Legal backups of software products

I understand that it's perfectly legal to make backups of any software or other digital wares (like movies, music etc.) that one owns. No one can argue that.
It's perfectly legal to rip a DVD after buying it and create a copy for your personal use only. The same ripping tool can be used to create pirate copies as well, but that doesn't make the tool illegal. If I can't create a backup other than circumventing a protection mechanism, I may do so. SL doesn't have a backup solution, so many users argue that the CopyBot or similar software often is the only method to create a backup.

Now, let's take a program like Microsoft Word for example. If I bought it, I can copy the CD. I would even be allowed to copy the CD if it had a copy protection. I'm not allowed to install it on two machines though. It's unclear if a duplicate of a copy-protected prim object is the same as a second software installation, since one can pick it up right away and only take it out of the inventory in case the original gets lost. That may be hairsplitting. So far the CopyBot doesn't seem to do anything illegal, as long as one doesn't copy content without ownership and/or attempts to resell the ripped content.

But there's one very important point. What I'm not allowed to do with my copy of Microsoft Word, under no circumstances, is to disassemble the code, remove any licence number or product ID, change the splash screen to replace the Microsoft logo with my own name and remove any indication that this product was produced by Microsoft and that Microsoft holds the copyrights. That would be a clear copyright violation in any country.

Alas, the CopyBot does exactly that. It doesn't duplicate, but reconstruct / recompile / rebuild, however you want to call it. It takes the prim data and recreates it under a new creator name, basically using the standard building tools of SL. It's the same as disassembling Word and recompiling it with a new company logo. It's exactly the same as copying the pages of a book and printing a new author name on the cover. It's not much different from removing a vehicle identification number. No matter if one applies the IP rights of software or of real, physical products, it turns out to be illegal.

No backup solution works that way. If you want to create a backup, create an unchanged copy with intact permissions and creator name please. Even if you argue that you have the right to change purchased content to better fit your needs, modify permission or not - you don't have the right to pass it off as your own work, even if you don't plan on selling it.


PS: Strife, can we add this information to one of the sticky threads too? I want it to be clear that there's no way to create a legal copy using the CopyBot, as long as it rebuilds linksets with another creator name as well as changed permissions. Permissions may be optional, but the creator signature is not.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but it's far easier to simply take the stand that copybot has rather limited acceptable legal use, which noone is going to argue against and everyone can fall in line and support that stand as one voice, be it with subtle nuances.

The problem with using software as an analogy is that beyond any legal rights you may have, its use is selectively restricted by a license.
An OEM version of Windows can only be used and installed on the computer you bought it with, if your computer should fail, you're required to buy a new retail version. The retail version comes with the restriction of only being allowed to be used once concurrently but you can move it from computer to computer. The educational version comes with the extra ability of being allowed to install it on two computers, mostly in recognition that students can have both a computer at home, and one in their dorm.

In my view, far too many people are trying to both enforce total control and sell at the same time, forgetting that those two often conflict. If I buy something that's green, but I'd really rather have it look blue, you can't really still object to that. You gave up your right to total control when you started selling copies. Telling someone they can't change the colour of something is as silly as telling them you're fine if they put your furniture down in a living room, but they're not allowed to in the bedroom, or on an island, or when it's nighttime. Those simply aren't enforcable restrictions.

Argent put up a list of 8 cases where the use of copybot was legitimate. From memory, the first two were things he himself created, but all of the rest was frustration with people intent on selling their things with no modify permissions. Start selling the things you create with mod enabled and not only will you have far happier customers, you'll have removed a significant fair use portion of copybot's abilities which is ultimately what you're after.

As far as changing the apparant creator of something is concerned. The standard building tools already allow you to do that on mod enabled content. If I rez a prim and link my house to it, the creator that's listed will be me, because SL only displays whoever happened to create a main prim in a linkset. The rest of the prims will still have their original creator set, but there is no way for you to tell until my prim is unlinked again.

Please stop obsessing about the tool and just focus on the issue: copying without permission (whether explicit by the author or implicit by law) is wrong, and illegal. A very simple message that noone can object to .

Don't forget that if you are actually macking a legal backup of the Microsoft Word CD for your own use - you have to have bought it in the first place. You can't make it out of nothing, or borrow someone else's copy to make a backup, because that's not allowed.

Lewis

'Fair use' is a good argument for script source code also being always visible. Let's get that in the next update!

