Solid State Alpha

Iam you are clearly an honourable content creator, and it is people like you that deserve better support.

Chip sees things differently than I perhaps, but he and I can agree to disagree I'm pretty sure. Chosen seems to have taken things personally - nothing was about him.



Consider the following scenario, and ask the following ethics question:

Someone buys one of Aminom's new trees, puts it under a microscope and starts competing against him with his own innovation the very next day.

a) totally cool
b) wrong and slimy

That covers most of my points without a giant wall of text, and I stand by it.

It's perhaps my fault for having stirred up this whole thing. (You know: So much "forum glory," so little time! ) But what triggered my response was the specific terms of clause 4 of the Terms of Use bundled with the trees, and probably it would help at this point to see that language. To wit:(That's surely a "fair use" quote, in this context.)

I'm reasonably sure this language originally applied to something other than sculpted trees in SecondLife, or possibly from a lawyer who sorta didn't gr0k the scene here. But as worded and applied, it has all kinds of scary implications. I set out these trees on a parcel; am I liable if others walk by, look at the trees, and figure out how they're made? Arguably I am, depending what "reasonable means to prevent accidental disclosure" may mean. And now that I own these trees and am therefore ostensibly bound by the ToU, even if I completely independently discover these secret methods, this clause would have it that I may not use them in any way that might compete with the creator. In fact, as worded, I can be in violation without even knowing that I'm using the secret methods. And, indeed, it would be impossible for me to know one way or another whether I'm using the secret methods, since their scope is in no way restricted by the ToU.

My RL gets me into a lot of NDAs, so I take such things pretty seriously. My lawyer would never let me agree to these terms in RL. And yet the ToU would have it that I have agreed to them by buying the trees. And SL IP *is* RL IP--that's kinda the whole point.

I am absolutely supportive of folks rights to protect their in-world IP; indeed, the topic of IP in virtual worlds was how I ever even heard of SecondLife. I am also troubled by the "chilling effects" of DMCA and interpretations that increasingly deviate from the original intent of patent and copyright law. So, as I said, I take such things pretty seriously. In this case, perhaps that's whence my problem arose.

An extremely useful thread - nice work guys !

Are you saying that your claim that I "totally belittled Aminom" (which I didn't) wasn't about me? Who was it about then? Come on. Your audience is smarter than that. Yes, I take that personally.

I also take it personally when you imply that those of us who share our knowledge freely, which I do every day here, probably more than anyone else, do it for some sort of personal glory. That's as personally insulting as it is ridiculous. Believe me, 90% of the time, it's a totally thankless task. If I were seeking glory, I could find much better ways to go about it. So yes, I take that part personally too.

As for the actual relevant topic, the subject of whether or not it's morally right to share knowledge, that is a matter of principle. And principles are larger than all of us. While I often speak passionately and zealously about matters of principle, I can't take them personally, because they're far more important than I am. Don't confuse fervor and intensity with personal investment.

Bottom line, I'm sorry you feel so strongly that fear-based hoarding of how-to information is more beneficial than the free flow of ideas. Me, I'd rather help, share, serve, and grow. If you, or anyone else, were suddenly to learn everything I've ever known about content creation, I'd be happy for you, not scared of you. I know with total confidence and comfort that nothing you do with that knowledge could harm me in any way. Harm or not-harm isn't even a factor in the equation. I wish you could learn to see things that way too. Because if you don't, you'll always find yourself playing catchup to those who do, and that's sad.

Desmond,

I am really surprised to see what appears to be such a scarcity and fear-based mentality from someone who has always appeared so open and generously-minded here. You are one of the last people I would have expect such a response from and I'm kind of stunned actually.

Like I think everyone here has posted, I believe there is no defence from making a direct copy of someone else's work and passing it off as your own. That's not what we're talking about here.


That's a bit like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?" It makes several assumptions, one of them being that this is "his own innovation" when from what Chosen has said, it's a known technique applied in an innovative way.

It also assumes that anyone working out what he's done could start competing against him "the very next day". If this technique is so new and innovative, it would be reasonable to think it would take longer than a day for someone who has never done anything like it before to produce a competitive item ready for sale within 24 hours. It's also illogical - are you saying it would be any different if they started competing 3 days later? Or a week? Or a month? What would be an acceptable time?

To be honest, I think the TOU clause that Qie posted is far more unethical than someone producing a similar item using a known technique. That clause is horrendous! Of course it's illegal and unenforceable, but the very act of including it with the product demonstrates a meanness of spirit in total opposition to the sharing of people like Chip and Chosen and Robin - and many others here, including you yourself.

I make shoes, and one of the "trade secrets" (which of course is no secret at all) is the use of invisiprims to hide the avatar's foot. Without it, it would be impossible to make high-heeled shoes (at least I assume it would be because everyone uses it).

At some point, both the invisiprim script itself and this way of using it wasn't known in SL. I imagine the invisiprim's original purpose was something other than shoes, but it was long before my time. Certainly there would have been one person who initially discovered how useful such a script would be in producing shoes for avatars.

From what you're saying Desmond, that person should have prevented anyone else fron using this technique to make shoes (or anything similar) because they were the first to apply it. And in that case, there should only ever have been one shoemaker in SL making high-heeled shoes unless a completely different method had been discovered.

I would guess that what actually happened was that either the person themselves let other people know what they'd worked out or someone bought a pair of shoes, thought "wow! that's a brilliant idea!" and promptly produced their own shoes using the same technique. Sure, the original designer lost his/her monopoly on shoe making, but would it have possible for one person to supply ALL the shoes for SL? Would it have been right?

Suddenly SL had a whole new way of producing prim parts (not just shoes) for avatars and we can now choose to be furries or dragons or tinies or pretty much anything else we like (I was a butterfly and a mermaid last week).

Is that
a) totally cool or
b) wrong and slimy?

Isobel

c) completely inevitable and a natural side effect of putting a product on the market.

Desmond, I absolutely applaud your staunch support of the rights of content creators, and that's certainly preferable to the alternative, but Aminom is claiming rights that go far beyond what I've ever heard any content creator attempt to claim in SL. He's basically claiming patent protection without a patent. It's unenforceable and has no legal foundation without one, and I doubt very much that a method that's both self-evident (and also not particularly original) could be patented in the first place. As has already been demonstrated in this thread he's not the only person to have thought of doing it. That would be like me attempting to claim that no one else could use the tattoo slots to completely cover up the default avatar skin wtih skin textures created using photographs (instead of using the tattoo slots for tattoos) simply because I was the first person in SL to think to do it.

