The unofficial new permissions system discussion thread...

Probably, yes, like Mole said, once I figured out the true implications of it.

Nice try. Instead of attempting to derail the conversation, how about answering some of our points? You can start with mine, on the bottom of the fourth page.

I'd just like to quote something from the creativecommons.org website that, unless ALL of us are WILDLY misunderstanding LL's proposal here, LL completely missed when they were planning this:



You see, the whole idea behind CC is that it is an OPT-IN system. You CHOOSE to allow your products to be ripped to shreds. Unless I (and everyone else) is wildly misunderstanding this proposal, this would not be a CHOICE given to us creators. CC would be -forced- on us. We would have choices taken away from us.

It's all all matter of how you view prims. (Scripts are fairly well analogous to software, so that's moot I feel.)

One way is to take the RIAA's stance and the traditional software company stance, which is "Mine! No rights for you unless I say so." That's the one I'm seeing here, one which is generally associated with recorded media and software.

The other way is to recognize that prims are the physical building blocks of this particular world. In this case copyright means two things for most arrangement of prims, 'jack' and 'shit'. If you'd like to introduce patents and trademark to the discussion, however, be my guest.

I like the idea of Linden treating SL objects in the same manner as real objects, and happen to agree with it. Given a world where "perfect" DRM is possible they aren't taking that track. I find it interesting that certain users are clamoring for it though.

Here's an idea, how about having people ask others if they would be willing to share their knowledge instead of trying to play Robin Hood?

You're right, of course. I have pointed this out several times. Tcoz has pointed this out several times. Moleculor, I think, and many others have pointed this out ad nauseam...

If LL keeps changing the interfaces we rely on - scripting API calls, the way the permission system works, etc. - and they have a strong track record for doing just that - it is only going to continue to irritate the people who are trying to add content to the world. You can say, "Oh, but this is BLEEDING EDGE!!!" Fine. Someone call me when they are out of the deliberately-breaking-stuff-every-other-month phase.

Show me a prim.

Ok.

Now turn off the SL client software, and show me what a prim really is.

Ok.

Now turn off the computer.

Show me a prim.

A prim cannot exist outside of a computer in *any* form, and it only has a sense of physicaly when interperated as such by the SL client and server software. A prim is nothing more than a few bytes of data.

I am under no illusion I am creating any 'real' creation when I make stuff in SL. I can't take it with me. I can't interact with it in any way whatsoever except via software. It exists nowhere in any form other than 1's an 0's on a magnetic platter somewhere in California.

But like Huns and Molecular have said already. The creative commons, the GNU, whatever software license you choose to adopt, it's about *choice*. You have the *choice* to adopt it, or not. Lindens are proposing to let people who want to use something similar use it. Fine, that's all well and good. But they are also taking away *my* right to *not* use it.

I may be completely misunderstanding what you just said, but...

Oil and canvas are the physical building blocks of the practice of a certain form of art known as "painting". Would you like to say that painters have zero rights or control over their works too? (For all I know, they may not. Dunno.)

If that's the case, lemme go copy the Mona Lisa and start selling it for profit.

My L$5...

I believe, and would hope that LL will implement a permissions system that give the choice to the developer on how they want their work to be used, copied, etc. If everything MUST be free and open, then you will find fewer and fewer people willing to create content. Some people like to make some things free, and then put a lot of effort into a few gems that they want to sell. Don't take the profit motive out of SL.

There is plenty of "education" in SL, free scripts, examples, etc. available from various resources(University of SL Library, Learning Center, Linden Instruction, Free Bazaar,etc). SL doesn't need to force all of the developers to give up all of their hard work for education. Let the developers donate their own work as they see fit. That's true freedom.

And I'm not seeing a bunch of people asking "How do I do this?" on the forums. And those few that do ask get taught, and quickly. If someone wants to learn, it's very easy to do as things are right now.

I feel like picking apart the actual proposal right now, and that's one of the original points on it. So lemme quote it and refute it point by point.

Problems with the existing permission system include

1. Confusing, hard to manage, and prone to error

I don't agree. It is relatively simple to understand. The Modify check box means people who own it in the future can modify it. The Copy box means people who own it in the future can make copies. The transfer box means people can give it to other people.

That is simplicity.

