Data Ownership

I've said many times that the major problem that should be addressed in Second Life is this:

We do not own the data on the servers, ever.



Paying tier, rent, and account fees are not ownership - they are expressly renting data in servers owned by Linden Labs. From the point data leaves our computers, it is not ours; it is theirs to maintain.

This is a major stumbling block, and places a sense of liability onto Linden Labs (read: the service provider) themselves. Basically, should one of our objects decide to "Not be found in database," we're screwed, and it happens on their watch.

In an attempt to curb this, the Lindens have placed these sections into their Terms of Service:


This is in line with what many service providers add to their End-User License Agreements. Here's a similar quote from GoDaddy's EULA:


So, should any of them lose your data, you're up the creek without a paddle.


It sucks.

Because we are not given proper recourse or the ability to back up our own data ourselves. Now, this situation is being worked on for static inventories. I should know - I'm working on an unofficial export/building tool of my own to be released (no promises) by the end of the month. Similarly, assets like textures and scripts can be easily kept offline.


We are not given this luxury with land.

If we are to properly be arbiters of our own data and release LL from any liability of losing it, we should be able to maintain this data ourselves. In the long run, this will likely happen as data is moved to servers not owned by LL, but instead by third parties.



But for those of us with land now, we want to know our data is ours and won't disappear tomorrow.




We should have the right to request backup strips for our land, at our expense.

Simply, if LL is watching our data for us, and tasks us to invest large amounts of our time and money, we should be able to make that data ours - through the ownership of a hard backup. This backup need not leave the server warehouse - so long as the data therein is appropriately ours.

Presently, LL does keep backups of servers when needed. I know this by accidentally blowing up the server I was on twice (oops!) and requiring a simple rollback of the data. These backups are necessarily temporary, however.

We need to own our data. If we cannot, and no recourse is established, all residents are rightfully scared.

We should not have to be.

How does the old saw go? "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride"? Given that I've never seen a response to asset lossage that didn't reduce to "sucks to be you", I ain't holding my breath on that one.

I saw a recent player initiatives to export your creations into some storable form so that you may back them up yourself (over in scripting tips). Given that Linden Lab's track record in maintaing their own data has been abyssymal, I know I wouldn't pay for a LL managed backup service.

They've also steadfastly refused to entertain myriad requests for things like "export my object Foo into XML" which strikes me as a trivial matter to code as they are already exporting the object to your client every time you view it; all they'd need to add would be a translation layer from SL protocol to something isomorphic and non-proprietary. This is a task on the order of "one sharp-intern week" to complete. Thus I think it fair conjecture that LL wants to exclusively own your creations, they just don't want to be responsible for them.

If I was forced to postulate an underlying rationale, it would be without player created content, the world would be an empty void. Should a credible competitor emerge and they didn't retain exclusive control over your work, they'd be at risk of posessing 400+ sims of terrain.

"Embrace and Extend ", dear Mr. Gomez.

Hey - if that's your view, work on an alternative to Second Life. That is the fundamental drive of a free system, ya?



But seriously - I see LL wanting to benefit from our work through the proliferation of Second Life, not by stealing our data. If that were the case, we would not have any copyright rights whatsoever.

However, you cannot copyright an idea, which is why anyone with a good idea and the means to realize it should go here and hire a lawyer.



Long story short, I have yet to see malicious intent on the part of Linden Labs. Inexperienced management and code, yes. Wholesale stealing? Only if you like GOM drama, and didn't read the original rant on the subject.

Embrace and extend is absolutely right. Used to the wrong ends, it equals large megacorps and lack of competition. Used properly, it equates to good ideas getting their due.

It all depends on your perspective... and the management.

Wow, I must have expressed myself terribly to have given the impression that I was accusing anyone - particularly LL - with stealing.

This will probably make it only worse, but I shall try again via analogy. You make a painting in my studio. I tell you that the painting is yours. I let you come into the studio anytime you or anyone else wants to look at the painting. However I prohibit you from removing the painting from the studio, ever, or letting taking a high quality photograph of the painting so that you might make a lithographic reproduction of it to hang in your house. Yet I continue to say that the painting is yours.