I know for a fact that some of my competitors have purchased my products specifically to examine them with an eye towards doing their own. On more than one occassion I chatted to them at the time and offered tips and explained how certain things were done. Now if I knew they ripped the textures to examine them that way I wouldn't be particularly happy about it, but as long as they didn't modify and resell them it wouldn't be illegal. There are now hundreds of people selling products that replicate my methods (which someone else would have been first to do had it not been me because it's an obvious way to approach the problem), and use the tools I give away to aid in their creation. Many of them do it all much better than I. More power to them. I'm a big fan of many of them.

The ONLY thing I can claim as proprietary in SL is my own skill in applying ideas. Being the first person to think of something in the SL market in no way means that I "invented" the idea, because if one person thinks of something as a way to solve a problem, it's absolutely inevitable that someone else would have thought of the same thing independently (and in the case of these trees, someone already did). So, if someone gets the idea from me rather than thinking of it themselves, it really doesn't make much difference in the long run. The idea isn't nearly as important as the skill it takes to implement it.

This is a terrific discussion, and (surprise!) I share Des's impulse to try to protect Aminom's investment of time and energy.

First just a tiny bit of background: I am an insignificant content creator in SL. But RL, I have spent a lot of time in entrepreneurial companies, venture-backed and otherwise, and so have done some thinking about the importance and fostering of innovation in human society.

Innovators are partially driven by seeing their stuff be liked and used ... in a capitalistic society, people express "liking" of an invention by buying it. Inventors like to make things and see people buy them. Plus, they like to get credit as a leader in their field.

Currently, SL is an economy of micropayments. Any one piece of content sells for pennies. Thus, the protections of patents and the right to sue really don't exist in SL - they are economically absurd. So, the sole recourse that process inventors like Aminom have in SL is to hide their innovations until they have a large enough set of product to establish market dominance, since copycats will be hard on their heels. Aminom, I respect your attempt to change that truth with clause 4, but hon, it just isn't enforceable, and as Qie points out, its phraseology poses other problems.

What is the role of teachers in this unfortunate climate? Here is where I empathize with Des a bit. Because patents really don't exist, it would be nice if teachers would hold off on explicating new methodologies until their inventors have a chance to capitalize and get the satisfaction of commercial success and reputation as a leader. It is a FACT that most inventors are motivated by those satisfactions. A single prolific inventor has far more impact on making SL look well than 100 imitators. So, it's a delicate dance: the question is not whether to teach innovative methods: the question is WHEN to do it. And, for the good of SL, I think the best answer is: give the innovator a chance to succeed before enabling everyone else to copy them.

SL would not be what it is without the contributions of generous teachers and open sourcers like Chip, Chosen, Eloh Elliot, Void Singer etc.. Nor would it be what it is without commercial inventors like Aminom, IAm, the Intelliskirt scripter, etc.. There must be room for both.
.

Nika, I appreciate your comments. And in principle I agree with them. You're absolutely right, when invention happens, inventors do deserve some protection in order to benefit from their labor. But in this case, invention is not what we're talking about. Cleverness, yes. Talent, absolutely. High quality results, certainly. But invention, no.

What we're talking about is an already well established technique that happens to have been put to good use to produce some good looking items, which happen to be trees. The only thing that could rightly be described as "innovative" about it is the fact that few so far have thought to marry this particular technique with this particular subject. The technique itself is not an invention, nor is the subject, and nor is the marriage of the two.

As I stated earlier, a great many people have used the exact same technique to create many other types of items. Aminom should be commended for his artistic talent in making trees that look so good, and for his idea of applying the technique to trees in the first place. But that's as far as it goes.

Let's say tomorrow, I take this same technique and make not a tree, but a fire hydrant. Should I then claim that I invented the "sculptiple" fire hydrant, and that no one should be able to make one until such time as I've earned some arbitrary amount of money from it? Or should I just own up to the truth of the situation and say, "Hey guys, you know that cool technique that was explained and discussed ad nauseam on the building forum a few months back? I just used it to make a pretty cool fire hydrant."

I think the latter is the obvious right answer, don't you?






Also, I think some people are missing the fact that it's not easy to do this stuff. As I mentioned earlier, Aminom, or anyone else, could post a step by step tutorial on exactly how to do it, and still probably more than 99% of people who read it wouldn't do it. It does take a certain level of expertise, and more importantly, a substantial amount of determination.

I myself have accomplished many firsts in SL. For example, I made the first full sized replica Star Trek ships SL had ever seen. (I embarrassed to say they've never been fully completed, but that's another story.) As SL is chock full of Star Trek fans and sci fi enthusiasts, a great many people over the years have asked how I did it. I'm always happy to explain. And I've posted detailed tutorials here, explaining most, if not all, of the techniques involved, on many occasions.

Yet the number of similar replica ships in SL can still be counted practically on one hand. Why is that? The knowledge is out there, right? People can charge good money for these things if they want to, right? ( Seriously, you wouldn't believe some of the offers I've gotten for them.) But very few have actually done it. Why?

I'll tell you why. Because it's freakin' hard; that's why. While it's easy to assume that if people know how something is done, they'll just go ahead and do it themselves, the truth is most people won't. As soon as they figure out it takes actual time, they move on to something easier.

Such is the case with these trees. Anyone who already possesses the skill and expertise to make them can figure out how they were made in one glance, just as I did. Actually, I didn't even need a glance. As soon as they were mentioned, I knew. So there's certainly no stopping that (not should there be). But the masses, who are the ones that certain in this discussion seem to be so afraid of, would never have the patience to imitate the damned things, even if you were to hold their hands and walk them all the way through it from start to finish.

I hate to say that, since one of my long held tenets in teaching is that anyone can do it. But there's a huge difference between "can do it" and "will do it". The fact is most people won't do it, no matter what "it" we're talking about. So what is there to be so afraid of?

As I said before, scarcity-based thinking is a waste of time.

I haven't seen these trees, but if I am guessing the method correctly from posts made in this thread, I had also already thought in passing a few weeks ago how this could be applied to many things, including plants - I hasten to add that I have no intention of creating any such products. I only introduced myself to sculpty prims about a month ago, so I'm sure many many others must have considered this, too.

I have to agree with comments made by Chosen & Chip, among others. Even if I hadn't have happened to have considered this method, it seems to me to be too fundamental for someone to consider they would be right to be protective of it, though I can of course understand, and fully support, anyone who wishes to protect their specific content.

You're preaching to the choir, here, Pastor. ;)

I wasn't saying that I, for example, liked or didn't like what you posted. Clearly you posted what you did for your own reason(s). However, as so many others are keen (and quite correct) to point out, how something is posted has as much bearing on how it is taken by others as to what is posted.

*shrug* Makes no nevermind to me in the end; I am no great artist, and have not even the slightest desire to make a fancy tree using such a method. However, I am a sentient being, who LOVES challenges to figure out how stuff works. I *may* someday get the cajones to make a nifty cool prim build using a similar technique, but meh; I have too much scripting to get done first. ;)



It is also why Western society has gone WAY WAY WAY over the line of "protecting 'innovation'" through allowing the protections of said "innovations" to be far unbalanced towards the creator. VERY PRECIOUS LITTLE that is created today is created in a vacuum from nothing but a spark of innovation. The VAST MAJORITY of "innovation" is built upon the massive mountain of previous (and no less "innovative") work done by others, yet people want to claim that their tiny little flag on top of and inclusive of said mountain is solely theirs to claim and wish to give little to nothing back to those whose GIANT shoulders they stand upon.

It is why Copyright and Patent law is so HUGELY broken nowadays; sponsored and bought by corrupt and racketeering organizations and their shill politicians they have funded for YEARS.

Thing is, AS a published content creator, author, artist, coder, etc, I am FOR IP protections, but I also realize that there HAS to be a balance with the interests of the public domain as well as my own.

In a system where you can own copyright for another whole LIFETIME AFTER you leave this veil of tears, where you can legally own the technique of "swinging sideways on a swing" (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2178-boy-takes-swing-at-us-patents.html), or "exercising a cat with a laser pointer" (http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5443036.html), I think there is ample evidence that the balance has swung WAY too far in the wrong direction.

The whole idea behind patents (as they would apply in this case) is to protect the inventor's INVESTMENT in time and effort, to give them a reason to work long hours for months and years, potentially spending great sums of their own money developing something truly new and innovative. They were NOT meant to protect something that anyone with "ordinary skill in the art" could come up with as a matter of course of practicing said art in a short time frame, with little actual investment in time, money, or materials. IE, to really qualify for patent protection, an idea must be "new, novel, and non-trivial". However, that litmus has been watered down by the courts, and from a profiteering policy in the US PTO, bought and paid for by large corporate concerns for many years. Thing is, it is coming back to bite them on the tail HARD, as little patent trolls have sprung up creating byzantine minefields of trivial patents with the hope of catching some of the "big guys" stepping on them and then milking them for a fortune. The situation is so bad, it is pretty much becoming "patent lotto", with the only cost for a lot/ticket being the cost of obtaining a patent on anything.

It's a truly pathetic situation, and has wide-ranging implications long-term, including being one of the drivers for the looming recession.

So, no, I don't think anyone spending a couple hours coming up with a technique which anyone with ordinary skill in the art could come up with worthy of any kind of monopolistic protection. Do I think Aminom is cool, makes cool stuff, and deserves to be compensated for his "being a cool dude and making cool stuff efforts"? ABSATIVELY! :D I don't have to support the former to support the latter, though.



This actually already happens a lot. In many places, there are "media taxes", like the ones in Canada and Germany, which tax blank media to give the money to the "artists" whose infringed works are copied onto each and every one. Yep. That's the way that works. Buy a blank CD-R/W, you better go ahead and download some music to put on it, because you are already paying for it anyway.

In the US, we have "Patronage of the Arts" endowments which are government grants paid for by US taxpayers. This one I don't mind too much, because it DOES encourage very good art, but not always. Art is a mixed bag, though... one man's "art" is another man's "eyesore from Hell".

The MAFIAA (RIAA/MPAA) are also pushing hard for legislation to tax everything from computers / electronics to media to haircuts in order to bolster their epically failing business model.



As far as the technique is concerned, he has no choice but to "give it away for free". Unless he's going to file a patent for it, a simple shrink-wrap license clause isn't going to do dick to protect the technique from being used by whomever. As Chosen has already pointed out, it already has been in use by others for other kinds of items. I don't know, and the only one who can say is Aminom himself, but he may have been inspired by those other works, even peripherally. Maybe not, maybe it is all his inspiration, but I hardly think it is worthy of legal protection (the technique, not the creations resulting from his specific application of it).



That's a non-sequitur. Just because some particular use for a tool hasn't been considered since the tool's existence doesn't make said use non-trivial. New uses for the tool are coming out all the time. Many of them are like "duh, yeah, I coulda had a V8". It's a NEW tool. More uses are naturally going to come of it as time progresses. All possible uses are not going to spring into existence within a few short moments after it is introduced.



Maybe, maybe not. However it is definitely within the realm of triviality.

I am not a 3D artist, but a programmer, and I have MANY years of experience in breaking down and analyzing systems, looking for faults, as well as finding new and "novel" ways of applying/building them. It's what pays the bills. :) That said, I can see the thought processes that go through the head of someone looking to overcome a technical hurdle. Once you know the parameters of a problem, you can systematically narrow down the solution set until you arrive at one which becomes simply a matter of picking a "best of breed". Maybe I am oversimplifying it a little, but we're also not talking about a finding a cure for cancer here, either.

That said, I am happy to keep giving credit where it is due. Aminom is a cool dude, and he makes cool trees. :)



No, it doesn't negate Ethics, on ANY side of the argument. :)

Mmm, right, I didn't think you were being nice at all in the first place and I did say that. Point taken.

* * * * *

Chip, I agree, there's common practise and boundaries to be considered here. The first person who applied a texture onto an avatar using intended tools wouldn't deserve rights over the technique - I think we can all agree on that.

I agree there is a certain inevitability to having ideas taken. But that doesn't make it ethically right.

Two steps here:
1) ethics: should a novel content creator deserve to have his idea ripped off
2) if not, does particular case (trees, invisiprims, whatnot) qualify for protection.

I think the first is a no-brainer and overall, western civilisation agrees if sufficient criteria are met.

The second is a discussion about criteria in any given case, which is a tough discussion to have openly if there aren't any protections (such as on the grid today).

* * * * *

Isobel, there are many who may claim they know exactly what is going on but that doesn't make them right. And even if they are right, it doesn't give them ethical carte blanche to cash in on someone else's innovation.

Let's talk about invisiprims, it's a brilliant example.

Once upon a time on the grid, invisiprims were not common knowledge at all. There used to be a region named Krittania (circa 2004) where you could walk up to this 'invisibility tube' that shocked and stunned people... gasp... their avatar disappeared when they went inside!

The atmosphere was different then; some of the people who knew about this were afraid the Company would see invisiprim use as an exploit and respond accordingly. Well, clearly that didn't turn out to be the case.

Here is how I see things from an ethical standpoint:

a) The first person applies invisiprims to shoes and goes into business.

b) They declare and explain what they have done, and get a short period of market protection (invisiprims + shoes only). 17 years of patent protection is clearly over the top, but 24 hours is clearly too little.

There is a huge difference creating invisiprim shoes the day after someone first shows it is possible, versus doing so in a mature market a year later.

My ethical reaction to everyone doing invisiprim shoes now is "that's just fine" - any reasonable market protection should have long expired.

And invisiprims are the perfect example of how something can be a novel application but duplicated literally overnight, even in 5 minutes once you get the idea of it.

* * * * *

Of course, we live in a pragmatic world - don't think for a second that I'm in favour of setting up a 'second life patent office' based on 'patent law lite' - that would clearly be ridiculous.