The only 'prone to error' portion of that is on LL's end with buggy code. That isn't our fault, and LL should be fixing that, not tossing it out with the bathwater and trying to start again.

1. They don’t integrate well with Creative Commons (since CC only applies to things that people can copy)

So? I don't LIKE CreativeCommons, and I'm not seeing an overwhelming desire for it around here. Yes, wider permissions options WOULD be nice, but they can be built into the existing system rather than trashing everything and starting over.

1. They don’t allow for fair use, therefore reducing innovation

I completely disagree. The only thing that supports innovation is the assurance that someone else isn't going to be able to come along, take your 100+ hours of work, spend ten minutes, and rip you off.

Besides, what does fair use have to do with innovation? My understanding (flawed though it may be) of fair use is that if I buy a car, I can repaint it, modify it, alter it, and so on. Certainly, I COULD resell it, I suppose, but I won't be making a profit, and paint is not innovation. Speakers are not innovation. Fair use is not innovation. It's modability. If LL wants modability, they just need to wait for llSetPrimitiveParams to start working in NoModify objects. Scripters will enable the modability from there.

1. Buyers often end up with items that are almost what they want but can’t modify them

If LL wants modability, they just need to wait for llSetPrimitiveParams to start working in NoModify objects. Scripters will enable the modability from there. (Since no-modify means that a script could not be placed in an object it wasn't intended to have, this change actually makes tons of sense.)

Goals for new permissions system

1. Simpler permissions that protect creators and allow them to profit from their hard work

Then why the hell did you come up with THIS system? I thought you were going for simpler, and something that will keep us from losing profits?

1. Enable fair use and the right to tinker in order to make it easier for residents to learn from each other and to tweak items for personal use

Why the HELL is THIS a goal? Sounds like a stupid idea to me. If I want to provide example objects/scripts, I will. I don't need to though, because there are tons out there already.

1. Clear methods for choosing the right permissions

What's not clear about three checkboxes? You know how you make permission systems more clear? You give us more options, not less. Split transfer and resell. Give creators more control, not less. Simple, no?

Which is why the sticky situation is how they are viewed outside of Second Life, where the law is. However I think that given context of SL, they are analogous to physical objects, and the proposed permissions change seems to indicate that Linden feels the same way. Once you have bought a physical object it is yours to do whatever you wish with it, within the realm of copyright, trademark, and patent law.

It's nothing hard and fast, and something I feel is still open to interpretation. Just saying that is how I view the argument in regards to objects (not textures or scripts within).



It is not zero in respect to reproduction, but it is not absolute (Title 17, section 113 of the United States Code, if you're curious). If you mean rights as to what I do with something once I buy it? No. I can head down to the art museum, buy myself one of them expensive prints of a painting, bring it home, then toss it in the fireplace. Copyright applies to copying and distribution, not screwing up things I've bought.

However, and this is where it gets really murky in my opinion, copyright only applies to: literary works; musical works, including any accompanying words; dramatic works, including any accompanying music; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; and architectural works. (Title 17, § 102, a.) This particular definition of what is copyrightable goes on to say "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." Which is to say that unless you claim everything in SL is basically art, a lot of things aren't covered at all.

Now, again, it all comes back to how a creation in SL is viewed by law. I am not a lawyer, so I cannot comment on that. However as I stated, it is my opinion and seems to be the Linden's opinion (based on these changes) that an object in SL is analogous to an object in RL. That is someone can buy a pair of my glasses, use it as a guide to build some frames, and as long as they aren't using my textures (which would fall under "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" or my scripts (which go wherever the hell they're sticking software these days) then there's not much protection I can get. This is what allows things like Rolex knockoffs, or GTA3 to add the likeness of a Mustang (and call it a Pony). In neither case are they using Rolex or Ford trademarks.

Basically; copyright is for the distribution of instances of covered works, trademark is for design (look and feel), and patents are for ideas. In order to regulate what someone does with something they've purchased, it is a separate agreement of contract and not inherently protected except in the case of duplicating patented ideas. (Barring the questionable provisions of the DMCA in regards to reverse engineering)

Edit: It should be noted that the only one of these which is granted automatically is copyright. What you're asking for, Moleculor, is patent law in SL to protect the original inventor against competition for a certain period of time.

