|
|
|
Due to the complex nature of permission inheritance (multiple content creators working on an object). The vast majority of SL objects will not be transferable. Only new objects or single creator objects could be updated (by the creator) to be gird transferable. I don't see this as a bad thing, it should result in a great boom in the SL economy... Grid Interoperability will become a selling feature.
Voted.
Also linked to VWR-2571 and SVC-701 - both of them are about revisiting permission system and dealing with a more proper licensing management. I dont think the flag should be added unless it can be successfully edited. This would add a restriction to existing content that didnt exist before. Some creators may desire that their content will be allowed to transfer to other grids, and having the "Creation Grid Only" set as a default and not able to be changed would be counter their wishes. Please consider a more complete implementation.
Dahlia, there isn't one right now. There is no way to change the flag because the asset server can't handle it. If content creators want to allow people to copy, they have to TELL them. THat can change later on, but this is a temporary fix, not a permanent solution.
Are you playing a shell game to move this every time people make relevant comments you don't like?
No Ann. I commented I was closing the old Jira and opening this one, several times in the comments section of the old jira, and I spammed about a dozen groups in IM to point out its existence. I also spammed the IRC for libsl, OpenSIm, OpenVIewer, realXtend and opensl about it. I'll add a pointer to it in the SLDEV, risking Rob's ire, also.
I would not feel happy with a half implemented solution.
Please create a full solution before this happens. As others have said. Some would like their creations to appear on other grids. Your 'temporary fix' could stop that. I seriously don't understand what the difference between this issue and the one you closed is at all.
If it was simply the name change why not just change the name instead of excising the existing history of comments in the previous issue? It will take months and months before a "full solution" can be implemented. The first part is merely a quick fix to address the issue with using Second Inventory and other tools to make copies without permission.
Joshua,. there are 177 comments on that jira. I've put a pointer to that jira at the top. People voted for the original, not my amended version, though it isn't too different. Also, I'm doing this this way as per the suggestions of several LIndens to create a "policy clarification request." People who want to vote for the new one can. The fact that the old one had 41 votes in 2 days should be enough to let the LIndens know this is an important issue. The fact that they have scroll down for 5 minutes to read the last entry should also tell them something.
Second Inventory is engineered deliberately to only take content that you either have full-perm or are the original creator of. I have found it to be an invaluable tool as a content creator as it allows me to take content I've created in SL into an offline, lag-free, significantly more stable OpenSim installation for building and then reimport back into SL. It doesn't take items that you don't have implicit ability to take already.
Frankly I don't think there's much argument for trying to keep full perm items just in SL. I don't see why someone would make something full perm in the first place if they weren't releasing it to be given out freely entirely. Considering the rampant reselling of freebies in general I expect people who create content to have a larger problem with that than someone taking their full perm items onto another grid. Second Inventory can't be used to create copies without permission. The developers of the software have been explicit in ensuring that. Okay Saijanai, but in short order there's going to be 177 comments on this one as well. Are you going to close it and open a new issue when that happens too or can this be the last issue? Otherwise it inspires confusion and redundant comments.
And what about using Second Inventory to transfer your own creations?
How would your 'temporary fix' or 'quick fix' effect that? As I understand it now. Second Inventory can backup and transfer your own creations. It can backup but not transfer items you own that are copy only. What do you need to add in SL to stop transfer of others creations that are copy? Did I miss something? Why not wait till a full solution is available? How does your 'temporary fix' or 'quick fix' help? Joshua, the fact is, that the permissions system ONLY covers Second Life. "Full Permissions" means NOTHING when you are transferring things out of Second Life, because what you are transferring them to didn't exist when the creator checked off the "full permissions" settings. Legally, you must get explicit permission to transfer things out of Second Life. IDeally, that should be part of the permissions system, but until it is, you must talk directly to the content creator about the issue.
Garth, the "quick fix" only serves to remind people who want to play by the rules, what the rules actually are.
So. If I talk to a content creator and get their permission to transfer an item to an opensim grid... How do I do that if your 'temporary fix' or 'quick fix' is in place? After all.. I am playing by the rules?
You are taking the choice out of the creators hands.. They can't even choose to let their item be transferred ! As it stands now I can get a full perm version from them, presuming they are willing, and use Second Inventory. "Full perms" isn't a phrase that has any sort of meaning as far as copyright or licensing is concerned. There's been no clarification by the Lindens on what it actually is intended to mean. Is it releasing content into public domain? Is it disavowing copyright? Is it giving someone a complete license to use content as long as there's attribution? There's myriad possible meanings for it and the inability to understand what the intent is when you check something off full perms is indeed the cause of plenty of confusion from people who resell freebies who think they have a right to do it because of that.