That's true. I took that as self-evident my point was, there are legitimate uses to back up bought content, but CopyBot is not the right tool as long as it changes permissions (that's arguable) and the creator name (that's not arguable, imho).



I'm not going to argue anymore that a backup solution has a legitimate use. I got used to the idea by now, since I like having backups of my software too. But CopyBot doesn't produce unchanged backups. It produces counterfeits.



I can see that. That's why I agree, if the whole situation is legally unclear there might be even a valid reason to create a full perm copy of a restricted item, just to have a backup. But there has to be a hint at the original creator.



I saw Argent's list, and think that most of the cases he described could be sorted out with the creator. But I understand that the creator may be offline for a longer time or could even have quit SL. So I give in, his list is ok for me and permission changes may be needed in a few cases.



If you link something you didn't create to a self-created prim, the creator changes to "Unknown" most of the time. The cases where it changes to a new creator might be a bug. I find that a great help: whenever I see "Unknown" in an object description, I know it's a modified linkset and I have to examine the child prims to find out who created which parts.



If it is really that simple, I don't object as all. But I understood all the examples of legal copying (those in Argent's thread for example) in the way that the "backup" is created without the permission of the creator. Creator refuses the option to create copies or to modify it, people create a full perm copy since they view it as their good right to do so. If they ask me before, I don't object. Then I'll hand them a copyable but not transferable version, after they gave back the original with +resell -copy. Or a modifyable version on request (I only remove the modify right of some linksets with tiny parts to avoid accidental unlinking).

I've been pretty vocal about my support of CopyBot as a tool for legitimate purposes, and I'm a huge supporter of Open Source, but I'm going to have to throw a wrench in to this one and offer a contrary argument here.

Fair use allows you to use what you bought in any manner you see fit - however, it is up to the seller as to whether he or she is willing to share with the customers what could be considered to be a trade secret. In the case of gadgetry or weapons scripting, I can easily see where the entire business model is based on being able to keep those scripts hidden from view. The whole point of the product is that it does something nobody else can do, and it only stays that way if you can prevent the viewing of the source code by your direct competition.

So as much in favor of having source code readable by anyone so we can all grow and learn by reading each other's code, I can also completely understand the point of view of people who depend very specifically on keeping their product out of the hands of their competition, and support their right to make that decision and have that decision be enforceable.

Which CopyBot in no way shape or form does. It's the way that SL works itself. Everything is sent to your PC to be viewed in plain, unencrypted, non-scrambled, wide-open format. CopyBot does not strip or modify sent code in any manner. It merely duplicates what it sees. If LL sent encrypted data to the client viewer to secure end-to-end delivery of content that CopyBot did indeed decrypt to do its magic - then there would be issues. Since neither LL, SL, or copybot work on some base of encryption or anti-theft system in the least, the only thing protecting content creators is Copyright. And as long as fair use exists, so will copying for one's personal use. Copyright law, DMCA and TOS state quite clearly that the duplication of copywritten materials for resale or duplicating items/materials/digital data that you do not own or have license to use is indeed, very, very illegal.

So, it's okay to say, copy a no mod/no copy/no transfer/unique object in-world like my store-bought Jolly Jingle Christmas socks within my own invetory via a third party tool.

But the moment I start selling or giving away copies of my backup as "Jolly Twinkle Toes Christmas Socks" I deserve whatever ire I get as a result. This would be a clear DMCA/Copyright/TOS violation.

Well, in a way I almost wish that scripts could be copied as well. Then I could do something against theft. A little script that compares the object creator with my ID on rez; if those IDs don't match, the prims will change their size and position, the textures would be replaced with plywood and the script deletes itself afterwards. It would still work fine for the honest customer.

I understand how it works. The standard building tools are used to piece a linkset together from scraps, with the same prim shapes, sizes and alignment as the original. But that changes the creator name. It removes my "company logo" as well as any note that I'm the object creator. Any hint at my copyright is stripped from the object. If someone would rez such a linkset in front of their house, and passers-by check it for the creator, they see a faked signature.

Right, which is why LL states that the unethical use of copybot will get you turned into x-number cans of creamed corn. I hope that a solution can be made to a) Secure watermarks, Copyright, content creator's "Signature" that allows for b) Users to backup inventory and unique items for "just in case". The creator's name, and other item attributes are *not* sent to your machine. There is no protection of the data - so by the very structure of how SL works, copying in the manner of Copybot violates no law. Nor with the other half dozen tools out there that operate *in world* via LSL. What's next, we vote to remove access to scripts and programming? ;> Since there is no point-2-point DRM/encryption or passing of "access rights" and "Content Creator" data of course the copies are devoid of the information. IF SL/LL implementd a means to transmit encrypted information and encapsulate into that data, ownership and creator's information, the problem will be solved and sealed shut. Because tampering with the encrypted data once on your machine by extension of current DMCA and Copyright law would seal the content. Any tampering with that data once recieved will be illegal behavior. It can be brought forth on charges and into court. But until that happens - it's fair game.