No, what I'm asking for is LL not to hand the tools for ripping me off over to a bunch of lazy people who will do anything to make a buck. The ONLY use I can see for this CC thing BEYOND what we already have (since we already have plenty of modifyable and transferable example objects out there) is that it will enable people to rip off designs. Plain and simple. CC, designed in this way, is simply saying "Oh, creators, we don't care if you want to be knowns for making something after spending 100 hours on it, we're going to let Joe Blow over here spend ten minutes, copy your entire design, and seem like just as good a creator. K? Thanks. Bend over and grab your ankles now!"

What I'll see with CC is me giving my works away for free, for donations, or for a mention in credits somewhere, and Joe Blow copying it and making money off of it. And quite possibly becoming known for my works.

You may not think that objects in SL are software, Cienna, but by the definition of "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works", pretty much everything in SL if not defined as software *would* be defined as art.

A sculptural work is not just "an object created by someone". For the purposes of US copyright law (Title 17, § 101. Definitions)



From within the context of Second Life, my glasses are not sculptural works, the bike you get for L$50 from Linden at Busy Ben's is not a sculptural work, and so on. You may not see the objects in SL as analogous to objects in real life, but I do. If I look at what Philip has said over the past year in discussions with the userbase, he's clearly interested in breaking down the barriers and differences between the real and second lives. This permission system extends to owners of objects in SL the same default set of rights that object owners have in real life.

Not my fault he has a screwed up sense of what his customers want. I come to SL to escape RL. I'll sit here and try and explain what a horrid train wreck this suggested change is, but if it comes anyway, I, and I dare say a large majority of the creative population of SL, will be leaving.

You've said this repeatedly, but haven't provided the reasons why you believe this. If the objects are digital in nature, then they can't be treated as unique physical objects.



Thank you for refuting your own argument. Consider any of Starax's sculptures. Those are clearly pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works of art, and clearly would fall under copyright. Copyright law doesn't discriminate between artists' chosen media.

Obviously not *all* builds in Second Life are works of art, but all are clearly fall under at least one of the categories you mention above. An object it may appear to be a chair, but it is *not* a chair. It is a 3-D drawing of a chair.

Painter Rene Magritte illustrated this best with the painting entitled "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" in which the image plays with the difference between perception and reality. It's a painting of a pipe, subtitled (in French) "this is not a pipe".

In SL, don't confuse the illusion of a prim-built chair with an actual chair. If you build a chair out of prims or draw it in a paint program or sketch it on a notepad, it's never actually a chair -- it's a drawing and/or sculpture that looks like a chair.






You're right, it sounds as if LL is starting to believe that a 3-D rendering has physical substance. It doesn't.



Again, don't sell your rights short. Your glasses aren't actually glasses, but your artistic creation in Second Life -- a 3-D image of glasses created for aesthetic reasons. That's art, plain and simple and not just on a technicality.

Also, don't confuse copyright with a trademark. Trademarks aren't at issue here. I'm refuting your assertion that creations in Second Life don't fall under copyright and therefore the Creative Commons license doesn't apply.



Because copyright covers pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, then it clearly covers 3-D models created in the Second Life medium. So from this point, I think the discussion should ask, given that we have copyright over our 3-D models, is it right to prevent people from disassembling our work for the purpose of creating a similar work?

The answer, if copyright applies, is a resounding YES.

[/i]

And yet animation is protected. And yet movies are protected. And yet digital art is protected. And yet videogames are protected.

Hey, I love you Kex, but you really have to show some more patience with us FUDders

There are people around here who have thousands of dollars of income/product/responsibility in SL. It's no big surprise they're worried about any change this fundamental to the system. It represents a potentially huge loss of revenue.

I think there are two basic concerns here:
1) What happens to all the *stuff* that is out there. I think most people (including myself) who do have stuff out there, are concerned that nothing happens to it. A lot of us depend very deeply on how those permission bits are set. If we keep all existing permissions to older items as a "grandfathered" or "exception" to the new one, it stands to reason that the whole permission infrastructure is going to get more complex rather than simpler?

2) Can we express the same control as we can now?
I personally like copy/notransfer myself. At this very moment, I have a record of every single person who has a Seburo. It simplifies my life, as well as allowing me to provide better technical support.

You got hit by that teleport bug? I check my records that say you have purchased one. Then I can send you a new one, free of charge.

