[Source Code]Get a users profile picture

And this is how you can display a floating map particle:

key httpRequestId;
float mapSize = 3.0;
float mapHeight = 3.0;
string mapTexture;
string URL = "http://www.subnova.com/secondlife/api/map.php";

mapParticle()
{
	llParticleSystem([
		PSYS_PART_FLAGS, 0,
		PSYS_SRC_PATTERN, 4,
		PSYS_PART_START_ALPHA, 0.50,
		PSYS_PART_END_ALPHA, 0.50,
		PSYS_PART_START_COLOR, <1.0,1.0,1.0>,
		PSYS_PART_END_COLOR, <1.0,1.0,1.0>,
		PSYS_PART_START_SCALE, <mapSize,mapSize,0.00>,
		PSYS_PART_END_SCALE, <mapSize,mapSize,0.00>,
		PSYS_PART_MAX_AGE, 1.20,
		PSYS_SRC_MAX_AGE, 0.00,
		PSYS_SRC_ACCEL, <0.0,0.0,0.0>,
		PSYS_SRC_ANGLE_BEGIN, 0.00,
		PSYS_SRC_ANGLE_END, 0.00,
		PSYS_SRC_BURST_PART_COUNT, 8,
		PSYS_SRC_BURST_RADIUS, mapHeight,
		PSYS_SRC_BURST_RATE, 0.10,
		PSYS_SRC_BURST_SPEED_MIN, 0.00,
		PSYS_SRC_BURST_SPEED_MAX, 0.00,
		PSYS_SRC_OMEGA, <0.00,0.00,0.00>,
		PSYS_SRC_TEXTURE, mapTexture]);
}

default {
	state_entry() {
		httpRequestId = llHTTPRequest(URL + "?" + "sim" + "=" + llEscapeURL(llGetRegionName()),[], "");
	}
	http_response(key request_id, integer status, list metadata, string body) {
		if (request_id == httpRequestId) {
			mapTexture = body;
			mapParticle();
		}
	}
}

EDIT: This one is actually pretty cool. Guess I'll have to add it to the wiki library.
For those that don't have GreaseMonkey installed you can see it formatted and highlighted here:
https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Sim_Map_Particle_Projector

What is the map at http://www.subnova.com/secondlife/api/map.php ?

It seems to be hit and miss what regions it has? Couldn't display Parrothead Cove for instance, which has been around forever.

Bet it is the space in the name. Checking now.

EDIT: Yep that was it Chaz. I reposted the corrected script.

Ah. Light goes on. That is why it was working for one-name sims, and not for other sims! Grin!

Anyway, it's way kewl!

thank you for telling nice information.i've succeeded to get sim map by these script code.

and,jesse,i think if once get somewhere sim's map,your projecter can't show map automaticaly next in anoter sim.it's need for script to load again and click reset botton.
but,particle system is really cool.thank you.

Cool!

How does one use this technique to get a group's name from the key?

Groups web pages look like this:

http://world.secondlife.com/group/0ab55ec5-05f3-9a91-527f-aa4bbffad3fa

Plug in your key, make an HTTPRequest and parse the html for "Group:". I don't like parsing web pages, though, because they can change format, but that's the best I can think of.

The best way I can explain why this script breaks the TOS is simply that you do not have the right to display any texture you do not own. The script is an exploit of this rule.

An AV has the right to display any image THEY own into there profile with the knowledge that is will be displayed there. They also have the right to opt out of web searches. If they do not opt out of this there is no disclaimer saying that they are giving anyone who can script the right to also display it. Is there?

The display of the the texture on the web does to negate that persons ownership of the copyright of that image it simply gives LL license to display it. It does not give the owner of a script the right to display it. That would be like thinking you have the right to display any image you see on the web that is the copyright of another.

This TOS violation has been enforced and as I would imagine it will be enforced again. As well I think other things that use similar exploits like the "cool viewer" will also soon be facing the music (probably thru the denial of logins)

Anyways that is my opinion and I am not a Linden, but it seems pretty clear to me.

I'd forgotten about this thread. Since the last time it popped up, I've been thinking just what a disastrous decision this really was. LL has somehow decided that displaying something on a scripted prim isn't just interacting with information, but copying it. From that premise it must follow that every prim used as an in-world browser--or even displaying a static web page not owned by the prim owner--is violating copyright. It's difficult to even contemplate how severely this limits any notions of the SL platform becoming the "3-D Web" they've always wanted.

Suppose someone creates a research application in SL that uses three dimensions to envision and navigate the structure of hyperlinked content on the web. God forbid that it should ever traverse world.secondlife.com, lest it happen upon some user's profile pic.

You only get so many characters from the page, I think, a rather small amount, if memory serves.
I seem to have read something indicating that the group name is too far down the page to retrieve.

Whether that's accurate or not I'm not sure.

Consistency is not a property displayed in great measure by LL, so a bad thought process today will not necessarily be repeated tomorrow.

Tomorrow will get it's own unique faulty thought process.

Too lazy to actually code it at the moment, but it should work. The http_response event gets 2048 characters of the page's body, and looking at the page source it seems fair to expect the group name to always fall within that chunk of the body, at least as the page is currently formatted.

Of course, if we got more tags returned, the group name is the title of the page, right there in the head.

