Permissions discussion where it should be

Start of Version 2 Permissions Plan

Before posting version 2, I wanted to sum up concerns with version 1 and raise some proposed solutions. I also wanted to stick the discussion in the correct forum location.

Concern: Creators forced to use wrappers
New proposal: Creators can choose when or if a wrapper is breakable and this information is available to buyers and in searches. So, to continue to use the current permissions system, simply choose to never let wrappers be breakable. On the other hand, those who want to experiment with more open methods can allow wrappers to be immediately breakable, or choose a time period before expiration.

Concern: Creators forced to use Creative Commons or public domain
New proposal: Allow creators to use Creative Commons/PD as an alternate method for distributing content but keep current permission options available within the full (c) option

Concern: Want to keep copy/no trans and unique object options
New proposal: Keep existing permissions options as part of the full (c) option. So, (c) effectively becomes the current permissions system plus a wrapper that creators control (see first point).

Concern: Illegal copying too easy
New proposal: This breaks down into a few areas. For scripts, the new proposal helps this by making it easier to keep script text hidden. For textures, change the texture preview to either not display the texture at full resolution if you don’t have copy permissions on it or display with an overlay. Continue fixing bugs in the current system. For geometry, put the wrappers under creator control (see first point).

Concern: Converting content will be impossible/error prone/break existing content
New proposal: Much like the second point, keep the existing system (with bug fixes) and add CC/PD as another option rather than changing the base permissions. Existing content would gain wrappers, but they would default to the “never be breakable” state. This would allow creators to convert the content that they wanted to less restrictive permissions but would default to the status quo.

So, to sum up, the direction the version 2 proposal is taking is “fix flaws in current permissions and give creators additional ways to share content if they want to.” It actually isn’t all that different from the original proposal, but has the key -- and, on review, completely correct -- change that creators get to choose how they share their creations. Thanks again to everyone who has taken the time to ponder these issues. Your feedback has been very helpful and is definitely making this proposal better.

Good evolution, Cory.

what the heck are 'wrappers'?

Cory, while we're discussing the impact of permissions on a global, societal level, I would like to remind everyone of an old feature i had proposed a long time ago: "Lindens, give us a public domain" (/13/67/8229/1.html)
Didn't you guys once state that in the long run, the current shared library in our inventory should be able to hold player contributions?
Well, do it!
Basically, we could have a central repository for items that have been given a time-delayed breakable wrapper, or explicitly put into the public domain, or have otherwise been made freely distributable under some other license.
If someone left the game, items they had created with appropriately permissive licenses would end up at this big public library instead of the trash can.
Imagine, we could have volunteers sorting items into categories, and voting on whether an item is useful for the library or too trivial to use. We could have voluntary donations as well.
I believe that it would be very advantageous to everyone if we could have an in-world, easily accesible way of sharing knowledge, such as sample scripts, or donated material for the ongoing effort of documenting SL history, or anything else really. Notecards with building tutorials. Sample skins or eye textures. Free clothing templates.
Sort of like the bazaar, but organized like our inventory.

This revised permissionsystem is a very good compromise, Cory. I can't think of any cases (so far ) that may be a problem. In fact, now I'm looking forward to experimenting with the licenses and possibilities that they offer.

Thank you!

Thanks for reposting that idea, Eggy. Need to think about how best to implement it, but a library of donated content (especially if it could be rated) is a great idea.

Thanks for the update Cory!

I'm very new, but in RL I am 'creative' for a living (all different kinds of stuff). One of the thinsg I like best about SL is that I can spend time and effort in making things I want and maybe be rewarded. I've been out of town for a few weeks and catching up to this huge thread did have me scared!

Now I feel much better and I'm excited again about spending time and money in SL. It's not the details of your post, but tht you are listening to the folks!

I'd like to say that as a 'creative pro' I feel that CC and open source projects hurt small independent creators. It's a growing problem for many of us in RL and I think it'll eventually lead to less creativity.

When I started playing SL just a few weeks ago I wanted to make myself a flying broom. I quickly saw that the free scripts were going to to give me a 'vehicle' that was pretty poor. That didn't make me mad though. I was glad to see that the money in the game was worth something. I'd have to take the time and learn to write good scripts myself, or earn the money to pay somebody. Maybe I could to pay someone for some classes in scripting. That didn't make my selfish-free-stuff-lovin'-inner-self happy, but it did make me hopeful about a world where the content was created by the members!

