Upcoming Changes for Adult Content: Answers to Questions

Ha. Look at the real world how software is distributed nowadays. All the downloadable software are distributed exactly how I described: using a digital key to unlock the software to be used.

When you buy the software, you simply buy the key. The software is downloadable freely, and no one is worry about losing their IP rights by distributing it freely, because it is useless without the digital key to unlock the encryption.

That is how you can distribute your own software by some reputable party who you trust (such as LL, Microsoft or whoever your favorite is) or any third party who you never trust (such as a third-world Nigerian scammer) without worrying a single bit whether these distributors will honor your IP right by giving away your software free.

That is why you the creator arbitrates your IP permission system who you allow to use your software with a digital key rather than relying on the distributor to protect the IP rights for you.

It works in the real world. It is used by Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, any software by this simple digital key system that allows distribution freely and securely.

If you want to talk about circumventing the system, that is a moot point, you can circumvent anything in this world, encrypted or not, or you can give your key away free, that is not the discussion here.

I'm on it, dawg. The notecard that just went out to the group:

/me would love a copy of the notecard, please!

edit: and, I'd like to again suggest Blondin or some other admin create a locked thread in this forum where they can stuff info like this. Possibly also with a post of pending questions so we know what's on the plate.

O.o

No, actually, it wasn't, since your points were quoted, refuted, and countered. If everything you said was true, or "the same thing", people wouldn't be disagreeing with you via citing your own words and correcting them.

Spin much?



If you knew about it, why did you contradict it?



Read the clause and understand where the furor came when they tried to remove it. Their rights end when you delete the content. Period. Once you remove the content, they can't publish it to anyone else anymore. The only right they are claiming retention of is "archival", which is actually a "fair use" right anyway, and the main reason they are reserving it is because they have a huge technical limitation on locating your specific content within their backup system and deleting it.



No, your inventory won't be accessible for them to continue to sell or otherwise distribute. That doesn't apply to objects already distributed to others. You've already given unlimited licenses to other people to use your content via the SL permissions system, but that is between you and those people, not you and LL. LL only has the right to display content that you legally licensed to others. By doing so, they aren't violating any of your rights or licenses, they are effecting others' rights and licenses.







For one thing, you talk about "encryption", then use MD5 as an example. MD5 is NOT an encryption algorithm, but a hashing algorithm. There's a big difference, and if you're going to try to explain things to people, you best get your facts and information right.

As for using a keylogger, what does that have to do with violating DRM? If you haven't read, you don't need to put a keylogger on someone else's computer to break DRM. It is a LOT simpler than that. All the "keys" are already right there with the software, hardware, or content itself. No need to even leave your computer.



I think it is more a matter of laughing at how people play that spin game to be right.



No, the exception people take to DRM is that it is often over-reaching in its attempt to be more effective than it can be. It's like hiring a private security force to maintain the locks on your doors and windows. They have standing orders to prevent access except under very narrowly-defined circumstances. In many cases, what you would think would be allowable, common sense access in and out of your house, they would obediently prevent (obedient not to YOU, but to the lock owner). In addition, many DRM schemes require central authority to operate, and if that central authority ceases to exist or function, you will end up locked in your house forever. Fun, huh?



The most any DRM system can effectively do is to inform the user what rights they have, and demonstrate them with an artificial (and quite low) hurdle. That's all they need to do. Just like locks on your doors and windows, it won't stop anyone, just inform and remind people of your preference to not be disturbed/invaded.



Technical IP protection measures are not equivalent to (or substitutable for) legal rights. People have been claiming IP rights on content (books, newspapers) for hundreds of years before there was any such thing as a computer or DRM. Why did they bother to protect IP then? Anyone with a printing press could make copies, after all!

The point is that you use what you are given, just as every other content provider uses: the LAW. It is the ultimate in IP protection. It is the absolute best and, when used well, pretty much takes care of the problem. It's a little pricey at times, but hey, you get what you pay for, no?



ORLY? What color is the sky in your quaint little world? *peers in*

I am getting soooo tired of the phrse "predictable experience." It's becoming the "broadly offensive" of the day.

you know, I could live with this if I thought it was being foisted upon us. But the fact they're doing this of their own volition and being so churlish to the customers that they are inconveniencing leaves an extremely bad taste in my mouth.

Yes, I know you'll ignore this like all the others but hey, you've wasted so much of my time lately what's another few minutes?

So my question is about buy back.

Will you buy back the land for those people who do not wish to age verify or move to the adult continent?

Since this is a voluntary act of censorship by LL, surely even you guys must see that a little good will might be in order here.

It is the standard practice I've seen in the time I've been around. But it definitely seemed to ramp up when the M and M boys took over.

