a mirror != CopyBot?

how different would be a mirror system (like the dynamic reflections, or some other system that actually renders new geometry instead of just rendering the same from a diferent angle and deforming the resultign texture) from the CopyBot? (at least if the CopyBot isn't saving any data, just using it at run-time)

ps: I mean in terms of how the policies would deal with it, how much "legal" it would be, you know? not talking about the techinical side of how it works and such

Copying isn't against the rules (or yes, we'd be screwed), and "copybot" isn't against the rules. My understanding is if you don't circumvent the permissions system (by creating a new copy of the asset in the sytem, changing ownership of the asset, etc when the permission system says you shouldn't) then you'll be fine

Frankly, you're in untested waters there. One thing is the ToS and asset management, but that is really just a technical implementation of intellectual property rights.
Fundamentally, the bits and geometric shapes used to render an object are not protected, and it doesn't matter how many versions of them fly through the wires and chips. They are already converted to several formats along the way, and pushed into cache and rendered in various passes in the pipeline.
Whether you render one more for a mirror effect in one part of the system doesn't in principle differ much from rendering one for a depth buffer somewhere else.
But this is a good example of a situation where the normal understanding of intellectual rights collide with how data is handled in a computer, and depending on how each side's lawyers pitched it, it could probably cause some gray hairs if it went to court.
Pitched as a mirror effect in a 3D engine, it makes absolutely no sense to object, but pitched as a one-for-one recreation of somebody else's work, it's an obvious infringement.
I would imagine that the actual use would be taken into account. If it uncritically mirrors everything and deletes it immediately, you have a good case for it being "a mirror in a 3D engine". But if it selectively picks *some* objects, you're leaning towards copying items. -In particular if it, say, keeps displaying the last object to come near.

One reference which springs to mind is the "profile pic mirror" which was all the rage a little while back. LL deemed that an infringement, since it was using somebody else's picture without their consent, akin to grabbing an image off the web and using it in your own product.

You can be certain, however, that if you even *approach* something which could be considered a copybot variation, somebody will cry foul (and loudly so), and since the technical limitations of a brute-force geometry-copying implementation would push you towards the "copy selected objects for display" variation, rather than the "fluid mirror" version, I'd imagine LL would put it on par with the profile pic mirror and disallow it.

Didn't LL release some kinda statement saying Copybot violates ToS, after about a month of "Copybot Riots"?

Some folks up & left, took thier islands with 'em...Carducci's was accused of resellin' all these stolen guns, Copybot was for sale on Slexchange, etc etc...then LL banned Copybot...until LibSecondLife can come up with a version that stays "within the ToS"...right?

...I'm too lazy ta look for a link, but LibSecondLife says they're still tryna make a version that's "legal", last I heard...a few months ago.

No. They said infringing use of Copybot and similar tools violated the ToS.



No. Copybot was never banned. It is the same thing that LibSL created.



Copybot is legal. Infringing use of Copybot (or anything like it, including prim mirroring scripts) is not.

Ah. Thanks for clearin that up then.