Making inappropriate copying more difficult

1.5.6 is continuing as our primary focus, but I thought that I'd put up some additional thinking. A theme that has come up again and again, and one that is orthogonal to permissions so it deserves its own thread, is ways to protect creations from easy copying. I wanted to collect the thinking so far and apply it to the various assets within SL. It also, I think, clarifies what assets can tolerate modify permissions without creating easy copy methods.

So, for modify-no copy assets:

Textures
- Don't display full resolution textures in texture preview and/or . . .
- Display textures with transparent SL overlay
- Obfuscate UUIDs to prevent script driven copying

Body Parts/Clothing
- Don't show numerical values in the appearance menus so that owner can change clothing but not copy by inspection
- Don't show textures associated with clothing/body part at full resolution

Scripts
- Give creator the option of closed source (c) that means that owner can't see the script text, even if she can remove the script

Notecards
- For notecards used to drive script behavior, allow hidden notecards that the owner can never see the text

Animation and audio
- You can't edit these in world, so modify permissions don't really apply

Objects
- Don't show numerical values in the object edit dialogs and block script driven object information queries
- Protect assets that make up objects, such as textures, scripts and inventory, as described above

This doesn't completely protect objects, although it means that you'd be forced to use the time intensive methods that others have described using against objects already. It certainly makes them significantly harder to copy.

Would these changes make you, as creators, consider making more modify-nocopy assets?
For the owners, would you purchase modify assets over no-modify assets or does this not really matter to you?

I like all the ideas listed, but have a question on the objects section.

If the numerical values aren't visable, then the object isn't truely modable, is it? Or would touching a value make it visible again? I guess the same thing applies to the apearance controls for clothing and body parts, though perhaps there, since the numbers themselves aren't that important, they can remain hidden.

If an object is modify, then most likely the creator wants it to be completely modifiable. With all the new script features that let us control the complete apearance of a prim, it's possible to script-in a lot of customizability.

I would suggest, however, a separate modify flag for objects that allows for texture/color changes but not structural changes. Many people would like to re-texture or color coordinate their purchases, while not neccessarily pulling them apart. Scale might also be allowed. So with this alternate semi-mod state they could resize and recolor/texture, but not unlink or get at the individual prims' sizes or numbers.

If I make a cheap piece of furnature that is moddable, I want to grant full moddability.
If I make a vehicle, I'd like them to be able to re-texture, but not unlink.

This is the crux of the matter for me. More expensive purchases are what is of interest... a $50 piece of furniture is not a big deal... a customer wants to change it, whether color, size or even shape....good for them. Most of my stuff like that is meant to be dissected by new people.

OTOH, a vehicle that is just the wrong color? Hell, I would much rather have the customer "waste" his or her time getting the thing to look the way he or she wants - instead of my time, which then turns the sale into a custom thing and drives the price up. But I would prefer not to have them unlink my stuff that I am trying to protect.

Let's take a step back and see through this proposal to the deeper issue that lies beyond.
LL wants people to be able to "tinker".
Well, I contend that LL's view is biased by them being geeks, and that most "normal" people do not want to "tinker", they want to socialize, and have everything handed to them in a silver platter.
And those who do want to "tinker" can find a plethora of free, fully-permissive content to play with. So this is a solution looking for a problem.
FWIW, I too would like to let people TEXTURE my furniture, and maybe SCALE it, but certainly not unlink it, or they would come to me whining that they broke it and therefore it's all my fault and they should get a new copy...

Why not combine the two and expand it to just add a 'Hidden' flag to individual objects within an object? Basically make either the presence of a script completely invisible, or make the script visible, but not what it's called or any other sort of information about it.

Personally I'd also like the ability to make a nomod/nocopy/notransfer script inside of an object, but I've always been a bit of a dreamer.



I think that the proposed permission systems we've been discussing, reduced to a fine enough control, will be enough. If I can give someone the ability to scale an object, but do nothing else, then I think that'll be enough control and will do precisely what you're wanting to do.

As for my position as an "owner" of objects (though I dispute that my having the object in my inventory immediately means I own the object), I've rarely wanted to change anything about objects, and just wished that LSL calls existed that would allow the objects to basically adjust themselves. (i.e. Glasses' earpieces stretching back far enough to actually go over my ears, handlebars on bikes moving to match my hands (or my hands moving to match the handlebars)) Creators usually offer to adjust their creations to match your avatar for free or for a small fee, which is perfectly acceptable to me.

i think audio and animations need to be considered in the whole permissions question because modify permissions do apply. if it's mod you can rename it to "haha i made this and you didn't nyah nyah nyah" are resell it as your own, right? i have a half dozen differently named copies of animations i got from various places.

i agree with Eggy about the tinkering thing except i feel if someone wants to tinker they're prolly going to make the thing themselves and then permissions aren't an issue.

and if you hide the numbers in a piece of clothing or a shape or skin, how is it modifyable?