Never mind those unwilling, what about those who wish to but are unable to use the broken system. Is that going to be fixed or are they just SOL?

I know, but even by their standards of greed and amateurism this is harsh.

Which came as a surprise since the e-mail said it would be primarily text, and voice would be optional. It was actually the first time I've used voice for a long time, and it doesn't seem to be any better than when first introduced (quite frequent break ups and this was over a good 8Mbit broadband connection). At least one person there wasn't aware that it was in voice, and was waiting for the questions to end and the answers to begin!

Jack came over as being quite helpful and accomodating with the moves ("if you need move time than 9 days to move, or require specific terrain requirements, etc, talk to us and we'll see what we can do" would be a good summary of his general attitude), although I am worried that they are still underestimating the amount of people who will be requesting or will need to move.

They still seemed confused over private sims. At one point JP talked of adult flagging parcels on private sims, and when I queried parcels or sims in text, he confirmed parcels. I then asked the question when adult content on a private sim needed to be flagged at the parcel level or sim level, and initially they said parcel, then when pressed confirmed sim. In the after-meeting discussion someone mentioned that LL has said that on private sims you can't have an adult sim connected (i.e. within cam distance) of a non-adult sim.

Apart from that I don't think we learnt very much apart from that this is not due to external pressure just these unknown people wanting a "predicatable experience" who apparently wouldn't be satisfied with a "predictable continent" of their own, and reconfirmation that there are no (current) plans to allow under-18s on the grid.

Oh, current timescale for implementation is to begin this around June - assuming that the code changes (and definitions) are ready in time.

Matthew

I haven't bought and downloaded a single package in years that uses encryption for software installation.

Yeah, some use an ACTIVATION KEY, but it doesn't mean any encryption is used. Most activation keys are simply numbers in a database (that central authority thing again), which is looked up over the internet, and the central authority says "good" or "bad". Some keys are verified locally using a mathematical function based on the number to determine whether the key is "good" or "bad", and limits the software's functionality if it isn't "good". No encryption / decryption is involved whatsoever.



Uhh.. news flash: Microsoft (and, indeed, other companies) worry all the time over people reproducing and giving away their software (and selling it, too!) for one simple reason: KEY GENERATORS. That's why many of them have resorted to the "central authority" scheme, because they know what keys are valid or not, and they rely on denying "extended services", like Windows Update, if you don't have a valid, licensed copy of the software. Again, encryption is not used.



It is also why most downloadable software DOESN'T use encryption, because they are using an authentication scheme to activate the software.



Please show me where you can download Microsoft Windows/Office and just "buy a key". Please show me where you can download the Full Adobe CS4 suite and just "buy a key". Please show me where you can download Apple Mac OS/X and just "buy a key".

A lot of software IS available for download and activation in a method you describe, but it has NOTHING to do with "encryption".



Then don't make it one.

Yeah, it's called California.

This was asked at the Brown bag. Answer was no, you would have to put your land up for sale in the normal manner.

Matthew

Even I have problems with that and I'm pretty well prepared to believe anything about Americans. After all, look at the last 8 years - surreal is a good description.

No, this really is about sweeping the scum off the streets. We aren't even being accorded the due respect of paying customers, we're just a problem to be rid of.

Fine

You don't have to be one of the "scum" to be concerned about this. All LL's customers, including the ones in the cheering section, need to be wary.

^ QFT

It's simply the next iteration.

As I surmised, they have no real, concrete basis for doing this whole thing. It's just someone's stupid little pet project to appease a small group of users (or just amuse themselves) at the expense of the majority.

It would be amusing to simply sit back and watch the train wreck unfold, but unfortunately, we're still RIDING on the train, not watching it from the hilltop near the proposed wreck site. I suppose, though, many of us will likely get off at the last stop before it gets there.

Anyway, at this point, I vote "no confidence" in the plan, nor its progenitors. They've utterly failed to convince me of its necessity or in their competence / capacity to do it without destroying far more than they are trying to protect.

Is coffee still legal is California? I think meat was banned in 2005, no?

another QFT

The notes on the group (no have not read them yet)

Based on what people are saying about todays meet, it sounds like the reason for doing this is "because."

Is that really it, LL? I find it pretty hard to get behind that sorta reasoning. I didn't like the plan before and now.. er.. I'm finding it hard to come up with the words.

A more predictable experience - like Disneyland "It's a small world after all."

I asked the question however the reply was is that they will not as you can still sell the land.

My phrasing as it's been said it was in voice.

Well, isn't THAT special... Even if I had attended, I wouldn't have been able to participate, because I DO NOT EVER USE VOICE. Wonderful... Just wonderful...

My thanks in advance to whoever manages to write a transcript of this voice-only shouting match. Hope they were a good stenographer.