I got this response:
If someone can read a notecard they can copy it by hand, sniff network packets, or extract it from the disk, so we will probably never attempt to separate read from copy. People have been managing to make money with books through social and legal controls even though books have been trivially copyable for a long time now. There are even examples of authors that make a living while simultaneously encouraging people to copy and distribute their works, for example, Cory Doctorow.
I'm not happy with this - because it demonstrates a double standard in that other trivially copyable assets like textures are not copyable within the SL client using standard means, yet any readable notecard can be copied using CTRL-C no matter what permissions the creator has set on it.
Textures, for example, can be copied from SL by using a screen capture program. Thus, it is arguably futile to try to stop people transferring/copying textures in SL as they can just use a screen capture program to do so. Yet, I cannot copy a no-copy texture, nor transfer a no-transfer one using the normal means in SL. So, clearly, despite the fact they are trivially copyable by other means, they do get some measure of protection against obvious, easy copying in the client.
Similarly, there is copy-protection for scripts in that one can make them unreadable, to prevent people typing them out or using screenshots to copy them, or using CTRL-C on them. They too get basic anti-copy protection in the SL client, despite being really nothing more then server-parsed notecards.
Notecards, in order to be useful, have to be readable by the person you send them to. The trick is to make them readable without being trivially copyable.
To that end, I propose that copy, mod and transfer permissions should be required on a notecard before you can copy text out of it using the control-c keyboard shortcut.
The reason is simple :
* requiring mod permissions stops people from copying the text out for the purpose of making derrivative works, which, after all, is the entire point behind the modify permission.
* requiring copy permission stops people from copying the text out for the purpose of making copies of it in other notecards, which, after all, is the point behind the copy permission.
* requiring the transfer permission stops people from copying the text out into another notecard, or even a notepad document, and sending that to someone else, thus getting around the 'transfer' permission entirely.
Without requiring all 3 permissions to copy text from a notecard, all permissions on notecards are effectively pointless as any notecard that can be read can be copied, modified and distributed.
My question is this : given that you clearly do think other "trivially copyable" assets DO deserve some level of copy protection that can't be beaten in 5 seconds using copy and paste.... why do you treat notecards so differently?
Why not afford them basic protection that you give textures, and make the SL client refuse to copy something that is clearly marked 'no copy'?
Why not honour the intentions of notecard creators to have notecard which are readable but not trivially copyable using CTRL-C?
I don't want to appear harsh here. I have nothing against Phoenix or any other Linden, nor LL as a whole. I wouldn't be in SL if I did. I realise you guys have very limited development time, and that you have to work on the most urgent things first. Thus I am not demanding that my proposal to turn permissions on notecards into something actually useful be implemented immediately - I realise you have other priorities right now. I intentionally designed my proposal to be very easy to implement (put something in the CTRL-C function that stops it working if the target is a notecard on which the owner lacks permissions). I'm drawing your attention to an issue which I feel is neglected, and which does have a relatively simple technical fix.
What I want is an official response from LL that either agrees that notecards need better copy protection, or that explains why the basic protection they offer to, AFAIK, all other asset types is not given to notecards.
How do you justify the different treatment?
IMHO, you can't, and I'm seeking to get an admission that the different treatment is not justified. Given that admission, I will ask when you plan to fix the situation. I don't expect it to be now, however, given that the change is fair and compartively very simple to implement (AFAIK).... I would like to know that you *do* realise it is an issue and that you *do* plan to fix it in reasonable time, especially as the fix is relatively simple.
I apologise if this post seems overly harsh, it is not my intention to be. I realise the Lindens have too little time to deal with everything that needs dealing with. I don't blame Phoenix for giving an inadequate reply that was inconsistent in principle with how LL has been treating other assets (like textures) for a long time now. I realise he/she was just trying to help and I appreciate that - both the trying to help and the commenting on my proposal. I realise that he was probably under a lot of time pressure and did not have the time to really consider the issue in depth before writing his reply, he was just doing his best before going back to work on a more urgent task. Thank you Phoenix for your reply anyway, it was useful in that it exposed probably the main reason why people don't think copy-protection on notecards is a good idea, and allowed me to develop a reply to it.
My two questions for LL are :
1) How do you justify not protecting notecards from trivial copying within the SL client, when you do protect things like textures from the same trivial copying within the SL client? There is no in principle difference between the two of them that justifies this different treatment.
2) Assuming that you can't justify this different treatment (and don't see any way that you can).... when do you plan to fix the situation?
