Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

Permissions discussion where it should be

Moleculor Satyr
Fireflies!
Join date: 5 Jan 2004
Posts: 2,650
10-18-2004 15:34
From: Trifen Fairplay
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!


Ooo. Holy crap, I like that idea. Pay Creator L$ to break wrapper!

That way, if a creator wanted, he could sell one object at a price, and say "If you want more rights to this object, you have to pay X more".

EDIT:
Actually... Hold on... That's an even better idea. Provide TWO permission sets on an object, the initial set, and, if the designer chooses, an additional set that is unlockable by paying money. It doesn't even have to be the wrapper that is involved, a creator could say "Here, have this. If you want full mod/copy/trans rights on this object, pay X more."

Since the breakability of the wrapper would be one of the configurable options, it'd fall under this feature.

EDIT2:
To those of you who are going to read this and freak out, think of it this way. Certain programs on the web are free for non-commercial use. If you wish to use it for commercial use, you have to pay a certain amount of money. I actually think it's something along the lines of a percentage of sales, rather than a lump fee, but lump fees are much more easily implimented in this area. So while someone COULD sell an object for L$100 and L$100 more for rights, they could also sell objects for L$0, and charge L$100 for expanded rights. See?

Of course, all permission changes that could occur through such a purchase would be obviously visible before purchase. I also think that any objects set for sale should reveal their permissions before purchase. That doesn't work for most vendors out there, but I'm sure the community will slowly adapt.
_____________________
</sarcasm>
Meiyo Sojourner
Barren Land Hater
Join date: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 144
10-18-2004 15:43
From: Kex Godel
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'm still with you on this point. I think it helps both the creator and the consumer. If you don't want the end user to have any modify rights whatsoever then just make the wrapper unbreakable. If you want to give the user the ability to modify it enough to suit their needs, with this idea you can without exposing the entire set of specs to anyone who buys it. I feel this is the best solution to giving more Fair Use rights to the consumers. Also, it helps me as a creator cus I don't have to sell 10 different copies of my object in every color in the spectrum just to help prevent being ripped off.

From: Strife Onizuka
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.
Beautiful! :) I was just about to suggest the same thing when I saw your post.

Cory - Thank you for posting this and addressing everyone's concerns.

-Meiyo
_____________________
I was just pondering the immortal words of Socrates when he said...
"I drank what??"
Camille Serpentine
Eater of the Dead
Join date: 6 Oct 2003
Posts: 1,236
10-18-2004 15:47
I don't mean to be dense, but I asked this earlier in the thread and no one responded.

What exactly are 'wrappers"?
I am not following what they would mean for creators or buyers.
_____________________
Moleculor Satyr
Fireflies!
Join date: 5 Jan 2004
Posts: 2,650
10-18-2004 15:52
Oi. Yeah. Cory, could you edit your first post into a complete description of the permission changes? The first post in this thread assumes you read the blog post that is now completely gone.
_____________________
</sarcasm>
Meiyo Sojourner
Barren Land Hater
Join date: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 144
10-18-2004 16:01
From: Camille Serpentine
I don't mean to be dense, but I asked this earlier in the thread and no one responded.

What exactly are 'wrappers"?
I am not following what they would mean for creators or buyers.


In the original proposal, full copyright items were items that were nomod/nocopy/transfer... however, the Wrapper concept was there to give end users a right to Fair Use by allowing them to permenantly change a Full Copyrighted item they got to be mod/copy/no transfer... If I understand correctly the idea was to give more rights and the ability to tinker to the consumers.

-Meiyo
_____________________
I was just pondering the immortal words of Socrates when he said...
"I drank what??"
Strife Onizuka
Moonchild
Join date: 3 Mar 2004
Posts: 5,887
10-18-2004 16:09
I totally support pay-amount-breaks-wrapper. Would be cool to have an object could have hierarchical wrappers. So it could be set up so you could buy the permissions you want as you want them.

This could then be stored in a new inventory type (WIT) so you could copy wrapper's between objects (so that it would be easy to set them up). WIT's could be changed only by the person who associated the WIT with the object, WIT's could be transfered between people and stored in object inventory. An object would be chained to that WIT.

