Permissions discussion where it should be

Thanks for reminding me about this issue. I think there's a much simpler and more elegant solution than allowing some sort of inventory scan. Simply make objects always transferable to their creator regardless of how the transfer flag is set. This would allow people to more comfortably provide refunds and exchanges for no-transfer objects, and seems like it would be a pretty simple addition to the permissions functionality.

Uhrm... With this whole searchable database thing for purchaseable objects (which is a bloody damn good idea, since it's absolutely hard to find sounds in SL), could you tie it in with the user's inventory too? Searchable inventories have been asked for for ages now, and I figure if you're going to build a search engine for items, you might as well be sure to think about the different possibilities of use for it.

Oh... and... what's everyone's thoughts on making no-modify prevent the deletion of scripts from an object?

This is [one of the reasons] why i support kex's model; it allows for tighter control of the inventory of an object.

Guys and Gals, please don't flame me for this , but...

First, I am a rl creator of art and also do some things in sl for sale. Now, I don't do it enough to pay for scads of sl land, or have a bunch of $L, or like some, trade my $L for rl cash. I do realise that some actually make real world money from SL. I also realise that to some it isn't the money, but the idea, as a creator, that something you've worked on may be corrupted.

However, everyone, please, please, please, keep in mind that the SL world is a place for most of us to come and relax and have friendships and do amazing things that we can't do in the real world. Be very careful how you handle us, because SL has become a part of our dreams and daily life.

We don't want it to become a place where there is constant tension, because of "legal rights" and the enforcement of those rights. We don't want it to become real world, heh, that is precisely what most of us are trying to get away from for a little.

Also, remember, people are not perfect in SL, there are people who get angry, feud, fight, and sometimes, even try to destroy another's reputation and standing Be careful that you don't introduce something that can be used by a spiteful person to cause others grief. And yes, there are some who would take the chance, even if the penalities against them were greater if they were caught trying to use the system against another.

The very best thing is to give the most flexible and usable permissions to creators. Let them have a great deal of latitude in their decisions on their work. But please, don't bring the real world too much into SL, or you'll find those who want to escape it may come to the point of needing to escape SL. Guys, yes, creations are important, but what we have in SL as a virtual community is important.

Tread lightly, that's all some of us ask. Make it simple. Permissions that cover most needs is the simplest and best way, not some form of litigation or policing by Linden Labs or other players in the game. If someone's work is important enough to them, and they decide to publish it in-game, and someone somehow breaks it and uses it, then that creator should have to decide if it is important enough to bring in lawyers and such. Otherwise, give permissions to us when we create and let us live in peace as much as possible.

Please be gentle with me. Just my two Linden Cents worth.

Oh! We need another option of some sort!

It's a fairly complex one, but I want the ability to hand someone NoMod ObjectA, which they then place in a million (or hundred, whichever) places around their sim, and then later hand them PatchA which can upgrade these items while still in the world.

Yes, I know that RemoveLoadScriptPIN SOUNDS like the solution, but it requires Mod rights on the objects being patched.

Actually, you should just make it so that scripts can't be moved around, and then change ScriptPIN to allow updates as long as the creator names are the same.

Not sure how relevant this is now, but I thought I'd share for what its worth-

-----------

Sorry for the delay. In my view, the latter.

- Hide quoted text -
On Oct 17, 2004, at 11:00 PM, blaze wrote:

> Quick clarification?
>
> Do you believe that CreativeCommons and other alternative licenses as
> a replacement for Copyright or as a way to give creators more power
> and flexibility when distributing their goods? (Obviously, I have a
> bias here)
>
> It's a dispute we're having on SecondLife, which is considering
> degrading the rights of the creator by giving 'tinkering rights' to
> all consumers rather than just supplementing the rights of the creator
> by letting them give them give 'tinkering' rights if they so desire.
>
> And since it's probably rarely a question you encounter in a practical
> world I wasn't suprised that it was very difficult to find an
> appropiate answer amongst your writings on this particular topic or on
> the writings of creativecommons.org.
>
> If you can answer on
> http://secondlife.blogs.com/prompt/2004/10/
> permissions_and.html#comments,
> that would be great.
>
>

-----
Lessig
Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
650.736.0999 (vx)
650.723.8440 (fx)

Ass't: Elaine Adolfo <mailto:a2lessig@pobox.com>
<http://lessig.org> [on the web]
<http://lessig.org/blog> [comments in general]
<http://free-culture.org> [my latest book]
<http://creativecommons.org> [our project to free culture]
<http://publicknowledge.org> [framing policy in DC]
<http://eff.org> [fighting for truth, etc.]
<http://plos.org> [freeing science]

I just had a thought while pouring over all the nausiating posts on the permissions topics (in this thread and others) That what we need is a warenty flag that can be configured by the creator(s) to let the next owner know if the object has been fouled with, more over it would help creators know if the customer was screwing with them (say the bike you just bought doesn't work, and the creator sees the warenty flag is still set, they then know it's a real problem not a user error).

Attributes that could go into the warenty config

Has had scripts changed
Has had inventory changed
Has had color/textures changed
Has had scale changed
Has been unlinked
Has been linked to another object
etc (add your own; too tired to think)

This is similar in ways to the wrapper idea...

Please add to suggestions, "Permanently free" so that people can make freebie items and have them not ripped off by unscrupulous venddors.

Sounds great Cory love the new features.

Cat

Hey would it be possible to add a some way for me to sell someone something that has copy contents, but then change the contents once it's sold to no copy?

(ex: ticket dispenser, I sell it to Guy A for his super fantastic amusment park rides, the tickets in the dispenser must be copy or it runs out after someone buys one or however many you put in. Guy B buys a ticket, since it was copy in the dispenser his ticket it copy as well. I want to make it so Guy B's ticket isn't copy after it leaves the dispenser without having to make Guy A go in and change it the permissions. )

Oh yeah and textures need a key lock on them. I would let alot of my stuff be modify, but I don't want to be passing out custom textures I worked hours on.

Thought I'd throw my 2 cents in on a recent permissions issue I experienced, with the hopes that it could be potentially corrected in the future:

Scenerio:

I am a sole landowner (not grouped). I collaborate with a partner on a build project, and we have exchanged object modify permissions with our calling cards. We have a build that we built together - with some walls being "created" by me, and some "created" by my partner. The intent is that amongst the two of us, we "jointly" created all of our objects, and intend to modify & maintain them on an ongoing basis.

We didn't want to set any objects or land to be owned by group because of the potential pitfalls in doing so (Groups require 3 or more members; Too easy for group members in a small group to "push out" another officer via recall; finite number of groups an AV can be a member of).

The Problem:

I create a linked 10 prim floor. When the object is created, default permissions are granted.

Later, my partner accidently right-clicks on the floor, and "takes" it into his inventory. Realizing his mistake, he immediately places the floor back down at its original location.

Now - what has happened, is my partner has now become the object owner, and all permissions have been lost for the object - neither I as the creator, nor my partner with object modify permissions (granted from the calling card) can edit the object any longer. Our only recourse is to delete the floor and start over. Even though both the object creator and the object owner have exchanged modify permissions via calling card - we are stuck with an uneditable floor.


This problem also occurs under the following scenerio:

Since me & my partner build together, some walls, floors & celings are created by me, some by my partner. A wall is created, and needs to be extended out. So I edit the object, and use the shift key to "duplicate" the object, and replicate the wall.

The result is that the permissions are lost on the original object I copied - neither I nor the creator can edit the object any longer - because the default permissions were selected when the object was created.

*************************************************

Granted, I understand that if full permissions were selected when each object was created, we could overcome this problem. I also understand that "Locking" each object after build is completed helps to prevent some of these issues. Note however, that going thru and selecting permissions on each object of a large build is cumbersome at best.

My point is that the permissions system does not seem to lend itself well to collaborative building - especially when you are talking about two people sharing the workload of a build project.

*************************************************

I have a couple ideas on how this might be overcome: (without understanding the back-end nature of how permissions are setup & the limitations)

1. Allow "default" object permissions to be customized. If we could change our defaults in the client GUI while we were building to put on full rights to all the objects, maybe that would help.

2. Allow multiple creators of an object, or be able assign multiple creators after the fact.

3. Create a "Creator can always edit" permission, that is on by default.

4. Have calling card "modify" permissions be a true creator "proxy" rather than simply a modification override permission.

5. Be able to tag multiple unlinked objects all at once & apply permissions en-mass.


What does everyone else think? Has anyone else encountered some of the same difficulty I mentioned above when collaborating, or have other ideas on making collaboration permissions smoother?

Thanks!

Travis

What happened to this? I'd like to hear an update on where we are with permissions..

still a little lost with the forums.. but wonder what if anything can be done with granting mod rights .. without making yourself vulnerable prey.
Meaning you ought to be able to grant someone the right to assist u in editing, or to allow them to move, alter, utilize..... without granting permission for your things to be picked up and carried in THEIR invent. And you should be able to send items left behind back to their owners.. but not by physically picking up the item and carrying it. Of course the option of full mod.. (as is now) ought still be available... but have had opportunities myself to pick up a trusting friend or naive newbies belongings.. after being granted mod rights.. and technically i could have kept possession of.. ie: could STEAL the items..
Perhaps a simple checkbox could eliminate those who are easily tempted to 'undesirable' means to acquire dishonest wealth or blessings.

Well Xena, my thought on this is unless you know the person REALLY REALLY well (for many many months) don't give mod rights. It is as simple as that. I know that you are opening yourself up a bit, but unless you know the person really really well, you shouldn't do it. I know some like to give them out after only knowing the person for a week, but that is just lacking good judgement. And if you have a problem and are having someone fix something or showing you how to do it and need your modrights, just turn them on for a minute so they can help you or whatever then turn them back off afterwords. If you are a at sandbox for example, there is little risk in that case. And that take option is not always available. I have not quite tracked down the reason but sometimes I can't take a object when I should be able to even though I have mod rights.

Also mod rights use to allow me to read a script ina object if the owner could read it. The same with notecards and textures. Now however I can't see any of that unless I am the owner of the object. And even having mod rights does not fix this problem. This bug started happening back in novemember when there was a big problem with the asset server and they told us all not to rez or take anything to our inventories till they fixed the problem. It was only one night but the next day this bug came to light.

In short sharing building projects is not easy as it should be. I understand not want to give people the ablity to create in someone elses name, but they should be able to share objects and projects easier.

-DB

(bump)

The last Linden comment on Wrappers I can find was from Cory Linden in mid October 2005.

(not including Torley's comment on candy wrappers in november.

So... Are The New Permissions progressing, stalled, abandoned?

Just curious.

I remember reading this thread long ago. A blast from the past.

Well, Cory, what's up with idea?

I would also like to draw Linden attention to :
this topic requesting REAL copy-protection for notecards, to help stop the rampant piracy which plagues written works in SL.

Content Creators need better control over permissions.

Take the following scenario:

Mike the Mega-Merchant wants to make and sell a lamps. He's made some
objects but has no texture or scripting skills, so he asks around and finds:
Tom the Talented Texturer and Sam the Savvy Scriptor.

Because Mike's goal is to SELL the final product, he neds components from Tom
and Sam that are both COPY and TRANSFER. Probably MOD too.

Tom and Sam get an IM out of the blue from Mike, who asks, "Hey can I buy a
mod+copy+trans version of your (insert something that took a lot of time and
effort to create) so I can use it in a product I'm working on?"

What are the odds that Tom or Sam will say "Yes" ? Pretty darned unlikely.

Why? Because they can't TRUST Mike to turn off one or the other of the copy
and transfer permissions... or to turn off the mod permissions if they grant
that too.

Once that first mod+copy+trans version of a work has been given to anyone it
may as well be considered public domain. One mistake, one time forgetting to
change the permissions and there's mod+copy+transfer versions spreading from
person to person.

I certainly would hate to see something I spent a lot of time and effort
creating re-packaged without my consent and mass-produced in some thrift shop
for someone else's personal profit!


So... we need some mechanism that will enforce the concept of "Limited Use
License". What I'd love to see would be this:

Give the CREATOR a set of new permissions for any object or upload:

AFTER FIRST TRANSFER, limit Next Owner Perms to:
Mod: [ ] always allow, [ ] deny if trans [ ] deny if copy [ ] always deny
Copy: [ ] always allow, [ ] deny if trans [ ] deny if mod [ ] always deny
Trans: [ ] always allow, [ ] deny if mod [ ] deny if copy [ ] always deny

This permits content creators to release components that STAY in the public
domain by always being mod+copy+transfer.

It lets content creators TRUST resellers with limited re-use license to
distribute either: Unique Trans, or Copyable Personal use
and control whether or not they're customer modable as well.

I know this doesn't go hand-in-hand with the wrappers idea, in fact it
goes in somewhat the opposite direction. It probably needs some way to
set the 'default' next owner perms when several combinations are possible,
based on the 'deny-if' selections. Certainly there are ways to improve on it.

But I think content sharing is suffering under the current model. And would
likely suffer under a 'wrappers' based model too, because content creators
won't share their best stuff if doing so will just risk having it go public
domain and profiting people that don't have their consent.

Only when we have better trust mechanisms in place will content creators feel
confident in sharing their best works with each other and resellers!

*bump*

Jopsy Pendragon, I agree your proposals would be useful for people wishing to allow others to resell their work.

To get the idea considered though, you'll have to demonstrate :
1) that reselling is desirable as feature of SL.
2) that we can't do it already.

Hmm... as to #1... it seems obvious to me that some people have talent as shop designers/marketers, and some have talent as creators/tinkers/smiths. To be talented at both would be nice, but not everyone is. I've been asked often enough for permission to resell things I've created that I believe there is a desire for the capability... and it would be nice to have an economy which functioned as more than just a yard-sale, real-estate and currency trading.

As to #2. I may be wrong... but everything I've tried leaves me with nothing better than an 'honor system'. I've seen enough people burned by it enough that they no longer trust anyone with mod+copy+transfer items.

For collaboration between various types of 'talent' and business to occur we NEED permissions that will enforce limited use licenses.

*bump* again...

Is there anything in the works for permissions?

The only thing I could find in the blogs was from 2004...

As far as I can tell this is still the definitive thread on the topic of wrappers and permissions.

Torley Linden ? Cory Linden ?

Jopsy, I can understand what you are trying to do.
What I am saying is : the Lindens have a HUGE amount of work to do, and if you want this feature put in place in the next 2 years, you have to demonstrate why it is more important then the other things they are being asked to work on.

Here's something that may help you.

Skip to : /13/0e/112690/1.html - the last post especially, at /13/0e/112690/1.html#post1244738 - see if you can justify why your idea is more important then the ideas listed there. Those are the sort of ideas that you have to demonstrate greater importance over, if you want yout idea to be considered in the short term.

If you can demonstrate that your idea is more important than the ones listed there, IM ME PERSONALLY and I will include it there. I may well include it in the 'interesting ideas for discussion' area anyway, as I do think it needs unpacking a bit.

Good luck with getting your idea discussed Personally, if I were you, I'd use the topic I linked to above for comparison of importance, then think about writing a clear proposal for it, then start a new topic for it on the FS forum, then link to it in your sig and other places. See if you can't gather people up for a discussion about it. When you feel it's mature, put it on the FVT

You may also want to read :
/13/ab/120829/1.html

Good luck with it overall

Angel-

I have a tremendous amount of respect for LL and their efforts, and I have no delusions about a revision of the permissions schema being anything short but a huge technical headache. I've had to retro-fit legacy code without breaking compex data in the past, it can be the stuff of nightmares.

I push on this issue because I feel very strongly that for SL to evolve into a true marketplace it MUST embrace changes to the permission system that support limited licensing.

As things are now, I can't give you license to one of my creations to sell in your store and stop you from making it public domain.

I can't give give you license to incorporate one of my scripts/textures/sounds/animations/models into one of your products for sale, and prevent you from deliberately (or, more likely, accidentally) putting my creation into the public domain.

So, I either:
charge you significantly more and give you compete license to do as you wish, and avoid licensing it to anyone else for a fee because when you deliberately/accidentally make it public domain the value plumets, or
I don't trust you and I make you buy no-copy/trans versions and incorporate/sell them one by one.

The grey space between those two options relies too much on trust in customer's integrity, attentiveness and competence, and often results in receiving only a fraction of the compensation expected for a new work. (Why buy a license for a premium component that you can just rip a copy/trans version of out of someone else's product?)

Yes, this is an issue that impacts a minority of SecondLife users, but if LL's stated direction for SL is to be realized then permissions need to reflect it!

I think of it as the "object" equivalent of what's going on with estate management. (Obviously land brings in more revenue than widget sales and quite understandably gets priority, I can't fault that.)

I'm not expecting this as an over-night change, but after so much great momentum and attention to possible permission changes I'd hate to see the entire issue slide completely off the table and end up forgotten.

When it comes down to it, permissions are not something I'm an expert at, better minds than mine have made outstanding better suggestions than me.. I stick to particles and simpler things, most of what I do IS public domain anyway. I just think that there is a huge void between "Product" and "Public" that once fleshed out would create a much stronger and willing market for focused and skilled talent and collaboration.

(Your work with sorting out the feature requests is quite impressive! I hope LL puts your efforts to good use!!! =)