Limiting theft by limiting creation

OK, Mickey, you've completely confused me. I thought you were asking whether Premium was worth it... and I was just expanding on the circumstances in which that was the case... or not. I certainly didn't mean to imply it should be considered appropriate for everyone.

Basically, I'm just talking about Yumi's crackpottery.

No problem on the confusion. A few days ago, I would have argued for Premium....but all the basic accounts are telling me that they are having the same wonderful experiences here, that I am....and that those experiences have no dollar value at all....and/or that those experiences should never have a dollar amount attached to them.....and/or that those experiences can be received for Free! even if you do think they have a dollar amount value....you do not have to let your conscience be the guide and support LL by bellying up to the table with a premium account!

I am agreeing with Yumi Today! The basic account holders are the Elitists!

but see i'm the one that deals with LL if it were not for the group i couldn't walk up and buy it on my own as a basic..i have to be premium.
you're example is the same as a private sims example of someone buying land from them..i don't have to deal with a private sim owner if i don't want..i could buy linden mainland on my own without dealing with a middle man..but i have to be premium to do that..

Another point to consider: one popular argument against restricting building or selling is that it creates a barrier for new accounts to get into the business.

Though, if everyone is really honest:
- what are they going to use to texture with? They don't have any L$, and they don't want to buy L$, so it's highly unlikely that they're going to be spending anything to buy textures. They'll simply use those packs of "free" textures someone gave them
- what are they going to use for animations? Same story: no L$, no desire to buy L$ to spend to buy animations so they'll simply use those boxes of "free" animations someone gave them

In all these discussions about content theft everyone always likes to side step that a signifcant number of content creators don't take *other people's* copyright too seriously. New accounts/builders are even less likely to.

When I was still relatively new and naive I'd IM the creator whenever I bought something that turned to have full permission animations inside of it and the odd exception aside the response was "don't worry about it, it's a freebie animation". Except of course they're not; they're unlicensed copies that have been passed around. I eventually gave up on reporting it since it seemed that if they left it full permission then they just "stole" them to begin with.

Same story with a good number of people I know who create things and the textures they use: they're not paying for them, they're "stealing" them.

I'd argue that it's not that big of a deal as long as it's for personal enjoyment, but it definitely crosses the line when it's done for things that they're selling or handing it around to other people as a freebie.

You can argue that not everyone is going to be like that: some people are going to spend a good deal of money buying properly licensed textures and sculptmaps and animations and whatever else they reuse. In that case those people are hardly going to balk at another small expense or another hoop to jump through though because they want to set themselves apart as being "honest".

Or you can argue that some people will be talented enough to simply create everything they need from scratch and there certainly are going to be those. However in this case those people are going to recognize the need for content protection and they're once again not going to balk too much at having a hoop to jump through. If anything the extra hoop might provide them an assurance that all their hard work and their IP is at least minimally protected.

So who's left? People who don't buy textures or any other "raw" material and who do not have the skill to create their own. In order for them to build anything other than a stack of plywood cubes they're going to have to infringe (knowingly or not) and then you don't want them being able to sell a thing because they're "content thieves".

Content theft is about far more than people who run around with a copybot viewer, it's also about content creators who are seemingly upstanding but only care about their own rights, not those of other creators.

ya but i don't have to go by some group covenant if i buy my own mainland..
i am dealing direct..only LL could screw me over..not some group that says ..well closing up shop thanks for the cash..i'm outta here.. if LL does that then i know it's game over LOL

And yes i think we have great support here in the forums

I don't argue for or against Premium. Premium is a bundle of features that some people find useful and other people don't. Being for or against premium is like being for or against HBO or Happy Meals or Lemon Grass Chicken with Egg Drop Soup and a Spring Roll.

And it may well be. There's a bunch of animations that were donated to Yadni in the early days. Same with textures. I've created a bunch of textures and given them away myself, or sold them full perm with no restrictions, which comes to the same thing... including sculpt textures. They're not "stolen". There really are freebies.