But by same token, that doesn't ethically justify the madding crowds or forum pundits to gleefully descend, cash in and expound on someone's innovation - especially when it is new to the market. That's awful and wrong.

I also think it is ethical for a creator to keep his mouth shut, and also ethical for him to say: "Hey, don't buy my stuff if you are going to rip me off and compete!"

To criticise someone for making such a statement in their own defence is just... mindboggling.

* * * * *

This is commerce not academia; capitalism not communism.

The community does not have an instant ethical claim to an individual's intellectual property - not even in the name of learning, not even in the name of commonwealth.

Patent, trademark, copyright - all of these things are actively designed to deny usage in the public domain. To suggest that these concepts are somehow ethically mitigated in a virtual world is just not right.

For example, selling Star Trek ships on the grid is clearly understood to be wrong by most people (I have no idea if Chosen sells them or not) and even making one is something that is tolerated (fan fiction) or not (infringement claim) by the holder of those rights. It's up to the rights holders, not anyone else.

As for 'scarcity models' - this is a characterisation I utterly disagree with, along with many other theories put forth. To put it plain and simple:

A direct competitor taking your novel idea and using it against you right away *will* affect your business!

It takes experts with doctorates, a need to publish and a complete disconnect with reality to muddle such a simple concept.



Edit: just saw your response Talarus; I agree there have been horrific abuses with law in reality. Oddly enough I think we are pretty close to being on the same page.

I've got to get the family car washed folks - I'll be back later if if the topic remains civil and forum appropriate, though I think there's perhaps little to add after all these words. Until then, then, and happy resident answering, all!

Given these choices, I would have to choose C.

This is a very interesting discussion, as it balances on the edge of several important SL issues. Where does Intellectual Property end and technique begin?

I went to have a look at Aminom's trees. I couldn't resist. From the info given in the discussion I had a good idea of the tricks that might be involved, and a quick right-click confirmed my suspicions. Actually just seeing the trees, knowing that they are created from two sculpted prims, and a bit of sculpty knowledge is enough to deduce the techniques involved.

The trees are very well made, wonderfully textured, and cleverly constructed - but Aminom didn't 'invent' anything. He applied his (considerable) skills to a set of tools and building blocks provided by LL. This set of tools is available to everyone in SL. There is no proprietary knowledge here, nothing that expanded upon this toolset, nothing that has changed what is possible in SL.

Aminom has undoubtedly mastered the sculpted prim and has created a wonderful product. He has every right to protect his specific creations. He owns them in the same way that we all own the things that we create. But does this protection extend beyond his creations to the general techniques used in their construction? No.

This is where we part ways, Desmond. Someone invented the first mousetrap. Someone else came along and said "hey, great idea! I think I'll get into the mousetrap business." The first person didn't get ripped off unless the other person started selling the original mousetrap with their name on it. The originator of the mousetrap was being competed with. Nothing more, and nothing less.

SL is too small and too limited for anything akin to patent law. The applications of the tools we have at our disposal is finite. The effect on a still nascent economy with such limited tools at its disposal would be chilling and to everyone's detriment, including that first mousetrap maker. For example, I THINK I was the first person to make full body replacement skins in SL, but I don't KNOW that I was, and in fact can't ever definitively know. It's likely that I wasn't the first person to have the idea, but I was the first person to become known for it. Should anyone else who might have been developing the same idea in isolation be shut out of the market simply because mine was noticed first and I was the first to stake a claim? That would be completely unfair to them.

Would the originator of an idea still be deserving of protection even if they had no intention of turning it into a commercial product? They'd have to be, but then the public is locked out of benefiting from that idea until the protection expired or the originator of the idea decided to go commercial. The whole thing is simply impractical in SL, and also, ultimately, harmful.

Competition is what drives innovation. It's what keeps people from resting on their laurels and profiting in perpetuity on yesterday's innovation. So why innovate? Because no matter how many people jump on your idea, you're still the first to market and in the minds of many you're likely to be considered the authority for a long while to come, even if new entrants to the market have superior products.

Just because a hundred other people might make competing products based on your initial concept, there's no guarantee that any of them will be as competently executed. As Chosen pointed out earlier, even for anyone who knows exactly how those trees were made, replicating them would still be bloody difficult for anyone to do. If someone takes the time and effort to do it and creates a product of equal quality, they've absolutely earned the right to compete in that market.

Let me clarify exactly what the ToU means, my position on knowledge sharing and competition, and what made me decide on such a ToU. Please bear with me, as this will be a tl;dr post.

--------------
Background and Competition

I started my career in sculpts by making SL's first sculpted stairs a few days after sculpts were released on the main grid. Compared to today's standards they were incredibly crude. A while after I made a set of better stairs. At this time, alpha protecting sculpts was not a known technique, so my sculpt maps were able to be printscreened.

A while after, someone created a set of sculpted stairs extremely similar to mine, which set off alarms. The set is still on SLEX as 234 sculpted stairs. I bought it to inspect, and found that several versions, when overlapped with my own, fit them exactly.

So, I dug further. In photoshop I overlaid his sculpt with mine, and used difference mode to compare differences. Result was an almost entirely black layer- all of the colored regions that made up the stairs were exactly the same, despite at this point their position being completely arbitrary. Then a professional 2D graphics artists showed me that his stairs had strong evidence of being compressed twice- what would happen if it were printscreened from SL.

The result was undeniable evidence that he had ripped my sculpts to make his own. He also did some basic edits to my images to make steps with fewer stairs. This is unethical, and a violation of my IP rights.

I got pissed. I pondered a DMCA notice- but instead I buried him by creating a set of much improved stairs. When lossless came about I polished them, and to this day my stairs remain the best selling sculpted stairs in SL.

Let me contrast this with valid, beneficial competition. Cel Edman has been in many respects one of my closest competitors, and through that competition we have become good friends. Early on, and to this day, we have competed in sculpted stairs. However, he is honest and very talented, and has created all of his stairs on his own. I welcome this sort of competition and believe it is beneficial to everyone involved. Recently Cel created a superb collection of stairs that rival mine, and this is forcing me to develop a completely new line of stairs myself This competition isn't a zero-sum game; we've both seen continued increase of sales because even though we are competing with each other, our continued work expands the market.

A more immediate example is the 1/3 prim palm trees. They are quite nice and use a method I haven't seen before. They are an example of someone's creativity being used to create something uniquely theirs that is in competition with mine in the field of low-prim trees. I'm not trying to stifle competition- I just don't want the same thing that happened to me with my stairs happen with my trees.

--------------
Knowledge Sharing

As for knowledge sharing and ethics, this is a gray area because it largely revolves on what school of ethics you subscribe to. If one believes that one has a moral responsibility to share one's knowledge, then that could put innovators in a position of subserviance, morally obligated to share their knowledge to society without gaining any benefit of their innovation. To me personally, this sounds a bit like a form of slavery.

