ATTENTION CREATORS! (This can bring your business to a STANDSTILL)

Creators, you may want to re-think the way you set your object permissions. Setting your objects as "modify" is now DEADLY to your business.

With the creation of the new "Prim Copier" I, or anyone else, can take ANY object and copy it exactly, down to the textures (scripts excluded).

My suggestion, for the time being, is to set your objects to no modify. If a customer needs modifying done, simply do it, or charge a small fee if you wish.

Link to the script:

/15/9a/38165/1.html

The script has built in capabilities to make it so that you can only copy items you have created. Since this script is open-source, a simple function deletion will easily remove that restriction, but I will not tell you how. As for copying textures, a simple texture key-getter and texture-setter script can easily do this.


SO: What does this do?
Turns no-copy no-transfer objects into full-blown open source objects which can be reproduced, sold, given away, or transferred in any way or form.
***** If you find out one of your objects has been copied, immediately file an Abuse Report! Also get ahold of LL at: [email]support@secondlife.com[/email] (1-800-860-6990).

Please be careful until a fix or some kind of MORE CONTROLLED restriction is put on this. Of course this is against the ToS, but once one of your objects has been reproduced and has generated money from fradulent sellers, the object can not be deleted because LL will not be able to refund everyone their money!


Here are pictures of things I have replicated (none are being sold, reproduced, or given away, only for demonstrational purposes):

**If you want the chat log, hit me up ingame**

This is quite disturbing, yet not surprising

Does anyone know how this affects 'transfer'?

For example, if you have an object that you purchased and it is copy/mod/no trans - will you be able to use this to change perms to copy/mod/trans?

Juro, basically, the script copies each prim for you! The prim is created by you, and you have FULL RIGHTS OVER IT! There is NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE it has been created by anyone except YOURSELF!

.

It sounds like it's basically a license to steal. Has the creator said anything about it's damaging potential?

yes, Has the author been spoken to directly with these results? I see where a concerned builder has been informed as well as a linden, but what about the author?

Very disturbing to say the least.

Rose Portocarrero
Co-Owner, Dominion Custom Homes

If you did your homework, you'd discover I created a followup script to protect you from these problems AND had taken down the script while it was being built. See here:

/15/e2/40302/1.html

I built an entire suite of tools into No Modify that the creator can place into their objects at discretion. This script set should alleviate (most) of the problems associated with Modify-based permission scripts, allowing you to build that functionality into No Modify without being able to get your stuff copied. Heck, I even waited a week and a half to let the "solution" filter into the community before rereleasing the code. It seems I missed a spot.

So, please - next time check what's been said before you go off on some drama-fest such as this. I will add a link to the script in the original thread if it isn't already there, as well.

Furthermore, this has been and is nothing new. These scripts have been existence for some time, and the creation of the second script was there precisely to alleviate concerns about them entirely. If you would additionally like a copy in-world, feel free to IM me and I can set you up with the goods.

Edit: Huh. The warning was already in the post, even if I hit edit before discovering that. This is just a little careless, then.

I also forgot to mention - the "basic" form of the script actually does compare owner to creator, but that's been no panacea to some people. That was why I went out of my way to create the second set of scripts before releasing a large amount of this.

So, do yourselves a favor - spread the solution if you're seriously concerned. I've been saying it again and again AND given this stuff out to roughly five or more influential builders. It's the best I can do short of cutting off my left arm in fear of stuff like this... and believe me, I don't plan to do that.

Thanks Jeffrey,

And for what its worth, I *did* read your posts, yet was not able to find a clear, concise answer to my question, thus I came here and posed it.

If I sell a good with perms set to: copy/mod/no trans will the new owner, using your script, be able to copy the object and reset perms on the new object to: copy/mod/trans?


Sorry if I'm being a little dense or pessimistic on your creation, but I just want to make sure my ass is covered.

To follow up to a dialog-logoff in-world to the effects of "people can still copy objects," well... yes. This is my fault?

If you're concerned about the problem, be a part of the solution.

You grant these rights when you grant Modify; I've given you the tools to protect yourself by using No Modify and scripting. I'd even discussed this issue with a panel of people, AND the Lindens, before all of this even saw the light of day.

If you refuse to use the tools I provide, or grant Modify since... well... ages ago - you've been putting yourself at risk needlessly. This has been a persistent problem that I feel I have personally addressed to the extent of my power.

So please - tell me what further I can do? Not release code in fear? While I use as much discretion as I can for limiting abuse like this, you can only protect yourself if you're willing to do so.

bahhh.. I'm confused, Jeffrey.

Don't take offense, please... I know you aren't doing this with malicious intent. It's just that, as we all know, there are a few out there who *might* use this above and beyond its intended purpose.

Anyway.. I fully intend to be part of the solution, I just was not aware of any potential problem. This is the first I've heard of it, even though it has been available in another form for over a year (or something like that).

I give my customers the following perms: copy/mod/no trans

This allows them to buy one copy of an object from me.. fiddle with it (retexture, tint, etc) and if they mess it up, drag out another copy. But, they cannot transfer it. That was my only saving grace from someone taking my creation and duplicating it a thousand times and selling it.

I just need to know if I need to take action (using your scripts or something else) to cover my ass.

So, can you tell me -

If I sell a good with perms set to: copy/mod/no trans will the new owner, using your script, be able to copy the object and reset perms on the new object to: copy/mod/trans?