Screwing up free accounts won't make any difference simply because there are very few consequences for content theft.

Why should a content thief care if they have to give payment information to Linden Lab? It's not like LL is likely to do anything to them either way.

Monkeying around with Basic or NPIOF accounts is an ineffective Rube Goldberg solution that fails to directly address the problem.

Bits and Bobs animations aren't legitimate full permission freebies as far as I know. Neither are Pillow Talk animations.

Those are the biggest ones I can remember right now; there's plenty more that are animations that should have been paid for.

No, and in that case I entirely agree. But you were contrasting two situations in your message:

1. People can "spend a good deal of money buying properly licensed textures and sculptmaps and animations and whatever else they reuse."

2. People are ripping stuff off.

I'm pointing out a third option:

3. They're actually using real freebies distributed by the creator with the intent that they be used that way.

Not everyone is doing poorly and those that are doing well are not trying to piss off the majority of Second Life. And while you are complaining they are painting.

Where do free accounts get textures with which to get started? Ask Torely Linden. Or maybe I'll make up some new textures and put them in free texture packs and template/construction kits and give them away. Just to cultivate more new and superior talent in the face of those trying to freeze the business sector.

Heh when mesh import arrives most of these content businesses are dead in the water anyway.

The people taking a personal copy without a license were not only never going to buy it anyway but you are never going to know they did.

Want to make more money? Make something actual consumers in Second Life want to buy. It really is that simple.

While we are "discussing", my easel is only 5 feet away, and the brushes are loaded. But I am VERY hesitant to bring a stack of completed oil paintings into SL. That's why I'm "discussing" and not scanning.



My customers who know that I paint....have asked me to bring these in.

Now what?

It's highly unlikely that I will be satisfying my customers wishes, as you suggest, any time in the near future. I'm not doing poorly in the meantime, either....btw.....and as implied in another forum....expressing your opinion in a forum does NOT make you a leper with a customer base, (that is, if you have a customer base who knows your personality).....if that's what you are implying by "pissing off the majority of Second Life."

Example: The day that the infamous Prok told that forum he/she would never set foot in my store.....I had triple the average sales.

If Juxtapoz or High Fructose covered your work people would still be able to scan the published selections and do as they will including bring them to SL. However not many around these parts follow the art world so not much of a chance of that. If they can't find it on deviant art most don't bother.

If an individual wants an electronic copy of your work then use photoshop and digimark it. Sell it to them "mounted" (framed not the texture) for an appropriate price that will make them value it enough to be careful with it. One method is a sensor script that turns it to a free torely texture when you or your customers are not in range. When you or your customers are in range it changes the texture back to the prized work.

Argent, I admit I've posted some fairly crackpot things in the past. But I really hope that you can see that there is at least some method in the madness.

Ultimately.. if somebody is in SL to be popular, they'll want to be popular. If someone is in SL to be appreciated as an artist, they'll want to be appreciated as an artist. If someone is in SL to have kinky sex, they'll want.. well, you see the pattern.

If somebody pays money into SL, it's in pursuit of one of those things. Now, yes, I know that technically all they're paying for is just some land and virtual money, and that will protect LL from any legal actions if the customer doesn't get what they were hoping for. But it won't make the customer buy again. Nobody is going to say "well, SL isn't living up to my expectations, but I suppose I only paid for some land and virtual money and I got that, so I'll buy some more".

You've made the point that these things are social, and therefore it's impossible - without some horrible unnatural coercion - to legislate that those who pay must recieve them. That's quite true. But it still doesn't alter the fact that people will be paying money in pursuit of those goals, and they will judge the "value for money" they recieved based on whether they got what _they_ wanted, not on what the legal documents said they were technically getting for their money.