I don't think anyone is morally obligated to share any of their knowledge on any topic whatsoever. I believe it would have been ethically sound if I haven't taught anyone about my knowledge of sculpts. However, this isn't the case. I freely share the majority of my knowledge in several ways.

This is the knowledge I freely share:

1) Methods to get lossless to work with SL as best as possible. I made a full notecard detailing this, which is availiable in my shop.

2) How to achieve sharp edges, _including_ the theory behind it and how it works.

3) How to manipulate sculpts in photoshop using image editing tools. This includes using linear dodge and difference to shift elements of sculpts, color curves to scale (incredibly useful to alter the LOD of a sculpt, and to create nano sculpts), and mirroring components. These techniques account for 75% of the tools I use on sculpts.

4) General theory behind the use of degenerate normals for complex topology. For example, the "loaf pinching" technique is taking a sculpt, scaling down rows of vertices onto a single point to create several detached objects, then moving them around and repositioning them. The "grab and pull" method would be taking a section of a sculpt by a plane, pulling it out, squeezing the connecting area so it forms a line, then folding up the connecting geometry inside the object. These simple descriptions are incredibly informative if one does a bit of tinkering

I have shared this information in several ways. Most times it is when someone asks me. Sometimes, it is in the form of a forum post or a talk given. So, even if you believe that it is the ethical responsibility of innovators to share their knowledge, I have done my ethical duty. It is only my most advanced techniques I do not disclose- I suspect I will in time, when I have learned further methods.

--------------
Trees and the ToU

Finally, to the issue at hand: the ToU of my trees. It seems this ToU has been misinterpreted as being so broad that someone could potentially violate it just by looking at the tree. This is not the case: it is basically impossible to violate the ToU by any means in-world. The trees have mod perms, so you can edit them, apply new textures (they take standard plant textures), and generally do what you wish to them.

I am also not prohibiting anyone, including customers, from competing with me if they create their own trees that are similar in use. There are literally thousands of ways to create two-prim trees using sculpts. There are so many different factors in sculpt design that it is impossible for two people to come to the same exact topological conclusion. What it forbids is someone saving either the geometric or sculpt map data to their hard drive, and reverse engineering or editing it for commercial use. That's it.

Now, if you don't like this ToU, simply do not purchase my trees. The ToU isn't a shrinkwrap agreement: the box says "touch for info and terms of use," and you can fully read it before purchase.

By the way, here's a list of just some of the variables when dealing with sculpts, all of which result in unique topology:

-construction and orientation of sculpt components. Fitting together multiple elements on a sculpt is much like Tetris, in that you can fit them together in many different ways. In addition, even among sculpts that "tetris" the same way there are many variations depending on how they are folded to create the components.

-Texture stretching method. Some sculpts use polygons stretched in regular ways, some use polygons stretched irregularly (and have it compensated for in texturing), and some keep the polygons as close to uniform squares as possible. Even among sculpts that have regularly stretched polygons (say, rectangles stretched four times as long as wide) there are several ways to alter the topology for different texture effects, with no single "right" answer.

-Edge type. Some sculpts use sharp edges (like prim cubes), some smooth(like spheres), or a combination thereof. There are every ways to get triangular faces with flat edges.

-UV mapping methods. Some sculpts can be actively designed to use UV repeats to map certain texture areas across multiple elements. These repeats can seem nonsensical- such as 2.901 U repeats, but it makes sense for a particular purpose, and this is reflected in the topology.

-custom stitching methods. In complex sculpts, the edges of components must be manually stitched. This stitching can be done in various ways (as a quick example, imagine all the ways one can make a box shape.)

-LOD response. Some sculpts are actively modeled to appear at reduced LOD levels in precise ways. This can often result in completely different topology.

-Alpha sorting. All the polygons in a sculpt sort in fixed ways that don't change based on viewing angle. That is, polygon A will _always_ appear to be in front of polygon B, regardless of actual position. This can be actively used in the construction of a sculpt.

These are the general variables, but there are many other smaller, and specific ones, such as number of elements per sculpt, polygons used per elements, and arbitrary ways of folding up degenerate polygons. What the ToU forbids is the exact combination of construction techniques found in the trees- something that could only be done through reverse engineering directly from the sculpt map- not from creating something that works in a similar way but through means one figures out on one's own.

--------------
Conclusion

If you have gotten this far, you are very patient I'm not some evil, greedy sculptmongler who is out only to make a buck. I greatly love SL and 3D modeling, and making a modest income from it allows me to continue to keep doing what I love, and learning from it.

Aminom, thank you for chiming in. I really think that you should reword your ToU to more accurately and explicitly describe what you're trying to forbid, because it does sound far more broad and draconian than what you've described here. I don't think you'll find anyone who would argue in favor of anyone else's right to rip your sculpt map, or use a GL ripper to get the model to import into a an external modeler for use as a template to replicate your topology. That's so basic that it really doesn't even need to be said, because anyone who would do it isn't going to care what you say anyway. That's why they're a thief in the first place.

As for knowledge sharing (for the record, I'm a big Ayn Rand fan), that's something people have to decide for themselves. My point is merely that so much of the progress and innovation in SL has been the direct result of sharing tools and techniques that the benefits have outweighed the pitfalls. I'd argue that it's been a big factor in driving both the amount and quality of products in SL which in turn has helped drive the growth of SL's user base, economy, and potential customer pool for all content creators.

Even though we've been arguing about something you didn't mean to imply, it's spawned a great discussion. Beyond that, keep up the thoroughly awesome work!

I think your position is reasonable, Aminom, and I hope you have continued success with your trees.

What Chip said! ^

Yes, i think the sticky phrase is 'reverse engineer'. To you it seems that means ripping the sculpt. To me (and many others), that means simply editing the prim in world, as thats all we need to deduce construction. Perhaps rewording it to make it clear what your definition of 'reverse engineering' is. Thanks for the clarification.

Kk, long before sculpties hit the grid, blender was already being used. I along with others were aware of and had participated in the beta of the interface to sl for at least 6 months maybe a year before it came to the grid.

About the statement that sculpties would be everywhere, I stopped not because I cant' sculpt or dislike them but because of the polygons and their lag issues, if sculpties were "everywhere" problems we experiencing today with lag would be a dream in a world of all sculpties.

Wondering here where most clothing designers in sl would be without Chips contributions (talk of being copied whoa, Chip is my hero ). I have issues with Chosen only because he used to win so much money at Ravenouses place which broadcasted the winnings across my yard so I had to know lol.


Ripped off creations lol, ok my technique rofl, the guy made some nice trees.

I'd say I am a content creater as many others are and some of my builds have been imitated using my own textures and animations which I sell full perms, and used to directly compete against me on my own land in the free public yard sale I run, ouch .

