Do people care about Content Creator rights?

There are a lot of people making wild claims about what Intellectual Property is and what Copyright laws do.

I hope that no one is using anything said in this thread as a source of fact.

A better source of fact might be reading the actual laws, and faqs made available from the U.S. Copyright Office.

http://www.copyright.gov/

LL would need for you to explicitly waive your rights in order for you *not* to own what you create, or in order for anyone to use what you created without permission. "You own what you create" is the natural state of things, it merely means "we're not asking you to give anything up" (aside from some exceptions for LL).

You then make the baseless jump from "you create it, you own it" to "you create it, you own it, we proactively protect it". It doesn't state that *anywhere*. Acknowledging that you own something and agreeing to take on the burden of protecting your IP are two completely different things.

It *is* unfortunately prohibitively expensive to go after infringement through the RL system, but that is not something LL should solve, nor has it ever engaged itself to do that. It''s a problem that needs and can only be solved by lawmakers.

You also need to stop banging your head against the wall focusing on bots, that is *not* going to work. Even *if* LL wanted to go that way, which they don't, you could create automated copying using nothing but the official viewer and an in-world script.

As far as 100% copies go, I can outline several relatively simple to complex solutions to see who created two identical builds first (inspect create time is fakeable so it currently fails as a reliable timestamp) but none of them really makes things any better than they are now.

For one, it doesn't eliminate the problem where one files a DMCA and the other counter-files, LL can not just dismiss the counter-file without penalty.
Secondly, the more careful ones would alter the item and then you get into the very bad debate of having to judge between "original" and "similar".
Lastly, the emergence of "open grids" makes things more complicated as well. If you create something on an open grid, someone copies it and import it into SL and later you recreate your creation in SL the "first use" doctrine would earn you an instant ban. This isn't an objection that's relevant at this point, but if everyone (residents and LL alike) gets their way it will need to be accounted for.

Two isn't enough of a deterrent to argue against it, things would be better than they are now; three is largely academic at this point; but one is the showstopper.

Catchphrases along the lines of "LL should do this" seem easy if you never really stop to think about them which is really what mostly everyone you accuse of "defeatism" is doing, thinking about any given solution instead of mindlessly cheering along.

You keep saying this, apparantly not noticing that it contains the word "takes", which you have to prove the applicability of.

If you argue that they "take" the content, objection: you still have your copy.

If you argue that they "take" the value of your content, then you have to prove a) your content had value, and b) that the value was taken. Now, in most cases that'll be easy, but it creates some nasty cases where it isn't possible to do so (eg: a first time texture artist has their first ever texture stolen, the copier argues that they cannot prove it had value because they cannot assume their future business would succeed). I (and, I think, others) wouldn't like that kind of thing to be an exemption to the rules regarding infringement.

Also, let's remember that in actual courts, they do use the term "infringement". Nobody has ever committed copyright violation and been charged for theft, no matter what definition of theft you've looked up. This conversation is me explaining reality to you, not the other way round.

That's now how copyright law actually works.

The "value" of the work which another infringes may impact the damages that the copyright holder may claim in a civil suit. Work valued at 1 cent may be only worth 1 cent in damages.

However, other remedies besides damages are available. The copyright holder may recover any profits that the infringer realizes upon the work infringed upon. The copyright holder may recover the costs of filing the lawsuit and attorney's fees for the lawsuit. Courts may also award various forms of injunctive relief. These remedies are all available to the legitimate copyright holder, irerrespective of the value of the work infringed upon.

(Edit: Forgot to mention that the copyright holder may elect to sue for statutory damages rather than actual damages. So if the value of the work infringed upon really is 1 cent, the holder of the copyright may elect to take statutory damages, which can range from $200 to on up, depending upon a variety of factors.)

Also, irrespective of any civil action, copyright infringment is a felony in most cases that would cover the typical infringement examples in Second Life, irrespective of the value of the work.

But don't take my word for it, read the law yourself. The United Stats law on remedies for copyright infringement is right here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

Change would be good thing.

What I am hearing, is that you are acknowledging security flaws in SL and saying that it can't be fixed. I disagree, I think it can be fixed.

