Second Life Forums Archive - Should people be allowed to "rip" scripts?

blaze Spinnaker

1/2 Serious

Join date: 12 Aug 2004

Posts: 5,898

03-27-2005 21:09

if (llGetCreator() != me) {
llDie();

}

_____________________

Taken from The last paragraph on pg. 16 of Cory Ondrejka's paper "Changing Realities: User Creation, Communication, and Innovation in Digital Worlds :

"User-created content takes the idea of leveraging player opinions a step further by allowing them to effectively prototype new ideas and features. Developers can then measure which new concepts most improve the products and incorporate them into the game in future patches."

Malachi Petunia

Gentle Miscreant

Join date: 21 Sep 2003

Posts: 3,414

03-27-2005 21:16

It only took the world's clothiers a year or so to get permissions worked so that you couldn't buy an item, open it, take the texture and make an instant knock off. I know one of the world's most prolific clothiers was only giving clothes away until that change was made.

So maybe in SL 2.0?

_____________________

Huns Valen

Don't PM me here.

Join date: 3 May 2003

Posts: 2,749

03-28-2005 01:03

From: Francis Chung

Obfuscation tricks aren't a productive use of a scripter's time. Moreover, they cost compute cycles, which can be really important if you're trying to do things in real-time, such as games.

I agree with this. Plus, the only really secure way to encrypt communications would be to use a one-time pad each and every single time you send a link message - which is ridiculous from a feasibility standpoint. Otherwise, you are open to brute force decryption attacks. Might take a few hours, a few days, or even a few weeks - but when they are done, the hacker has got your encryption password. At that point they can extract your link messages, in clear text, at their leisure.

Beyond all that, you may not have enough free space in your 16K block for the code, data, and stack space the encryption/decryption code requires. Scripts sometimes have to be balanced on a knife edge in order to avoid stack-heap collisions and this does not help.

The "self destruct if the script is moved" thing does not work if you have ever given anyone a modifiable object you made, even if you are extremely clever about it. I don't want to go into it here but I can think of several checks, and for each one, a way to defeat it.

I think a fair compromise here would be to make it possible to delete a script from a no-mod object, but not move it to inventory. If the object is protected, and the textures on the object are protected, why the hell aren't the assets protected? This is a real head-scratcher for me. If you're going to protect the creators from having their works copied out and messed with, protect all of them, not just whoever did the geometry and texturing.

_____________________

[ huns? || words || 1TBS KREW || VHI Aircraft || Whitepaper on Aircraft Physics ]

Make yourself and your objects immune to llPushObject().

Reitsuki Kojima

Witchhunter

Join date: 27 Jan 2004

Posts: 5,328

03-28-2005 03:49

From: blaze Spinnaker

if (llGetCreator() != me) {
llDie();

}

If you had read ANY of this thread you would realize that your just mocking the problem, because that doesn't work.

Or, maybe you are just mocking the problem. It would certainly be more in line with your MO...

_____________________

I am myself indifferent honest; but yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me: I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offenses at my beck than I have thoughts to put them in, imagination to give them shape, or time to act them in. What should such fellows as I do crawling between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves, all; believe none of us.

Blueman Steele

Registered User

Join date: 28 Dec 2004

Posts: 1,038

Greed

04-17-2005 13:04

From: Moleculor Satyr

I have to wonder: To those of you voting yes, why is it ok to remove a script from a box? Isn't that like removing a texture from a skin or object and using it for yourself?

It's basically creative greed.

Someone doesn't want to pay for it.. they just want to get it from someone else who has made it.

But what those who only want to do that don't understand.... is if good scripters are not given incentive to keep writing those scripts (ie like protections rights) then there will BE no new scripts to steal.

Not the sort of thing you can understand without reading "The Grapes of Wrath" or knowing about the dustbowl.

-Blueman

Should people be allowed to "rip" scripts?
blaze Spinnaker 1/2 Serious Join date: 12 Aug 2004 Posts: 5,898	03-27-2005 21:09 if (llGetCreator() != me) { llDie(); } _____________________ Taken from The last paragraph on pg. 16 of Cory Ondrejka's paper "Changing Realities: User Creation, Communication, and Innovation in Digital Worlds : "User-created content takes the idea of leveraging player opinions a step further by allowing them to effectively prototype new ideas and features. Developers can then measure which new concepts most improve the products and incorporate them into the game in future patches."
Malachi Petunia Gentle Miscreant Join date: 21 Sep 2003 Posts: 3,414	03-27-2005 21:16 It only took the world's clothiers a year or so to get permissions worked so that you couldn't buy an item, open it, take the texture and make an instant knock off. I know one of the world's most prolific clothiers was only giving clothes away until that change was made. So maybe in SL 2.0? _____________________
Huns Valen Don't PM me here. Join date: 3 May 2003 Posts: 2,749	03-28-2005 01:03 From: Francis Chung Obfuscation tricks aren't a productive use of a scripter's time. Moreover, they cost compute cycles, which can be really important if you're trying to do things in real-time, such as games. I agree with this. Plus, the only really secure way to encrypt communications would be to use a one-time pad each and every single time you send a link message - which is ridiculous from a feasibility standpoint. Otherwise, you are open to brute force decryption attacks. Might take a few hours, a few days, or even a few weeks - but when they are done, the hacker has got your encryption password. At that point they can extract your link messages, in clear text, at their leisure. Beyond all that, you may not have enough free space in your 16K block for the code, data, and stack space the encryption/decryption code requires. Scripts sometimes have to be balanced on a knife edge in order to avoid stack-heap collisions and this does not help. The "self destruct if the script is moved" thing does not work if you have ever given anyone a modifiable object you made, even if you are extremely clever about it. I don't want to go into it here but I can think of several checks, and for each one, a way to defeat it. I think a fair compromise here would be to make it possible to delete a script from a no-mod object, but not move it to inventory. If the object is protected, and the textures on the object are protected, why the hell aren't the assets protected? This is a real head-scratcher for me. If you're going to protect the creators from having their works copied out and messed with, protect all of them, not just whoever did the geometry and texturing. _____________________ [ huns? \|\| words \|\| 1TBS KREW \|\| VHI Aircraft \|\| Whitepaper on Aircraft Physics ] Make yourself and your objects immune to llPushObject().
Reitsuki Kojima Witchhunter Join date: 27 Jan 2004 Posts: 5,328	03-28-2005 03:49 From: blaze Spinnaker if (llGetCreator() != me) { llDie(); } If you had read ANY of this thread you would realize that your just mocking the problem, because that doesn't work. Or, maybe you are just mocking the problem. It would certainly be more in line with your MO... _____________________ I am myself indifferent honest; but yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me: I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offenses at my beck than I have thoughts to put them in, imagination to give them shape, or time to act them in. What should such fellows as I do crawling between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves, all; believe none of us.
Blueman Steele Registered User Join date: 28 Dec 2004 Posts: 1,038	Greed 04-17-2005 13:04 From: Moleculor Satyr I have to wonder: To those of you voting yes, why is it ok to remove a script from a box? Isn't that like removing a texture from a skin or object and using it for yourself? It's basically creative greed. Someone doesn't want to pay for it.. they just want to get it from someone else who has made it. But what those who only want to do that don't understand.... is if good scripters are not given incentive to keep writing those scripts (ie like protections rights) then there will BE no new scripts to steal. Not the sort of thing you can understand without reading "The Grapes of Wrath" or knowing about the dustbowl. -Blueman

Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

Should people be allowed to "rip" scripts?