To say you own the technique is to say that one can't follow a trail a trailblazer made or one can't improvise or find the same technique on their own, a little naive I'd say.

Subtle insults such as "wall of text" hmmm.

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery and I'd hang my hat on that.

I can certainly understand and appreciate your viewpoint, being a content creator myself (though just one of the zillion small fry, not a pioneer like some who post here).

However, Aminom, the opinion you expressed above is NOT, repeat NOT, what your ToU says.

Aminom, I'll echo some of what Chip said. Thanks so much for chiming in. I would agree that it would probably be best to reword your TOU to make it more clear. What you've explained here is absolutely reasonable, and reads entirely differently from the more open ended, blanket, language of the TOU. The discerned meanings of the two texts are almost completely contrary to each other, in fact.

Thank you very much for your sentiment about valid competition being beneficial, something to be welcomed, not feared. That's exactly what I've been trying to say this whole time. You seem to have said it far better than I did, so again, thanks for that. I hope your words will put to rest the scarcity-minded commentary that has been floating around. Clearly you've got exactly the right attitude about all this, and if anything I said seemed to imply otherwise, please accept my sincerest apologies.

Thanks also for sharing your tips at the end of your post. I'm sure many will find them to be extremely helpful. You are very good at what you do, and I hope your work will not only bring you great rewards personally (sounds like it already has been), but that it will also inspire others to do great things as well. Keep up the good work, and thanks again for all that you do. I'm so glad you posted.







Desmond, I think the main discussion we were having is now over, since as I said, Aminom's eloquent comments should pretty effectively put that all to rest. However, I do feel compelled to respond to what you said about the Star Trek ships. I don't wish to derail the thread by dwelling on this too much, but there are some points that need clarificiation. I'll take them one at a time, quickly.



Where are you getting that? It might be ASSUMED to be wrong by some, but that assumption would be a misunderstanding, not an understanding. I can assure you the Star Trek franchise has historically been incredibly supportive of fan art. Not only do they allow it, they often actively encourage it.

For what it's worth, one of the biggest reasons I so regret that Electric Sheep collapsed as it did (beside the fact that I, and so many talented others, lost our jobs), is that I really wish everyone could have seen what we had in store for Star Trek in SL and other virtual worlds. Not only was the official content to have been spectacular, if I do say so myself, the level of support for fan-created content, was to be tremendous. That support was to be one of the primary focuses of the project, in fact. I can't say more without violating my NDA, so I'm afraid I'll have to leave it at that.

CBS clearly doesn't think Star Trek fan art is wrong. I'm not sure why you do.




I don't sell them. I've been offered lots of money for them in the past, but I prefer to keep the ones I've got for myself. Besides, I'd actually have to finish them before I could do that, and I've been so busy with other projects, that's never happened. My place is probably SL's longest standing work in progress.

I'm happy to contract to build new ones, though, if anyone's hiring.

What I do sell, to cover my tier, is uniforms and other items. CBS has absolutely no problem with this. In fact, from my own experience I'm confident that they couldn't be more thrilled that there's so much fan activity in SL.

In any case, I'm not sure why selling or not selling is the relevant issue here. Sales is not a requirement for IP infringement.




Right, which means it's not up to you either. Please, before you go spouting about what's right and wrong for any particular property, do a little research about how the property owner historically has handled the question.

It happens that Star Trek in particular has been supportive of fan art for decades, but beyond that, the truth is that all of big media right now is trying very hard to learn how to embrace new media like SL. Doing that often means letting go a little bit. The television/movie industry does not want to repeat the mistakes of the record industry by alienating fans.






Hahaha. Sorry for the noise, Ray. I must confess I'm not sure what you're talking about, though. When was this, and what was the game?

Glad that you posted your thoughts on this thread, Aminom - especially the clarification of your Terms of Use. It's good to know that your intent was not as far reaching as had been assumed.

But, as Chip mentioned, it did bring to light some very interesting viewpoints. These issues need to be discussed as our virtual world continues to expand.

I think you have a disconnect between the concepts of what is "moral" and what is "ethical". Morality is a personal sense of what is right and wrong, often based on personal values which can and will differ between individuals. Ethics is a "standardization" of a common set of morals amongst a group of people, and deals a lot more with established facts, rather than personal anecdotes or opinions.

As such, when you say it isn't "ethically right" to using someone else's idea, you can't be more wrong. Civilization has been co-opting ideas of others since the first homo sapien banged two rocks together to make fire. That's why, even today, the laws protecting "ideas" have so many (supposed) restrictions on what constitutes an "idea" worthy of "protection".

If I have an idea of how to mow my yard which saves me 20 minutes, and my neighbor sees me implementing it and uses it to save him 30 minutes, is he "ethically wrong" to do so? Let's say we're both in the lawn care business, and we make more money if we can cut more lawns in a day. Is it "ethically wrong" in that case? Why should capitalism make any difference in the ethicality of something? Time and money are directly transferable to one another, so the simple injection of the notion of money into the equation is irrelevant.



Oh GOD no. PLEASE, let us NOT GO THERE! Thankyouverymuch.

I mean, come on, this is the same argument the patent trolls use to justify trivial patents. It's pure grade A manure, right off the stall floor.

WHAT are you protecting here? I mean, OK, sure, if you spent months of time, or thousands of dollars to come up with a way to use invisiprims to make high-heeled shoes (or digitigrade dragon legs/feet.. hmm?), then yeah, sure, I can MAYBE see where it would be feasible to justify this kind of market protection. However, we are talking a couple minutes to come up with a workable idea "on paper", and maybe a few hours, AT MOST, to bring it into existence. There's more than enough recoup from being "first seller" to make up for that effort, plus, there's a wavefront effect which will net said first-seller much more than any competition that shows up late to the game far more than if they started neck-and-neck.

Asking for anything more is simply appealing to the basest of human vices: greed. Pure and simple.



That's what we are saying here. It's not pragmatic as well as not being "unethical". It's a part of life. It is part of the price we pay for not existing in a solitary vacuum and having to start off with banging rocks together to make fire every time we come into being.

However, by supporting the notion that such behavior is "unethical", you ARE making it sound like you are in favor of a SLPTO, because the stance IS just as ridiculous to begin with.



Absolutely! There's nothing saying anyone HAS to say anything. The only thing that says different is patent law, which basically REQUIRES you to disclose the knowledge in EXCHANGE for the government-backed monopoly on realizing/marketing the idea.

The other thing I disagree with is your absurd tying of "ripping off" with "competing". If I went ahead and created another private sim continent based on 1800s society, much like Caledon, competing with you, would that be ethical? I mean, it WAS your idea to create such a wondrous, cool place. Obviously, if someone comes up with a place with the same concept, despite it being a completely original build, they would be "ripping you off", too, right?

