The unofficial new permissions system discussion thread...

So we should just make it easier to copy, especially for people with no skill at all, is that it? Hello?! The problem is the ease of copying RIGHT NOW. Don't make it EASIER. The fact that things can be copied as easily as they can is stifling creativity. You want to kill it off completely?

Perception does not alter reality, though. I may percieve of a car in SL as a car, but it is not. It is just a digital image of a car combined with code that makes it move.

Anyone with a decent amount of scripting skill can probably figure out, with time, how a script works too, at least well enough to make something that does the same basic thing.

That doesn't mean they are taking away the scripters right to some modest level of protection, though.

Yeah, well said Al. This is one of the main reasons I'm shutting up shop tomorrow and keeping out of the world. I haven't seriously developed for quite a while now because it's so unstable and awkward with all the issues in SL. Bring the stability back and I'll gladly come back and develop again. Until then however, that's me done. It's an unfunny battle trying to create in SL these days.

Cienna brings up "Fair Use". Fair Use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. Fair use specifically disallows use that will deprive the copyright owner of income. Allowing people to break a wrapper and inspect details on how an object is made is NOT Fair Use.

You know, none of this matters diddly-squat. No matter what the Lindens do, they are still going to leave us hanging out to dry with no recourse in these matters. How many of us are going to hire a lawyer to settle a case? Without in-world recourse to infringments, none of this really matters.

Not *quite* right, Al... If this happens, we will have no more recourse than before, and even more cases where we would *need* the recourse.

You're correct, I (and others, and the Lindens) have been using Fair Use rights as a term including both Fair Use and property rights (ownership rights? I'm unsure of the correct, specific term here); and for that I apologize. Fair Use is what lets us take a picture of a building and say "Visit Beautiful Federal". Property rights let me change the color of my glasses/car/airplane. Protection from people making money by duplication of an invention, however, is patent law. Interestingly, computer software seems to be the only case that copyright and patent meet, otherwise it generally an either/or relationship.

Is it really so far as patent law that stops someone from ripping the wrapper off of a Snickers bar, taking it, repackaging it, and selling it for profit? I HAVE to believe that there are OTHER laws against that too.

I have not read the entire thread, I'm too lazy.. so appologies if this is redundant. I just wanted to point out that with all this arguing over different permissions, it should also be considered that people have been asking for a while now for the ability to create "symbolic links" or "aliases" or "shortcuts" (depends upon what OS one is accustomed to for what term to use) in their inventories. This would essentially eliminate the use of copy/notrans permissions, since a no-copy item could be put in more than one place in inventory, without actually being copied.

Why do people want that? Well, for me, I would like it so that something that I buy, such as glasses, could be in more than one outfit.. but I could still have the ability to give the original to a friend and just lose all those "links". (presumably, a confirmation dialog would make sure that one realizes that links will go poof as well)

And, with that I have nothing to input to the discussion of different copyright types.

I am not a lawyer but that would probably run afoul of quite a few food safety and truth in advertising laws, but otherwise it's just resale of something legally obtained. The case where someone makes a Snoockers Bar knockoff and manufactures their own would fall under patent law (assuming any exist on a Snickers Bar at this point). It's precisely why patents require disclosure of how things are done, so that people can look at that and say "Oh, yeah, this violated it." In addition, it gives a record of how to do it for once the patent expires, and it can spur innovation as a base point for improvement and change. Standing on the shoulders of giants, and all that stuff.

Speaking of patents. . .

if we do go ahead with the new system, I'd really like to see a worldwide, standardised patent system implemented. At the very least, if someone is going to just flat out copy something, I don't want them being able to claim that they in fact made it first, and then accuse me of copying them.

That would just be one insult too many.

I agree it is high time this be revisted. I remember a post from Phoenix(?) stating that the reason it was never originally implemented, or taken out at an early stage, was UI issues of how to convey the information to the user that something is a symlink.

It's not perfect, really; if you needed a different version of an object, say sized for different avatars, it falls short. But one place a reference counting system would provide huge benefit is vehicles, allowing for safety against instance losses.

No, it wouldn't. I sell copy/notrans objects for one reason, and one reason only.

So people can use multiple copies of the object at the same time, without being able to sell them.

"Symbolic Links" would not eliminate that use for copy/notrans.

Edited because I can't read

I'll say this as gently as possible... forced altruism is bullshit! I'm all for sharing knowlege and techniques with people when they ask me and I feel like it, but if a new permission system forces me to accept that anyone who buys one of my skins can take my textures, modify them, and use them as the base for their own creations, I will stop selling skins. Innovation doesn't come from theft, it comes from innovating... the very meaning of which implies original works, not derived. I will always be a proponent of an open and sharing environment, but ONLY when the original creator decides they want to share, not because they have no choice in the matter. I didn't see anything in the proposal for the new permissions system that addresses the problem of texture theft. In fact, it seems LL wants to make it easier for people to steal (now euphemisticly known as "tinkering". I'll be fine with the new permissions system if, and only if, we are given the option to permanently and irreversably lock our content if we so choose. A buyer can choose not to buy a product if they feel the restrictions are too severe, but they have a choice. Under the proposed system it would seem the creator does not have a choice. We just have to trust that people are ripping our work because they want to "learn" rather than "steal." I'm sorry but human nature doesn't deserve that much benefit of the doubt. I want more ability to control how my content is distributed and used, not less.

