Do people care about Content Creator rights?

They also allow GL Intercept, and prim mirror scripts, and any other kind of copying tool.

They do NOT allow any of them to be used to infringe IP.

They ARE punishing people for infringing IP.



It's easy to say that you disagree with someone. It's hard to convince them why.

Either way, there is no technological measure which is feasible OR effective to stop infringement.

My point in saying that is that it is hearsay. I would like to read real first-hand accounts, and as many of them as possible, before I would be able to make a fair and balanced assessment of LL's current policy and whether they are sticking to it. My take on it is that they are, from everything *I* have seen and read. You claim otherwise. Somewhere in there in the truth of the matter, and my point is that we cannot make fair judgments without the facts. As such, claiming that their current activity is "insufficient" is ungrounded.



I dunno. Even if LL did and said everything suggested here, there would be someone claiming it wasn't enough. The fact that these threads exist isn't enough, by itself, to justify LL performing the prescribed activity. There has to be substance to it, and it has to be something which will have a real impact. Otherwise, it will be a waste of time and effort.




Except that it isn't a strawman. It is directly representative of what you and others are asking; the only thing it varies in is proportion, which was intentionally hyperbolic to illustrate a particularly odious side effect; namely, the danger of annoying honest people instead of the intended effect of educating/deterring the dishonest ones.



Oh please... they did no such damn thing. In the thread that got deleted from our last exchange, I completely debunked your revisionist history take on what happened in mid-November 2006. They said nothing of the kind in any blog entry about libsecondlife during that week, in relation to Copybot. The store shutdown was a very small percentage (it wasn't half the damn grid), and did not precede the policy blog post, as the forum thread and blog post times show that it was likely crafted earlier in the day before any significant number of people had closed their stores and, as such, LL couldn't know the scope of the closure, since it stretched into the following days.

OK, you think that the Lindens could do more with policy to discourage "this sort of thing", which I presume to mean infringement, right? My contention is that they are already doing all they can, both by law, and by their overall policy mandates. They have always come out saying that they will punish people for using tools to infringe. They say that you should follow the DMCA procedure, because you as the content creator are the only one who can legally challenge an infringer of your work. LL can NOT do anything about it otherwise. They have said that they have taken punitive actions against people for infringement. There have been blotter entries listing suspensions and terminations for infringement ToS violations. They continue to make blog posts to this effect.

What else should they do?



Well, if what you are asking will have an insignificant net effect on infringement activities, then what would it do besides make you feel better?

I mean, if you ask LL to pay lip service to you, and they do, and you go away happy, how useful is that?



Yes, I know. My point is that they are taking a neutral posture, regardless of whether the grid id filled with big corporate interests, smalltime interests, or a hybrid mix of both and everything in-between. I think they are happy to have all of us here, but they have to mature as they grow. It is an inevitability in business that you have to change some things to accommodate your growth. Just like they had to deal with the VAT situation, they also had to come to terms with the copyright situation in a way that protects them and empowers us, regardless of whether we are a big corporate interest, or a small private one.

..and I said, without knowing the specifics of the case, there may have been circumstances which prevented them from doing so. They could also have been slacking off. The point is the only people who know are the Lindens, and they aren't here talking. The rest is hearsay.



I think someone could make a good case against them for financial loss if their inventory was intentionally deleted for no good reason.



..and I think they are doing a fine job on the issue, as far as I am aware, and have yet to see anything more they could do which would have a significant impact on it. I am not saying it doesn't exist, I am saying I have yet to see it. Here or anywhere else. I have already read and responded my thoughts to your suggestions. I don't see anything in them that would make enough of a difference to waste time and energy on them.



Fair enough. Realistically, it isn't going to happen, and even if it did, there are MILLIONS of accounts out there which are probably stored up ready to be used by people for nefarious purposes. So, yeah, maybe it will, but I wouldn't place any bets on it. It would require a radical paradigm shift back to a closed grid model, and there is too much momentum carrying them forward and away from it to expect that the chance they will do it is effectively nil.



Of course it is not crazy. However, what you want, they have already provided. It is clear.

As for the public lynching part, that was in response to the request for "proactively blogging the enforcement activity taken." I was asking if it meant essentially making a blog entry about individual infringers, essentially making examples of them in the public eye, aka "public lynching".



Yes, I agree, knowing where LL stands on a subject of importance is a positive thing, and we do. They DO talk about it. You can go to their office hours and talk to them about it, too. There was even a blog post last month which reiterated the whole stance again.

Again, it sounds like you are happy to have them pay lip service to it. Me, I would rather have them say nothing if they are going to do nothing. Then I can take them to task over doing nothing, rather than having to wait until we have a fiasco to call them on their lip service announcements being hollow.



Yes, and what I am saying is that what they seem to be doing is sufficient and I would rather them spend time shoring up other weak areas than throwing effort into ineffective solutions to infringement.