I haven't built a lot in SL yet so I don't have the reputation of Cubey or Psyrra, but I want to make my own point of view clear as a new creator who is currently atrracted to spending time in SL.

The current system has real problems. I find it *very* confusing for a non-techy newbie even with the many examples threads and help files.

I don't mind support for CC type permissions, but I'd also like to see options where finer control is given to the creators and is easier to use. Just a long list of very clear options with the exact permissions all laid out would be easier for me than the mix of checkboxes. Also, as others have said, some defaults, and a way to change all the permissions of things inside a folder at the same time would be very helpful!

Thanks a million, Cory. It's so gratifying to be involved with a company that actually listens and addresses our concerns. I think giving creators more options to protect their content and also providing means to allow us to distribute our creations in more open ways will give us the best of both worlds. The second draft pretty much takes care of all my major concerns, and all the reasons a lot of us have been asking for an overhaul of permissions in the first place. Kudos!

So fair use is back up to the creator? I'd estimate that a majority of the time creators will choose no-wrapper. So I'm back to being stuck with a red car when I wanted a blue one.

I think a basic inherent right exists to modify the following:
- object name & description
- color
- texture
- texture settings (scale, offset, transparency, shiny, bump, etc)

I can't see how any harm can come to modifying these settings.

I doubt very many people will opt for the wrapper, and we're stuck with no fair use rights in the majority of cases.

Taking into consideration that you're willing to accept the old permissions system into the new system, here is what I now propose:

I no longer see the point of discrete licenses as there would be too many permissions combinations.

Simply have two lists, with a robust set of permissions for each:

Next owner starts with:
_[ ] (ts) allow transfer for sale
_[ ] (tf) allow transfer for free
_[ ] (cp) allow copy
_[ ] (mg) allow modify geometry
_[ ] (ms) allow add/remove script assets from contents
_[ ] (ma) allow add/remove non-script assets from contents

and can then unwrap to:
_[ ] (ts) allow transfer for sale
_[ ] (tf) allow transfer for free
_[ ] (cp) allow copy
_[ ] (mg) allow modify geometry
_[ ] (ms) allow add/remove script assets from contents
_[ ] (ma) allow add/remove non-script assets from contents

An unwrapped object always has inherent modify rights granted to the owner:
- name
- description
- color
- texture (and texture numericals)
- flags: lock, physics, temporary on rez, phantom
- material type

Legacy objects should be considered unwrapped, with the appropriate checkboxes selected.

ie:

mod/copy/trans: ts tf cp mg ms ma
mod/copy/notrans: cp mg ms ma
mod/nocopy/trans: ts tf mg ms ma
nomod/copy/trans: ts tf cp
nomod/copy/notrans: cp
nomod/nocopy/trans: ts tf
mod/copy/trans/free-to-copy: tf cp mg ms ma

Kex, never assume on something that is untested.

Excellent. Thank you for calrifying and being patient with my and other players' rantings and misconceptions about the new system.

And thanks for listening and implementing the changes the players want!

LF

Why would a content creator give up some of their power and choose to allow a wrapper if it's optional?

Thanks, Cory

I think it is a good idea to have "iron wrappers" as they were called in the other thread as an option for creators. If I could change one thing in the current system, it would be to add a transfer option where someone who buys something can make copies, but if they transfer the object, all instances in their inventory and owned by them in-world would be deleted. That would be really cool. I am guessing the new system will allow this.

But it should be optional, i.e. the current no-transfer idealogy, so that (for example) we have the capability of preventing jerks from screwing naiive customers over by selling our content to them at a markup. Someone did that with content I created once and I felt pretty angry about it. Not only did someone make L$250 from work that I did without my permission, but a customer had to pay ripoff prices (2x what I charge.)

It is very good that items will indicate exactly what kind of wrappers and licenses they are under. It's the best of both worlds - creators get to select the level of protection their content enjoys, and buyers get to vote with their wallets if they don't care for a particular permission set.

