic", rather than "principled" stance, don't you think?

I don't think innovation in SL has suffered at all due to infringement. I am quite content to continue to make things for people, and I directly know dozens, if not hundreds of others who are regularly coming up with new products to sell. If "innovation" in SL was so damaged, where is the evidence?

That said, I don't think anyone wants to deny EFFECTIVE protection to innovators; all I am saying is that banning tools isn't an EFFECTIVE enough means of "protection" to justify the damage it would cause as well as the cost in terms of effort to implement.



Perhaps; perhaps not. However, if it is "their" grid, I think they have a vested interest in making damn sure that people don't bring infringed content to it. It could spell the end of their little "experiment" when they get ganked by a significant copyright suit verdict, or even simply shut down by their ISP with a properly-executed DMCA notice.

Another thing you have to consider -- most "infringement" presently is of individual items, not whole sim contents. What is the real "market" for consumers to make a copy of a whole sim? Where are they going to put it? After a while, you start getting into "bulk" infringement, which is where the "pro" pirates exist, and there are FAR fewer of them than there are casual infringers. Most people who MIGHT go through the trouble to get the thing and actually make a "copy" of a sim won't have any place to put it or, if they do, it most likely will have little to no impact on the original owner (for example, they set up an OpenSim server on their home computer and make an infringing copy of Greenies).



Well, it was done in other communities before the DMCA existed, so it's not like it would be a "new" thing. The DMCA just makes it a bit easier for folks to get the LAW rolling on their behalf.



I think that is a given. We don't see the REAL harm which justifies losing the utility of the tool. The thing is, once you start banning tools in this way, where does it end? CopyBot will be next, then libsecondlife, then 3rd-party viewers, then prim mirrors, then we go back to a closed-source viewer, et cetera ad nauseum. All for what? So people FEEL that their creations are "secure" against infringement? Because, as we both should well know, it won't make a significant impact in infringement. DVDs and many software packages have far more DRM integrated in them than even SL has, and they are still heavily pirated; well, if you listen to the industry whiners, anyway.



Well, belying your own argument at the start of the reply, I think it is a matter of both. You can't simply make it about pragmatics because, practically, tool bannings have a pretty dark history. You can't make it simply about principles, either, because many people don't have any, or don't respect any.

I've made and distributed prim mirror tools; even about to put an update of it out for public sale in my store which is pretty nice. I understand there's a need for that kind of tool, and I acknowledge that it could be used for infringement. However, I am not going to second-guess people's motives in this situation; that's between them and their conscience. I most certainly use such tools responsibly, and I would document any tool that I sold with potential for infringing use with warnings and disclaimers about responsible use of said tool.

It's like asking me "how can you sleep at night, knowing you made something that someone could use in a bad way?". Admittedly, it would suck, but I can't take responsibility for someone else's actions and choices with my tool. *I* use the tool responsibly. *I* expect others to do the same, at a minimum. One thing is for sure, though; if anyone comes to me asking for assistance in nabbing someone using one of my creations to harm someone else, I'll happily bend over backwards for them to assist in doing so.

I don't know what intentions Himoff(?) had in offering the tool to the public. From all I have seen so far, I don't think it was ever intended to be offered for infringing uses. Even if it was, it still is not fair to indict the tool itself over the creator being stupid in suggesting that it be used in such a way, let alone clamor for a policy banning the same class of tool.

I think that's a bit far. It likely has, but not as much as it would from LL doing what it would take to make tools like this difficult to find or use.

Talarus and Argent: i see your points. keep in mind that i am not a content creator, so my news regardign theft is usually second or third(or even twelfth) handed. thank you for clearing up what DMCA is for me.

Argent, on the DVD, CD, and MP3 comparisons, yes, yes, and no. it would never occur to me to use those items that way anyhow. even when i did DJ, i paid for the majority of my music via Rhapsody, or used my own collection.

Maybe if you consider "diversity" as part of innovation; I wasn't including that. More like combinations instead of permutations.

Basically, a LOT of people are still in SL creating, making new and nifty things, selling them, and making money. I suppose there are some who have let the situation with infringement of their works stifle their creativity, but there are still more people coming in to fill any voids left by them, and creating more niches for themselves all the time.

Anyone that thinks that innovation has been hurt in SL needs to look in the Chicken Addict thread.

Just as an aside, you do know that even broadcasting music you own is technically infringement, unless you pay for the license to broadcast or "publicly exhibit" it, right?

There's a few big legal battles going on right now over that very issue. People playing music at private outdoor barbecues and family outings getting sued (or at least threatened) over it. Of course, there's a point where such persecution of content consumers crosses the line from problematic into ridiculous, but that doesn't seem to stop certain content producers or their representatives from crossing it.

The way that SL works is like a web page: content is downloaded to the user's computer screen so they can see it. At that point, nothing in the world can prevent them from copying it as they please.

The permission system does only one thing: it keeps honest people honest, by telling them to please not steal something. If they feel like turning that off, there's no way to stop them.

If you have a solution to this, please tell us. Better yet, keep it to yourself until you can patent it and you will be a billionaire.

yes i know and it's covered. i just need to sell three more pints of blood to finish the payments .

If you can prove that intent, and have suffered actual damages, and can prove all that in a court of law, then you might consider suing Rezzable for contributory infringement, illegal collusion, and other things.

Good luck with that!

That's because you don't "own" the music. You own a copy of a recording of the performance (or a copy of the sheet music), and you naturally have the right to enjoy it personally. However, you do not have the right to perform it publicly (eg. by playing it on a piano at a venue, or playing a recording in public, or broadcasting it on the net). You also don't have the right to make and distribute more copies, of course.

I pay a yearly fee to ASCAP and BMI that allows me to play recordings in public, subject to a lot of restrictions. I assume that the radio stations and DJs operating within Second Life have also contracted with those companies for the Internet broadcasting rights.

I hope that passage isn't for my benefit. <.<

As for being ganked for playing a rendition of a song on a piano in my own home without permission; they'll just have to sue me. In fact, I encourage them to. I SO want to put an end to some of the idiocy out there over the music industry's overzealous actions against their customers. What better way than a specious court case setting legal precedent?



That's a pretty big assumption there, Tex.

Ahh the all sacred Intelectual property right, telling me that because i gift the world from any kind of creation (regardless of my actual input to existing work made by others) i should enjoy an lifetime + 90 years protection against anybody who dare to try to either copy my work without autorisation or WORSE who dare to build something upon my work or create a derivative work from it.

Giving me for more than a lifetime control on what anybody dare to do with the text of the book i sold them, on any tune they dare to whistle on the street wich MIGHT look like a previous work of my own.


There is so many ways to shufle pixels on a tga and only so many ways to order notes on a partition.
Why should we give more than a century of exclusivity to someone on them?

While I agree with your sentiment, to be fair, that is really a different issue.

Copyright terms may be way out of control, but even with more appropriately short copyright terms, the issue of protecting copyrights during those terms is still a necessary thing.

My opinion on the term issue is that long-term copyrights stifle innovation and creativity. I mean, what's the point of creating anything new when you can just sit back and run the copy machine for the rest of your life? Disney sure as hell isn't putting near as much money into new, original IP as they are in reformatting, marketing, and reselling the same old crap again and again and again.

I think the Framers understood this concept when they set the original term limit to 14 years, plus up to another 14 years if renewed. The whole point is to PROMOTE innovation and creativity, after all.