If for some reason you want to read the blog post (which i don't think you should as the new proposal will be out in a few days, and many of the topics covered in it are covered here and we honestly don't need any more confusion) here it is: Blog Backup
_____________________
Truth is a river that is always splitting up into arms that reunite. Islanded between the arms, the inhabitants argue for a lifetime as to which is the main river.
- Cyril Connolly

Without the political will to find common ground, the continual friction of tactic and counter tactic, only creates suspicion and hatred and vengeance, and perpetuates the cycle of violence.
- James Nachtwey
Cereal Milk
Magically Delicious
Join date: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 203
10-18-2004 16:24
From: Cory Linden
So, to continue to use the current permissions system, simply choose to never let wrappers be breakable.

See, it's so simple! Let creators opt into the system if they explicitly choose to. Don't decrease current permissions functionality. It's a no-brainer!

Frankly I don't care what you add to the permissions system as long as you make it opt-in. Your agenda to legislate morality, so to speak, by forcing creator-hostile permissions on existing creations is what a lot of us had a problem with.

I still think the whole permissions overhaul idea is useless, doesn't address any real problem in SL (besides your delusion that there's not enough open-source content or whatever), and creators who opt into it are going to be in for a rough ride with respect to copyright violation. But at least it's not my problem anymore. Thank God for that.

Thanks for listening, Cory, even if it took a chorus of us shouting our grievances repeatedly to accomplish this.
Cory Linden
Linden Lab Employee
Join date: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 173
10-18-2004 16:50
Meiyo pretty much covered it. "Wrappers" are just a name for tracking creator information and introduce the concept of "breaking the wrapper" which means changing the permissions for personal use. The current proposal has the idea that creators can control when or if wrappers can be broken.

The license changes need to be made, for those who missed the townhall, because we need to match licenses with usage.

The "check boxes for everything" plan has the potential to be awfully confusing for the buyer, which would be bad, but might be doable (especially when combined with default permission choices).

The nested wrappers may be more complexity than we need, but "pay to break" is an idea that we had kicked around previously.

Also, a separate idea that had been mentioned is that when a wrapper is broken that the creator gets alerted.

Another way to limit the scope of wrapper breakage would be to allow tinkering but not copying, although this is still vulnerable to the "copy by inspection" technique. I'd be curious to hear from any creators who currently sell modifiable items -- which I know a lot of outfits are -- about what their experiences have been with copying.

Not to start the shouting again, but asserting that any copying is a copyright violation is not consistent with copyright law. Fair use is baked into the law for very important reasons, so we're certainly going to keep thinking about ways to allow it. However, the concerns about copying that *does* violate copyright are well founded and have been heard (hence, plan version 2).

So here's another one to think about -- if creators had a relatively easy method for reporting theft (ie, a dispute resolution option that was easier and faster than DMCA) that would result in significant penalties if your copyrights were being infringed, would the availability of enforcement change your opinions about fair use? This is the real world model, right? Generally, data can be copied but if you hurt the creator (generally hurt is defined as economically but I think that there are valid other hurts) you end up either a) paying the creator money or b) going to jail. So, the SL equivalent could be L$ fines, suspensions or banning.

This obviously isn't going in to plan version 2, but I'd be very interested in your feedback.
Strife Onizuka
Moonchild
Join date: 3 Mar 2004
Posts: 5,887
10-18-2004 17:05
Despite all urges you may have, don't flame Cereal Milk (or me either). We will never all agree, so let the past be the past and not quibble over semantics of previous arguments. Some will argue that fair use should be protected as it's in the copyright law; others will refuse to acknowledge it and try and hide being the DMCA. As a mitigating factor to the issue, there is no clear cut definition that applies to all cases equally as to what fair-use is. I believe LL's intention's are to bolster fair-use without weakening the content creator's copyright.