Yes/No is good... and then I can come see you for a fix. Thanks!

Just a simple question? What about all the items that have been previously sold with modify rights with them...just kind of "out of luck" with them?

Yes. The key to others' work is the Modify permission - you essentially grant others to tamper, break apart, or otherwise reassemble your work. I've tried lobbying the Lindens with the No Transfer problem as well... and failed. This is again relevent to dialog, because I vehemently petitioned for fixes on this very issue from responses given to me.

So, folks can be mad at me as much as they'd like, can plaster me to an iron cross and burn me for all I care - I've done everything I personally know both to get the issue on the ticket and get it resolved so we can see some good features out there.

And if you're wondering why I'm coming off as a bit irritable, long day.

Yep. You grant this kind of liability when you set any object as "Modify," and it is discretionary. If the fact this is less "clear" to some people is a problem in your opinion, the Lindens should pop up a warning when you grant these permissions.

This is why many content creators, for some time now in fact, have granted "No Modify" on their objects. For those that feel they cannot - typically, the "modify permissions" groups (furries, mechs, weapons dealers, etc) - I actually targetted these groups specifically in where I could offer the "fix" and offered a decent "grace period" for doing so.

Furthermore, I refuse to allow this script to copy textures - another "major" thing in its own way, and one that the thread starter gives a false impression on. I also just removed a minor texture transgression from another script entirely, as this is in many ways a tangent problem that, again, should be brought to the Lindens.

At any rate, this issue had died down - and it will again, because it's been there for quite some time. If you feel you've been "robbed" in this respect, because you've both granted the liabilities mentioned AND had someone do this to you, please contact a Linden. If anything, a small loss in sales might actually get them to frontline the issue and FIX it at their level - something which I, alone, am unable to do.

*pours Jeffrey nice frosty cold beer*

No problem Jeffrey... I don't shoot the messangers.


This brings up a thought though.. if I set every prim in the object to copy/mod/no trans... I wonder if they'd still retain the 'no trans' aspect. I'll have to investigate.

Typically, permissions are retained on a prim-by-prim basis. However, the Lindens changed this more recently so the master prim dictates the permissions of the children. Make note of that.

Yes.. good point. That's how I've been setting my perms is via the parent prim. I'll have to log in and do some testing on this.

Thanks for your help Jeffrey!

Well yes and no. The house you made that is copy, mod, no trans will still be copy, mod, no trans. Unfortunately right next to it will be an exact duplicate that is copy, mod, trans and list their name as creator and not yours. To avoid this people are going to have to either start making things no mod, which will be a total butt pain for things like houses and furniture or use some kind of scrip Jeff wrote, which is the anti-script to his copying script. Though I guess the object would still have to be no-mod or you could jsut delete the anti-script. Oh well, I'm outta business.

I wonder if I'm getting through to anyone other than Juro here, or if this is just some pointless tirade and drama thread.

Let me reiterate this one, from the top.

1) You should be selling your stuff No Modify, especially for things like furniture and houses. Since a user can still take multiple items with them as the "house," that's not a problem.

2) It is not an "anti-script." It is a solution which utilizes features already available. If you have no idea what it does, ask.

3) As for furniture, you might be greatly pleased at what the Permissions Suite has to offer. It's a dialog-driven modify interface that would honestly make furniture a snap to modify.

I'm sorry folks, but if the only way to get through to people is responding to drama with logic, so be it.

State what you are trying to "get through" in one sentence and I will tell you if it sunk in or not.

I was doing so already. See above post. ^

So what you are telling me then is that a item with modify that has a texture could be copied (item only) but not the texture? Thanks for the clarification! Mash

No problem. If I didn't already address this problem a month ago and have a relatively good week, I'd be jaded right about now.

Nope, its not getting through. And I'm not being funny either.

First off I am not selling houses no mod. I have a life and I refuse to spend all day modifying people's houses. I refuse to buy objects that are no mod and I would be a hypocrite to sell them that way. And about jewelry? That stuff takes hours to make and is complex as hell. If its no mod people are going to have to what? Change their body shapes to fit into the jewelry?

Secondly, this is my understanding. While mod objects could be copied at first someone would have to go through the effort of changing the values on every prim to match the ones I made and its location. Which for a 100 prim house would probably take them almost as long as it took me to build it. Now with your nifty little script they can just pop it in and wham, instant copy? Am I right?

Also their is a way of preventing this, that you explained in some long post somewhere with many links. I am curious on how exactly you stop people from using your script other than making things no mod.

Script number two fixes this exact problem - by granting "modifiability" without the ability to add scripts to the object. This uses No Modify, however.


Partly. It actually takes no more effort than deft use of llGetPrimitiveParams, something built into LSL itself. This is not an "exploit" since it has reasonable uses, but on the other hand, user understanding may have made up for that with its own problem.

To be quite blunt, any scripter with half a grasp of LSL has been able to do this for quite some time, and in some cases have. The only difference is in the means of publication.

I did my best to make a "proactive" solution to the problem. That time has passed.


Failsafes are built into the original script. Some people felt these were flimsy, which is why I went and tackled the problem in its entirety with the second fix.

And I apologize for my "is this getting through to (you)." That was low of me, but it goes leaps and bounds to showing how frustrated I can be by this sort of (needless) backlash.

I would say this is apropos, however: