A thread every content creator must see.

This can also be true with designers who purchase premade prims, shoes skirts etc. You will see many prims made by someone else, this does not mean they are copied in all instances sometimes they are legit buys ane you have permission to be coping these items per their purchase agrement, so thinking something is illegally copied using this method is not going to work.

None taken .

And I actually do agree . My point was just when a seller does those things *solely* as a copy prevention measure.

"No scripts" actually isn't that much of a big deal, it can just be a little annoying. There are valid reasons for "no mod" too but if it's "because no mod items it can't be copybotted" then that's just not true and for some items that people actually universally expect to be mod (hair would be one) it might actually result in less sales.

I think I had that one with a handful of my prim skirts. I was wondering why my ankles fattened up so much until I realized it was the pants length on the glitch pants that was causing it .

Uhm... download the 1.23 sources.

Even with a basic knowledge of programming and the permission system it is more than easy to tease the viewer into making everything full perm in your inventory.

As long as the permissions are not fully handled server side there is no protection.

You can see that as you rez the 'Full Perm' things: the server gets the upper hand.

Usually an object with multiple creators (prims by different people, for example). Use "Inspect" to look at it prim by prim.

Erm, can you explain this scenario? Why is any crook, ever, hanging around in your store to run his scripts, when he's going to have to go hide somewhere out of sight to upload his ripped content anyway? You really aren't doing anything to even inconvenience anyone but honest people.

It's a baking glitch, and can effect no-mod clothing as well. It's probably related to the glitch where sometimes your clothing textures are replaced by a screen shot so you walk around wearing the sky or a piece of wall. It may seem to hit no-mod clothing less because no-mod clothing gets rebaked less. The advantage to moddable clothing is that when it DOES happen, you can fix it. With no-mod clothing you have to change your outfit, clear cache, and relog, then try wearing it again.

I have only asked for moddable clothing a couple of times, and after being accused of being a copybotter for just asking I simply don't buy no-mod clothing any more. Walk right out of the store. It's not worth the grief.

There is apparently a repackaging bug that someone found that lets you turn a box containing an animation full perm in your inventory. I am sure that it will be fixed, just liked it's been fixed every other time someone found a way to do this using attachments or notecards or whatever.

Copyright infringement is quite a staple diet in Second Life, people are willing to spend thousands of lindens on works stolen from other creators/companies/groups just so that they could use the 'stolen' work. It's good buisness as long as people keep quiet and not tell the original creator, I'm not saying I am a fan of piracy by the way, just that, it's the mindset of the people who stole stuff.

I tried asking it for clothing, accessories and furniture over time and mostly got the same kind of treatment. It was no different when I asked for "no copy/transfer" rather "copy/no transfer", even though it's really a non-issue there.

I (usually) don't bother anymore either . Just regret that I can't buy something I like and tp off.

What peeves me most though is that if someone's in a furniture store and wants to copy something then they don't even need to buy the silly thing, they'd just copy the display model. If someone's in IM asking something it's not because they're interested in copying, but because they're interested in buying.

explanation: a griefer/thief type, who wants to suck up -your- business/steal your customers might hang about your shop with a simple scripted HUD or attachment that just randomly (or completely) gives away copies of your product, right there in your very store, while you are not there to mind things. i didn't say they had to be -smart- about it (and many of them are not), just malevolent, determined to take your biz and willing to do whatever stupid things you may or may not think are worthy of doing. (first time around before i edited it, i called them 'simple-minded griefers and thieves'; i should have perhaps left it that way to make it clearer. ;0)

other words, nothing to do with the actual 'ripping', save for ripping -you- off of your own visitors and potential customers.

:0 as far as other 'turn-offs' for visitors - if it offers my visitors -any- additional protection at all while there, then it is what must do. i cannot possibly be there 24/7 to provide my visitors protection.

one of the first things anyone 'homeless' does is to find a friendly spot to rez at, and save a landmark of it. it's hardly uncommon to visit another store that is not set the same way - sure it's not as fun as 'rez right there', but i certainly understood this, long before i'd ever sold my own first products, long before there were 'copybot defeaters' and whatever else around. and considering that these problems are getting -worse- and not -better,- the solution, as far i can see, is -not- to just shrugit and go turning these options back on. sorry!

well i certainly agree with that! :0 there is basically 'no diff' to the seller for that, and if you've gotten that treatment, well i've nothing better to offer than lol, 'they're buttheads.' ;0