I think there should be repercussions for abuse of the infringement reporting system, and double penalty for when it's found to be that the person reporting has done the infringement.
_____________________
Truth is a river that is always splitting up into arms that reunite. Islanded between the arms, the inhabitants argue for a lifetime as to which is the main river.
- Cyril Connolly

Without the political will to find common ground, the continual friction of tactic and counter tactic, only creates suspicion and hatred and vengeance, and perpetuates the cycle of violence.
- James Nachtwey
Cereal Milk
Magically Delicious
Join date: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 203
10-18-2004 17:13
From: Cory Linden
Not to start the shouting again, but asserting that any copying is a copyright violation is not consistent with copyright law. Fair use is baked into the law for very important reasons, so we're certainly going to keep thinking about ways to allow it.

I sure hope that wasn't directed at me, because I never said that. Cubey and I already allow full copy on every vehicle we sell. And if it were feasible WITHOUT taking on the risk of people number-copying and violating my work... I'd allow modify, too. But it's not feasible, because people will be pricks. (As I covered in your blog, which you could refer to had you not deleted it.)

From: Cory Linden
So here's another one to think about -- if creators had a relatively easy method for reporting theft (ie, a dispute resolution option that was easier and faster than DMCA) that would result in significant penalties if your copyrights were being infringed, would the availability of enforcement change your opinions about fair use?

I think the most effective copyright enforcement tool is to not give the customer the option to violate the copyright in the first place. Also known as, what we have now. The minute you move this into the "let people do anything and place the burden of enforcement on creators," you begin a cat-and-mouse game that the creators can only lose.
Meiyo Sojourner
Barren Land Hater
Join date: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 144
10-18-2004 17:21
From: Cory Linden
if creators had a relatively easy method for reporting theft (ie, a dispute resolution option that was easier and faster than DMCA) that would result in significant penalties if your copyrights were being infringed, would the availability of enforcement change your opinions about fair use? This is the real world model, right? Generally, data can be copied but if you hurt the creator (generally hurt is defined as economically but I think that there are valid other hurts) you end up either a) paying the creator money or b) going to jail. So, the SL equivalent could be L$ fines, suspensions or banning.
I believe the intent here is a good one but I feel that a solution that leads to an autonomous system is preferred over relying on intervention from LL... especially considering how much we hope SL will grow both before the new system gets implemented as well as after.

-Meiyo
_____________________
I was just pondering the immortal words of Socrates when he said...
"I drank what??"
Strife Onizuka
Moonchild
Join date: 3 Mar 2004
Posts: 5,887
10-18-2004 17:29
From: Cereal Milk
I think the most effective copyright enforcement tool is to not give the customer the option to violate the copyright in the first place. Also known as, what we have now.


You are correct and the inherent problem with that being the end user can't win; 3 permission flags just aren't enough to describe how an object should be used. Thats why I advocate a system with more permission flags with more options so that both parties can win. I want a system where the creator holds they keys but doesn't lock the user out of a bit of tinkering. With some of the proposed permission changes you will be able to make better products, sell them for more money and have happier customers.

*takes off marketing boots*
_____________________
Truth is a river that is always splitting up into arms that reunite. Islanded between the arms, the inhabitants argue for a lifetime as to which is the main river.
- Cyril Connolly

Without the political will to find common ground, the continual friction of tactic and counter tactic, only creates suspicion and hatred and vengeance, and perpetuates the cycle of violence.
- James Nachtwey
Almarea Lumiere
Registered User
Join date: 6 May 2004
Posts: 258
10-18-2004 17:41
From: Cory Linden
The nested wrappers may be more complexity than we need
Let me just re-iterate Strife's suggestion that the wrapper functionality be engaged by placing a new kind of item into the inventory of the wrapped object. This is not a "nested" solution, but allows almost the same flexibility as nesting (by dropping multiple "permission locks", each of which could have its own removal price) in a very natural way.
Almarea Lumiere
Registered User
Join date: 6 May 2004
Posts: 258
10-18-2004 17:43
I don't see the problem with "modify and then transfer". It's certainly not in the same category as "copy and then transfer".
Almarea Lumiere
Registered User
Join date: 6 May 2004
Posts: 258
10-18-2004 17:48
I want to see fields associated with uploaded inventory items which contain the name of the copyright holder and a reference (such as a web link). Right now if I pick up one of the free texture packages, for example, I have no idea where those textures came from and if they are really public domain.

The fields can be optional, but at least I will have the option of only using textures when I know their provenance.
Cereal Milk
Magically Delicious
Join date: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 203
10-18-2004 17:52
From: Strife Onizuka
You are correct and the inherent problem with that being the end user can't win; 3 permission flags just aren't enough to describe how an object should be used.

No, I think the fundamental problem is that, due to the fact there's no barrier to creating prims in SL, you can't allow reverse engineering without also allowing trivial copyright violation. Period.

But yes, I support finer-grained control of permissions. In particular, I liked Huns' idea of having an "allow retexture" flag. Change textures, colors, shiny/bump, rotate/repeat, etc. without exposing the underlying geometry or allowing script insertions. That would be useful.

As long as it's OPT IN for creators.
Huns Valen
Don't PM me here.
Join date: 3 May 2003
Posts: 2,749
10-18-2004 17:58
From: Cory Linden
The "check boxes for everything" plan has the potential to be awfully confusing for the buyer, which would be bad, but might be doable (especially when combined with default permission choices).
I think that it wins on balance. SL does have a learning curve. Every time I go to Oak Grove, if I see a newbie there, they usually have a hoverboard attached to their head. Once that wears off and they've been here a few weeks, and they get into the swing of things, it should not be that much of a concern.

From: someone
So here's another one to think about -- if creators had a relatively easy method for reporting theft (ie, a dispute resolution option that was easier and faster than DMCA) that would result in significant penalties if your copyrights were being infringed, would the availability of enforcement change your opinions about fair use? This is the real world model, right? Generally, data can be copied but if you hurt the creator (generally hurt is defined as economically but I think that there are valid other hurts) you end up either a) paying the creator money or b) going to jail. So, the SL equivalent could be L$ fines, suspensions or banning.
You'd just be making more work for yourselves and for us. That would not be good for the supply curve, particularly if you happen to be looking at it from the perspective of the consumer.
Korg Stygian
Curmudgeon Extraordinaire
Join date: 3 Jun 2004
Posts: 1,105
10-18-2004 18:34
You know, something that may be being overlooked here is the fact that, with a little creative vision and examination, someone who has a bit of time in SL and mucking around in the sandboxes (for instance) can merely look at pretty much any vehicle (for instance) and duplicate it without actually looking at the exact numbers. There's not a damn thing that anyone can do to stop that.

So while a lot of this discussion involves/revolves around protecting scripts or textures, the totally unanswered/unaddressed question is how (or why [even]) you are going to stop what amounts to reverse engineering by merely standing beside a vehicle, not touching it or clicking on Edit and just figuring out how it was done?

I consider myself to be about average as a builder, better than some, far less so than others. But I have taught myself how to do what I can do by looking at others' works... didn't need mod rights. And I know I am not the only one - though mod rights might have made it easier to merely duplicate something. By looking and then trying to copy on my own I managed to teach myself the "system"... theoretically one of the "goals" of SL.

I think, to some extent, clothes and textures have the same problem - regardless of wrapper/permissions/etc. The very nature of the Windows OS (and I assume the Apple OS) allows for screen captures. Thus, duplicating textures or clothing designs is ultimately NOT preventable - and how can you ever PROVE that two people did not independently come up with exactly the same design? You might suspect not.... But it is possible. And what about all the textures that have been downloaded from the web and then sold? Or real world clothing designs imitated here? Are these copyright infringements already? If so, how can you argue/consider that the first person to import such things into SL has "rights" to them?

If this seems off-topic for the thread, pls ignore it. I think it's on-point and actually at the crux of the matter. You need to examine the entire problem/question here, not just figure out the color of a "bandaid" for a perceived but not yet verified real problem. It's possible that the cart is being put before the horse here.
Moleculor Satyr
Fireflies!
Join date: 5 Jan 2004
Posts: 2,650
10-18-2004 19:06
From: Korg Stygian
You know, something that may be being overlooked here is the fact that, with a little creative vision and examination, someone who has a bit of time in SL and mucking around in the sandboxes (for instance) can merely look at pretty much any vehicle (for instance) and duplicate it without actually looking at the exact numbers. There's not a damn thing that anyone can do to stop that.


No one is proposing to try and stop that because we really don't need to. If someone wants to take the time to try and figure out the edit controls and try to imitate someone else's work, more power to them. They are doing the work, and it's not an exact copy. Builders honestly SHOULD do that if they want to learn. I've seen many a builder in world take a RL photograph and try to reproduce it in prims. That's the exact same thing. Yes, that builder might end up running into problems with copyright or patents or SOMETHING, but A) they had to do actual WORK for it rather than number copying, B) It won't be an EXACT copy, and C) fewer people will do that, then turn around and sell it, when they can just sell something that they made, whereas MANY people will sell works that they can EASILY copy, rather than sit there and try to reproduce through actual work.

From: Cory Linden
The license changes need to be made, for those who missed the townhall, because we need to match licenses with usage.


Could you clarify that bit for me? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "match licenses with usage". Easy SL-related examples, please.

From: Cory Linden
The "check boxes for everything" plan has the potential to be awfully confusing for the buyer, which would be bad, but might be doable (especially when combined with default permission choices).


I don't see how. If, when I check one box, six other checkboxes automatically turn on with a check, and lines are drawn from the parent to children in a tree format, then it should be fairly obvious what one being on means to the rest of them.

Realize, that with this new proposal, the permissions will all need to be in an entirely seperate window that is accessible from the object properties. Such a window should also appear in a read-only format when the object is about to be purchased, AND we should have LSL calls to display the permissions of an object so that vendor makers can make a "View Permissions" button. The title of the object in question should of course appear at the top of the window, and, if possible, a visual representation of the object in question should appear as well, much like your Avatar Skin viewer. Textures, of course, should be stamped with a giant, glaring, color-opposite "SAMPLE" watermark (not just red, because what if the texture is red? Take the 'average' color of the texture, find the opposite ((<R,G,B> - <1,1,1>;) * -1, with an alpha of 0.5, I believe), and use that to make the "SAMPLE" stamp across the texture. Then further obscure it by either applying it to an object that can not be zoomed in on, or an Avatar if it's intended for an avatar.

If that seperate window ends up being larger than the expanded Edit window, or hell, as large as the map window, I'm not going to complain, and I doubt anyone else will.

From: Cory Linden
The nested wrappers may be more complexity than we need, but "pay to break" is an idea that we had kicked around previously.


I'd still like to see multiple pay-for-permission options, somehow. If we need to take a few weeks to discuss the possible ways of doing this and try to get it down to pseudo code that is easy or simple to impliment, so be it. If we're going to do this, we might as well take the time to do it right. The present situation is as stable as it's going to get anyway, what with no free items being on the market any more due to people getting ripped off. So there's no harm in taking more time to do this right.

Ideally, if I had the ability to code and impliment an example windows app, I'd do it to represent the new permissions window, and get feedback from people. But I don't. If YOU guys can do it, that'd be great. It doesn't have to look pretty, just work semi decently so that we have a visual reference tool to interact with and give feedback on. It doesn't even have to interact with much, just have boxes that switch on and off and do little or nothing but occasionally automatically turn on other boxes. Pulldown menus can display the multiple wrapper options with a New... button next to it and a Delete button next to it to manage the multiple options. And other such things.

From: Cory Linden
Also, a separate idea that had been mentioned is that when a wrapper is broken that the creator gets alerted.


As long as it's Opt In, I'm all for it. I don't want all my objects spamming me any time someone breaks the wrapper. I'd only turn it on for certain things.

From: Cory Linden
Another way to limit the scope of wrapper breakage would be to allow tinkering but not copying, although this is still vulnerable to the "copy by inspection" technique. I'd be curious to hear from any creators who currently sell modifiable items -- which I know a lot of outfits are -- about what their experiences have been with copying.


You heard a LOT of experiences back on the blog, and I dare say some more in these discussion forums.

Here have a few more:

/109/2c/25044/1.html
/120/cb/14124/1.html
/13/65/13196/1.html

Just a meager sampling of the past complaints about resale in SL. A VERY small and mild sampling. I'm sure you've seen them before. I believe I've actually seen entire stores filled with public domain items shutting down entirely because people were turning around and selling said items. One was called the Freebie store, I believe?

From: Cory Linden
Not to start the shouting again, but asserting that any copying is a copyright violation is not consistent with copyright law. Fair use is baked into the law for very important reasons, so we're certainly going to keep thinking about ways to allow it. However, the concerns about copying that *does* violate copyright are well founded and have been heard (hence, plan version 2).


Quite frankly, I could care less about free use rights and copyright violations in the real world. This is not the real world. I come here to get away from the real world. Please stop trying to shove me back into the real world. I realize that some RL laws somehow apply to SL things, but I explain why that cannot affect creator rights in the next paragraph.

If you can find a way that PERFECTLY allows Fair Use without EVER risking violating my rights as the copyright owner, and the creator of Works Of Art (which pretty much anything in SL is, down to an av made of plywood cubes), then I'll probably have no argument against it. But since doing so would most likely require cranial probes drilled into the skulls of all your users measuring the goals and intent of every last one of them, I can't forsee you ever having any right of ENFORCING your view of what I can and can not control about my own works. Hell, after reading some of the later descriptions of copyright law in the last page or two of the old discussion thread about Proposal 1, I wouldn'tve been surprised if several people had sued your pants off (and won easily) if you'd just implemnted P1, even WITH discussing it first.

To take a relatively simple example, say I make a Kex's much vaunted Car With Paint, and color/texture changes are FORCIBLY made ModOk. Someone changes the color to purple. That's fine. I can see that being Fair Use, unless I viewed my car as a work of art (which it technically is anyway, since all objects in SL are art, and someone would be equally justified in having a problem with an alteration like that). However, say I make a painting. A painting with lots of green in it. I upload the image into SL, and sell the paintings. Someone changes the primary color to purple. That's NOT fine. That's altering art. It's now an ugly piece of shit with my name on it as the creator. Heck, taking the Car With Paint scenario a bit further, say I make a car, and someone paints it plaid with polkadots. Since such a thing coming from a CREATOR is not unheard of in SL (where it would be in RL), it would look as if I, the creator of the Car With Paint, had decided on Plaid With Polkadots. That would reflect poorly on me as a creator of an SL work of art. Even if it is "just a car" by your standards, it is not by mine.

So you can see, what can be described as Fair Use in one situation would not be in another, and you can not enforce Fair Use with a sweepingly broad generalization. However, if you provide the permission options to the creators of SL, and two people create "equal" works, with one having some mod permissions set, and another having none, the one with some will probably sell better. It won't guarantee forcing the person with no-mod works out of buisness, and it SHOULDN'T, but you have to learn to give up control of SL if you're ever going to promote (rather than force) the kind of environment you want. Forcing the environment to conform will only result in rebellion.

From: Cory Linden
So here's another one to think about -- if creators had a relatively easy method for reporting theft (ie, a dispute resolution option that was easier and faster than DMCA) that would result in significant penalties if your copyrights were being infringed, would the availability of enforcement change your opinions about fair use? This is the real world model, right? Generally, data can be copied but if you hurt the creator (generally hurt is defined as economically but I think that there are valid other hurts) you end up either a) paying the creator money or b) going to jail. So, the SL equivalent could be L$ fines, suspensions or banning.


I really want to spend one out of seven days in SL flying around the GIGANTIC grid looking for copies of my work and trying to figure out if they're REALLY copies, or just good imitations. Yes, yes I REALLY want to do that. And I want to spend even MORE time filling out forms and paperwork and communicating with Lindens and keeping all the violations straight and want to put ALL my trust in a tiny company in California that doesn't even have customer support on weekends to take care of the half a dozen reports from me, the nine reports from my neighbor, the two from the guy that does crows, the one from the Car With Paint dude, the twelve from that fashion designer, and the complaints of hacking in that new RPG that just opened up, only to do it all again the next week.

Yes. That's what I want.

And if you can't hear the sarcasm, there is literally no hope for you at all. (Sorry for it, but quite honestly I have no faith whatsoever in LL to police its own borders when it still has so many other things to work on too. I'd like Havok2 sometime before Havok7 comes out, K? You guys have enough on your plates. Don't take on more. And don't make me WORK more too, when I'm here to have fun and ESCAPE RL work. And yes, I realize that coders and the people dealing with DMCA reports or whatever they're called are different people, but implimenting a FORCED open source thing will not only get you sued, but increase complaints to something that might actually resemble one for every three of your residents.)
_____________________
</sarcasm>
Moleculor Satyr
Fireflies!
Join date: 5 Jan 2004
Posts: 2,650
10-18-2004 19:35
Sorry for the double post, but I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank Angel Leviathan for driving home our point for us.

She just posted the source code to something that belongs to someone else without permission. She's reposted it in four seperate locations at least so far, including hijacking a thread about a beautifully done creative work. These are the kind of people you want to hand full mod rights over to. Yes, it won't be scripts. But it will be the "source" for a prim. So all someone has to do is make a single untraceable copy, and send it out to a hundred people with a note explaining what it is, and some few of those people will take it and exploit it to their full advantage.

Lemme say it again:

These are the people you want to hand fullmod rights to.

I realize that you've since changed the planned implimentation, but it was made very clear by several posts you made that you would be much happier with a forced open source environment, and I doubt you've changed your opinion on that. You have a right to your opinion, but realize that the rest of the world is not as idealistic and altruistic as you'd like. This is not a flame. Merely an observation.

EDIT: And it's taking forever for LL to get rid of her posts. They're still up, almost an hour later.

EDIT2: I had to physically log into SL and track down Char, the only Linden it seems that is online (she's getting a damn raise soon, right? She's ALWAYS online, and ALWAYS bloody helpful) to get any Linden informed about it, as the Report Post buttons weren't working fast enough.
Meiyo Sojourner
Barren Land Hater
Join date: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 144
10-18-2004 19:42
From: Moleculor Satyr
To take a relatively simple example, say I make a Kex's much vaunted Car With Paint, and color/texture changes are FORCIBLY made ModOk. Someone changes the color to purple. That's fine. I can see that being Fair Use, unless I viewed my car as a work of art (which it technically is anyway, since all objects in SL are art, and someone would be equally justified in having a problem with an alteration like that). However, say I make a painting. A painting with lots of green in it. I upload the image into SL, and sell the paintings. Someone changes the primary color to purple. That's NOT fine. That's altering art. It's now an ugly piece of shit with my name on it as the creator. Heck, taking the Car With Paint scenario a bit further, say I make a car, and someone paints it plaid with polkadots. Since such a thing coming from a CREATOR is not unheard of in SL (where it would be in RL), it would look as if I, the creator of the Car With Paint, had decided on Plaid With Polkadots. That would reflect poorly on me as a creator of an SL work of art. Even if it is "just a car" by your standards, it is not by mine.
This is like what I was talking about here... Again, I think the answer to this is simply adding another field in the general edit window that says "Last Modified By: Joe Avie" or whatever that would sit between the creator and owner fields. If you don't think that would solve the problem, please tell me why.

-Meiyo
_____________________
I was just pondering the immortal words of Socrates when he said...
"I drank what??"
Camille Serpentine
Eater of the Dead
Join date: 6 Oct 2003
Posts: 1,236
10-18-2004 19:45
Thank you for answering the "wrappers" question I had.
:)
_____________________
Moleculor Satyr
Fireflies!
Join date: 5 Jan 2004
Posts: 2,650
10-18-2004 20:11
From: Meiyo Sojourner
This is like what I was talking about here... Again, I think the answer to this is simply adding another field in the general edit window that says "Last Modified By: Joe Avie" or whatever that would sit between the creator and owner fields. If you don't think that would solve the problem, please tell me why.

-Meiyo


Because I don't believe that any person has a right to publicly display an altered work of art, especially if his name is on it as being the person that last modified it.
Strife Onizuka
Moonchild
Join date: 3 Mar 2004
Posts: 5,887
10-18-2004 21:06
<rant>

From: Korg Stygian
You know, something that may be being overlooked here is the fact that, with a little creative vision and examination, someone who has a bit of time in SL and mucking around in the sandboxes (for instance) can merely look at pretty much any vehicle (for instance) and duplicate it without actually looking at the exact numbers. There's not a damn thing that anyone can do to stop that.

...

