Limiting theft by limiting creation

They added the ability to verify with a Paypal account and verifying via a cell phone number a short time prior to 6/6/6. I don't remember an option to just call them up and get verified, though.

Technically, Charter subscribers were NPIOF, too, but I am mainly referring to the masses. A tiny percentage of exceptions doesn't invalidate the point, however.

It's either legal or it isn't. It's either original or it isn't. The contract is with Linden Lab and Linden Lab can action an avatar for breaking the rules in either case.

Then it's no different from putting your avatar together from stuff you buy. And you were dismissing THAT as being not creative.

If (your number) 20% of the people in SL are actually creating things, not just putting stuff together, that's an incredibly high number compared to RL, and a tremendous victory for my thesis. I wouldn't have set the bar that high.

This was a triumph.
Making a note here, huge success...

I'm reading this and just have to comment all you people screaming for basic accounts to get taken away ... question you really thing this is going to stop IP theft ?

I have been in world 6 years now and i've always had a basic account and i spend around 90-130K a month every month on just shopping and doing other things that does not included what i pay for tier for land i own.

Yeah i could afford a extended account for what so i can submit when something is broke read the forums they never give a decent response it's crap and oww i get a plot of land on mainland that i can rez what a few prims on no thanks.

Keep screaming that basic accounts should be taken away and I can tell you all the " companys " that are screaming for it will notice a huge chunk of your sales gone.

-end of rant

Where have I proposed financial boundaries?

Is what true? That there are more PIOF people now? Probably? It's three years later. That there are more PIOF now than there would have been if they hadn't opened it up? No effing way.

It's not the time, it's a psychological hurdle (consider the people who are not verifying to get onto adult land, for example). They're more likely to take that step if there's an obvious benefit to taking it, like getting into the game at all.

I don't care if you think twice about it, I care if the guy who didn't think about being a creator or an artist gets sucked in to it because they just happen to have the ability, and discovers something new in themselves as a result, and we all benefit.

They have two classes of people, one who can create stuff, one who can't. Yes, the barrier to entry is higher, but it's the fact that there IS a barrier is the problem.

See above comment about adult land and incentives.

Most people aren't screaming for Basic accounts to be taken away. That's a red herring.

We already have a ton of different classes and noone seems to really care all that much. There isn't even a "barrier to entry" with most of those; you either have it or you don't.

Charter accounts get 4096m² worth of free mainland tier (and a stipend I think?) at no monthly cost
Some accounts get 1024m² worth of free mainland tier at no monthly cost
Some premiums get L$500 stipends, some get L$400 stipends, most probably get L$300
Pre-6/6/6 payment verified basics got L$250 at sign-up and still get L$50/week (as long as they signed in), most don't
Some pay $150/month for a full sim (they happen(ed) to work in the eductional sector but aren't using their sim for educational purposes); most don't
Some pay $195/month for a full sim (grandfathered); most don't

We'd definitely have a lot more worthwhile builds and non-profit/commercial places to go if the owner only needed to raise $150/month rather than double that but they don't even get that option.

So adding yet another class that is actually completely open to everyone who just *wants* to be part of it isn't going to skew things any more than they already are.

I was simply voicing an argument. Yes, it's debatable, and I happen agree with you. But we can't ignore this counterargument, which is value-based, and one on which the different parties are unlikely to ever reach agreement. That makes it an issue for LL.

No argument, IMHO. Unfortunately for us, it's LL who have to come to this realization.

So, you're opting for #4? (Disallow xfer/mod for NPIOF. Xfer/mod content would become no-xfer. One wonders whether it should become copiable. Created content would be no-xfer.)

I dislike this because of the extra burden it adds on content sellers trying to explain the permissions (among other oddnesses). IMHO, it comes down to the debate you're holding with Argent: whether it's better to force everyone to identify, or to treat the unidentified ones differently. I see two sides: maybe it's better to let unidentifieds in than keep them out altogether, but that does make SL complicated with a HUGE difference in what they can do -- a much more insideous difference than the distinctions we already have like adult-capable.

I don't know which is best, but I do know which would be messiest.

But currently, anonymity is allowed on SL. You can't argue that changing the policy wouldn't be objectionable by many. You're just saying that it's fine by you, OK. Unfortunately, LL has to deal with the reality.

Personally, I don't see anonymity as important either. But I'm not foolish enough to try to sweep it away as though it's not an issue. This is one of those things that would have been easier to start with than to enact later. However, LL *did* start that way, and *changed* it. Why do you think they did that?

It's simpler to say, but precisely what does it mean?

What's "sell function"?

I tried to be clear in my post above with the numbered options. How does your suggestion differ from these?

Good point.

True, but accountability makes it harder for repeat offenders, which is allegedly a serious problem.

As pointed out above, accountability doesn't help unless LL holds up their end and takes abuse seriously.

Please be more specific than "breaks SL", if you want to convince anyone. I agree with you, but an empty argument doesn't help much.

It would be messy, to be sure!

That wouldn't stop copybots, so it would be ineffective and also extremely disruptive. An NPIOF couldn't buy a bed and sleep in it, or own (and use) any active content at all unless it was owned by others. So, cost too high, and zero effectiveness.

good point, even accountability is insufficient if LL doesn't hold up their end.

I don't think there's any disagreement among us that LL needs to hold up their end.

Disallowing edit, in particular. It makes it impossible to mod prim hair, clothing or attachments to fit your avatar.

I meant the box you check to sell...leaving that function off....but if you don't allow transfer, that would take care of it.