In this analogy, is the painting yours? Well I say it is and I don't deny you access to it so I haven't "stolen" it in any common sense of the word. You might say I've taken the painting hostage, which does in fact seem what I've done - except the word "hostage" implies that I'd release it to you for ransom which doesn't apply in this analogy.

So, I was saying not that LL has stolen anything only that they hold player creations hostage in some weak sense of "hostage".

Did that clarify my point or make it more accusatory? Please note that I'm not asserting that the inability to export SL creations is good, bad, or indifferent; simply that there is an inability to export and saying that I didn't believe that inability to be a technical limitation.

Aww, I thought this was about owning Data Linden. He's cute

And, if they deem it necessary, the right to destroy, modify, or otherwise market that painting.


Like I said, it sucks.

Fortunately, for finite works like prims, it *should* become a moot point considering what I and other people are working on. But when it comes to large amounts of data, clustered together (ie. land), there's still a problem.

The main problem to my mind is data loss, and as a correlary to that, data termination. A backup strip is infinitely more useful than a table in some huge farking database. Even if they sent us a weird pen drive that we couldn't use in any third-party system, the fact our data is there means something, IMHO.

Folks, it's a great system. You pay Linden Lab to create their product. If you spend enough time and resources at it, you might get a little something back. The new ToS merely acknowledges an existing condition, for the purposes of corporate protection.

I used to spend some time in SL. I've got a few absolutely bee-ah-oot-ee-ful builds in my inventory (imo ), and no place to put them, no way to show them, no way to use them, because I don't really own them - either in a legal or a practical sense. The ToS, an honest document, merely explains why I tiered down and don't spend so much time in SL anymore.

I still question how valuable the copyrights we own in SL are.

Many creations only have substance in data located on SL servers. If that data isn't garaunteeed and we can't keep local copies of it -- how valuable is it?

I think the idea of being able to save our data locally is a good one. There's been talks of it in the past -- so I do hope the plans for a user-made one will work. Perhaps it will give us the chance to make our creations valuable by allowing us to export them to other platforms.

LL is already making backups continually, and has redundant servers for assets.

But I agree with you fundamental point, I as the creator of a few things in SL, should have the right to export these things to safety on my own systems, and have the possibility to reimport it, possibly built into the client.

Jeff, do you forsee LL fighting you on asset export? Perhaps adding a TOS clause to make it a violation?

Unfortunately, I see that happening. They will argue that:

a) asset export is a threat to corporate advertisers, who LL is wooing right now thanks to LL marketing VP, David Fleck (Hi, David! You big ol marketing GOD, you!)

b) asset export is a "core feature" that should be developed in-house, on LL's own schedule (read: "reeeal soon now, right after Havok 3 functionality. we promise."

c) it cant be done. so you cant have done it. not without reverse enginerring their tech anyway, which you've agreed not to do. BANNED.

I am not wanting to rouse feathers on you Jesrad, I just wanted to quote you to illustrate a point that I think the following questions need to be answered by LL because many of us feel that same way.
I would like to ask LL:
are you using old, worn out tapes that are actually broken? (in my time I have seen many companies make this mistake, they suffer a data loss but the tapes they were backing up to over the last 3 years were broken, I am not kidding on this one)

The redundant machines, are the contents from the servers they are being redundant to actually real time mirrored to the redundant machines or once in a while a massive copy is performed?

Are the redundant machines just as powerful as the ones they are backing up? or are they left overs that were not even good enough for boat anchors?

Could I request a tour of your facilities to see how the data room is configured for the highest possible prevention of data loss? I would like to see the cabinent/rack configurations, look to see if the data cabs/racks are off the floor witha positive pressure ventilation system from floor to ceiling to maximize cooling, look at the redundant power system to check for not only high capacity UPS devices but for a generator as well. I would also like to look at the data center disaster recovery manual that covers major events such as earthquake, flood and even a more sinister attack that literally destroys the main data center. After all, it is a service they are trying to sell, I would like some assurance on this service. And before you tell me that service providers don't do that sort of thing, I will assure you they do. The company I work for uses an internet based service, my supervisor flew to their data location , took a tour and even looked at the disaster recovery manual that stated that they could have our data back online within 3 days even in the event that the location is turned into a crater. So perhaps I am spoiled on this one. Heck, even the crappy local telcos offer some sort of assurance/compesation for failed services.