If this seems off-topic for the thread, pls ignore it. I think it's on-point and actually at the crux of the matter. You need to examine the entire problem/question here, not just figure out the color of a "bandaid" for a perceived but not yet verified real problem. It's possible that the cart is being put before the horse here.


You are right on topic, with a bit of work you can clone anything. With a bit more work you could hack it out of the client (When i joined SL I heard rumor of this happening). The issue of piracy hasn't even really come up yet. How many textures in SL were uploaded without the permission of the creator? How many sounds? The number is huge. Considering just about everyone has at one point been given textures or bought textures, how can you be sure you haven't received stolen work? SL at some point in the future will have a day of reckoning and we all will be judged. Then there is the issue of design patents & trademark infringment. Do you think GM gave the Hummer dealerships in SL permission to use their logo's? Isn't the logo for Primcrafters look alot like the logo for Lensecrafters? When big buissness wakes up to this grose infringment the bickering over who has a vehical that looks just like the one you made will seem minor in comparison. It then be the issue of does your vehical look like a GM or Ford vehical. Back to the present, the most important thing is that eventualy someone will *publish* an app to extract assets from SL and re-upload them. And while this will be illegal there will be no way to stop it; the only defense we will have is to report the people who do it. The best solution for this problem is "Trusted Computing" and it is a horrible solution. There is no way to stop piracy, only solution is to decide what the acceptable level of it is.

We ultimatly have no control over information.
So when i say piracy and infringment should not be an issue as to why we shouldn't implement these changes that is why.

</rant>
(edit: I have nothing against primcrafters of the hummer dealerships, just easy examples)


So what we are looking for are "read" and "write" flags for the permission system. Just do it like how any OS does it.

Lets see what we need?
CODE

Mod (md) T F TL
Unlink (ul) T F TL
Create Link (cl) T F TL
Read Color (rc) T F TL
Write Scale (ws) T F TL
Write Colors (wc) T F TL
Write Texture Page (wt) T F TL
Write PrimAttributes (wp) T F TL
Write to Inventory (wi) T F TL
Transfer (tr) T F TL
Allow transfer for sale (ts) T F TL
Free to Copy (fc) T F TL
Copy (cp) T F TL

Other
Read Inventory (ri) T F TL
Move From Inventory (mi) T F TL
Delete From Inventory (di) T F TL
Invisible in Inventory (ii) T F TL
Read Textures (rt) T F TL
Read Scale (rs) T F TL
Read PrimAttributes (rp) T F TL
Allow Scripts To Run (as) T F TL

the effect of TL is to lock the attribute as true (as false auto locks already).

Have i missed any?

Scripts in the inventory of the object should keep the permissions it had when it was compiled so if the object had write texture permissions then the script contiues to even after the object's permissions may have changed. Until the script is recompiled.


From: Moleculor Satyr
Because I don't believe that any person has a right to publicly display an altered work of art, especially if his name is on it as being the person that last modified it.


Define modified. At what point does restoration and upkeep on a peice of art become modifications? At what point do changes brought on by the enviromental conditions count as modifications? What about proformance art? Music? What about interactive art? Finaly what about what the artists wants? Maybe the artists wants the owner to play with it and modify it.
_____________________
Truth is a river that is always splitting up into arms that reunite. Islanded between the arms, the inhabitants argue for a lifetime as to which is the main river.
- Cyril Connolly

Without the political will to find common ground, the continual friction of tactic and counter tactic, only creates suspicion and hatred and vengeance, and perpetuates the cycle of violence.
- James Nachtwey
Moleculor Satyr
Fireflies!
Join date: 5 Jan 2004
Posts: 2,650
10-18-2004 21:20
From: Strife Onizuka
Define modified. At what point does restoration and upkeep on a peice of art become modifications? At what point do changes brought on by the enviromental conditions count as modifications? What about proformance art? Music? What about interactive art? Finaly what about what the artists wants? Maybe the artists wants the owner to play with it and modify it.


This is SL, so modified would be changed in any way. Maintence and upkeep are not required here. And if the artist wants something, that's what permission CHOICES are for. I was arguing against FORCED open-source of any kind, which, as we've just seen through Angel Leviathan's acts, is a bad idea.
1 2 3 4 5