The new version of SL break the scripts? I'll make a new Seburo, and send one to every single last owner out there.

I don't particularly want to lose my ability to do this.

..

I would very much like to see Cubey's and Hun's concerns addressed, beyond "These are good points, let's move on." I would like to see someone give a definate response along the lines of, "Sorry, you're screwed now" or "Ah, okay, let's make these changes to accomodate this."


Some additional questions:
This idea of the "wrapper". How do you break a wrapper? Is it broken the moment you rez/attach something? If you buy a box, with 5 items in it, can you break the wrapper on each of the items separately, or is it an all or nothing?

The issues I have with the current system is not so much the inability to express something, it's the correctness and convenience of it.

We very badly need the ability to set the permissions on multiple things at once. (I would kill for "recursively set permissions". Also, the current system is buggy. The permissions in your inventory are not the same as on the ground. Rezzing something, and then taking it back into your inventory doesn't necessarily give you the same perms you started with. (I could go on, but you get the point)

I just wanted to point out that my previous post about explosive wrapper scripts was not meant to indicate that I am fiercely opposed to this.

I'm fairly trusting of LL, and generally have been pleased with their changes (read 1.2) even if I didn't know I should have been beforehand.

But, I do sometimes play devil's advocate - although, determining the devil side in this is a bit iffy.

My biggest issue is that already, multiple people have thought up ways to circumvent the purpose of this system if implemented, and it seems lots of people would be of the mind to do just that.

What good would implementing an easily breakable system do?

I got to thinking about it, if LL doesn't give the script function to detect wrapper breaking, we still have functions that can detect if an object is delinked. If, and that's a big IF as I've yet to sell anything in SL, but if I were to feel inclined to make such a script, I think I would make mine use llSetPrimitiveParams to turn all of the objects constituent parts into .5 meter plywood texture cubes.

So, the person would end up with a pile of the building blocks I myself started with. Maybe I'd have it say something like "There ya go, have fun. . . if you truly want to learn how to make what I made, then feel free to IM me and I will personally instruct you".

I like to teach, and I like to make things that help others. However, there are people (and it seems a lot of them) who will unscrupulously take advantage of the most altruistic kindness - I know, shocking, huh? I don't want to be taught to not like teaching and sharing my information by people who didn't deserve my guidance in the first place.

If destructive wrapper tech is possible, then you'd better believe people are gonna use it. There's even precedence for this in the real world - some items you buy (specifically electronics) have very specific warnings on them that if the case of the item is broken up, the item will become non-functional. I think initially Microsoft had worked on something like this for the Xbox.

I've said this before, and it's worth repeating. IRL, idealistically, I'm a Libertarian, and generally, this is when I'm considering a society magically populated by people in my group of friends who are relatively intelligent, good hearted people. Unfortunately, a true Libertarian society will be nearly instantly crushed under the weight of people's greed and avarice. I think this system would have been ideal and worked fine pre 1.2 - the introduction of real world money has changed SL, as we all said it would. I don't think we can have both a capitalistic and freely sharing society.

After reading my own post, I guess maybe I am somewhat opposed to the changes, although I wouldn't say fiercely opposed. . . However, not because I think it's a horrible system, but because I think it would be an EASILY circumventable system, thereby rendering it fairly unnecessary.

Oh, one other thing I'd like to mention - LL has said that a big deterrent to people reverse engineering things is copyright laws. Firstly, so far, we've seen how well lawsuits involving virtual objects and IP have been received by the court systems. Secondly. . . do we actually want to implement a system that at best, people would circumvent, and at worst, people are violently opposed to, only to setup the possibility of lawsuit after lawsuit? I already put as much money into SL as I want to. . . I don't have any extra money to devote to lawsuits against people who would want to take advantage of my kindness.

Wow, this is really a "bomb" that LL has planted among the community... it's going haywire right now, but the cool thing is, we have a very long fuse, and lots of time to disarm it. Thanks to Cory for warning us in advance!

I have very mixed feelings about the current proposal, and that's why I don't want to discuss the ideas yet on the "official place" - Cory's own blog. Unlike many people (and I'm proud of saying that in public), I like to analyse things from several perspectives, both emotionally and logically, and have changed my mind often about "things written on stone tablets". So I'm quite prepared to revert my position in about 6 months or so

First, I think that we should not view Cory's proposal as Linden Lab's "final word" on it. It's just that - a proposal. A way to let people think about it, discuss it, argue it over, and come up with good ideas that can actually be implemented. That is what I feel right now.