Now, as it stands - we all know how goofy SL can be - and my last three dealings with vendors after I lost inventory were none too pleasant.

1 Said tough, buy another. 2 didn't even respond to IM's or notecards explaining the situation. So I am all for protecting the rights of creators, but what about the users too? A fair, ethical and amiable compromise must be reached. Otherwise, Content creators (which I am also an active member of by guilt - I build too!) are just going to have to deal with the gamble that in all fairness - the majority of SL residents are conscientious and ethical people that will copy for backup. But there will always be that underlying single digit percentage of those that dwell in the underbelly that will do so for malicious gain. We'll need to be vigilant for them and squash them wherever they rear their heads. We *can* do that under law and as things currently stand.

* The fact that there are legitimate uses for Copybot, including but not limited to the "fair use" exceptions in copyright law, does not mean that Copybot is itself a legitimate tool. The Betamax precedent does not say that "if a product has any legitimate use its distribution may not be restricted", it refers to substantial legitimate use. I am not a lawyer, but even as an advocate of fair use I don't find the legitimate use of copybot compelling at this time.

* The legitimate use of copybot, such as it is, is not limited to "fair use" exceptions. The first two examples I gave are not "fair use", because they apply purely to content created by the user of copybot.

* But just to make you happy:

// This Script is distributed under the terms of the modified BSD license, reproduced at the end of
// the script. The license and acknowledgments listed must be included in some fashion if this script
// is redistributed in a non-readable or non-modifiable form. 


integer lastcount = -1;
float SAY_RANGE = 20.0;
float range;
integer sensing = 1;
integer SENSE_REFRESH = -2;
integer SENSE_TOGGLE = -1;
integer SENSE_OFF = 0;
integer SENSE_ON = 1;
integer SENSE_LIST = 2;
integer SENSE_CHATTY = 3;
integer SENSE_MODES = 4;
list mode_names = ["Sleepy", "Awake", "Alert", "Chatty"];
list mode_ranges = [0.0, 21.0, 21.0, 96.0];

vector IDLE_COLOR = <0.5,0.5,0.5>;  float IDLE_ALPHA = 0.5;
vector SCAN_COLOR = <1,1,1>;        float SCAN_ALPHA = 0.6;
vector ALONE_COLOR = <0.3,0.3,1>;   float AWAKE_ALPHA = 0.5;
vector PRIVATE_COLOR = <0,1,0>;     float TEXT_ALPHA = 0.8;
vector CROWD_COLOR = <1,0,0>;

sense(integer command)
{
  if(command == SENSE_TOGGLE)
  {
    sensing++;
    if(sensing >= SENSE_MODES) sensing = 0;
  }
  else if(command >= 0)
    sensing = command;
  // else command == SENSE_REFRESH :)

  if(sensing)
  {
    range = llList2Float(mode_ranges, sensing);
    llSensorRepeat("", "", AGENT, range, PI, 1.0);
    lastcount = -1;

    llSetText(llList2String(mode_names,sensing),SCAN_COLOR,1);
    //llSetColor(SCAN_COLOR,ALL_SIDES);
    //llSetAlpha(SCAN_ALPHA,ALL_SIDES);
  }
  else
  {
    llSensorRemove();

    llSetText(llList2String(mode_names,0),IDLE_COLOR,1);
    llSetColor(IDLE_COLOR,ALL_SIDES);
    llSetAlpha(SCAN_ALPHA,ALL_SIDES);
    llSleep(0.5);
    llSetAlpha(IDLE_ALPHA,ALL_SIDES);
    llSetText("",<0,0,0>,0);
  }
}

update(integer count)
{
  if(count != lastcount || (count > 0 && sensing >= SENSE_LIST))
  {
    integer close = 0;
    integer far = 0;
    string text = "";
    
    if(count != 0)
    {
        vector here = llGetPos();
        list close_list = [];
        list far_list = [];
        list all_list = [];