Competition isn't ripping people off. You don't have to "steal" to compete. "Stealing" is already against ethics and law, and is undoubtedly considered immoral by many people. Competition, on the other paw, is healthy, and no one here seems to dispute that fact.



..and, to wit, no one did any such thing.



This only demonstrates a startling level of ignorance of exactly why those protections exist in the first place. Startling.

The WHOLE CONCEPT of patent law is DESIGNED to force FULL DISCLOSURE so that it promotes "progress" in science and the useful arts, NOT ONLY for those who disclose the ideas, but for the betterment of SOCIETY AS A WHOLE! It is an incentive to SHARE with the rest of us what you have discovered, and, in return, we'll let you profit exclusively from it for a LITTLE WHILE. Copyright, originally, was little different, in concept, but applied to a different body of sentient creation. Do you have any idea what the world would be like today if we had these ridiculous Copyright and Patent extensions in place since the time or Aristotle or Plato or Homer? We's still be in the DARK AGES, that's where. 75 years AFTER the death of the author and STILL going up! We'd still be denied the classics probably even today!

You see, Desmond, the whole point is that a creation isn't inspired from a vacuum, nor is there a point unless you share it with another. All true artists KNOW this, and VERY few create with only themselves in mind to appreciate their creations. People create based on the experience and knowledge that SOCIETY gives to them from the day they are born (or hatched, or whatever). In the end, it is only fair to give BACK to said SOCIETY. Creating artificialities to prevent this natural flow of knowledge, experience, and information is not only unnatural, it is EXCEEDINGLY unhealthy for our civilization, which was founded on the very notion of giving and taking; of working together for our own common goals. OK, fine, we can allow you some breathing room in order to survive, sure thing. However, don't expect it to last forever, and DON'T expect to not give it up in the end. You can't take it with you anyway, so why bother trying?



It takes very little ignorance to expect that it is even remotely realistic otherwise. Which is why I am not surprised that people disagree with it.

Here's a little story from my own side of things.

I have made a very unique and highly effective device to deal with griefers here in SL. I have not seen its like anywhere else yet, and we have been using it for the better part of a year now with astounding success. I have plans to market it very soon as one of my premiere products when I open my stores up. It is nothing super-special, using quite a simple concept that anyone else could come up with using just a small bit of thought about it. Just having the idea is enough to spawn imitations.

Chances are, once it is out there in the open, many of the big-name security folks are going to jump on it and toss out their own versions of it compatible with their systems. I'm a little guy, not very well-known yet, and I expect that I will never see the kind of return that some of the big-name folks will have, on my very own idea, even.

But, you know what? That's OK. I don't care. I mean, yeah, I guess I would like to think that I should profit the most from my own idea, but that's just not what I am all about. I am about more than one single idea. ALL of my products and services will be unique and innovative in some way, even if they are copies of other ideas out there. I plan on selling networked vendors, even web-backed ones. They aren't really much different than JEVN or APEZ, but they will be mine, and I will provide what I think will be a much better product and service.

You see, in the end, it isn't about what I get from one single idea. What I am selling is FAR more valuable than that. I am selling my service, my name, my reputation, my knowledge, my support, et cetera. Not everyone will buy into it, maybe not the majority of those compared to my competition, but that's OK. My slice of pie is MY slice of pie, not yours, theirs or anyone else's. I will endeavor to make my slice of pie as big as I can, but whoever's slice is bigger is mostly to completely irrelevant to me. Others get their chance in the sun, I will get mine, too.

AS such, I am vehemently opposed to any kind of system which tries valiantly (but would ultimately fail horribly) to enforce what amounts to "micropatents". Even for my own benefit. ESPECIALLY for my own benefit.

So, that is pretty much carte blanche for anyone and everyone to come, look and reverse engineer my stuff, make their own versions, and sell them. If you COPY them verbatim, or otherwise infringe on my copyrights, then expect to be served with a DMCA notice. I WILL do that in a heartbeat.

===============================



Yes, and I agree, that does suck, but that is nothing more than blatant copyright infringement. You don't need any ToU to enforce your copyrights on your actual work; it is automatic and everyone knows it already (or they better before they get ganked in court over thier ignorance).



You are absolutely correct, there is no moral or ethical obligation to share knowledge. No one here has even remotely suggested there is. However, what HAS been said is that it is morally and ethically reprehensible to discourage and deny other people from learning knowledge and exploring for themselves.



Well, that would be fine, if that WERE it, however, it isn't. Again, here's the relevant clause from your ToU:



Firstly, Reverse Engineering. Reverse Engineering isn't an infringement in and of itself. RE can also take many forms. In SL, the simple act of putting your tree in Edit mode can conceiveably constitute RE in a court of law. Hence, yes, we can violate it simply by "looking" at the tree. Reverse Engineering is a valid way to learn how something works or is constructed. You are happy to give information about many of your methods here, but taking a look "under the hood" is verboten. That's so many levels of silly, it would take an encyclopedia to enumerate most of them. Analysis of your work and construction methods is a given. It is going to happen. No one, not you, your customers, the Lindens, or the courts are going to stop ANYone from gaining knowledge and insight from analyzing your work. That's the core of what Reverse Engineering is, and trying to write up / enforce a license agreement prohibiting it is Quixotic in the extreme.

Secondly, you say "if any" methods "are discovered by accident or by deliberate means". Well, if I have never seen your work, never seen this discussion, and came up, totally on my own, with ANY of your supposed "trade secret" methods, I would run afoul of an agreement I never knew existed until I just happened to see or purchase one of your trees. Which ones are considered "trade secret", anwyay? Without specification, ANY specific step or method you use could conceiveably qualify, including the ones you have just enumerated. Technically, by this clause, anyone who bought one of your trees that has participated in this thread itself could be considered in violation.

Thirdly, on top of all this so far, you say I cannot distribute "this knowledge", and must take "reasonable means" to prevent "accidental disclosure". The first one is a prior restraint on free speech. It would NEVER hold up in court. The latter one is impossible to achieve, because there are no "reasonable means" to prevent "accidental disclosure". If I ever rez one of your trees, I cannot EVER provide such. Someone can come along, see it, edit it, use a custom client to get the sculpt map, and then >I< become liable because of the violation of this clause. Ridiculous.

Fourthly, you say that I "must not use these unique construction methods" to harm your "market position". WHICH methods are we talking about here? Any of them? The use of sculpties for making trees? What? Without specification, this makes the clause OVERLY BROAD. Competing with you can conceiveably "harm" your market position, so if anyone makes a tree with a funky sculpty and sells it, they are in violation of this clause, if they have ever seen one of yours, despite before or after.