The problem of how to integrate a revenue model into a social world/game is a fascinating one and there have been plenty of attempts that have succeeded and failed to different degrees. What's becoming different is that a LOT of people, even casual users, coming to SL now will have encountered social games before (such as Zynga games on Facebook, they have, what, 60 million players!?) and be aware of the risks associated with RMT on games like that. After all, imagine a nightclub that gives you a gold star to wear for the night if you pay double the cover charge. If you see someone wearing a gold star, are you going to think they're rich and cool, or are you going to think they're deeply weird for trying to buy a social advantage with real money? That's the hurdle that revenue models for social systems are facing.

I don't think I have a solution.. all I'm saying is.. it's not a problem that SL can just ignore. Zynga are doing quite well because, with their small Flash-based games, they have the agility to experiment with lots of different models; SL business may, at some point, need the same.

No, unfortunately, I am too well acquainted with the madness behind the method.

Because no one (at least in any thread I've seen) has said why it's not technically possible and no one has convinced me that the changes would be untenable. The thread has gone way off the track I intended, but my OP was about (1) what changes would be tenable and (2) what technical options would make piracy no longer worth the hassle?


As I said above, I'd be happy with verified information too, instead of money. I have a small preference for the pay option, but if LL require ID info instead, I wouldn't worry about the difference. I do prefer the pay option because accountability is only one of the issues (although it's the largest one). Investment is also an issue -- not financial investment, but emotional investment. Most people are less likely to vandalize or otherwise harm something that they feel some sense of ownership over, something that they have psychologically "bought into". Asking users to make a nominal payment is one way of fostering that sense of being a stakeholder, of making them feel part of the larger SL world, impacted by the larger SL world, and not just a visitor who can come and go and steal and grief at will because they're not invested in the community. Content creation can also foster that sense of ownership, but it's inherently limited by the extent of the content; unless we're talking sim-size builds, the sense of ownership will be invested in the content, not in SL itself.


But if they have to modify it by hand (because they can't import anything) and can't copy the modified result, then what's the point? They could make one pirated item, but for most, it would be quicker and easier to just buy it. Again, the idea isn't to eliminate piracy entirely but to make it hassle-icious enough that it becomes more trouble than it's worth for most people. Unless you're saying there's some way to quickly and easily modify the prims that does not involve creating any new server asset (and that does not rely on easily blacklisted existing assets).


Yes, that's what I was suggesting; at least, it's what I'd like to discuss the possible ramifications of. People would have to get used to the idea that copiable content could be copied only by the verified or paid users; that all "copy/mod" content would be moddable but NOT copiable by NPIOF users. I can't see that being any more confusing than the current mess of "mod (but not really, only by annoying script)" content that we have now, because it would be one change that was effective throughout SL and not dependent on the whim of individual creators.


This may be true, but I think it's irrelevant to the discussion. Because that positive impact is not only subtle and unquantifiable but outweighed by the negative impact added by other NPIOFs. Because that benefit can be measured only by its effect on the collective SL consciousness -- and if the collective consciousness didn't believe the negatives outweighed the positives, then this discussion wouldn't keep cropping up in the first place. Now maybe the collective consciousness is wrong, maybe the benefits are huge and we just don't see it because they're so subtle, but there's no way to test that other than by trying it.

That happened awhile ago I forgot the cause of it someone eles might remember.. and nothing happened the Lab still wont listen it'll plow along no matter what.

Maybe this is the one that set Kitty off (something seems to have). If your description is anywhere near the truth, I'm glad I missed it.

There's lots of cool freebies, and even an NPIOF newb can pretty easily come up with the cash to upload a few textures.

I recommend against this. If someone sold me a painting and I later found it did this, I'd demand my money back. Sheesh!

Thank you for the tips. I don't really have a grasp on how to transfer paintings to a digital world. I'm not sure the sensor script thing would work, since the idea was to hang them in a room setting in the store. And I've about decided to sell them on Ebay instead.

You must have missed my posts.

As I originally said, if they start with full-perm item, it remains a full-perm item. And they wouldn't have to do it "by hand" because a copybot could do it for them.

This is at least a suggestion that might work. I doubt that LL would stomach it. Would it be applied retroactively? There are lots of ugly details here. An alternative would be no xfer content for unaccountable accounts, which has as many ugly details.