Yes, I think that is fair to say, but I am not the only one claiming that they are unacceptable.



Now, there's a REAL strawman. I have never said anything like that. I think it is a GOOD thing for them to condemn infringement. I also have pointed out that they have done exactly that, and more, and I am happy with what they have said on the subject to the point where I don't think there is anything more they could say that would make any difference.



I have already examined the ones in the blog entry from Nov 13th, 2006. I pointed out that they have implemented some of those measures, and that some of the things they listed didn't make any sense. I also said that there were a few pieces that they could still implement, but that they were more gimmicky and didn't address the problem.

The rest of the suggestions thus far have been less than stellar. One person repeatedly suggesting draconian copyright enforcement provisions enforced in hardware, requiring a Stalinist regime to replace every piece of computer equipment on the planet, and armed guards posted in your house to make sure and shoot you if you try and tamper with it. I have addressed yours as well; I just don't see where any of them would make enough of a difference to bother. *shrug*



Yes, and I have enumerated reasons as to why. Fair ones, including questions.



Of course not. But if you (not you specifically; anyone here wanting something "more" want more people, like me, to get behind your rallying point, you *will* have to convince me. You don't need me to, granted, and I am happy to tell the Lindens regarding the subject "hey, don't worry about it; you guys are doing a great job as far as I am concerned!".

You are right...I perfectly understand there is a arms race.......and yes so I agree....."technology assistance specifically for deterring the current generation of copybots. And that is very feasible. "

Until tech becomes perfect, there will still be issues---there could always be issues and neve be perfect, but mostly effective muting and blocking of the constant onslaughts of exploitation of other's efforts is very possible

Strawman! <--- see I can call them, too!



Probably not; I think I predate libSL's capability to log in to the grid. Otherwise, what you saw was not "Copybot", but something else. Maybe Jeffrey Gomez' prim mirror?



I see no evidence it is on the increase, beyond your say-so. There are VASTLY more content creators in SL since late 2006, and there doesn't appear to be any more CopyBot activity than there was at that time.



I agree.



Maybe, but you and I have sparred over this subject since the story about CopyBot broke. I said then, and I say again now, you made the right decision. I still don't agree with your arguments; I think they are reactionary and as off-base as you claim my painting of you is. In that time, I found you swept up into the hysterics of the moment, as a lot of content creators were, and I called you on it then, too.



Dunno where you got that from, I have never invited you to leave SL. I haven't told you to leave, asked you to leave, or otherwise said that I want you to leave. Quite the contrary, actually. But, then again, you have a penchant for twisting arguments that are unrelated to you to make a point of absurdity.



I've never said any such thing, but reiterating the obvious won't deter you from making your own strawman version of what I said, so please do continue.

The "simplest suggestion that LL take a stronger stand against it" with no substance. I ask again: HOW? WHAT should they do that would make a real difference? To me, failing to come up with anything that meets that litmus says that they are already doing everything they can.

Whether you realize it or not, and whether you like it or not, I (and the rest of us, really) am doing you and the others clamoring for "more, better, stronger, faster" a big favor. Namely, I am playing Devil's Advocate for your suggestions. I am analyzing them, and helping you improve them. Because, if you are going to take them to the Lindens, they are going to do the same thing. They know how precious little time they have, and they are only going to be interested in things that make a difference. Now, I am not a Linden, and something that doesn't convince me, may convince them. However, at the same time, I am a rational, reasonable person. I'm not going to dismiss anything out-of-hand simply because I don't like it. I will give valid, thought-out reasons as to why. I may offer a constructive alternative, if I have one; otherwise, I won't.



You mean, if I can't or won't be part of YOUR solution.

I'm not IN your way. I'm not the sole communication tower access portal to the Lindens; you don't have to go through me to get to them. Go right ahead and make your demands of them. Tell them your suggestions. Ask them for the moon. When you come back here and moan about them not listening or taking your suggestions seriously, I'll still be here.

I know you don't like me posting my opinions on the subject, because they don't mesh with yours, but tough. You have no more right to tell me to shut up (which is effectively what you just said, btw) than I have to tell you the same.

What are you referring to, Qie?



It is quite likely that there are multiple implementations of clients which have copybot-like capabilities. You're likely not going to be able to detect them, and certainly not going to prevent them from operating without breaking other things. Even so, LL will most likely not do such a thing, because of their stance on not attacking the tool, but the infringing use.

However, maybe I am missing something. What specifically do you have in mind?

Obviously the software is not secure at all--as it is----and bots and other methods used to cheat others is not strongly enforced.

But ya know....what can one expect from open source viewers and flimsy security, allowed bots, and so much of the code, openly reverse engineered by others, with nothing done about it. Of course content creators get ripped off and people begin to think SL can't be taken seriously as far as living up to it's stated purposes.

New skin theft "drama": http://shoppingcartdisco.com/2008/05/08/renderositycom-losing-content-to-sl-users-dozens-of-times-a-day/

Regardless of all the overdramatizing there, it illustrates why LL can not ever get more involved in judging *infringement* (technological measures are different) than it currently is. Those disputes are far too complex (are they the same, are they not, does using it in SL break the license or not, etc) to be judged by LL and they have a very high chance of getting drawn into the disputes if they pick the wrong side.

(And omg... those renders look great )

When it is reported, and the proper steps taken, accounts are banned and content is taken down. How is that not "strong enforcement".

What enforcement do you consider "strong enough"?



1) CopyBot predated Open Sourcing of the client.
2) Open Sourcing has made the viewer much more stable and has increased both functionality and performance.
3) What "flimsy security" are you referring to?
4) Allowed bots - some bots are very useful, so allowing them has been a good thing.
5) Reverse engineering will happen - there's no way to prevent it, either.
6) Content creators will get ripped off despite all of the previous points being addressed to your satisfaction.
7) SL lives up to enough of its stated purposes to support 17,000 regions and 13 million accounts, 50k concurrency, numerous content creators, and many consumers. I don't think it is a valid argument to say that SL can't be taken seriously anymore.

I myself am totally opposed to downloading MP'3, movies etc. etc.

From my observations--one thing I have noticed, is that people that argue about how they should be able to download mp3's for free--if they are geeks anyway, tend to be or become, open sourcers

I would love to know the exact demographics of the people who are exploting, giving away other people's creations and selling it as their own. We know how they stand on the IP issue.

Don't you see anything wrong with these numbers?

It's no small wonder LL doesn't want to get more deeply involved in the IP issue than they already do.

Especially when people want to change the meanings of legal terminology, build gobs of straw man arguments to demonize their debate oppononents, and push the hyperbole (including ridiculous analogies) to near hysterical levels.

(Response in PM. And that's two in a row for me this morning. I gotta stop reading these security-sensitive threads.)

At the expense of content consumers though; which, let's face it, make up the vast majority of users. If it were the case that content copying had an obvious negative impact on the consumer - one which the consumer felt in their wallets for example - then there would no doubt be pressure from the community at large for LL to take intellectual property rights more seriously.

Until preserving content creators' rights has a tangible benefit to the majority of SL users - and by extenstion, a benefit to LL themselves in the form of increased premium subscriptions for example - LL will have no moral obligation to champion said rights.

It is right and proper that content creators should try to protect their creations. However, as long as there is no benefit to the consumer (which there isn't) in doing so, do not expect the rest of us to share your outrage.

I suppose that's an argument in favor of the "copybot boycott" of merchants: make the consumers feel the pain. Well, aside from it being singularly ineffective. ("Gee, nothing to buy but these boxes of full-perm stuff--and hey! I can set up my own store, too!"

The high-end consumer would suffer if the best content creators wouldn't create anymore. The problem with that is that the very best content creators aren't all that motivated by the profit incentive anyway, so... maybe at most the mid-level consumer has marginally less selection.

I think you're right: for being the backbone of SL, content creators really don't have much market power.

Neccessity being the mother of invention; if the current crop of content creators were not here, more of us who are just consumers would have learned to create instead, meaning that there will never be a shortage of content. I, for one, know that I could build, script or texture pretty much anything that I could possibly require in SL. I don't because it's less hassle just to buy it. I'm not alone in this either.

That "boycott" does needs to be put in its proper context though.

Not wanting to take anything away from those that did close to make a point, but a significant number closed because at the time there was plenty of mass-hysteria and fiction floating around, but very little fact. Some people were convinced that all copybot had to do was stand in the middle of their store and it could grab everything (scripts, anims, clothing, prims, etc) right out of vendors on the wall.

So quite a lot of store owners didn't know what to think (or believed the worst of the worst) and closed down to protect themselves rather than to make any kind of point.

When the hysteria died down and people began to understand what it was and wasn't capable of most reopened because the real copybot turned out to be far less scary than what it had been hyped up to be (that's not to say that copybot is harmless, but rather compared to what a lot of people thought it could do at the time).

(Edited to add that that's my recollection of it anyway, it's not being stated as fact )

I know it's not how copyright works - but remember that Cheyenne is arguing that we should be applying _theft_ laws (or, if not the actual laws, the same moral position), and the only thing she can show to be stolen is the "value of the creative work".

The key problem with all the "never mind the law, LL ought to get involved" issues is that LL doesn't want to have to get involved in making such thorny judgments, especially if the stakes are high.

I will say that there's one big benefit to banning content infringers which is that a law in real life copyright law is corrected. That flaw is that it's possible to use infringing content to become big/well-known in a business area, and as long as you manage to do so before you're caught for the infringement, you can pay your fine and remove the content but the effect of competitive advantage you got from infringing earlier on remains.