        //if(lastcount <= 0)
        //    llSetAlpha(SCAN_ALPHA, ALL_SIDES);

        integer i;
        for(i = 0; i < count; i++)
        {
            vector there = llDetectedPos(i);
            float d = llRound(llVecDist(here, there) - 0.1);
            string line = ((string)llDetectedName(i)) + " "
                 + ((string)((integer)d)) + "m";
            if(d <= SAY_RANGE + 0.5)
            {
                close++;
                close_list += line;
            }
            else if(sensing >= SENSE_CHATTY
                    && there.x > 0 && there.y > 0
                    && there.x < 256 && there.y < 256)
            {
                far++;
                far_list += "(" + line + ")";
            }
        }
        if(sensing >= SENSE_LIST)
        {
            if(close) all_list += close_list;
            if(far) {
                if(close) all_list += " ";
                all_list += far_list;
            }
            integer len = llStringLength(llDumpList2String(all_list,"\n"));
            if(len > 240)
            {
                while(len > 240)
                {
                    all_list = llList2List(all_list,0,-2);
                    len = llStringLength(llDumpList2String(all_list,"\n"));
                }
                all_list += "...";
            }
        }
        if(close)
        {
            string summary = (string)close;
            if(far)
            {
                summary = "Nearby "+summary;
                all_list += " ";
            }
            all_list += [ "- "+summary+" -" ];
        }
        text = llDumpList2String(all_list, "\n");
    }
    
    float text_alpha;
    float body_alpha;
    vector color;

    if(close == 0)
    {
        color = ALONE_COLOR;
        if(text != "")
            text_alpha = TEXT_ALPHA;
        else
            text_alpha = 0;
        body_alpha = IDLE_ALPHA;
    }
    else if(close == 1)
    {
        color = PRIVATE_COLOR;
        text_alpha = TEXT_ALPHA;
        body_alpha = AWAKE_ALPHA;
    }
    else
    {
        color = CROWD_COLOR;
        text_alpha = TEXT_ALPHA;
        body_alpha = AWAKE_ALPHA;
    }
    llSetText(text,color,text_alpha);
    llSetAlpha(body_alpha,ALL_SIDES);
    llSetColor(color,ALL_SIDES);
    lastcount = count;
  }
}

check_control()
{
  if(!llGetAttached()) return;
  if(!(llGetPermissions() & PERMISSION_TAKE_CONTROLS))
  {
    llRequestPermissions(llGetOwner(), PERMISSION_TAKE_CONTROLS);
    return;
  }
  llTakeControls(CONTROL_LEFT|CONTROL_RIGHT,TRUE,TRUE);
}


default
{
  state_entry()
  {
    range = 95.9;
    sense(SENSE_ON);
    check_control();
  }
  sensor(integer count)
  {
    update(count); 
  }
  no_sensor()
  {
    update(0);
  }
  touch_start(integer count)
  {
    if(llDetectedKey(0) == llGetOwner()) sense(SENSE_TOGGLE);
  }
  on_rez(integer param)
  {
    lastcount = -1;
    check_control();
    sense(SENSE_REFRESH);
  }
  changed(integer what)
  {
    if(what & CHANGED_LINK)
      check_control();
    if(what & (CHANGED_LINK | CHANGED_REGION | CHANGED_TELEPORT))
      sense(SENSE_REFRESH);
  }
  run_time_permissions(integer perm)
  {
    if(perm & PERMISSION_TAKE_CONTROLS)
      check_control();
  }
  control(key id,integer level,integer edge)
  {
  }
} 


//Copyright (c) 2005, Argent Stonecutter & player
//All rights reserved.
//
//Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
//
//    * Redistributions in modifiable form must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
//    * Redistributions in non-modifiable form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
//    * Neither the name of Argent Stonecutter nor his player may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
//
//THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

I think you may be mixing up what you see in inventory and what you see in-world.
The right to control the use of an object, such as the right to make it non-modifiable, is not part of copyright law in the US, and while European law does grant artists additional rights in many cases I don't believe they are so broad as to apply to mass-produced goods.

I do not believe that's true. Can you provide a citation to that effect?

The right to disassemble or reverse engineer the code of a program is pretty clear. There are ample precedents in case law and statutory law to that effect, which is why the DMCA explicitly cuts out a narrow slice of that right - you can't do it as part of the process of infringing on copyrights or those portions of the EULA of a product that are explicitly acknowledged in law.

I would be interested to see any case law that says that this is illegal if you aren't doing it to (for example) hide the fact that the copy of Word you're selling to someone isn't legitimate.