One of the caveats for llHttpRequest reads: Cannot be used to load textures or images from the internet

source: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/LlHTTPRequest

Prims can now display web pages as parcel media, it's an extension of the movie thing. Poke around in your land settings and play =)

Is this a tempest in a teacup or what? I can understand how someone would be upset if their profile pic was displayed in an inappropriate context. But just as a "welcome visitor" type of sign? Sheesh, people, get a life!

Anyway, it is how it is, and people are allowed to be as petty as they wish in this matter.

Note that it's not a literal copyright violation to use someone else's image on your webpage, as long as the [img]tag points to the original source, because you have NOT copied the image. It's not even a DCMA violation, imagine that! However, courts may interpret things otherwise -- as they often do -- and in this case it's a reasonable extension of copyright logic regardless of the technical fact of what copying is happening.

In this case, though, it's not copyright law that is the trump card, but LL's interpretation of it and their own TOS, and they have every right to interpret it as they have. If I were their legal counsel I'd give the same advice. LL plays it safe.

Interestingly enough, all the RL gambling websites are operating smoothly, with no trouble from credit card companies. LL just took the super safe path and dodged the bullet, at considerable cost to their bottom line. They clearly have a very risk-averse legal staff (and of course, that's their job). More to the point, the legal staff's risk aversion is heeded by management.

The easy solution is to post the nastiest porno pic or some god awful elephantitis of the balls picture. I'm sure that will get all these profile pic welcomers ARed right out of existence.

That would be a TOS violation regardless of the profile pic displayers.

No, a wiser course IMHO is to just ignore the whole thing.

Gambling in SL was a joke. The structure for winning was completely arbitrary in the code. There was no way to confirm that scripts are not rigged. People suffering from bugs in the games would do so at their own risk, some affecting both the owner and the player negatively.

There were numerous reasons for making gambling against the SL TOS besides the 'possibility' of running afoul the U.S. Federal Government.

I think it was a good move that protects the user base. A LOT of people gambled and there were a LOT of scams taking place and it was all reflecting poorly on SL.

Hee, hee. That does have a certain appeal to it, doesn't it! Ha!

Presumably, though, since gambling is the core business of the gambling websites, those website's proprietors considered it worthwhile devoting time and money submitting to the US regulatory and reporting regime for online gambling while LL took the not unreasonable view they could save themselves all that money and bother and still stay in business.

Lear, you may feel this way but to casually dismiss the differing feelings of others could be seen as insensitive.
Some people might also think that "Get a life" applies to displaying random a profile pic in an amusing frame that in some way pokes fun or has a laugh at their expense just so some can get their jollies is frivolous and immature. The opposing viewpoints and the feelings of those who have them are just as valid as your own.

You cannot stop one use of it without stopping all, a good compromise is to get the permission of all who wish to participate and leave the others be. People should not even need a good reason to not want to participate in something, it should be the default option.
On a wider scale, I believe we should need get opt-in permission to use any data that uniquely pertains to an individual avatar and treat such obtained data with far more care than we do today. Any arguments that avatar is not a real person are not relevant as real habits and preferences are discernible by collecting enough information about an individual. That collated information can be dangerous in the hands of people who have a very cavalier attitude towards the use of such data.

And yet many web sites, especially those with such content as graphic and photographic arts, are preventing deep-linking from occurring, citing copyright laws as the reason. Their argument is that the context in which a picture can be placed should be solely at the discretion of the copyright holder as it hugely influences how that picture can be perceived. Which is basically the same argument as people who want opt-in permission for profile pictures strangely enough.
Who is right and who is wrong? Hard to say as cases like these are not being tested in court much. To say it is not a copyright violation is very premature as the interpretation could swing the other way in the future and could easily be considered such.

I doubt they're wasting any money on "submitting to the US regulatory and reporting regime".

No, it's just that they run the risk because without it, they're dead in the water.

The interesting part is that while they're self-professed gambling sites, the credit card companies continue to do business with them. SL wasn't protecting themselves from legal ramifications, only from being cut off by the credit card companies. Which the CC companies aren't doing.

Ah well. Not that it matters to me.

Gabrielle, the slippery slope argument can be used against nearly anything. I don't feel that if something can be abused in any way, then it should be banned completely.

It may sound insensitive, but after careful thought, I feel that people who complain about this are being oversensitive. I'll admit I put it callously above.

Given that people have complained, SL has made the sensible decision.

However, as people find more and more things to whine about, we'll find more and more innocent fun things banned in SL. You have to watch that slippery slope, you know.

I understand your point of view and thank you for the acknowledgement about about sensitivity but... (and you knew there would be a but right? )

I am not saying ban these things but surely good manners if nothing else should tell you that you should ask their permission before using something belonging to someone that could harm, cause embarrassment or otherwise make them feel uncomfortable?

For instance, I use the above picture technique in a product I make. The user of my system knowingly chooses that the system will grab their profile picture and use for the purposes of that system.
It is a convenient option for them - 3 clicks and their picture is in the system vs. hunting for a full perm picture, then dragging it and dropping over a prim from their inventory with CTRL held down.

It is an opt-in use, and I don't believe any opt-out by default system has any business being that way when permission is easily obtained expressly or implicitly (by their own action).

It is only because the opt-out advocates fear that permission will not be given that they choose opt-out as the default. If it were not so then where is the harm in asking for permission first?