:0 i initially offered my orig bodyoils as no-copy/but transferable only, to be able to offer my customers a return policy - 'try it out and return it for exchange or refund.' then i started getting requests from those 'who would never buy no-copy sets', so i offered copiable sets too. -theennn,- i started getting demand for 'refunds' for these copiable but no-transfer, non-returnable items... nope, sorry, can't do that and it's stated policy, right up front...

to offer the same thing in two differing permission sets is not only an inventory-management headache for the creator, but potentially overwhelming and confusing your own customers. :\ (then there are the types who wish to read inworld perms as 'rw copyright permissions' or as a license agreement, which of course, they are not.) you'll just never satisfy everyone possible. past a certain point and soon you'll just be giving it away for free, 'just because they asked you to.' :\ everyone has to draw their own line somewhere. sorry though to hear when some have misinformation to go on and ruin your experience like that.

anyhows, while i am sticking now to copiables only (nobody doesn't like copiables), while no-mod, i'll give a customer the same set as modable upon request. i'd hafta say from my experience with it so far, that that -does- save a good amount of time and trouble both for my customers and for me.

p.s. and for those wishing to purchase non-transferables for friends, they can use xStreet to do so; all my products are available there too.

Do you know of any time when this has ever happened? Not to mention that scripts that take controls continue to run in a no-script zone, so even if someone was stupid enough to not realize that by doing this they'd just be getting themselves banned quicker, turning off scripts wouldn't keep it from happening.

With what's been happening to me lately (*directly* attributable to Linden Lab), I just can't agree that they care, and as far as I'm concerned they don't have any credibility left in here in the virtual business world.

.

I just read what happened to you, Robby, and it blows.

This is how much LL cares about it's smaller content creators:

http://www.massively.com/2009/09/23/second-life-content-creator-reports-infringement-gets-suspended/


http://www.your2ndplace.com/node/1601


Kinda makes ya wanna go out there and be all creative, huh?

I read the Massively story on you. What a kick in the acorns.

I agree that as individuals, at least those that actually use SL, some Lindens care, but as a corporate entity, they don't. They have their plan, it doesn't include us unless we are willing to do things their way.

Haven't had chance to catch up on thread but just popped in to say "Welcome Back, Robbie!!!!!"

Yeh, welcome back, Robby.

Thank you so much, I appreciate that

Bottom line: If it were not for the fact that there are wonderful people in Second Life, I'd never look back. I have tremendous bitterness and anger toward Linden Lab right now, but whatever evil and stupid things they've done, they've attracted a lot of great people

.

That's why the DMCA provides a "safe harbor" provision, because LL really can't do anything about it. If they were able to accurately and surgically deal with infringement, then they would be expected to do so, and thus would not qualify (or need to qualify) for such a provision. "Safe harbor" allows them to be a concerned, but coarse-acting third party, as long as they do the minimum necessary to stop infringement in their service, which is take down infringing content when duly notified of it.

The more they try to do, the more they will be expected to do, and the more liability they will have when they inevitably fail.



I don't think that is a fair burden to place on them. Every artist, singer/songwriter, et cetera has had to deal with this problem for far longer than LL has been in existence. It is like saying that a flea market operator isn't being responsible by warning you that there are crooks who want to steal your stuff when you rent a stall. It really isn't their responsibility to educate you about life. I mean, it would be a nice bonus if they did, but if they do not, it makes them no less a responsible business.

and, yes, welcome back, Robby.

I think they owe you a public apology; might go to show that they actually cared about how they treat their customers, but we know that won't happen.

Of course it won't They did offer me an apology, though it kind of fell flat due to being inadequate and not actually explaining anything or reassuring me that it won't happen again.

-----------------------------

I'm not usually a "sky is falling" kind of guy, and have in the past intensely argued that the *technology* that enables things like CopyBot is good for Second Life, but I do have some concerns about this new round of theft-enabling clients.

I know that there's little if anything that can be done technology-wise to protect creator's rights, and that even what little can be done in that area would be highly disruptive to Second Life.

Non-technical measures seem to be inadequate as well; It's clear that the reporting process is fundamentally broken. Not only is the DMCA process easily abused, but it has several chilling side effects. And things like content registration databases and the like are too intrusive and completely counter to what gave Second Life the tremendous growth and success it's experienced so far.

