The only legit use of copybots-couldn't we already do that?

I wouldn't say anything. Like I haven't said anything in favor of Copybot existing or being supported or maintained or available.

But if someone says that they need to be closed because they have no legitimate uses, then I'll point out some. For two reasons.

1. An argument based on false premises is a weak argument. If it's worthwhile making the argument that copybot should be banned, then it's worthwhile making it on solid grounds.

2. If those are not legitimate uses, then anything else that's intended to provide the same functionality... even if it *can't* be easily abused... is also ilegitimate.

is that it gets people talking, and thinking, and trying to sort things out - and has served to elevate the understanding of not only how MMO's work in the first place, but how to think clearly and rationally about the various arguments about such tools as CopyBot, both pro and con. But most importantly, it gets people thinking, which is something most people seem to do only when forced to do so.

Of course, there were those who reacted by removing their content from SL in protest, to be swiftly replaced by other people who understood the true nature of the threat and weren't worried about it. I have strong faith and trust that the furor over this new tool will be no different. People will realize that a panicked few will leave SL or shutter their shops, others will flow smoothly in to fill that void in a matter of days, and in the long run those vendors and shops will neither be missed, nor remembered - exactly like the last time the illicit uses of some client-side tool came to light.

Ironically, the people doing the most damage by far to their various businesses are not the starkly few CopyBot operators, but the shop owners themselves, for shutting down their own shops. They're not "teaching Linden Labs a valuable lession". They're just turning off thier own money supply, not Linden Labs'. If a shop disappears, the shoppers will just go to the next one.

We do have tools to deal with IP theft, and they continue to work regardless of the methods used to perpetrate the theft. It's still stealing to do it, no matter how you do it. The tools themselves are not the problem, it's the people who use them.

I'd love to have copybot's son to back up my stuff on my hard disk!

I'm seeing a whole lot of misconceptions about "Fair Use" in this whole debacle. I really think people need to step back and take a look at the copyright laws, at least in the US.

So we've got some people on one side of the fence that are freaking out and screaming about Copybot and how awful it is. On the other side of the fence we have people freaking out and screaming about "Fair Use".

Neither side really knows what they're talking about and it's causing a lot of the hysteria.

Fair use does not give anyone the right to copy anything that is not their creation on SL. Period, end of story. Don't give me this crap about saving pictures or mp3s on the internet. None of it is right, and bringing up one example does not make the other example lessened, wrong, or deserved.

ANd for information's sake, I buy my MP3s, I bought Photoshop, I bought poser, so don't even try that line on me.

Saving a picture on your hard drive is not legal, it's not fair use, but it's not something that most people can do anything about. It's not legal to print out images from books and pass them around the office, but people do it anyway. Granted, it doesn't make it right, it never will. But these cases are harmless, yes.

"Fair Use" means that if you see something I build on SL you can quote it, you can take a pic of it and publish it, a teacher could potentially use part of it. But even in Fair Use copyright restrictions, it DOES mention, and I QUOTE "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

You take a statue that someone made, a single person, and you make a copy, and keep a copy for yourself, you ARE hurting the value of that work. That's something they teach you in public high school art classes. I don't think its' beyond your capabilites of thought.

Fair Use does NOT mean you deserve to get a copy of something and fiddle with it. That is not Fair Use. Just because it's "in the public's eye" does not make it property of the public. This logic would mean that I can take your car for a joyride, without permission, if you leave it parked or even in use on the public streets. Obviously, a sane individual would object. But on the "internet" it's supposedly "okay".

If you like something that someone has built, you can take a picture of it, save it, pass it around. It doesn't mean you get a copy of it, to mess with as you please, and do with as you please.

For those of you spewing the crap about the "saving a picture on your hard drive" the difference between that example, and the copybot example is simple: When you save a picture or an MP3 on your hard drive, you don't suddenly become the creator of the work. You aren't suddenly granted rights to pass it around. You are not given permission to alter this work.

If you want a true analogy of what Copybot does, then here you go: Tracing work. If you trace a copyrighted work, you're still infringing copyright. Even though you drew the picture yourself, the work is still a copy, or a derivative work.
If you somehow think that's legal, then here's another example. Take a newspaper, copy it, and start giving it out on the street. You think that legal too?

Your "Fair Use" extends so far as to allow you to quote, with citations, what you've read in that newspaper. It does not give you the right to reproduce, in whole or in part, the newspaper. This also goes for the newpaper's online content.

So let's EVERYONE get their facts straight about everything before we all start spouting off about what's what and what isn't. This goes for the people freaking out of Copybot, and the people freaking out over "Fair Use."

Okay, I will sum this up real fast. I have several creations of my own, and several things that I have paid a lot of money on to have it unique. Things I don't sell simply because I want them to be unique. I don't want anybody with a program to just simply walk up to it and get their own copy. This is mine. Not yours, not whoever has a copybot. So rather there are legitimate uses for the copybot or not, the fact that it would allow anyone to easily copy what is mine means I dont' want it available.

Ah, Then by your Logic, since Argent Knows so much More about Copybot and it's functions than anyone else, and as it was clearly and concisely demonstrated, every last one of his 8 examples were Completely wrong, we are left with the Only possible conclusion, That he was being deliberately Deceptive.

I don't really believe that, but i Do believe that he was attempting to Rationalize Copybot, and did so Poorly. I think You have attempted to Rationalize Him, and did so even More Poorly.

I believe it IS possible that Copybot Could be encorporated into some legitimate use, But i wouldn't lie to others or myself by Claiming that it was designed specificly for that Purpose when The creators own Chats betray it's true Intent. The fact is, it is a Tool who's primary Function is to aid in Theft, and the fact that it seems so astoundingly difficult to list even ONE legitimate use for it that doesn't duplicate an already existing game function Only serves to bear that out.