Permissions discussion where it should be

It limits freedom of expression.

If i want to buy a bunch of smashed tv's link them togeather and put them on my head and have flames come out of the pile i should be able to do so without having to ask permission.

*curious*
what did Angle do?

And if I want to buy a "secure" game device that allows me to play something (like DarkLife's backpack), link it to my nifty link_message sniffer object, and listen to the link_messages go whizzing by so I can figure out how to hack my character data and quintuple my level every second for a minute straight, and figure out a way to instantly heal myself with a single command, I should, so you can have your smashed tv pile of freedom of expression.

Or if I want to purchase a renting device for a store that indicates to the owner by color when a person's rent is due and change the color, so you can have your Free Use, I should be able to, right?

SL's residents have shown a history of altruistic and open source behaviour in the past. The only reason why such behaviour is rare these days is because such behaviour resulted in abuse by other people. We cannot create a system that allows such abuse, even in the tiniest amounts, or open source will never come back to SL in the ways it used to exist. If we eliminate the possibility of abuse, open source and freebies will return to SL.

And as for Angel, read up.

In general, because the world is so large now, most of us would never find out if our copyrights are being violated. We might wonder why our sales dropped significantly, but the cause would likely remain a mystery. Giving creators the means to prevent those violations in the first place allows us to concentrate our energies on creating rather than policing. For me the choice between an unbreakable wrapper and providing for fair use would depend largely on the value of the object in question. Currently, even with the ease of texture theft in clothing I still leave all my clothing modifiable because the ability to tint and adjust fit is too important to the buyer for me to deny them that right, but on my skins where the owner would gain little to no benefit form being able to mod it (makeup sliders, pigment, etc have no effect anyway) I err on the side of protecting my ass(ets). If I did find someone violating my rights, an easy way to report it and get them to cease and desist would be very welcome. I'm not terribly interested in punishing people. I'm more interested in preventing it in the first place when it comes to my most valuable assets.

I could defeat your sniffer easily enough by using SSL for the messages. Trusted communication on a physically insecure network is hardly a new problem.

Yes, definitely. The problem with DMCA takedown notices is that you're involving the legal system, and sooner or later you're going to need to consult a lawyer. Lawyers are expensive.

On the subject of people taking free objects and reselling them at higher prices, if the creator can attach a "Manufacturer's Recommended Sale Price" to the object, and that price is displayed in any purchase dialog, the incidence of this should drop greatly.

SSL?

Sorry, when it comes to encryption (or whatever), I know nothing. I'm a scripter, not a coder. Scripters shouldn't be required to learn encryption either, not with something as simple as LSL. It should at LEAST be built in, if you're going to build in the ability to link objects at will.

The only funtion I see for encryption in LSL (llXorblahblahblah) wouldn't block my described thing anyway. I just tested it. All it does is obfuscate what the messages actually say, and all you'd have to do is repeat the obfuscated message to trigger the necessary end result.

A proper implementation is time-based, and thus immune to things like replay attacks.

Ah. Well, I still can't see how linking and delinking is Fair Use, and I don't see how giving creators the option to keep their control they now have, or to give it up is going to somehow wreck SL or make it a worse place. And I can see that someone, somewhere, could think up a way of using free linkability to do things that would cause the creator to pull his creations from the market, so I don't see why we should force linkability to be open all the time when -everything- else is going to be optional.

EDIT: Oh, I KNOW! Say I make a car. I want other people to be able to give it away, and this is after 2016, when SL has finally given us the ability to recall in-world objects, so losing it isn't a problem, so I set it to nomod/nocopy/trans. However, the brilliant genius over a sim who hates my guts decides to buy many copies of this car and attaches a small auto-destruct prim into it (it's a low prim vehicle, and despite it being 2016, Havok2 still isn't in yet) that's set to go off in a month.

He then buys all these cars, and starts selling them at reduced prices. I think it's a little odd, but since I'm getting paid anyway, I really don't care. Or he starts giving them away to friends of mine. Or people who don't know me. In a month, I've suddenly got a horde of angry customers wondering why the car I designed just flew into 26 different high-velocity pieces, plus the angry land-owner or two that wants to know why one of my prims is cluttering up their land. The car owners also want replacements for the car that I never sold them and have no record of them ever buying. I now have a bad reputation for selling shoddy products and then not replacing them when they break.

If I can think of a way to break things, others can too. And I realize that someone going out of their way to ruin someone like that is RARE, but it DOES happen (Ex: Angel Leviathan).

I agree with you... that's why there's been the push to make it where breaking a wrapper doesn't automatically mean that the owner gets *all* modify rights. Over the course of discussion in the last week, I've come to appreciate the idea of Fair Use and really hope that the recent suggestions will make it easier for creators to safely give more of those rights to the end user when possible.

-Meiyo

Some great ideas here. Obviously control should be more fine-grained, and Strife's post points us in the right way. I would love to have a "recall" feature like they have in There. Being able to lend things would come in very handy.
The thing about fine-grained anything is that it becomes cluttery and confusing to the average noob. So there is always a tradeoff between powerful and usable.

If this is a *need* then your whole grand plan will fall on it's face, because there's no way you can match arbitrary licenses to behavior, unless you're going to let content creators write the license behavior code themselves.

Paying for a broken wrapper?

This kinda bothers me because I don't want you to incentivize sellers to make me pay extra to convert from nocopy/trans to copy/notrans. A change like that should be free, and I hope most content creators would recognize that fact.

The plus side is, maybe it will incentivize content creators to allow us more fair use, even if we have to pay for it. It will perhaps give them more incentive to not keep everything closed up tight.

This point is moot. If you're going to give the creators the decision whether or not to offer their customers fair use, then why bother discussing this? If they don't want to run the risk of their stuff being counterfeited, they will simply deny fair use.

Most of the people here will not accept a system which is kept in line mainly by abuse reports. They don't want their stuff to even be possible to rip off in the first place.

Personally, I've got mixed feelings now on this issue. I recognize customers should have some fair use rights, but I don't think LL would be up to the task of addressing counterfeiting instances quickly and harshly enough in a system where it's easy to counterfeit.

However, I think LL needs to prepare for it anyway, because it's only a matter of time before people start figuring out how to decode sniffed packets and scanned memory.

It occurs in the real world, why not here? After all, this is an attempt to "merge" real world concepts with SL, isn't it?

----

Just to harp on the point like nails across a blackboard, Angel Leviathan is STILL violating someone's copyright, and it's 10-12 hours after the first incident. Even after her four+ posts were deleted, she still reposted the information AGAIN a little while ago.

You want us to trust you to deal with copyright infringement, and can't even ban someone in a timely manner? Reposting something after you've been blatently and clearly told not to would be grounds for at LEAST suspension (and blatent and repeated copyright violations within SL should be grounds for termination) on any other board I'm part of.

EDIT: Apparently some people are insisting that the code she's posting is a part of the script library. Even if it is, the fact that she spammed the boards, was told to cease and her posts were removed, and then she came back and did the same thing without getting suspended for her actions tells me LL is incapable of timely responses.

EDIT2: And damn, she thought of the thing I was hoping she wouldn't. She'll now be hosting the data on an external website. Now, IF the code really is under copyright protection, Alondra, or whomever, will be forced to hire a lawyer to get the site shut down. These are the people you want to provide open source to. You're not going to, I know, but you still want to.

Object Permissions

Profiles:  [| Select List |]  [______________] [Save As]  [Remove]

Allow the following permissions: 

[] Modify 
   [] Change color 
   [] Change texture / texture attributes 
   [] Allow geometry changes 
      [] Allow to be rescaled 
      [] Allow advanced edits (ie cut, hollow, etc) 
   [] Allow contents to be modified 
      [] Scripts 
         [] Allow scripts to be added 
         [] Allow scripts to be removed 
      [] Non-Script assets (textures, sounds, notecards, etc) 
         [] Allow non-scripts to be added 
         [] Allow non-scripts to be removed 
   [] Allow to be unlinked 
   [] Allow to be linked with other objects 

[] Copy 

[] Transfer 
   [] Allow to be set For Sale 
   [] Allow owner to revoke transfer to allow copy
   [] Allow transfer if modified 

[] Force these permissions in all derivative works
_________________________________________________

When saved, apply these settings to the root prim and: 
[] Contents 
[] Child prims 
[] Child prims' contents  

[Save] [Reset]      [Cancel]

A better view in HTML can be seen here: http://pantherweb.org/sl/ui/

I haven't written the javascript for the UI behavior yet though.

Hell, I didn't even think of HTML.

EDIT: Oh! There she goes! Posting her URL! Why the hell isn't she banned yet? Oh. RIGHT! Lindens only work 9-5 M-F! (Which I can understand. But it's not precisely a time period that's conducive to a 24-7 environment. Unless they want to start shutting the grid and forums down when they go home at night.)

EDIT2: You know, I had this idea before falling vaguely asleep last night that if objects of all the same "variety" had an identifier linked to them (something I recall being mentioned in Proposal1), would it be possible to somehow create build version numbers for objects, so if a new version comes out, someone can see that a new version is out via the edit window, or a script telling them, or something? It's probably more work than it's worth, but I thought I'd toss the idea out there, in case someone thinks it's a good one and knows of an easy way of doing it.

Kex: Perfect

My idea with nesting wrappers was more based on that you could buy additional permissions without giving up any you already had. Not so much as paying to change base permissions (changing an object from no mod to no trans). I see the use of the pay system for getting additional permissions.

So if i traveled down the no-trans branch of the tree i would be able to maybe get copy & mod permissions. Pay for permissions is reasonable, it's like auto licensing. Some of the art i sell at different price brackets with different permissions. It would be easier to have it setup with everyone buying the same object then choosing later to break permissions.

It happens all the time in the real world.

Heck, within the amateur radio community, many things you buy come with complete schematics so you can fix them yourselves (which probably saves on warranty returns, but still).

That's why you can purchase a full repair guide for your car that essentially tells you how to make a new one from scratch (well, the components -- not the raw material).

That's why open source exists.

What we have in SL is a strange world were even the "physical" objects are still digital. Real world digital rights apply. But do we map physical type properties to SL physical objects (e.g. you can copy a CD in the real world for "Fair use" but you can't copy a chair in quite the same way (i.e. 100% identical) -- but you can in SL).

I might want to make the scripts open -- or portions of them -- but not make the look of the object open (e.g. the textures, color, etc) as that, in my opinion, has a lot of value and creativity time in it with little room for innovation; it's too subjective. The scripts, however, can often easily be improved and improvements there are more objective.

In real life, you can repaint a car. But, practically speaking, how many people buy an unpainted -- or painted -- car just to go repaint it? Very, very few. Even fewer actually do it themselves rather than taking it to a body shop and paying for the service. How real world like do we want to map things? That's the big question.

This is a giff involving a current problem: Refunds of no-transfer items!

Bob buys a Mod/NoCopy/NoTransfer item. Bob is unhappy with item and wishes to return it to Creator Frank. Frank cannot recieve the item from Bob as it is no copy. Frank cannot accept the return because:

#1: There is no way for Frank to assure that Bob will destroy the item he is returning. In fact...

#2: Frank does not even know if Bob may not even OWN the item in question.
(Edit: Resolved. Frank simply asks Bob to wear the item on his head or something. But this does not cover #1 above, alas)

Now with a Copy/Notransfer (or even copy/transfer, though if this case happens then one would expect the item to be gifted/resold and that would be the author's own 'oops' if it wasn't meant to be) item, returns are simply impossible. One could simply make a backup and then destroys/hands over the original.

What I would love to see would be an added interation with a user that basically scans their inventory for anything (or a [partial?]string name) created by the scanning person. This would allow creators to verify if returned notransfer items are indeed being destroyed so that the creator could offer an honest refund.

I do understand that an inventory scanner -may- be database load intensive, if this would be unfeasable because of this, then... it's a bit of a shame. But some sort of a "refund security system" for "insecure items"Anything no-transfer, or anything copyable) would be nice for these things.

Safe Return Policy:

Anything Nomod/NoCopy/Transfer is certainly refundable. ^_^
Anything Mod/NoCopy/Transfer: I accept this as a refund if the item still is identifyable as my own. If someone tears my wings apart totally and hands me back the single base prim or a claw, that's not an accident, that's a travesty. The instructions in my catalog that warns about this.

The new system is trying to map real world licenses to specific permissions to essentially enforce those permissions.

Right?

However, if I tag something as "C) Real World Co, Inc. 2004 All rights reserved." and give it the in-world full (c) protection, it doesn't matter how loose the permissions are in the game -- if someone makes copies that don't fall under fair use then they are breaking real world laws. That is, if someone blatently copies an object, recreating pieces and using screen shots to get textures to create something to resell, they are clearly circumventing copy protection, which is illegal because of both copyright laws and the DMCA, and they are copying and selling intellectual property (it's all IP since nothing in SL is really physical) and that's still illegal regardless.

Now, my question is: If we see someone doing this and we get all legal on them with a cease and desist letter and they come back with "dude, chill out, it's just a game" -- do we have to pursue real world legal paths (where the first challenge is convincing the lawyers and judges it's not simply a game -- cause it's not) or do we have some recourse through Linden Labs to enforce the real world laws?

