Beware of ‘Modify’, theft in the lift or Residents just more concious?
February 27, 2008 5:51 pm‘Using a prim replicator one could purchase a no transfer/no copy object with modify permissions (many products are set with these exact permissions), then use the replicator to produce an exact copy that would then have full permissions.‘
Warns ‘d3adlyc0d3c, ex griefer‘ over at the SL Herald in an article about a ‘prim replicator’ sold on SLexchange. Yet at the same time I’m swearing over non-modify clothing attachments - often they need some realigning to fit my body - and I wonder if that prim replicator can have noble purpose too, or that it’s invented _just_ for stealing stuff?
Over at Prim Perfect Tenshi Saffia Widdershins blogs about a stolen (or at least ’seriously based upon beyond what’s permittable) piano and sheet music. And articles on the fashion blogs about ripped/stolen skins and clothes are ‘daily news’ by now. Protest arrise, sometimes the shop owners take the content down, more often they do not. Abuse Reporting does not seem to do the trick either, and not all AR’s - especially if you do not have enough of those, you need to mobilise your friends? - are followed upon.
So, I can’t help but wonder:
Is ‘theft’ in Second Life in the lift and happening more frequent as more and more content is out on the grid and getting an overview is more difficult? Or was it always there, but did Residents only recent became aware of it and started to protest: on the blogs and to Linden Lab to no avail?
One year ago, in ‘OpenGL, Copying and Stealing’, Cory Linden said the following:
- One example is the concept of first use. Linden Lab is currently making changes to make it easier to determine who originally created an asset and its creation date. While much of this data currently exists, it isn’t displayed in the UI. By exposing this data, it will be much easier for residents in a conflict to be able to clearly determine which texture or object was created first, simplifying conflict resolution for all parties involved.
- Another option – which we aren’t working on yet – would be to offer either a registration or seal program for creators who are willing to provide additional identifying information and who are committed to not infringing on other residents’ content. If the finder makes it easy to search for content and locations that participate in this program, then economic and social pressures combine to reward creators who respect copyright and punish those who don’t.
- Yet another idea – again, we’re not working on this yet, just talking about it – would be to make copying of all content within SL trivially easy, but to track appropriate metadata about who’s copied the content and where it has been reused. Maybe even make that data publicly searchable. By making the act of copying easy, the incentives to go around or hack the system are greatly reduced and the community is better able to recognize and respect the wishes of creators. Plus, it would be much easier to implement important concepts like “undo�? which are incredibly complicated or impossible when trying to preserve uniqueness.
Even more early, November 13th, Robin Linden and her Lindens suggested some partial solutions. Not to prevent theft - ‘copying is not theft’, they say: ‘Ideally we’ll build ways that you can better identify your work as your own so that copying it is not profitable. For example, here are some ideas that we’re pursuing to help you prove your ownership of an idea or object’. As there are:
- You may have heard us talk about “first use metadata”, that is a time stamp that is attached to your creations, including uploaded textures, that shows first use. First use is an important part of being able to claim copyright ownership. This work is started, and we are committed to completing it quickly.
- We could work to reduce how much avatar/clothing data is downloaded, so that a copy can be made of the baked texture and shape but not the pieces. We’re interested in your thoughts on that option.
- We can reduce incentives to copying content within the system, by preserving the creator attribution such as with creative commons licensing.
- We could create hover text which would act like a garment label does, exposing both the first use metadata and also a brand name, reducing the incentive to copy by making it obvious that copying is occurring. If your work is “signed”, and clearly you developed it first, then the person who purchases the copy is not unlike the person who buys the fake Rolex off the back of a truck. Plus the signature becomes a recognizable asset and could be coupled with a landmark as a form of advertising.
678 Responses to “Copyrights and Content Creation in Second Life” that blogpost got before it closed. Proving this has been a hot issue for over two years now. In the mean time, Linden did not do much. Yes, I know, with any protection mechanism comes the downside that we lose freedom of what we can do with what we own. Ideal, we would have a Brave New Virtual World were nobody would even consider using someone’s else content without permission to make money. But it is not. It’s far from.
I don’t really have a solution for this, not a fool proof adequate one, though, but I would love to think in the direction of the ‘CC license’ direction. Let’s assume one can set a prim that way, that it can be sold, but only by the owner? Or we can tell a prim, that it can be sold, but only by the owner and the 1st buyer? What if we can tell a prim, that it lies in it’s nature that regardless of which object it’s part off, it will render itself useless, thus disappear, if the object were to be sold (again)? Probably that can be bypassed again, by duplicating the prim exactly. Can there be made a ‘prim will never run scripts except if the script is created by the original creator’ property? But won’t that make turning a nice collar into a decent AO and overall tool useless?
I think it’s hard - if not impossible - to find a solution to this within the content itself. Each and every solution would take away to much of our creating, sharing and economical freedom BUT that does not mean there is not a ‘human’ solution to this. What if Linden Lab finds a way to adequately handle AR’s involving ‘theft’? What if content using for malicious purposes is not only removed from the grid but also from the infrigning avatar’s inventories? What if there comes a decent punishment for publishing stolen content? Maybe indeed, ask verification by credit card for all avatars and just ban those credit cards, not the avies? Linden would need to put more Lindens on the job, to verify complaints - especially if they are not exact copies, like the piano - but at least they would not force their creators to look for other, more ’safe’ markets and worlds for their content. Because, honestly, except for a few, who’s going to take a theft/IP infrigning on a 1000L$ skin to court, as the costs would be higher than the earnings ever possible on the skin.
In the mean while Jira Issue SVC-679 ‘Stop texture theft and stop spreading of stolen items’ has my vote, not because all the solutions are there, but just as a ‘Hey, Linden, look here, 900 of your Residents think this is high priority’ signal. Will that actually do something? I don’t know. JIRA issue MISC-208 ‘More than 25 groups!’ has now over 1k votes and got a ‘we really want to, but we can’t and we won’t’ kinda answer from Robin Linden. Will this be the same? We want to, but we can’t and we won’t because… ? <- fill in the blank
Also from Prim Perfect:
In addition, Chez Nabob is setting up an intellectual property rights awareness campaign which will launch towards the end of this week with a series of about seven ads featuring several of SL’s most well-known content creators. The object is to try to educate as many residents as possible about the issues, costs and consequences of content theft and IP rights violations.
Probably not the end solution, but a noble initiative. I just hope they don’t think they can ’sensibilisate’ the thiefs. But maybe some of their customers?
Tags: content, IP, virtual goods
17 Responses to “Beware of ‘Modify’, theft in the lift or Residents just more concious?”
I think that theft like this has always existed, but with more people on the grid, there is also now more exposure to theft. However, I do question the true “Damage” that is going on by this theft. Are sales going down because of theft, or is it really because a product is too expensive or your line hasn’t introduced anything new in a while?
And please, do NOT get rid of the modify rights! Avatar shapes vary WIDELY, and there are very few “one size fits all” prim attachments out there. Modification of said objects by its users allow for giving a personal touch to an object, as well as to make it fit them perfectly.
Hi!
Thanks for referencing my blog piece on this issue. However, I’m Saffia, not Tenshi (who’s also writing about this - but on the Herald).
In regard to the mention of the IP rights awareness campaign first mentioned over at Prim Perfect and now here, it is by no means and end solution, but simply (in my mind anyway) the easiest first step in what I believe should be a multi-pronged offensive strategy for securing more safeguards for IP within SL.
Nearly everyone in the fashion/builder/scripter community is aware of what’s going on in SL regarding theft. The question is how much does the average SL resident know about IP rights in SL? Are they aware theft is occurring? Do they understand the ramifications?