When you find that solution to protect digital content, the MPAA will be most eager to know about it, since they and Intel blew millions on the HDCP nightmare, for which the security ultimately resides--guess where? The courts.

It's not SL. It's the nature of digital content.

Here is my guess as to why Linden Labs does not want to kill the copybot.

Linden Labs wants to avoid any liability for damages caused to you when Linden Labs does something that destroys your inventory (or any other valuable data you store on their severs).

One way Linden Labs tends to avoid such liability is contractually, via its Terms of Service. This is mainly in section 5.3 of the Terms of Service.

Section 5.3 is particularly dracononian and one-sided in favor of Linden Labs. This is the kind of paragraph that a court of law might deem legally unenforceable under the doctrine of Unconscionability. (Such as in the case of Mr. Bragg, who persuaded a Pennslyvania Court to rule that the choice-of-forum provisions of the Terms of Service unenforceable by Linden Labs against Mr. Bragg.)

One argument that Linden Labs can make to bolster the survivability of Section 5.3 of the Terms of Service to legal challenge is to show that a resident has ample alternatives to protect herself from financial damages via data loss. What is one of those alternatives? Copybot. If a resident has the means to protect herself from data loss without Linden Labs's help, then that Section 5.3 arguably isn't so one-sided that it should be deemed unconscionable.

If Linden Labs stamps out Copybot, then that Section 5.3 of the Terms of Service once again looks vulnerable to an Unconscionability attack in a court of law. Not only is Linden Labs denying liability for data loss, but they are actively preventing a resident from doing anything to protect herself from data loss.

Linden Labs's legal risks for allowing Copybot to remain are small. Like the VCR, the Copybot's legitimate uses protect it from being contraband. Linden Labs can probably successfully deflect any copyright infringement liability based on Copybot to the actual infringer.

Now, if Linden Labs were to do something to offer residents a viable backup option (insurance? selling backup accounts?), then the legitimate uses of Copybot are mooted, only the illegitimate uses remain, and there's every reason to kill Copybot.

My guess though is that Linden Labs doesn't want to get into the business of guaranteeing its data.

Either that, or they never really gave the possibility any thought.

Its SL they allow Copybots and aren't punishing offenders.

So you think the technology here, hits a brick wall and it can't ever be fixed. I disagree.

Yes, in the case of a banned account, the content is deleted when the account is.

I'm reporting what people have said. I'm not deciding whether or not those people are reliable, or whether you would think they are reliable.

I am reporting what I have read, period. Take it or leave it - I have no links, since I had to reason to take down any. I have read people wishing they would also delete the content, including, I believe, people saying that on the LL forums.


Which is what I pointed out in my post. However, it is always good to make that even clearer, by providing more detail.


Which is what I pointed out in my post. But it is always good to go into it in more detail for anyone who may not have understood what I meant, as you have here.


Thank you for finding the blog entry I was referring to.


I believe what else needs to be said is pretty much up to the determination of people deciding to post. For example, I posted a rather long post full of things I thought should be said. I think there is quite a bit that needs to be said besides your first sentence there. Else there would be no posts on this thread, and threads like these wouldn't exist.


You do set up a fine and impressive straw man. Dramatic, too.

My point is that the Lindens could do more with policy to discourage this sort of thing. For example, their first response to the Copybot furor could have been something other than a love letter blog entry to the creators of Copybot.

Only after stores shut their doors did the Lindens see fit to announce that copying someone's work without their permission was against the TOS. It was pulling teeth to get them to do that. I think it would be good if they took a stronger (and more audible) line against this.


I disagree.


When I said I believe they see the world differently from how we do, I was not talking about what you are talking about here. I was saying that perhaps they would be happy to have an all-corporate world, or would not mind if it became an all-corporate world.

coco

I've got a really really dumb question. I know that "Inventory Backup to my Hard Drive" has been bandied about for a while. Is it at all even possible (or could it eventually be possible) (that is, to say, that I know it's not possible NOW, but could it be) to back up, say, an SL outfit or object to my hard drive, and then if it disappeared from my SL Inventory, I'd be able to upload the copy back to my Inventory? Is that a dumb idea?

That would render Copybot moot because LL could always say "well gee, gang, there's always your hard drive..."

Not exactly, *everyone* acknowledges that there is a problem with content "theft", but the perspective differs.

A door in an otherwise hermetically sealed building isn't a security flaw, it's a necessity because a building noone can get into is inherently useless, but having that door there means that you just made it so much easier for someone break into it no matter how much security you put there.

The door analogy is shaky, but when you deliver content to an end-user where you do not have absolute complete control over every aspect you automatically open yourself up to copying. The content has to be presented to the user in a usable form, but it's that very necessity that enables copying. The only non-copiable content is content you do not make available.

You see a security flaw you believe is fixable, I see something that is simply inherent to the delivery system and is inherently unfixable.

I'm no tech expert, but I think that keeping as much data as possible on LL's servers, and off of users' hard drives, is one method to prevent easy copying (and thus easy misuse) of content. Putting it all on the user's hard drive in a nice package would be at least as susceptible to misuse, if not moreso, than Copybot.

So it would solve the data backup problem, but magnify the copyright infringement problem.

Yes, you already responded, and hey! I even responded back!

As I said, I already stated that they doubtless don't get rid of content in inventory without feeling pretty certain that it has been taken from someone else.

As I also said, residents have said there were cases where they felt it should have been removed.

(And of course, when the person gets banned, the content is DEFINITELY removed from inventory.)

Liable for a breach of contract? I think you're going a bit far afield with that one. After all, this is the company that retains the right to terminate your account for any or for no reason.

I think it's important that they don't delete anyone's content on information that is too scanty, myself. It would be awful if they just deleted a person's inventory on someone else's say-so.

But I do think, overall, they could do a little better job on this issue, and take a stronger line on it.


Well, never say never. I agree it's very unlikely to happen, but I would never say, "It isn't going to happen." Because I don't know that.


Wanting a clear stance on the part of LL against taking other people's content isn't exactly a really crazy thing to want, nor is it tantamount to a public lynching announcement.

I can't see that it would be anything but a positive. Not talking about something that is a problem to a lot of people, imo, rarely makes things better. And if it gave people a sense that LL was being proactive about it, and cared about it, I don't think that would be a bad thing, even if LL weren't.

***

I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm NOT saying LL does nothing about this, or aren't trying. I'm saying I think they should do more.

coco

I think what you mean is, so far no one has offered a solution that is at all acceptable to you. Even the simple expediency of LL making it a point to condemn content theft strikes you as a bad thing.

There are, in fact, various reasonable, feasible, and realistic solutions that would ameliorate the problem, including those mentioned in this thread, and those mentioned on the original blog entry you gave us the link for.

You just don't like them. But we don't have to convince you, so that's okay.

coco

Backing up the data locally isn't the difficult part though, at the core your inventory is nothing but a list of UUIDs that reference the asset server, you don't necessarily need to back up the whole thing (although garbage collection on assets could be a problem if it went missing months ago and you wait too long to restore it).

Even backing up everything (the entire asset, referenced asset, etc) isn't a problem. The client doesn't need any kind of access to that data, it just needs to store it as-is. The encryption keys remain on the sim (we'll assume that LL can keep from loosing those) so you can keep the data protected locally just fine.

The problem is setting conditions on when you can restore something and how to track loss (and if LL could track loss on the fly, we wouldn't need back-ups, they could restore it on the fly as it happens) to make sure you don't restore something you copied, dropped inside of a prim, gave away, etc.

Things just magically vanishing from inventory is one of the rarest form of inventory loss too I'd think. There is one case where if you buy something on a sim that has a stalled or no connection to the asset server you'll see it add to inventory, but when you tp away or log on later, it'll be gone. You can't recover that because as far as the asset server is concerned, you never owned it, it never received the sim's "Oryx bought xxx, put a copy of it in her inventory".

The other forms of inventory loss (rezzing something and it never appearing, rezzing something while the sim crash later and rolls back, a broken return) are all things where SL thinks the operation was successful so you wouldn't be able to restore it.

Restore would either have to trust that the user is being honest and that they did indeed loose something in which case it would be a thousand times worse than copybot, or assume that the user can't be trusted and then it's not very likely to fit a whole lot of situations .

I'd also like to say a word about the content creators who are supposedly "worry warts," who simply can't accept reality, and should probably leave SL altogether, according to Talarus.

I have a pretty genius scripter-type friend.

Long before Copybot ever appeared on the scene, this friend told me he would show me something, if I could keep it under my hat. Because it wasn't a good thing, and even his knowledge of it (he had found out from friends of his) - much less sharing that knowedge with me - was kind of risky, as this wasn't the sort of thing that should get out, where irresponsible people might actually use it. But he wanted me to know what could happen a year or two down the road.

Whereupon he took an item of mine and demonstrated to me what we now know as Copybot (and similar copybot capabilities).

Within a few short moments, he had duplicated it in front of my very eyes.

Right then and there (not being an utter dolt), I knew what that meant. The ramifications were quite clear.

Now, that was an interesting and pivotal point early in my SL life. I had the opportunity - long before the vast majority of people in SL knew this was possible (and quite possibly before you did, Talarus; and perhaps before you were even in SL) - to evaluate it and make up my mind.

Would I give up being a content creator right then and there? Or would I keep on keeping on, trusting instead in the honesty of most people and some stewardship on the part of the Lindens should it become a problem?

I chose the latter, and have remained steadily on that course ever since. (Without any exhortations, sermons, "advice," or unflattering psycholgical analysis from anyone else, by the way.) I thought then, and think now, that it was the right decision.

Much later, when Copybot arrived, I also learned that if LL didn't provide sufficient stewardship, store-holders would demand they do, by shutting down their stores.

Now we are getting to the point where the problem at least appears to be on the increase, and, in any case - you will excuse the expression - the natives are restless.

Telling people to suck it up or leave isn't a very good approach, and not one the Lindens themselves are likely to take. I imagine they will try to improve their approach to the problem, and resident concerns will be what drives that. That is what any smart business does.

So as you can see, Talarus, painting me as some kind of hysterical Nervous Nelly is quite off-base. I've known about this since long before most people (possibly or probably including you), and made my decision about it ages ago, and before virtually everyone else even knew it was possible. So obviously, I've been "accepting" it all this time.

Nor do I have any intention of taking you up on your invitation to leave SL, however well-intentioned it may have been. That would not be your decision to make.

But being realistic about something, and accepting facts, is not equivalent to deciding there is nothing that can be done, or that no solutions ever proposed are worth pursuing, not even the simplest suggestion that LL take a stronger stand against it.

I figure it this way: If you can't, or won't, be a part of the solution, then get out of the way.

coco

Amen.

If it's all on your hard drive you can protect your stuff yourself as well as work offline. You can keep bots off your land yourself. But ultimatly it would have to be LL to create a identifier system that rejects copy bots from entering the grid and go to other people's land and sets off flares when a copy is made.

So here we are again back at square one... What do you propose to do ?
Is there really anything any of us can do to stop the copybots. ( Which incidentally aint needed a simple debugger will do the same for anyone with any experience in coding.)

You all keep saying LL needs to do something, what exactly ? 128 bit RSA encryption Keys ? ... Well European Satellite TV has proved after millions invested that that too is circumventable, Maybe take Nintendos route which cost actually hundreds of millions, The code of the BIOS is now heavily rumored to have been dumped, Microsofts 360 was hacked before the first retail machine hit the market, ALL OF THESE are totally closed source hardware, All I see is non knowledgeable about encryption ,hardware,or Anti -Security posts, I'm not meaning to piss on anyones parade, But it simply is impossible ATM to 100% protect ANY digital content, As much as we'd ALL like to do...
If you as posters have any programming , encryption knowledge at all you would KNOW this, One Adage that always holds true whatever ... MAN MADE IT , MAN WILL BREAK IT...


If you do possess that ultra elite programing knowledge, coding skills and you do manage to create the unbreakable protection system, then you will get very rich ,very fast . UNTIL someone breaks your protection.
Don't get me wrong I 100% sympathize with all creators ,whether musical or digital art or whatever, but realistically multi billion dollar/pound industries have been unable to thwart it so far, it does seem to take longer with each counter measure, but it still goes on unabated.
All the arguments I've seen here so far are supposition, I notice not one coder has piped up and said, this is how you can stop it, because in the present time, Like it or not.. IT JUST ISN'T POSSIBLE!!.

My thoughts are , Let LL and all the other metaverses progress and build until such a protection framework is possible .
I welcome any arguments from any PROGRAMMER/CODER to argue to the contrary , the intellectual arguments to me though are totally without substance, you might as well tell me ... In an ideal world, ( I would agree with you 100% in that respect.).
But I'm an old(ish) dude who has been playing with computers since 1981, I've witnessed change, I'm sure I'll continue to witness change until I die. At the end of the day whatever your protection becomes... It's still 1 & 0's and it WILL be broken, Intellectuals fire away, Coders deny what I'm trying to get across....


Just remember all Im not saying all this is right.. Its just a fact of 21st century life, we dont need to stew on it and let it get us all riled up, keep creating and find ways to make copying unproductive, even if that means sell yourself short, make your items cheaper, damn i sell trees @ 10L even though I paid almost £100 for each of my texture disks. but if someone skanks my textures it dont hit me too hard, I'm realistic, I dont expect to be rich from a developing technology, neither should you.
I mean that ALL in the best possible way too... REALLY!!!!

Peace n keep creating the wonderful things you all do

Heavy handed banning of people using copybots or other bots, for any reason, and scans for any software that can get in, built into a closed source viewer would certainly work in the meantime.

You know, possibly we're talking past each other here. I'd composed a whole elaborate response all ready to hit the Submit button, explaining why both copy detection and especially copy prevention are computationally intractable. But I think perhaps you're referring instead to something much simpler: technology assistance specifically for deterring the current generation of copybots. And that is very feasible.

Any of the mechanisms I have in mind could be circumvented by future generations of copybots, if the operation became known, so it would introduce the same "arms race" that virus detection is always fighting. But indeed, if enforcement were really aggressive and punishment severe enough, one round of serious clamp-down could thin out the ranks of those lazy and greedy enough to use current copybots, and perhaps deter future attempts for a while. I suppose, as in a sting operation, one would want to be clever with timing, to snare as many offenders as possible in the sweep. Thinking about that, I begin to wonder if that might be what's going on right now.

Agreed.. But there are such things as onion routers Etc. which will totally nullify any direct connection to a legitimate avatar, all these things that are presented in the previous arguments can be negated...

I totally 100% understand your arguments and wishes, but in a technological point of view there is NO WAY to stop a determined knowledgeable person from doing whatever they please, I'm not saying... lay down and die , just roll with the times and do all you can that is in your power to protect what is yours.
The watermarks, hidden copyrights etc is a good place to start, after all you would need the .PSD to remove these as far as im aware a copybot doesnt get these rights, then take the DMCA route when you suspect.
I'm sorry too but Closed source to me as a LONG TIME open source OS user stinks. open source is IMO my protection ,, closed source just leaves you open too abuse from the provider of said software/code. Open source means we as end users can develop it, plus added bonus your whole user base can examine the code and see if any nasties reide therein.
Since SL /LL plans on being the future then closed source really isn't an option. there are too many protection wrappers in todays applications, so much in fact the applications are so bloated with protection ( which incidentally is defeatable) that the operation of said apps is seriously flawed. ) which means the end user suffers.

I already stated I agree 100% with your concerns, I already stated the majority of my income relies on royalties, but this doesn't alter the fact things are and have been changing for a long time, whether we like it or not.
I really do welcome comments from coders, after all we're the ones who are the true content innovators. NOTE I didnt say creators.
again I reiterate, how many of you who have grievances with IPT actually download for instance MP3's , which if I want to nit-pick actually takes food out of my and all other musicians mouths? . I dont care either way but , it is a factor. How many of you download a movie to watch at the weekend, and paramount.. How many of you stream into SL without a broadcasting license?? All these are relevant.
AGAIN ... don't take this as grieving I'm on your side, but ...Swings and roundabouts comes to mind.

Peace

It is not a matter of "want". It is a matter of both the fact that they CAN NOT kill it or programs like it, and the fact that attacking a tool doesn't attack the source of the problem. Like it or not, Copybot isn't the problem. People USING Copybot to infringe IP IS the problem.

..and no, I don't see any realistic correlation between the existence of Copybot and ToS section 5.3. Copybot is not a very good backup system at all, as it cannot copy prim contents.