We have no such content. We only have advertisements that say it, which is a different thing. And it's a bastardization. And if you can't see the difference between that and "Gee, the item I bought yesterday was xfer, but today it's not!" ... well ... Imagine the difficulty for poor vendors trying to explain the permissions, which depend on the type of account you have!

The other method that would work would be disallowing any new unaccountable accounts, as Argent suggests. That would avoid all the confusing technical difficulties, and wouldn't screw any existing accounts. It would slow down SL population growth, which probably wouldn't be in LL's best interest.

I agree, which is why I started a separate thread on that.

Let me lay out two scenarios here.

Firstly, myself. My first avatar was created in 2005, my second in 2006. In between I spent 6 months away from SL, and got my second one just as payment was dropped. My first one was created due to a huge amount of peer pressure. I resent having to give my personal information to everyone that asks for it, so this took a lot of convincing. And yet, 2 years after my first avtar was created I went Premium. So, if there was no pressure on me to sign up, and I had to pay for an account, I would never have been in SL.

Secondly, sometimes I have invited friends into SL, then bought them things like avatars and so on to feel welcome. Especially in the case of someone I don't see a lot IRL, but can in SL. These people never directly contributed to SL at all. But I am certain the people I buy from would disagree that there was no economic impact, though.

Kitty gets set off when people start frothing at the thought of having to pay $1/month for something they get countless hours of entertainment (or *something*) out of .

There's also a non-sequitur:
* in spite of days/months/years of meaningful time spent on SL (people who didn't feel SL had any meaning simply wouldn't be here) some people still don't feel SL has enough value to spend even a trivial token amount of money on
* in spite of building/selling being something that people arguing against even the suggestion of any kind of restriction clearly want to be able to do they assert that they do not value it enough to put payment info on file for, let alone have a paying option hoop or something else

So you have at least two *huge* things that some people clearly want rather badly but refuse to want see a monetary value attached to.

It just doesn't follow to me that if someone thinks that SL isn't worth $1/month that they would pay L$260 for a virtual item that has even far less worth when they can copy it for free. If you don't value SL the service, if you don't value any other thing in SL you *want* (ie building and selling) then it would be really inconsistent to value other people's content which is the first mental step along the way to copying.

Morals completely aside: it's probably - and unfortunately - more but $50/month would probably be the low of what I spend shopping in a month; or $2,100 across the lifetime of my account. Even if was completely immoral and I thought it was justified to just steal content rather than continue paying for it it wouldn't make any kind of sense to risk it because if I'd end up banned then I loose a lot. It definitely wouldn't make any kind of sense to resell since then getting caught is simply a matter of time.

And if I'd never spent a RL pennie on SL? And thought it was all worthless like so many are claiming they feel? There may be some fleeting emotional attachment to the name but none of it has any value so why not copy? There's zero risk, nothing to keep you from just copying as you please. After all, SL isn't even worth that lousy $1/month so a pair of shoes certainly isn't going to be worth more than that. It would be worth as much as all those here think the SL experience is worth: nothing. And when you think something isn't worth anything then the threshold to just steal it is very low indeed.

And that's reflected in who currently copybots/exploits/something as well as the fact that a significant portion of content creators themselves aren't too concerned with other's copyright or trademarks. If all you value SL for is to create something to sell then it's easy to infringe because the pay off is just as good (especially when virtually noone cares about content creator infringement) as a copybotter who steals something whole and starts selling that. If you get caught, well, you got money out of the deal so you're ahead and it was certainly profitable while it lasted.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. Sadly you can't change the fact the general public is mostly composed of cheap bottom feeders.

I still see peoples that will buy blindly the next call of duty at 50$ and will pirate a 5$ game from an indy game studio that can barely financially make it even.

It seems in the mind of peoples, when you price your stuffs reasonably you do not deserve any respect. I can tell from the many abusive customers that pretty much demand from you lifetime support for something they bought for 1-2$ .