So the goal of this is to try to educate the larger public in SL as to what’s going on, provide information on what the consequences are for everyone and (most importantly) rally them to stand with content creators in lobbying LL for greater protection for IP rights.
The ads won’t target thieves necessarily. Theft is always going to occur. The only message to thieves in the ads would perhaps be the fact that these issues are RL issues. It’s my personal opinion that many thieves don’t realize they are breaking RL laws because their crimes occur with a “game.” In fact, I recall a quote from Rase Kenzo in several articles covering the suit Stroker et al brought against him in which he stated something to that effect. The ads do point out that IP theft is actionable in RL courts, but apart from that the primary target is SL’s larger public.
I second Talon’s remark on mod rights full heartedly : mod rights in fashion items allow for something akin to DIY bespoke tailoring — and as Talon rightly remarked, it is a necessity to those among us having AVs outside the range expected by creators. Personally, I’d be unable to wear about 90 % of my virtual wardrobe satisfactorily without mod rights ; I’m willing to bet cutting those rights would take out a sizeable amount of custom.
But removing mod rights only amounts to a quick hack. The basic problem of all copy / theft discussions is twofold : technical solutions for copy protection will always be either too restrictive or potentially circumvented, while the low economic value (in RL terms) of SL goods makes pressing charges in RL court not viable.
Which leads us to the fact that we need an in-world, non-technical solution. Short term, this can only be LL intervening— along the lines Vint suggested — but I’d argue the point that this is not a very healthy proposal in the long term. Being parliament, government, court and attorney in one is not conductive to measured and sensible governance and preserving people’s rights, however well-intentioned those involved might be — or so RL history tends to tell us :)
I wrote about the same thing myself:
http://www.your2ndplace.com/node/933
However, I lacked the ‘attachment resize’ issue, which you not here. I guess I’m not very attachment sensitive outside of my penguin AV. :-)
The most one can do is make it obvious when items are stolen, so that social pressure can be brought to bear. Ideally stolen items should be immediately recognizable; wearing them should be like wearing the Scarlet Letter, and stores selling them should be immediately recognizable, so that those who sell or wear them can receive appropriate disappoval (snubbing, shunning, boycott, etc.).
I’ve now heard of prim and texture copy methods using mod, copy, and trans rights… So the only current way to keep someone from stealing your item would become no-mod/no-copy/no-trans and hence no buy.
I think we just have to accept the fact that in the very nature of digital worlds is the ability to copy and hence ‘theft’ (which isn’t theft in any RL sense of the word as it removes nothing from you the creator) is the cost of doing business in SL. Aren’t willing to except the cost of doing business? Don’t sell your stuff.
There will always be assholes who will do anything to get out of having to be creative themselves, yet want the benefit of such talent. It’s true RL, it’s true SL because people at their core aren’t any different in either place.
@Melissa: In the land of the alt, the Scarlet Letter doesn’t work.
@theshadow99: I kind of agree, but I’m not sure that is as simple as it could be. DMCA does exist for a reason, and most people who seem to be up in arms over this aren’t even mentioning the legal tool that they do have.
Well as a designer of jewelry in SL myself… I have to say:
Copyright on bits composed of ones & zeros that only make a piece of data, hosted on someone else’s physical hardware, that people can only interact with in it’s form of creation within a specific program they do not own… Is stupid.
Those bits outside of SL in the same form they exist as in SL could be useless or ‘owned’ in the silly copyright sense by someone else for use in a different form within yet another program. Or even more is completely worthless taken out of it’s context. Even if you stretch the legal concept of copyright to cover this type of digital work, what are you covering if not some sense of ownership of 1’s and 0’s sitting on LL’s servers? The DMCA is a joke from people who don’t even understand the internet outside of ‘tubes’. It’s why in RL we have such a insane fight over the same thing. If people can own a pattern of 1’s and 0’s, or if they only own the pattern within a context of some sort.