The bottom line is that LL is establishing that you have no "property rights" in the data. They must do this to protect themselves from lawsuits based on property rights.

Under the law, if you destroy property, then you are liable for the value of the property. There is an assumption that all property has at least some value. If data is property, then defending lawsuits could be very, very expensive. Paying lawyers to argue over the value of virtual plywood cubes is not productive. So they need to establish that data isn't property in order to cut off that line of attack.

They could have done it another way. They could say that the data IS your property, but under the agreement you promise not to store data that is worth more than $1 in aggregate on their server. In the event of a total loss of your data, they would be liable for $1 at the most.

Unfortunately, even that would create expenses, because people lose data all the time. Even paying out $1 every time somebody claims that they lost something and its LL's fault would be problematic. So for now, simply cutting off an avenue of legal attack is probably the most prudent decision.

Buster

But we have IP rights then? So if we have IP rights which is a form of property and the object, item and script data is nothing more than an intelligent means of storing such said property, isn't that a contradiction? So in effect we don't even have IP rights then?

This thread is now about my call to action.

As per order of Pendari.

Anyways, seriously.

Create a group Jeffrey, and I'm sure we can all join it. Content developers are king in SL and this concerns all of them.

I'm sure if we just organize we'll make this happen very quickly.

I didn't order you to do anything. pfft!

But I pretty much already thought this thread *was* a call to action in its own way.

ok, this one confuses me.

What if I upload a movie, to like a theatre for everyone to watch? (not like they don't do this already).

Already I am in legal trouble, since, I am breaking federal law by re-broadcasting material out of the good faith use laws, unless I have already licensed said movie.

So, by the rationale in the TOS that content is now theirs? Or just the movie screen? since I am streaming the movie from someplace else?

And, granted, it does read that they take no responsibility to allow stolen/theft of IP from other ppl or services, HOWEVER, take a look at the recent FS's like eDonkey, BT (suprnova), and realize that by allowing people to even stream in content is against the law....


SO, what does that all mean in relation to my first question? Under current law, and the way it is going, no matter what they stuff into their TOS, both parties would be prosecuted (US law currently which is where they are no?)


And what happens when its not movies, but something else?

Say I copy some famous furniture builders work, which is all copywritten?

LL is saying WE OWN it so far as you didn't rip it off, and if you did, we DONT OWN it, you do, but only so far as to get sued ??

Yeah... confused.

It doesn't say Linden owns the data instead of you. It doesn't say anyone owns it, it says you DON'T own it.

Also, you agree not to improperly upload copyrighted material. If you do, then you are the one breaking the rules, not LL. If I rob a bank and hide the money in your house without your knowledge, have you committed a crime? Suppose you say to me, "before I allow you to store money in my house, you must swear that the money is not stolen".

In effect, that's what LL does. YOU promise not to improperly upload, and if you do, you've broken your agreement with LL. Meanwhile, LL has upheld their responsibility by requiring members to follow the rules. (Sooner or later we'll see how well that protects them, I think.)

Buster

Sorry to break yer bubble here, but the US law doesn't see it that way.

If you hid the money in my house I would be liable.

One just makes you more liable, as in conspiracy.

I must prove I had no knowledge you ever intended to hide the money in my house. That is a serious burden. What would I tell the prosecutor? Um, he never told me ?

Yeah, ok.

Did you know he was a theif?
Did you know he was predisposed to rob said bank? You did nothing about it?

Ignorance is not a defense in the court of US law.

And here LL is on even more tricky ground because they are infact giving me the tools to break said law by "hiding" my stolen assets on their server.