Actually, no, like we keep saying, it goes FAR beyond that in its language. You don't say "using all of my construction techniques", you say "any". The gulf of disconnect between what you are here saying you mean with it, and what it says, is big enough to drive a Super Star Destroyer through. I think it is reasonable to ask that you tighten it up or abandon the unnecessary protectionist language, as I wouldn't ever be able to agree to something like that, and thus could not, even in good conscience, purchase your products as a result. I don't say that to be mean, it's just I can't risk opening myself up to that kind of legal liability, as a fellow creator, even as remote as any threat it could possibly represent to me in practicality.

You've got all the protections you need by the mere fact that you are an incredibly skilled artisan, and you have the full weight of copyright law to back you up, overbalanced in your favor as it may be. The addition of a draconian (heh, a Dragon calling something else "draconian".. too funny) ToU is excessive and unnecessary, and really doesn't give you any more legal standing than what you have without it.



Well, it is even less than a "shrinkwrap" agreement, since people can still buy without reading it, or knowing there is a ToU. That said, according to your ToU, it still applies if they buy it. Would be a very shaky stance to try to put up in court in front of a judge. However, I sense that your main goal here is not establishing legal grounds for protection, but instead simply using the threat of action via legalese to scare people into compliance. Generally, that is frowned upon in court, and really doesn't stop the real thieves anyway, more often emboldening and encouraging them. Nothing says "rip me off, please" like a "well protected" product.



>I< never thought you were. Prompted into a little bit of over-enthusiastic, yet understandable, self-defense, maybe, but I see nothing truly evil in your efforts, despite what I have learned here. Keep on creating, and don't worry about the thieves and other low-life retards. In the end, the vast majority of people who know and love your efforts will take care of you, as they do all of us.

Hey, if CBS has lightened up and CBS/Paramount/whomever are back to 1970's policies, that's great.

But anyone on the grid is very, very ill-advised to start making and selling franchised material without hearing from the franchise owner first. Not a fellow grid resident who doesn't own the rights, even if convinced it's okay.

Why didn't CBS follow through with Star Trek and Electric Sheep? Or are they? Maybe we'll never know, maybe it's inappropriate for you to discuss it. But this is strongly indicative that people can and do change their minds with little warning, and to the great detriment of people like yourself Chosen.

* * * * *

Talarus, it is about ethics. As you say, ethics are a standardised set of morals - and that is the basis of patent, trademark, copyright law. Properly applied, these concepts make sense.

What you are describing is a rollback to a time from before any of these things - if we truly were in the dark ages, I'd agree with you 110%. But we aren't.

A 'micropatent' system won't work - that's why I specifically wrote against it. But in that absence, it makes sense to not broadcast everything you may know, precisely because the vultures will descend.

You understand this all too well - nobody *should* be able to take your griefing prevention idea away from you until you've had a chance.

Maybe it is unstoppable, maybe they will get away with taking your idea, to your great harm.

But at no point should you just lay down and declare that to be right and good.

I find this a fascinating discussion because this is an issue that scripters have had to deal with ever since SL was born. US copyright law doesn't protect "methods", only their final expressions; and trade secret law only applies to people who were told the secret as part of their job.

But I have to say.. I can't agree with the idea that this kind of thing should be rigidly protected. And I speak as someone who's lost out because of it: my BijoRewind tool was (as far as I know) the first tool providing a "back button" for undoing a teleport. It's not a hugely difficult thing to do, but it has a few nasty "gotchas" involved in doing it, and it was something that cropped up regularly on Products Wanted before I started selling it. That product was an excellent seller until recently, but now the same functionality has been emdedded in the OnRez client and in the MystiTool, and in spite of some remarketing to highlight the advantages, the sales have never recovered to the level they were at. Should I have been able to sue or complain at Mystical or ESC because they copied my "trade secret"? (It may not have been on the same level as Aminom's sculpties, but it was certainly more work than Des's conglomerate rezzer )

Well, the truth is that I don't particularly mind that I can't. The problem being that if I could, then likely my tool would have never been made, because I would have violated 100 other people's method rights in the process of making it. It's a multiprim HUD, oops, someone else did those first, oh, and it has a tabbed UI, someone IRL did that already.. Yes, the tradeoff is that you have to allow for the big competition grabbing your methods, but the truth is, if you didn't have to allow for that, _they_ would pull rights on all of _theirs_ and you probably couldn't even get started.

The same thing happened in real life in the UK a few years back: a company tried to tell its programming staff that, essentially, if they left they'd have to forget everything they learned about programming while they worked there, because any code they wrote based on that knowledge would be derivative of the code they wrote for the original company - and thus a copyright infringement (because the code a programmer writes as part of their job becomes the copyright of their employer, not themselves). It was sufficiently controversial that the professional society had to get involved and lobby for a clear statement that this was unacceptable legally.

So, yes, it stinks that if you have a new neat idea to put in your prim naughty bits then it can be a free update to XCite next week and you'll earn nothing, but if you could protect it, then XCite would protect his idea too and you couldn't make prim naughty bits at all. I don't really know what the best way around this is, apart from making something else. My spiteful side would want to say "don't make your idea so the big names can't find out about it, let them dominate, wait until they dominate all fields and the resulting staticness sinks SL and then make your idea in the next virtual world where you can _be_ the big brand" but that's probably not good advice

Another problem is that method rights result in people hacking all the parts of SL they can, using every function for every obscure purpose they can think of, and generally "red-lining" the whole system in the hope they'll find a glitch (but a useful glitch) that they can assert method rights on and sell. Yay, you get the market to yourself!

Of course.. SL's reliability gets weakened and the Lindens have more problems to work on because of the constant red-lining! Have you ever used a "crush" weapon? They push an avatar downwards by using transparent twisted spheres. So.. how long were people experimenting with dropping random transparent tortured prims on top of avatars? How many times did they crash the physics engine, until they found the "crush" effect? How much lag did they cause? If you're a new scripter, do you want to be told that the way to succeed is to just try doing completely random stuff in the engine and crossing your fingers that you find something useful?

And, as an extra bonus.. the glitch has to be entrenched in SL, because the Lindens want to avoid breaking existing content! Why don't they just fix the alpha sorting bug? Because it'd break the "changing cubicles" that use that method to create silhouettes. Did you pay for your megaprims? If you're using the common megaprims by Gene Replacement, they're a commercial product.. Or, how about the "bungee-whack" teleport, which lets avatars move through walls? What are the consequences to the physics engine of doing llMoveToTarget calls at maximum script speed? How many sim crashes and lag incidents did people cause while trying out different combinations to try to get that? Is the glitch going to have to be recreated in Havok 4? (To be honest I sort of hope it is, because I love my portal gun, but...)

This is why I've previously asked that the Lindens should make it clear that every method in SL should be either publically apparant or an ARable exploit. This does NOT obstruct innovation (the BijoRewind, and the other teleport tools, did not use any methods that were not publically apparant) but it does prevent the red-lining..