Worse yet is how and who, do you send a SL applicable DMCA notice to? And can you afford to actually enforce your will via lawyer in the first place? I know on my SL earnings I can’t afford $400 USD/hour attorney’s I’d need, if my initial DMCA takedown notice is ignored. Besides a select few in SL, I don’t think anyone is hiring $400 USD/hour attorney’s to try to find out the legal rights on ‘property’ in a digital world.
I’ve also replied at Nobody’s blog (see above)
I am a builder and, fortunately concentrate on rezzables, not attachments. With all this hype, knowing how the LL system works, I wasn’t really very concerned about it. Of course all the hype and hysteria can still tend to be unnerving.
So I went out and bought this exact prim duplicator - the “Black” (higher-end) version and put it through it’s paces with objects between myself and two alts.
When my post over there is approved by moderator, you can read the details. But in a nutshell - EVERYTHING has to be modifiable (including any contents like scripts or notecards) or it doesn’t get copied or it breaks (scripts for example).
This thing is no threat whatsoever to any creator, EXCEPT those who release modifiable objects (hair and skirts for example).
So, the only real issue has to do with attachments (or rezzable items) that might need to be resized or reshaped or something to this effect. In the case of hair and skirts and such, one answer is to obtain the inexpensive “resizing’ scripts that allows the end user to resize the prims through a menu - even though the prims are no-mod.
yes, it might be a ‘hassle’ or ‘inconvenience’ to that user. but you as creator need to make a choice: lock your stuff down at the expense of user convenience, or just go about what you’ve been doing all along.
now, one thing should be made clear here: the KKF Prim Duplicator is available in two versions: “White” and “Black”. ONLY the white version is available online. The black version *must* be purchased in-world at a single location.
The difference is this: The white version will only duplicate prims YOU CREATED.. if you are not the creator, it will NOT even try.
Thus, the perceived risk in all this is even lessened as 99 of 100 purchasers of this product will be purchasing the WHITE version.
Now, you may ask what is the use of such a tool? (Yes TOOL.)
I’ll tell you know: I build as part of a team. Often, we build parts of a whole. This tool makes it easy to consolidate the build upon completion, along with correcting those ‘whoops, forgot to set permissions right before selling it to you for zero L$ and that’s the only copy” - etc.
As a legitimate tool, it wouldn’t be used very often at all. But even as a ‘theft’ tool (and I agree with Robin - copying is not theft, because you are not being deprived of the original - rather it is plagiarism) - you should remember that the ‘thief’ must know where to get the tool, get ahold of your stuff with full modify permissions, and WANT to sell it on the open market to siphon your earnings, AND be willing to risk being caught.
I just think SL is way too big and way too many people (read: potential customers) to even worry about what itsy-teeny-weeny little dent in sales something like this could possibly cause.
yes, I may be way off-base in the opinion of many of you. But, with hands-on test of this tool, that’s how I see it.
Kind regards,
Ari Blackthorne.
To add to what I said on copyright:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/27/0018224
I’ve never understood why an item isn’t defaulted to mod/copy/no trans. If I buy an item, I’d like to be able to copy it, just in case something happens to it. If that item is clothing, I’d like to be able to make it fit. Surely, if I can’t give the copies to anyone and I have paid for the item(s), I can do what the hell I want to them?
Thats how it works on the other side of the screen ;)
@AmandaShinji
If I may answer from a business persons perspective:
Anything that is ‘rezzed’ in world should always be no-mod/no-copy. This ensures future sales. In fact, there are times when I’ll ensure permissions are zero (no-mod/no-copy-no-trans) - for this explicit purpose. For gift buys, I refer people to OnRez or to my gift card system.
If I sell you a bookcase for example, I want you to buy as many as you need. If I sell it copyable, I’ll likely raise my price because of this (you could create a sim-sized library, and I lode out on those sales.)