I guess it doesn't differ from yours....yours just seemed complicated to an average user like me. I'm still having to stop and think about what PIU, NPIOF, P-this, P-that means. Sort of wish I could crawl back into the hole I was in, before finding out there was such a huge separation in attitudes.

Um... alas, no. The number I stated was that 20% _of those who create things_ will recieve feedback and interest in them, due to the Pareto principle in an open social world. The number of people who decide to create things will likely be lower, but it will be pushed down much lower by the fact that those people unwilling to face an 80% failure rate will not be creating.

Plus, the original topic wasn't creating, but why people are unwilling to spend real money in SL. And as I said, the reason is distrust - to achieve what they really want, people have to face a "contest" (your word) which they will probably lose.

On the subject of creativity, all I can say is that there's an inevitable barrier of rock-hard concrete called "talent" which cannot be bypassed and compared to which pretty much all other barriers are trivial, so why worry about creating more? There will inevitably always be a class who can create and a class who can't. What you seem to want to do is to maximise the number in the class who have access to the creation tools but can't do anything meaningful with them, which seems a bizarre goal to have, especially since I expect most content thieves would be in that class.

I'm sorry....I had too much coffee one morning, and used a lot of exclamation marks....but I don't think anyone was "screaming." I bet some are actually reconsidering on whether or not they need a premium account - I sure am.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of option 2 either.

I limited my options to ones that had a chance of working, not to ones that I would recommend.

I think I agree with Argent that it would be best to require accountability to play SL at all, for new accounts. I suspect that any attempt to allow SL for unaccountable avatars without a possibility of them producing ripped content would just be too messy and complicated for everyone in SL, especially content creators.

If there were a good simple way, I'd prefer that to disallowing NPIOF altogether. I just don't think there is, so I don't need to get into the more philosophical arguments between Argent and Tegg. Otherwise, I'd probably side with Tegg.

It's a sticky wicket.

The point about scripts was in response to your suggestion about removing Edit.

If you can run scripts then you can modify prims so you either allow both or neither. The halfway solutions does no good at all (at least not where content theft is concerned).

Why would "too burdensome" or "too messy" for content creators be an objection? They're the ones who want IP protection in the first place.

Or is it "I want my IP protected but it can't require *me* doing a single thing"?

Good point: it would be messy and complicated for everyone.

BTW, I assert that IP protection is beneficial for everyone, not just content creators. If there's no protection, few will create content, and everyone will suffer. I'm not interested in this whole discussion for my own interests, other than my interests as a general member of the SL community. I've never had my content ripped, and I doubt I'm a big enough target for that to be a serious threat (knocks on wood). I could live happily in SL without owning a shop.

You don't convince people by insulting them, especially when your insults are misdirected. This wouldn't affect me much, as a content creator. When you put ludicrous words in my mouth, it doesn't make me look ridiculous, and doesn't do much to advance your cause either. Try showing little respect for your adversaries, it goes a lot further.

I see, good point. OK, we can cross #2 off the list, more or less. I editied my proposal post accordingly.

The problem is that restricting creation doesn't solve the problem, because content can be ripped without the ability to create a prim.

It would have to be preventing copying or transferring, which is a more insidious change.

There's no adversaries considering everyone wants to do *something* about content theft .

But can you really recall any suggestion in this thread or any other that doesn't boil down to someone saying "*I* don't like/want this because it inconvenience me/someone!"?

That gets rather tiring and if everyone has a veto on every suggestion then we might all as well compromise by saying "we don't like content theft, but we don't want anything to change so we're actually quite happy with everything the way it is".

I just realized that option 3 (disallow copy/mod) is pretty much a no-go.

If copy/mod content, when obtained, becomes no-copy, then MLP won't work well. (Existing ones won't work, the ~ball and its script would need to be made no-mod, along with any "prop" objects for MLPV2.) No doubt there's lots of other content that would break.

If it becomes no-mod, then worn attachments couldn't be modified.


So I think we're down to just 1 and 4:

1) Require accountability for new signups. I.e., require at least PIOF for all new avatars. This is a relatively nontechnical solution.

I see 3 counterarguments to this:
1a) Some would argue that anonymity is important and should be preserved
1b) In some cases, it's not feasible (in some countries, perhaps)
1c) It may go against LL's business model, which seems to be to grow the grid as fast as possible with as few limits on membership as possible.

4) Disallow xfer/mod for NPIOF. Xfer/mod content would become no-xfer. One wonders whether it should become copiable. Created content would be no-xfer.

It's not clear whether it should apply to existing accounts and content, or just new accounts. I believe any of these would be a nightmare for content creators, trying to explain the permissions to two classes of customers.

Option 4 still needs further elucidation for it to be considered a serious proposal. For example, it probably shouldn't apply to snapshots and notecards, and whether no-xfer content should be come copiable on receipt. Some creators would scream bloody murder at this proposal, while quite a number of people would object to having no-copy/no-xfer content. (Yeah, I know it's already possible, but it's an exception and not the norm, and IMHO, should never have been permitted in the first place.)

That's true, but that's not what I was saying with "legal standing".

Generally, creations are copyrighted by a "legal entity", which is either a person or a corporation. Since copyright became "natural", it means that some protections are afforded to even anonymous works. However, to register and/or challenge another for infringement, you have to establish your legal standing as an KNOWN entity who holds the copyright. In simpler words, you MUST tell someone who you are. In the ultimate case, it is the government. However, there is value in providing that same information to any service providers whom act to distribute/exhibit your works on your behalf.