Split the resell/giveaway checkbox into 2 options and let us play w/ havok 2.. whhaaaaaaaaaaa

Let's step back a sec. Why did Cory start this whole discussion?



What does that mean exactly? I thought a Copyright license was inherent and agreed upon at the moment of creation/sell. What facets of the license are not matching? If you are saying that the No Mod or No Transfer rights are part of the Copyright, you are wrong. They can be considered as a separate contract that is agreed upon at the time of sell. The buyer is fully aware of what he/she is getting.



Not at all. The creators are chosing to sell their works as they see fit. The buyer is not obligated to purchase anything that has permission sets they don't like. You must remember, this is the creator's right. The buyer has no right to a modifiable or resellable object.

Now here is the real gist for all this:



LL wants faster innovation of content. Now where the reasoning comes from that says that we as creators should be forced to share our original Copyrighted works is beyond me. How does anyone make that leap in logic? You want innovation - incent innovation - don't steal it.

Finally, Huns eluded to this best:



Compare that to Corey's statement (admittedly taken slightly out of context):


If you are going to give away the innovativee work of the few by taking away our current Copyright under the guise of Creative Commons, do away with the Linden dollar first. Then we can all kick back and be good little Open Source socialists. But don't expect that this will bring a lot of innovation to SL.

This shows you haven't read it and are more interested in fear-mongering. What part of "closed source" is tough to understand? The 'wrapper' system was mentioned as pertaining to non-script assets specifically. (I feel a glaring omission here is texture assets not falling under the same rights as scripts.)


But your comment about copy/paste brings up a good point; without Linden intervention in specific cases, only Closed Source and Public Domain are enforceable through a permissions system. Sorry guys, but GPL, BSD, or other similar type licenses can't be enforced systematically if someone can see the source. Not that it isn't possible to attach those licenses, but there is no way to set a checkbox and not have to worry if someone violates it. I currently distribute a certain script under the Creative Commons "Attribution" license, but know I have no weight to really enforce it.

Just for the record, Lordfly, as Cory's post and the transcripts indicate, scripts would be one of the exceptions - you wouldn't be able to see the text of a script unless someone said you could, Swew!

But, that doesn't mean the person couldn't break apart the object and see the interrelations of the objects and the scripts.

Learning within LSL, I've come to script by writing as many scriptlets as possible - it seems to work best within the system. When I'm being a good scripter, I do my best to name each of these scripts as explicitly as possible, so that when I work on the project later, I can quickly see and remember the sometimes complex interractions between these tiny scripts.

I'm assuming now I'll have to stop this very self useful practice as it will make reverse engineering through observation much easier - which will cut down on ease of use for scripting to me, which will definitely hinder my innovation. That is if ever made anything that didn't revert back to .5 meter plywood cubes when it was delinked - I still really like the semi-irony of that plan - have even sketched out the generic script for it.

Oh, and Chip, from what I gather, textures should be no more visible/available to inspection than they currently are - and possibly less so according to some speculation by Cory.

And finally, another point - if these new rules cause people to be much More guarded of their objects and to develop ways to obfuscate the objects creation even more, then all of this will serve the opposite of its intended purposes of sharing information for "innovation".

You'll have to hire a lawyer just as much in the proposed system as you would in the current one.

Well yes. What I said was not a lamentation of the current system or hope that the new one will be better. It was simply a statement of fact, and how any of the other licenses for source code can really only be enforced through litigation even in the context of SL, where 'perfect' DRM is almost possible.

Ah...mkay... Not sure how that HELPS you support this change... *eye*

Tell you what, Cienna. Instead of trying to compare the proposed changes to the permission system to RL systems (which I could care very little about), try to argue this from the point of view we're all arguing from, which is the fact that the intended goal (increased innovation) will not be achieved through this change. You must think it will, or you wouldn't be arguing for this change. So how will this new permission system spawn innovation?

It's directed at the enforcability of certain software licenses under both systems. Licenses which, coincidentally, have never been legally tested.


If I thought it would help or hinder innovation, I'd have been arguing that point rather than a much needed expansion of owner rights. As it stands, I don't think it will change it really.

I sure hope so. They need to be far less available than they are now. If they're still as easy to steal then the new permissions system isn't helpful at all. The prt-scn loophole needs to be closed.