With regards to modifying textures, colors, etc., I think these should be given their own flags. "Modify/No Modify" is sort of blunt. I think it would be terriffic to specify these:

1. Unlink
2. Scale
3. Change Textures
4. Change Colors
5. Add to Inventory
6. Copy Out of Inventory (individual flag for each asset)

This would put a very fine grain on what was allowed. I think a lot of people use No Modify, but only need some of the protection afforded by it.

Bravo, Cory!!!!

Feedback was obviously heard, analyzed, and synthesized into this new proposal, and at first glance, seems to address most, if not all, of the primary concerns the community had.

- Ace

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would do it out of interest of seeing my work improved upon.

Heh Huns, I think you just suggested essentially the same thing I did. I'm glad we're converging on this at least. I'd definitely opt for even more detailed mod permissions if they were possible. =)

A good reason for discrete transfer-sell and transfer-give permissions.

I agree with this concept in general, but I seriously hope that most creators are not such control freaks that they intentionally disallow customizing something as trivial as color, and I hope they allow using the wrapper to make copies whenever it's obvious it will do no harm to permit it.

One thing that immensely frustrates me is clothing sold nocopy/transfer. I hope there is some strong incentive in this system to encourage clothing makers to loosen up and offer their stuff with a wrapper to let the customer opt to make it copyable.

Good suggestions for extra mod bits; some I didn't think of (unlink and scale) in my list earlier in this thread.

Cory, your revised proposal looks great to me so far. Thank you, especially for moving on this so quickly (we know how busy you are) so we could stop flippin' out.

I like Eggy's idea, too.

Why does anyone choose CC or PD in the real world? Altruism.

This rocks. ^^

After looking at the first version, I figured a few things I made would be nice to have in that system, /but/ the majority would become unsellable in it for me. This allows the best of both worlds.

BRAVO!

Edit: I would love to see a listing of "price history" set on an object marked For Sale. This would allow people to tell if someone has vastly marked up a product's original price for resell.

In addition to Huns' idea for modify, I'd like to add "Rename" as an option. I like to collect anims and I name them so they line up nicely in my inventory. Such as 'Dance - Kick Loop', 'Dance - Saturday Night' et al. When I get a nomod 'Raindance' dance, I cannot rename it and it's stuck way down in the R's on the alphabetical list. x.x

if this isn't possible, then at least allow us to make an "alias" name instead that would show up in our inventory list. Sort of a 'Windows Shortcut' type of thing. :>

'Shortcuts' would be nice in themselves... allowing multiple outfits to use a single article of clothing without having to move a no-copy clothes item back and forth through your directories to be able to wear it on all your outfits.

I fully suport Kex's and Hun's flags. The flags should be organized into groups with a leading checkbox to select all of the attributes in the group. What would be considered to be fair use attributes would not have a leading checkbox and would require the creator to uncheck them (making it a minor hastle to restrict fairuse ).

Shortcuts are a good idea.

No. People have been asking for the ability to make a 'default' set of permissions for their own use for a while now. Lets not piss them off by forgetting about them while we restructure the permissions system.

i would like to add to the props for cory GJ on listening. and PLEASE have as many flags as nessessary to allow the most versitile of modify options. also maby even add a cost to unwrap if you want to unwrap a no copy/modify to a copy/mod,. it will cost "X". this would allow those who need 1 of an item to pay less and those who want 20 to pay, break the seal, and not have to search for the vendor. (if the vendor/creator has it set) gj guys on all the suggestion!

I agree. This gives greater flexibility while simultaneously addressing the Moral Rights issues I mentioned on Cory's blog (protecting artists' work from being "ruined" by alterations).

also kex

let the people decide, (wrappers) i am sure with the added choice your damn car would have mod color or whatever. but there are people who might want their texture un tainted, object untouched. with the options you as a buyer can always go to the next guy who might want your buisness a little more and give those prims.

disclaimer - this is not a flame ;^)

default permissions, thats a good idea. Make it so you can make your own permission presets with a dropdown list of different presets. Have it so you can select a different preset for each inventory type to set as default as well. This way you don't have to check a million check box's a million times, just select the preset you want. (don't have to be so confrontational, your ideas are good and it doesn't do them justice)

Still don't think it should have a leading checkbox