Both the forums, blogs, and several informal meetings that happened inworld since the "announcement" reached the same preliminary conclusions: creators are not happy with weak copyrights, period. Consumers can't care less. They currently make their choices based on what they want and what they're willing to pay. There is a large variety of choices here. I can buy fantastic clothes from Torrid and I know the quality I'll get - but they won't be unique items. I can order custom-made dresses from Von, and pay premium for that, because I don't want anybody else to have the same "unique" dress (and I establish a trust relationship with those merchants "informally" - I know that Torrid won't sell me a below-quality product, or that Von will charge me premium for one "unique" item but sell 100 copies afterwards...). In some cases, for new merchants that I haven't worked with, I can appeal to resident-created trade assotiations to protect my rights as a consumer - like RATE, for instance. And finally, for everyday use, well, as everybody else, I have hundreds of freebie articles (sometimes from Torrid or Mistress Midnigt!) and change them to fit me. All this mirrors somewhat what goes on in the real world. All this happens with the current permission system very well.

"Reverse engineering" is a fact of life (1st and 2nd) - we usually think about it on the industrial scale, or on the software/computer industry, but it's not so. I grab pictures from web sites and ask talented designers to build me a copy for it inworld. I look at a cool device inworld and see if I can replicate its scripting. I see someone inworld with a "limited monopoly" on some sort of item, and I fry my brains overnight trying to think "how did he do it?". If I can't figure it out, I can always ask an expert to take a look at it and replicate it for me. Again, this happens, despite our current permission systems.

And finally scamming. Of course, I don't really expect the scammers to actively participate in forums, blogs or meetings. But just because they don't discuss it, we can't ignore them. Inworld, my only action against them (with the current permission system or otherwise) is to warn them that they're doing something immoral, and scare off their customers. This normally means I'm a target for negative ratings *shrugs* but morality is more important to me than the ratings anyway. Most unsuspecting customers usually thank me. Still, some had a problem in understanding why I should pay for a skin when it was so easy to copy it. Once more, scamming *already* exists in SL, despite current permissions.

What I'm not sure of is, economically speaking, what will happen to SL's rather stable economy when the new system is deployed (and remember, nobody knows what the "new system" is and how it will be implemented - Cory just presented a few key ideas on what it could be). More than fearing that a batch of creators will go away forever and take their items with them, I fear unstability due to the need to adapt to the "new rules". Creativity can go down the drain and no new objects appear; or new objects will be much higher priced since the creators will know that their creations have a very limited time of existence before being copied and resold by scammers. This would mean a stagnation - currently items inworld are given for free, or sold in the L$20-200 range (very special items are much higher than that, of course, but they are also a tiny fraction of the total offerings, even if they represent a large fraction of the economy's turnaround). Actually, pricing new content higher will very likely give the scammers an incentive to make more and more copies! If Windows was available for free, what would be the incentive of making "illegal" copies of it?

So. I guess most of you can agree with the above paragraphs. Now to concrete suggestions to solve those problems - and taking into account that we (Lindens and residents) don't know how things will work out - here it goes:

1. Traceability of Intellectual Property
   
   Anything which is created should be flagged with the creator name, and a timestamp. That's all you need to trace it. If you can somehow use clever scripts to duplicate an object perfectly (my, people are ingenious these days!), if you can make sure that the creator name is never lost, at the very least you will able to trace your IP back to you, and the timestamp will prove to anyone that you have created it first. So the copied version won't have either your creator name or timestamp - and thus can be identified as a "forgery" (even if it just looks the same and works the same way).
   
   Co-creation should also be allowed (see my question on the Town Hall transcript). These days, many builders will work together with scripters, and the final item/device is usually a "joint effort".
   
   Now this point will not prevent scamming - ie. scripts can be copied & pasted, or you can reassemble prims by just copying the data from the tabs and replicate them, etc. This is just to establish your IP!
   
   RL example: Creative Common's own registry.
   