The problem is that I just don't have faith that Linden Lab is capable enough, nor motivated enough, to handle these kinds of issues in the only ways that they actually can. With what I perceive to be a coming dramatic upswing in theft due in part to the extreme ease with which it can be done, I frankly don't see how LL is going to continue to effectively support content-for-sale.

.

Oh, and on the topic of the uber thread: just more of the same. "It will make infringement easier!". Not significantly, as it was already pretty easy to infringe content as it is for anyone who wanted to bother.

The problem is, MOST people don't want to bother, even if someone GAVE them the tool and taught them how to use it, they STILL will buy stuff rather than infringe.

About the only real damage from the release of this tool will be from (some) content creators cutting themselves in angst yet again.

The proper way to respond to it is to avoid hysteria, and get on LL's ass even more to streamline their DMCA process, plus give us, the Residents, the means to identify infringed content from authentic, original, licensed content.

I agree that most people would not steal, even if it were incredibly easy, and I'm thankful for that.

That said, I would bet that if we could actually see some overall graph of content theft in the last year, it would be a sharply rising arc. You can say that Linden Lab needs to streamline the process by which it responds to theft, but does anyone actually believe that they will effectively do so? They can't handle things now, let alone a significant increase.

I don't think content theft will destroy the SL economy, at least not in the near future, but that doesn't mean there isn't cause for concern by those who work hard and feel that Linden Lab is doing little more than paying lip service. People are quite justified in being upset, and though some are perhaps overly concerned, it's easy to dismiss until it affects you directly.

.

It isn't possible to see all of SL. Bad logic to base everything upon one's own experience.



Alts?



How do you know you haven't? Or that they haven't addressed their concerns elsewhere?

First, let's please use the right term for it. As long as people are going to use the wrong, yet emotionally-charged terms of "theft" and "stealing", I don't think we're ever going to get anywhere positive. (see this article as to why: http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/theft.html)

As for the "sharply rising arc", I dunno. I just don't see it. Maybe because I hang out with a lot of honest, upstanding people, it taints my view, but I have not seen this "huge increase" in infringement in the 3.5 years I have been in SL. Yeah, it exists, and is significant in some areas, but overall, it is still a small proportion of the total amount of content transfer in SL.

As for whether LL will effectively handle themselves and their policies, I can't say. All I know is that, by law, they HAVE to. If they don't, then they will end up being sued out of existence as more cases are filed against them for not honoring the safe harbor rules in the DMCA, and they will be liable for contributory and vicarious infringement.



There has always been cause for concern, even from day one when SL first launched. That has never changed. What HAS changed is people ACTUALLY becoming concerned.

I feel justified in being upset at LL for being incompetent in many areas. The difference is that I take it to them with all the flair and directness I can muster, rather than cry and whine, then close up shop, or harass my customers into non-customers, just to sate my paranoia.

There's a mature, responsible way of dealing with the issue, and that is to stop the histrionics and use all moral and legal forms of pressure to get them to do their minimum required duty to us as content creators. If they don't, then SL, and LL, by natural extension, doesn't deserve to have our creations, but, instead, deserves to die.

I disagree: this tool actually separates layers so it's like A,B,C to rip anything that takes your fancy. I have ripped many items I bought in the past in order to rework them to my own satisfaction but it proved to be more bother than it was worth to locate the textures, separate them from the baked 'whole' and then faff around with them in Photoshop.

More often than not, I made so many alterations and improvements that I finished up with a piece of work which was to all intents and purposes original but nevertheless technically a rip-off so I couldn't sell the results of my own hard labour.

Eventually I gave up ripping textures altogether. It was just easier to create my own stuff. Nevertheless I still don't feel comfortable about selling my original work: my experience ripping textures has given me a connoisseur's eye and I am shocked at how some successful texturing and layering techniques are shamelessly rehashed by many very well-known vendors. Rip-offs are by no means the sole preserve of fly-by-nights out to turn a fast buck in SL.

Now this client removes the necessity of any technical proficiency whatsoever, making it possible for a passer-by to just take what they want with little or no effort. For example, in order to rip a skin, the more commonly understood method of intercepting the graphics pipeline would require you to get your subject burr-nekkid at the very least. This new client allows you to strip and separate everything worn by an unsuspecting av without so much as a single overture in IM or Chat.

You can literally rip the clothes of an avatar's back and flay the skin while you're at it - but not in a nice way, I might add.