(And if this is all answered in the license agreement, I'm apologize -- but reading them word for word is terribly dry -- and cross referencing them with state laws to see what really applies is really a pain.)

There have been a few questions aroung "What do I do if I think that someone is infringing my copyright?" This case is covered by the DMCA and all DMCA-related instructions for SL are here: http://secondlife.com/dmca.php. This page also includes instructions for people who think that their conent was removed incorrectly. Remember, you must be the copyright holder (or authorized to act for the copyright holder) to submit a DMCA takedown request.

Before you submit, be sure you consider whether the behavior you observed is actually infringing (lots of copyright questions can be answered here: http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright). Just because something was copied does not mean that your copyright was infringed. However, many of the cases described here (such as reselling copies) are likely to be infringing (although I am not a lawyer and this is not a legal opinion).

Also, understand that Linden Lab makes no judgement about whether or not the behavior is infringing. This is an essential component of the DMCA. We simply comply with the specific steps of the DMCA takedown process, as described on the SL DMCA page linked here: http://secondlife.com/dmca.php.

Thanks for the response, Cory. That does answer many of my questions.

What I wouldn't want people thinking is just because the command or ability is there to copy, sell, or duplicate something (whether through tools or screen caps or whatnot) that it means I, as the copyright holder, am giving that permission. Rather, SL is like the tape recorder to the purchased tape in this regard. Although you _can_ copy stuff, and many reasons are perfectly legal, some reasons are not legal or allowed.

Ever read software licenses? Some say you can copy for your own use. Some even say you can run it on machines you own so long as only you use those machines (e.g. a laptop and desktop for home and travel use). Most say you don't actualy _own_ the content but are only licensed to use it. That's a key point.

I assume that the addition of a more license agreement based system is to make some of these things much clearer to the recipient of a purchased object.

Did you (or anyone) get a chance to read my comments over on the blog about recurring fees or fixed duration licenses? This is very related since it is a permission -- and others have brought it up in the past.


Thanks,

-Zax

Cory, it looks like this is moving in the right direction. As long as I, as a creator, have the ability to permanently prevent wrappers from being broken, I am all for the new system. I have quite a few things I would like to make Public Domain and I see some nice uses for the finer control of object permissions.


As a side note: please, please, please test it for months before putting it on the grid.

As an update, the version 2 plan is going to take a little longer to post because a) preview is taking more work than expected to get up and running and b) you all are kicking around good ideas and I don't want shortcircuit the discussion. I also have some more questions and thoughts that I'll post over the next few days.

There was discussion in the past regarding the ability for a creator to have full copy/mod/transfer permissions restored if ever one of their creations was given/sold with more limited permissions and then later returned to them.

Perhaps returns could be handled in this way. If someone has an object they want to return they can give it back to it's creator, no matter how the objects' permissions are set. As long as the one giving it is the owner and the receiever is the object's creator, and it's still intact (unmodified - wrapper unbroken), it should be okay.. or am I missing something?

Perhaps this would remove the need for an inventory scan? Unless one needed to check for copies.

Also there should probably be a check made to ensure that the object has not been sold multiple times and that the owner is the first purchaser of the object.

Uggh... so now my question would be:

How does one return something if it was purchased from someone other than the object's creator?

Another idea which occured to me is how about better copyright infringement protection?

For example, you can right click on an object and say "copyright infringement" and then you have to provide snapshots of both objects (the copier and copied).

A punishment policy might be something like each copyright infringement you can't create objects for 1 months and if you complain about something being a copyright infringement and isnt then you can't complain for another 3 months.

I think if we had this then some of this tinkering stuff would be more palatable..


BTW, can we stop for a moment and define what copyright infringment might look like?

For example, lets say you have a 10 prim objects and 7 out of the 10 prims are exactly the same as the copied object .. is that infringing? How about 5/10? 2/10?

What if you have 10/10 but they're all different textures? Different sizes? I'd really be intrested in hearing what people think.

Or how about 10/10 but you linked in 30 more prims?

Obviously, a texture which is a duplicate of another, even a fuzzy duplicate, would be clear infringement.

How about a copy of a complex prim but is used for a different thing?

There's actually a post of mine a few back that talks about DMCA and what you can do if you feel that your copyright is being infringed. Separately, much farther back, I posted a question about whether some form of enformcent would be useful.