Here's a few of the problems I can see, so maybe people have solutions for them.

1: PixelRose, an established creator, has used a texture from a webiste on one of their outfits. They paid for the texture and are using it legally. However, it's a regular event that someone will see the texture on the website and - not knowing that it's licensed, nor that the dispute has already been settled - file a copyright dispute against them. (Especially a new clothing business who sees it as their slingstone aganist Goliath.) The owner of PixelRose can win all the disputes by showing their proof of license, but they have to do this over and over and over again, taking up their time and causing them hassle. If the Lindens intervene to stop the filing of repeated disputes about the same thing, they have to either keep track of _everyone's_ licenses, or if they just do it for the big creators they're creating a FIC.

2: A newbie with no payment info on file creates something. Another newbie, who does have payment info on file, copies it and sells it at their business, and becomes more successful. How do we deal with this without a) throwing those with no payment info on file "to the wolves"?; b) allowing NPF alts to make endless series of baseless accusations? or c) creating paranoia among newbies because "it's ok to copy other people's content because if you become more successful than them, LL will side with you?"

3: As soon as the announcement is made, a number of resis start to hire lawyers to probe the details of copyright law. An awkward judgment is made, such as (for example) that a building in SL counts as a piece of 3D art rather than architecture and thus is protected the same as it would be. As a result, they start filing copyright disputes about buildings being too similar.

So are you saying its wrong to be an open sourcer, ? thats what it sounds like to me. If you take the time to look at the history lists/indexes of any mp3 dowload sites, or torrent tracker you will see that the huge majority of downloaders are actually windows users, in fact open source users are few and far between as most of the stuff we need is free.

I'm getting out of this silly debate anyway, because I'm a geek, also an open source advocate and your statement really makes no sense to me. In the forums I frequent downloading mp3's is actually frowned upon also, so where you got that idea from I dont know.

people like to stereotype because it makes them feel superior while allowing them to remain shallow and uninformed.

Good. You avoid having the Hypocrite card played on you, then.



I have noticed no such thing. In fact, the vast majority of people clamoring that they should be able to infringe copyrights on songs tend to be from the younger generations, with little to no real interest in the technology.



I think it would be more interesting to have the demographics of content creators themselves, to see how many need a wake-up call from the Hypocrite card.

There's nothing "wrong" with numbers.

There may be something "wrong" with what they are taken to represent, but no, I am afraid you will have to elaborate.

Yeah, I did that in another, now deleted, thread.

It was mass hysteria, it wasn't "half the grid" (less than 1% at best), and it didn't prompt the Lindens to do anything they weren't already planning and in the process of doing as a result of previous discussions with groups like the Seller's Guild.

We had people saying the "sky has fallen", and intimating that it was the end of SL as we knew it.

It's in the forum and blog history; just takes a little bit of digging to come up with it. Here's the largest forum thread about the store closings:

/327/47/148909/1.html



No, you've got the right of it. Anyone can look back into the history and read for themselves what happened and draw their own conclusions, but being there, I remember it the same as you do.

Hello everyone, it was suggested by Talarus (in IM) that we may get more accomplished in an in-world meeting...for those of us who want to pro-actively work on solutions for the issue of content theft.

I propose we meet in a round table meeting in world in the very near future. If we agree upon this, I will procure a neutral and private location.

There are two areas that need to be addressed separately, yet with checks against each other; the technological and the legal avenues available to us for preventative measures.

I will be in world early today, and will have the whole weekend and Monday available as well.

It appears to me that this issue we are discussing is the single most important issue in SL at this present time, and it affects many other issues in SL. With a sound solution or solutions in place, many other areas of SL will be affected in a positive way.

No one ever said that finding solutions is easy, but we are a resourceful species who do seemingly impossible things. I do hold to the philosophy that if it can be conceived, it eventually can be done. The key word is eventually, patience will be necessary during the solution making process.

I am looking forward to meeting with each of you in world very soon concerning this matter.

Sorry if I gave the impression I was lumpin all Open Sourcers together. Even within the open source community, there have been major polarizations of opinions, regarding IP. What I was doing was trying to profile the kids who are the biggest music and software downloaders. These kids/people in my observation have a sense of entitlement, usually try to get everything for free and in my experience become Open Source advocates, bad mouth Microsoft and praise
Richard Stallman ideas and also the "Free Culture movement" in a fanatical way.







Because the Free Culture, Free Software "movement" is parallel to Open Source for lots of people and that disagreement exists within the Open Source community.

At any rate the debate isn't silly, because content creators want things to change and if people care about SL being taken seriously then something needs to improve.

Again I didn't mean to lump ALL open sourcer people into a stereotype but I do question the wisdom of most all Open Source apps, in a world where security and people making a living, are involved.