   
2. Scam detection
   
   It came to a surprise to me that Cory didn't mention the so-very-simple "tracking mechanism" - when the wrapper is broken, you get an IM (or similar information). Actually, when Tiger Crossing and I suggested that, Cory explained that they had already discussed this with James Grimmelmann of LawMeme. So either you'll get an event to detect for the wrapper being broken, or in some "magic" way you'll be informed that this happens.
   
   Why is this so important? Well, again, for tracking purposes. If suddenly everybody breaks the wrappers on your objects, you'll know where the potential scammers are going to be. Since after breaking the wrapper you can't "show" the object to anyone else, it means that any scam much come from the person that broke it (even if you copy & paste a script and give it to your friend, the Master Scammer, to have him replicate it... you're nevertheless accessory to the offense!).
   
   And since you'll have established creationship with a timestamp on the ORIGINAL item, it will be easy to "prove" that you are the original copyright owner. I only wished that in RL it would be so easy to immediatly get a list of your "prime suspects"...
   
   So, we have a way to register IP, and to track copies of it. Next point!
   
   
3. Scam reporting
   
   What happens with scamming nowadays? Uh, nothing. Nobody controls scam, there is nobody to report to, and there is nothing you really can do about it except fret (or waste your precious time, which would be much better employed in creating stuff, by going around and see who is taking advantage of your IP right now...). In SL, we have no police and no courts to appeal - just the Lindens. And since is hard to know when there is "abuse" (if I buy a chair from you, and resell it to a friend for a higher price, is that really a "scam"? Or am I just an "unlicensed retailer"? Or just doing a friend the favour of sparing her the time to search for the item herself - and in this case I'm a "value-added retailer"?), you can't really report it.
   
   This is something which has to be changed now - and it means changing the TOS. Since due to the previous two points you'll have a way to establish IP uniquevocally, and a way of tracing it, you can "legally" act upon that. Since there is no other way, this means presenting the Lindens with "evidence", and forcing them to abide by a revised TOS - expelling that user (and its alts) from SL and all its copied items from the world.
   Eventually the person buying illegal copies could be subject to the same threats (more on that below).
   
   
4. Scam prevention
   
   Ok, but it's a shame to do things "afterwards" - in the mean time, customers get angry, since they have payed for an item they wanted, and they didn't know it was a scam.
   
   Again, let's see how the RL deals with this. It's simple - trade associations and "seals of approval". We've got RATE, but we could have a few more. And again this is simple to implement. Allow any SL item to have a special branded "tag". You can have as many tags as you want (and create your own tags if you wish), similar to the concept of SSL certificates for web servers, or DigiMark for digital images. But here is the trick: you can only sell/transfer items with a tag you own (or issued by a group that you belong to).
   
   This allows for self-regulation. So you can develop your own tag, and only you will be able to sell your own objects. If someone breaks the wrapper, the tag is still there - meaning that if the scammer copies your items and replicates them, they will not get your tag, but his own. Established creators will be able to inform the public that they should only buy items with their own tags. More than that: if you have several shops, or your own retailers, give them your tag - so they become "licensed, official retailers". You may revoke tags on them if suddenly you've lost confidence on them.
   
   What about small, unknown merchants? That's easy, that's why you get "trade associations". Use RATE (or a similar association) to give "credibility" to your own name. This is the same thing as having VeriSign signing off your SSL certificate, or DigiMark's "stamp" on digital images. So, by using a RATE tag, your objects for sale will show the customer that you are legitimate - since RATE could revoke your right to use their tag at any time if you don't abide by their rules.
   
   Vouching for third parties is how trust relationships are done in the real, digital world. The good thing is, we don't really need a mechanism like There has (company-only approved sales...), but we can work it out for ourselves inworld, assuming we have simple extra tools!
   
   (Allegedly this could currently be done just by setting an appropriate group on the object, but also see the next point.)
   
   (A problem with this system is how to implement GIFTS! One alternative would be allowing you to give stuff away that you've bought, but the recipient would get a Dialog Box telling "XXX is giving you an unlicensed object YYY. This may be a scam. Do you wish to accept it?", and the creator would also get an IM/similar thing telling her that an "unlicensed transfer was in progress". If it happens just once in a while, that's ok. If it's systematic, you caught a scammer!)
   
