asset export a violation of TOS?

Is asset export a violation of TOS?

LL has consistently stated that asset (mesh) export is not possible. The TOS forbids reverse engineering. Would a user developed method of asset export and backup be seen as a violation under this clause?

If so, would a "clean room" implementation of asset export, developed without RE, be acceptable?

Ianal, but I suspect that LL is on shaky legal ground in forbidding reverse engineering in the first place. Isn't RE permitted under "fair use" laws in the U.S.?

http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi

snip: In Sega v. Accolade, the case most often referred to discussing reverse engineering of computer software, the appellate court determined that reverse engineering is a fair use when "no alternative means of gaining an understanding of those ideas and functional concepts exists."

snip: Is reverse engineering legal? Reverse engineering has long been held a legitimate form of discovery in both legislation and court opinions. The Supreme Court has confronted the issue of reverse engineering in mechanical technologies several times, upholding it under the principles that it is an important method of the dissemination of ideas and that it encourages innovation in the marketplace.

snip : The law regarding reverse engineering in the computer software and hardware context is less clear, but has been described by many courts as an important part of software development.

snip: In circumstances involving anti reverse engineering licensing provisions (like our TOS) , courts must first determine whether the enforcement of these provisions within contracts are preempted by federal intellectual property law considerations.

Our IP rights in SL seem to be butting up against LL's prohibition of RE. Interesting. Of course, this could all go away if the software was open sourced.

(yeah, this is a crosspost from HOTLINE. but I'm lookin for community opinion, not just LL opinion)

Considering we supposedly own the content, if we can't export our own hard built assets, then that's just fucking insane.

Especially considering people have complained about vanishing inventory.

Honestly, they won't be able to get anywhere with that. Any serious company that comes along will except some kind of protection on their IP.

I mean really, what kind of disaster recovery plan does SL have? Give me a break.

I think a method of exporting assest on the level that you are hinting at would break the permissions system, and thus the TOS. Whether or not the RE is forbidden, the end product would likely allow exporting of *any* assets (at least that's a definite possibility), enabling content theft etc.

That being said let me know if you need testers

What about assets where you are fully the creator?

Or, why can't you just dump assets that you have modify permission on?

Great point, Are LL's servers backed up off-site, in case a major earthquake made California fall in to the Pacific?

That would be good of course. I just meant that by the way the RE was being described, it sounded like it would be a sort of "crack" to the "cant download resources part" of SL. So I was assuming (rightly or wrongly), that this would leave the system wide open.

The cracker would thus have to have the moral fibre to re-enable the blocking of downloads where the user has no permission. Even if that was the case though, as soon as it became possible to do it, others would probably show up with the full crack a couple of days later.

A lot of assumptions on my part actaully, but not necessarily untrue.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but couldn't they restrict export to the avatar who was named as the object's creator?

Ahh... nope, it's not against the ToS paulie. Asked Philip himself (still have the email) expressly on the reverse engineering thing about six months back. Got an okay so long as said exports don't circumvent the existing permissions systems.

Would love if he'd give a statement to back that up, though.

Easily. Planning to do that myself with an unofficial object that'll be free. Thing of it is, when the solution is open source as mine will be, it's possible (albeit I can make it harder) to just snatch the owner check out of the code.

I got yelled at for this problem several months ago when I released a very simple tool. Some folks decided I was using it to attack their IP rights, when I had jumped through several dozen hoops to make that difficult to happen.

I finally gimped the code. A couple people still hate my guts for that one, though.


Anyway, long story short is yes, it's easy/possible to keep exports in line with the permissions system, or at the very least with Modify rights on an object.

Which would you folks prefer? I'm curious, because I hate being flamed for someone else's "use" of my stuff.

Phew! took a lot of work but I found it:I have petitioned the Supreme Court for an interpretation of this excerpt. As yet, I have not received formal certorari denied, but in private communication, Antonin Scalia asked me "wtf???". I'll keep you posted.

Scalia always asks petitioners "wtf???" in private communications. It's a way of weeding out serious people from dilettantes. The best way to reply, as I have done many times, is to send him back a "RE: wtf???: WTF???!!!" ...and then you'll hear from the Nine Supremes immediately.

I dunno, though, Roberts may change the Rules.