I'm assuming that you mean something like llGetPrimitiveParams... so what about legitimate uses for them? I think it would be better in nomodify objects to just lock the inventory and keep new scripts from being added. This will kill anychance of such functions being used for evil.

The short answer is not really.

The only time that I worry about having modify permissions if I'm buying something is if it's something like furniture and I want to be able to match the color/texture/size to other things I have already. If I could do that for more objects, I'd be really happy. And if I could have a "revert to original state" type button where it would reset the scale/color/texture to the values that it had when I first obtained it, that would be even better.

-Meiyo

I've had this (whining that they broke it) (unlinked) and having to replace my prefab houses. So I began to make them not-modifiable and then I get complaints that they can't change the textures. I like the idea of being able to change textures but not unlink the item.

Wait... I just re-read some of this..

Are you proposing that even full-mod objects have their data obscured?

No no NO. Bad idea. Extreme over reaction. If I set something to full mod, it's because I want them to see the numbers and such!

Clarification, if an object is attached, I'd like to see its position, size numbers, but if its a linked set, I should not be able to see individual prims in that linked sets numbers?

I agree with most of whats being said here. I wouldn't mind if someone textured the object, or changed the overall size of a linked set, but I would not want them to be able to delink or see individual values of the prims in the linked set.

Maybe a GUI or LSL option to set what exactly you don't want No-Modify?

Hmm...

1. Modify
   1. Retexture/Recolour or tint
      
   2. Scale
      
   3. Link/prim type
   
   
2. Copy
   
3. Transfer

So you could have an object where the consumer could recolor it, but not change the size or unlink/add/change prims. Or retexture and resize it but not add, remove or change prims. Or total modifiability.

No adding scripts without all three mods on. Which still leaves a way to bypass the copy bit and thus the transfer bit...

I like this suggestion. But I'd also want Link/Unlink to be separate from Prim type. Since we can still change prim types and scale them even if they're linked.

Hey Cory,

totally different idea here -

Have you considered having a mode in the permissions (or default) that when an owner tries to change permissions, a pop-up window (like accept item) comes to the creator, asking for copyright permissions, which could be subsequently accepted or denied?

brainstorm idea, etc etc

Well, I think that they should enable true physical interaction between avies is all.

Then anyone copies my stuff, I can quite literally go and kick the sh!t out of 'em.

*suddenly wants Havok 2 and ragdoll physics*

Would you believe they've been talking about Havok 2 since beta? I'm popping a champagne bottle when the last of their ancient promises is fullfilled. You're all invited

Uh... Havok 3 is imminent for the rest of the world.

Why would you celebrate the eventual implementation of outdated technology?

I figured if you're gonna let them mod individual prims, why not let 'em break them up, too? Not that I'd resist a fourth moddability stage. I do love having options

'cuz it's less outdated then the currently avaiable technology?

Uh... you know... because it's better than what we have now oO
I wonder if they could move straight to Havok 3

Ok, yes. It's better than what we have now, but as you say, Eggy, it would surely be better to go with the latest version than to already be obsolete before its implemented.

Personally I think the stance should be 'we will implement whatever version of Havok is current when we finally get round to implementing it'. If they ever get round to it, that is.

<<whining>>

Do the posters who use this word realise how contemptuous it sounds? If you come across as regarding other players with such contempt, it makes you sound really arrogant, and I would hope that wasn't the impression you wanted to give.

*yawn*

Oh, quit whining Selador! Just deal with it - it's only a game for chrissakes. If you don't like it, then leave, you troll!

You people are way too uptight. Lindens - please delete this thread. Jeez.

(Was that all of them?)

Uhhh, no sorry. I dont realize anything too semantical about the english language. I just use the words that I see being used, and well, whining is pretty much an internet standard :|
And Kris, while I would love for them to go with Havok 3, they apparenlty begun the move to Havok 2 a long time ago. I hope they are making it more version-agnostic or something, so it will be easier to move to Havok 3 later...

Calm down hun... come and sip some green tea with me.. maybe practise some yoga... and um... iono.. eat cake?

You SO missed the point of that, Willow

(hint: look at Seladors signature)

Now GET BACK TO YOUR OWN THREAD(S), TROLL! This is a serious discussion!

*looks round at all the angry faces*

*runs out behind Willow*