Kinda like me giving you the keys to my house, saying in passing, please dont rob a bank and stash the money here. In which case a prosecutor would ask you, why did you specifically tell them NOT to do that if you had no forethought they would?

Ignorance of the law is not a defence. However, ignorance of a conspiracy is a defence. You cannot be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime when you weren't aware of the crime or the conspiracy. (Unless, of course, the jury doesn't believe you.)

You are correct that merely not knowing that money is stolen is not enough. If you should have known that the money was stolen, then that is just as good as knowing. Worse, if you have reason to suspect the money is stolen, for example if you know I'm a thief and I refuse to tell you where I got the money, then that's reason for you to be suspicious.

We aren't talking about that case. LL has no reason to suspect that users intend to break the law, because they promised not to.

In a famous recent case a peer-to-peer software creator was found liable because they actively encouraged people to use their software to copy illegally. It was also clear that the designed purpose of the software was to illegally copy. The lack of legitimate use for the software created the problem, however, not the fact that the software could be used illegally.

I think that SL has sufficient legitimate content purposes that LL won't be expected to assume that uploaded content is illegal, and they can legitimately shift that burden to the subscriber, as many online services do.

Buster

i sometimes wonder about that too. Since we don't particulaly have access to the data of our own creations, then why bother with IP rights if the data won't be backed up? What good is IP rights and ownership, I remember awhile back we had to agree to a new TOS which stated we owned our creations.

So what's the point? The TOS itself is a little bit of cancelling itself out. Makes aboslutely no sense, whatsoever.

The Grokster case established that it's a valid cover-your-back method

I think maybe they hired a real lawyer .

This isn't about whether they back up your data or not. They just don't want you to be able to sue them in case they screw up.

I agree there is doubletalk, but I think the interpretation goes like this:

You own your idea until LL decides to appropriate your idea. If they never decide to appropriate it, you always own it.

The really interesting question, I think, is whether you can sue another resident who steals your idea. Obviously, because of the TOS, you can't sue LL. But if you design an exploding chicken and somebody else copies your idea, can you sue?

Anybody can sue anybody. So yes, you can sue. but can you win? I doubt it.

Buster

If you own a substantive patent on virtual exploding chickens, have a good lawyer, time, and the geographic means, that answer is probably yes to whether you could win.

Thing of it is, it's not can you sue in cyberspace - it's will you sue. Most virtual goods have a value well below the cost of court fees, airfare, et al. The legal system just isn't practical for arbitrating this kind of thing, which is why it doesn't happen so often.


As for the prospect of an exporter tool, I emailed Phil directly on the subject oh... about six months ago. His response was worded to the effect of "so long as it doesn't circumvent existing permissions systems, it should be fine."

And I know the OSMP folks came close to pushing one of these out the door as well (cue Eggy). It's not an impossible thing to do; it's more of a necessary evolution. And my opinion is those tools should be free.



On land exports, well... yes. They keep backups as a matter of general DB maintenance in case something blows up at the server warehouse, but to the best of my knowledge, none of them are permanent. Being given the option to store a permanent backup AND be able to restore it at will would be quite nice indeed.

And blaze... "forming a special interest group" on the subject is missing my point. Simply being able to own our data is something everyone should be entitled to in the long run, as is bearing the cost of said data. By that token, everyone should have a say in the matter.

I find starting a thread here and the current steps I'm taking to be far more beneficial than a group - but you're welcome to your opinion.

I think people are confusing Intellectual Property (IP) rights, with plain ol' property rights. IP is the know-how, the technical specs, all the elements of design and ideas which make up a physical (or virtually physical) object. The object itself is not IP.

In SL, you retain your IP rights, however the manifestation of those rights within SL is not protected. You are able to save your textures, save your scripts, and save the data parameters for each prim in your creations already.

Currently, there's no other world - other than SL - where your IP can be assembled to form finished products. It seems you're really asking for simplified method for maintaining your IP and for getting it to and from SL. That method isn't something that LL is obligated to provide in any way, since it's already possible to extract your IP from SL.