New Object Permission: No Script

After reading the responses to my present Prim Mirror Script, here, I realized that there's a very valid case to be made for people that wish their objects to be "Modify" but not with the ability to run any (new) scripts therein. This applies to several builds which invite the user to modify properties for appearance, such as many articles of clothing, as well as Modifiable homes.

Furthermore, people are increasingly fearful of having their artistic talents "stolen" in this manner, moreso because of my recent release. I believe these are valid concerns, but speaking to the issue directly, it's been around presumably as far as beta. While there is no feasible way of preventing people from "copying by numbers" short of doing that at the backend, there's good reasoning for preventing scripts from being added to certain builds that are intended as quite the reverse!

So, for those reading this, even if you have nothing to add, I implore you to Respond Here, because LL has in the past shown dedication to addressing problems where the community as a whole has spoken with one voice.

Wee! Another box to click . STAMP.

Oh, boy, I'm stepping into it now.

I vote "Nay", respectfully, for much the same reasons that I'm voting against the proposal to make No Mod Object = No Remove Script.

I think that is is, or rather should be, a basic consumer right to take apart the things that they have bought in SL, and recombine them in new and unforseen ways. The actions of a consumer and their use of a product may be vastly different from what the product's creator intended.

I believe that this should include the ability to remove a script from an object and attempt to use it elsewhere.

I believe that a person should be able to take an object, insert new scripts into it, and give it unintended added functionality.

Disassembly, reassembly, recombination. If I own scripted objects, I should be able to do these things. Besides representing Fair Use of my items, this is often for many the beginning of creativity. Just like taking apart dad's watch to see how the gears work, and later in life becoming an engineer, it is often by taking things apart that we begin to see how things operate, rather than trying to build a watch with no previous knowledge or experience.

I think you have a point, but also think you're missing the point of the permission. What about people that blatantly use scripts to copy others' work directly, via texture key, prim settings, ad infinitum? Note in many cases, this also screws with No Copy.

I suppose another way to do it would be to have No Copy objects be unable to read llGetPrimitiveParams. It's just, well... a really difficult issue.

Jeff, I disagree that I am missing the point. I recognize fully that the danger of your new script is the possibility of copying items wholesale. It is the equivalent of mass-producing the backwards engineering of a great deal of content from SL. It potentially gives people the ability to buy single copies of items, and then put out exact duplicates of that item for sale at bargain prices, or even free.

I still am not in favor of curtailing the rights of individuals to interact with their objects in the ways that I describe, because this has legitimate uses. I also think that creators in SL should not be able to so narrowly dictate how, when, if their objects may be used, except if they are able to do so by scripted means. I'm even against this, in many cases, but would not presume to tell a scripter how they may or may not script their objects, even if they regularly "boobytrap" them against my tampering.

I'll go out on a limb and make two predictions:

1. You are not the first person to write a script that allows one to copy other objects (or mirror them) wholesale, but you are the first to release the code. I'd bet $500L that one of the other coders in SL has done this before, but after considering the possibilities of (mis?)use for the script, quietly pocketed it and left it to be largely unknown. You did release your script, which either makes you very brave to push the social and in-world "legal" boundaries of what is acceptable behavior or not, or makes you incredibly callous for disregarding the dangers of your script and releasing it despite the bad things which can be done with it. Understand that I am not arguing for you to be disciplined in any way for creating this script, but if you release it in an opensource form you will be setting the stage for other lesser coders to un-nerf it and pass it on to the world at large. The users of the script will ultimately be the ones on the frontier of TOS/CS behavior, and their actions will definitely resound with LL when people start being able to make wholesale copies of valued items in SL.

2. The Lindens have been anticipating, perhaps dreading just such a script. Once is made, it cannot be un-made, and the only thing left will be to either say that content creators cannot expect protection from mass-quantity copying of their items, EVEN IF the items were set as no-copy. Some noticeable changes, either to the TOS or to the existing permissions system will have to be made, and the main question will wind up being which way they decide to handle the situation; either by taking away currently-existing abilities(rights?) of item owners, or to revise the TOS/CS to include a "Big Seven". Number Seven, of course, would be "Blatantly copying another person's items, either by hand or by scripted means.

First of all, thank you for the well-thought out response. I'm certainly not here to insult your intelligence - quite the reverse.

However, right off the bat, the easiest recourse here is to set your object as No Modify. No ifs, ands, or buts - this permission prevents any and all tampering using conventional means, including copying by numbers. This isn't even up for debate, fortunately, because if it was the script would not be "out there" to begin with.

Second, the irony is the release is for something completely, and utterly, different than copying objects. Rather, it's a mirror - and, while you know this, for those that have absolutely no idea how they got here, it makes a mirror image of any prim, which coupled with patience, modify permissions, and nuking my failsafe, could be abused. It's been done before - but, as stated, was "swept into the corner."

Much in the same way you formulate your argument, so do I form mine - I felt the net good of such a release, as it makes perfect "mirror images" of complex builds that people would have trouble doing by hand, was greater than the marginal problems it may cause. In the same light, I likely am testing my bounds as a freeware scripter - and since I never publish bugs here, it's safe to say that I work on what can legitimately be done with LSL and permissions. I even went so far as to poll residents, both in-world and in-forum, as well as talked with a few Lindens.

So, the real problem is not oh no, I have no recourse to protect myself from this! The problem is some people need modify in some form, yet need protection from the possibility of copy fraud. I sympathize with this, even though I build nothing that I'm afraid of releasing as "modify." Furthermore, Copy-by-Numbers does circumvent "No Copy," as stated, assuming a person is vigilant enough to attempt to copy things full-force. This is a definite problem, and again, there is absolutely nothing new here.

As such, what is so different between "No Modify" and "No Script" as to "preventing objects from being taken apart?" If scripts could be removed from these objects marked "No Script," not be added similar to what No Modify does, BUT allow linking to other objects which could take scripts, would this suffice? That sounds like win-win to me, so long as the original build can't take scripts. Again, alternately, we could just nerf llGetPrimitiveParams in No Copy objects.

In the meantime, because there is still adequate recourse to preventing copying, the script remains at my end. If, on the other hand, someone discovers a means to which there is NO protection to this, I will be glad take it down immediately.

well, jeff i have you very high in my heart, the problem is that this script can be easily modified to make a quick and automatic duplicator, ok itsnot affecting you, and you have out a lil security in it, but it is pointless in opensource project, the purpose of opensource is to allow others to see what you did and modify it as it fit to them

My thrill in SL is to build very detailed and complicated attachments, i need to let ppl modify it, mainly because since i build em on my body, it will, of course, barely fit to anybody else.

Your tool helped me greatly to finish my object of course, but what scientist said when they discovered atom splitting ?

I'm inclined to say no to this.
Look at past permissions threads for why. Try the feature feedback forum.