For anything ‘worn’ - that is clothing, hair, prim attachments, etc. - Should be sold as copy and not transferable. Two reasons for this - the first is, I like to create outfit folders. Some outfits might contain the same article in more than one folder. But, from a business perspective, clothing is among the most often purchased item and most impulsive. So, I don’t want you giving away my items that you’ve become tired of. because if you give it away, that’s a sale I (might) lose.
Besides, anything that is modifiable should always be copyable. I can’t count how many times I’ve hosed a no copy item.
Anyway - these prim duplicators specifically require modify permissions. Now, that includes any scripts and other items inside.
But here is something I’ve learned that hair and primclothing creators can use: If the textures you use are no-modify and no-transfer - the duplicated items created by prim duplicators are created just as ‘advertised’ - HOWEVER, even the copied one cannot be transferred, because the texture (in the creator’s inventory) that was used is set that way, and the prims assume the permissions of the textures it uses.
Hence, the textures must be changed to full permissions textures.
Now, I’m not saying this is definitive. But it’s what I found in quick testing. I hope to do more detailed testing in the coming days and the weekend.
Kind regards, all.
@ Ari: Ok, point taken on the furniture, but there are a LOT of people out there making their stuff copyable and not charging the earth for it either…
I was more referring to clothing and attachment items not being cop/mod… Obviously, if an item is trans, it shouldn’t be copyable, the two are mutually exclusive, but I don’t understand why we shouldn’t be able to make a personal ‘backup’ of a prim skirt, belt etc. and then mess aroud with one of them to get it to fit properly…
Oh yes indeed, Amanda. I was actually agreeing with you.
I was making a point more directed toward the creators that don’t follow this paradigm. :)
[…] you’re in… unless it’s stolen.’ As mentioned in the post where I wonder if content theft is in the lift, or Second Life Residents are just more conscious of it, this ‘awareness campaign’ was organised by Chez […]
### Replicated Items ###
Here’s a fun read about how to easily spot “Replicated” items:
http://ad-labs.blogspot.com/
The amusing part is the user “stealing” prim sets in that story brought their actions to light by wrongfully accusing others of stealing their designs via the same method.
Perhaps the answer is as simple as : give offenders enough rope and they’ll hang themselves.
I believe the real answer is : people need to understand the TOS and stop confusing (or intentionally mistaking) virtual games and “fictional currency” with real life legal issues and actual dollars.
These issues need to be clarified via Linden Labs in a user friendly manner rather than relying on lengthy legal jargon in a TOS that a considerable percentage of users have probably never actually read.
### llGetPrimitiveParams ###
//Secondary social repercussion aside-
llGetPrimitiveParams is well documented on the LSL wikis.. there’s no need to buy elaborate scripts when anyone willing to take a few hours or so to learn the scripting language could easily create their own object replicator complete with UUID texture transfer.
In theory a clever scripter could even bypass the no-mod privs on any object they own by exploiting res glitches that occur under special circumstances.
### DESIGN PATENT vs. IP COPYRIGHTS ###
It’s worth noting that a prim set is likely not protected in any way under Section 3 of the Secondlife TOS as they may be viewed as patentable design rather than copyrightable intellectual property.
By far the most interesting part is that any patent dispute claims are a breech of the TOS.
### The Real Issue ###
In my opinion the problem doesn’t seem to stem from the code as the game is relatively bug free in comparison to a lot of games that get released and more times than not functions as it should.
( OK.. I know that last bit may be a stretch, shh.. stop laughing :)
As I see it, the root of problem is people that view their SL balance the same as their PayPal or checking account balance, then expect an open source game to function within similar parameters and maintain the same degree of security as a bank.
That’s just ludicrous.
Any real world loses or gains are from risks that are committed to outside of the actual scope of the game as defined by LL, at which point the user is 100% responsible for their own actions and misconceptions.
I’m not trying to discredit hurt feelings caused by rude behaviour or even out and out harassment, I’m just saying IMHO there’s little to no actual legal implications.
~Avant D.
Care to comment?