   
5. Information/education
   
   Last but not least, I find that the current information levels provided to new users are appallingly low. If "newbies" never read the TOS, the forums, or never go to Mentor events, or don't talk to anyone inworld - how can they know about stuff? They need more and better information. I'm currently on the process of writing something like a "newbie guide" - not from the perspective of the marketing department of LL, but from the resident's point of view. It's no use to have a clever ownership tracking system and tags to certify your products if newbies never heard about those stuff. If I make an illegal copy of Microsoft's product CDs inside prettily printed packages, and give them away, people will only know it's a scam if they know that all Microsoft products have a seal with a hologram on it. But if I haven't heard about that, how can I know I'm not being offered a genuine item? So information is one of the key issues to prevent scamming.
   
   This means warning newbies that items without a proper, conforming tag are probably scams, and by buying them off scammers, both the scammer and the person buying the object are liable to be reported for abuse and expelled. Now that will make people think twice about buying stuff from "unlicensed" retailers!
   
   

As you can see, I'm not really "against" either the current permission system, or against any other system that will replace it. Emotionally, I both understand LL's idea of a "weakly copyrighted world" to promote more creativity, as well as creator's concerns about the scamming market growing exponentially and without control. However, there are ways to deal with both issues at the same time. I think that we should concentrate on them instead of just "throwing off" the proposed new permission system. Linden Lab has never hidden the fact that they want to do several social experiments with Second Life. That's quite ok, I think, provided we have mechanisms to mantain our society and economy stable - and this means a constant influx of creativity and somewhat stable prices for products, as well as a genereal willingness from customers to pay a "fair price" for creative content.

OK, I subjected myself to the propaganda at the Creative Commons site. It seems to me that Creative Commons copyright can easily be accomplished today using the existing permissions system. All somebody has to do is slap the 'cc' logo on their product, tuck the new license in as a notecard - thereby relinquishing their current Copyright and open all permissions. So, why do we need this forced on us? I currently have US Copyright on all my works. From the sounds of it, this new system will be taking away rights I currently have. And I would question whether LL has the right to modify permissions on any existing works. If these works are truely our intellectual property backed by US Copyright law, how can LL now force Creative Commons upon them? If I draw a picture using a Bic pen, does Bic have the right to change the copyright terms on the picture I drew? I don't think so.

I will maintain it is a matter of perception. When considering SL as SL the world, my glasses are just glasses. When considering SL as a "medium" then they may be digital art.

Perhaps it would be better to explain it as "Linden wants to import copyright law as it stands into the microcosm that is the SL world." But then someone might have to think of it as a game.

Originaly posted by Cory on the blog:

"Closed Source (c)

Script text is not visible to the owner, even if the asset it is attached to has its wrapper broken. The creator would retain full copyright to their script."

So scripters, which is of all things in SL the closest thing to what the CC license was developed for, are being given a pass on the whole deal.

Meanwhile, the artistic folks are getting screwed, because we don't have an option in the new system to prevent people from tearing our stuff apart to see how it works.

No one is forcing you to use the Creative Commons license offered. In fact, if you do not wish to allow distribution of your work by anyone other than yourself, you should not. The CC set of licenses are only for use when you want to allow distribution under limited circumstances. In this case, you would use the one called Full Copyright in Cory's blog post. This will limit distribution rights to you, while retaining the customer's rights of first sale and fair use (the 'wrapper' concept). This actually goes a step farther than a physical object as it stands in the post, as if you get say "Cienna's Glasses" from Cubey, you know that in order to pass them on to you Cubey has not modified them at all (broken the wrapper).

Don't bother. No one is posting there any more, because we all wised up to the fact that blog comments suck for discussion. This is the "real" discussion, whether or not LL likes it. (Hey, they said that in order to make SL equal the WWW, they'd have to give up most of their control to us. This is what the result will be. If they don't like it, they can give up their dream of taking over WWW.)



The problem with full copyright as I understand it in Cory's post is that it can't be set to nomod/copy/notrans. In fact, there IS no nomod/copy/notrans option. Anywhere. At least from what I understand (and admittedly, I could misunderstand Cory completely, as that blog post wasn't exactly clear as mud).

You don't have that option now. Anyone with a modest amount of building skill can use a purchased object as a guide to build an untextured duplicate.

(Also, the CC licenses are also specifically not recommended for software, as there are existing ones such as the GPL, and BSD licenses which are written with software in mind).