I also disagree with your assessment of the ToS. While it does stipulate against taking content out of SL it's within the context of subverting the permissions system and I think there's enough wiggle room with full perms that one could argue they thought they were within their rights. This also has nothing to do with content that I've created and I have every right to take that content in and out of SL as I please. This issue only fits into the larger one of a dire need for a permissions system overhaul entirely, one where deliberate intent and reflections of applicable copyright law are taken into account. I don't think we should have a flag till it's editable, I am happy with a default local grid only setting, if LL planned things right they should have spare fields in the assets anyway.
I am quite happy for some of my stuff to be exported to trusted and some stuff to even untrusted grids (which is another can of worms), I don't want a checkbox that says I'm not, that I can't edit, that I have to go back through any products I've made or sold to enable them to go Gridworldwide. If they can't add it this week, so be it but it needs to be a real flag linked to the asset even if it takes longer. I suspect there should be 2 flags, trusted grids and "free for all". SVC-676 has almost 1000 votes and LL will not deal with blatant thieves in a manner that discourages them. There are many who have stolen items for sale all over sl and LL will only remove the items for sale reported in world at one location. The entire situation is untenable.
What exactly is it that makes you or anyone think LL cares about IP rights until the moment they are served with court papers? Personally I am in favor of the franchise idea because it would require anyone wanting free trade to pay a hefty load of money to LL thus eliminating the libsl ripper types from the mix. Oh they can still have a grid of their own. Just never connected to Secondlife. Secondlife will pick up steam and become the only logical choice for opening your own island rental business (which is the only business reason for running a grid). By setting this up as a franchise opportunity the TOS aspects are instantly covered thus totally defusing this entire argument and bringing a level of insurance that blatant criminals will not be connected (unless they are seriously wealthy criminals in which case they will be connecting anyway by virtue of pocket padding and nobody would even know they teleported to a non LL network anyway) Ann, while LL's responses and attempts to deal with theft is lacking, most of those solutions in that JIRA are impossible to implement and are irrational chest puffing ideas.
The rest of your comment is just ludicrous. Tegg, my understanding is that the situation already IS "Creation grid only [Second Life Grid]" as far as copying permissions are concerned, and there is no way to "turn the flag off" until the asset system and permissions system is overhauled, so to make that flag editable doesn't make sense: it can't be edited on the asset server side, which is the only place that counts. BUT, to show the flag, reminds people what the current situation is, which I think is a very good thing.
Would this give content creators a 'FALSE' impression that their content could not be transferred to another gird?
A full solution would be sooooo much better than attempting to mislead people. We have all seen Linden Lab shoot themselves in the foot way too often. I think this flag would give a false impression not to mention generate confusion.
I see it now, support tickets asking about "MY VIEWER IS BUGGY HOW DO I UNCHECK THIS BOX??" Questions about how you get access to other grids. Concerns about how you save content offline. Etc etc etc. I don't think a half-assed implementation is a good idea and I don't think anyone needs to understand what the current situation is because really everyone knows there's only one grid right now. How about having it not be disabled and if the user tries to change it, it pops up a box saying something like "You are changing this so any grid can access this content, the implementation of this feature has not been fully determined and if you agree to this, the feature may change into something unexpected and you will have no recourse for content you have distributed with this configuration. We strongly recommend you do not change this value until after it has been fully implemented." with the buttons <AGREE> <DISAGREE> <Cancel>. Cancel and DISAGREE would do the same thing, clicking AGREE, would popup a box asking you if you are really really sure about this.
"Is it releasing content into public domain? Is it disavowing copyright? Is it giving someone a complete license to use content as long as there's attribution?"
None of the above. Permissions in SL are not a statement of copyright, they are a technical measure that may be used to support a number of licenses. For example: X-Flight is widely available with full permissions, but contains an explicit notice that it is only for use by members of (if I recall correctly) the Kazenone group. Franimation Overrider and derivatives are full perm, but released under the GPL. This means that it is legal to transfer it to other grids, but it's probably not legal to use it in no-mod items, and it's certainly not legal to use modified versions of it without releasing the modifications, as a number of avatar creators do. Cyberflight is full perm, released under the BSD license. It is legal to transfer it to other grids, and to use it in non-redistributable content. I have also found scripts and objects released using CC licenses in SL. We need an explicit non-modifiable (except by the creator) and non-hideable license field on all assets, as requested in SVC-701. If it's not present in any asset then the viewer should display a summary of teh Terms of Service relevant to assets, and a recommendation to look for associated readmes or license sections in whatever readable code and documentation accompanies the asset, and a button to open the creator's profile to look for further statements there. This would satisfy this JIRA's requirements, and support a far broader set of licensing terms than any technical mechanism... especially one like this that is simply a notification. Those are still examples of full perm items that have broader licensing agreements attached to them. But it says nothing for items which don't. How can one tell if this full perm avatar is given away completely with no concerns as to secondary use or something else entirely?
You can't, and there's no way to derive intent from those three checkboxes short of asking the original creator. Who might have a different opinion of what full perm means re: the license than someone else. But like I said, that relates to a larger deficit of the permission system itself. As you say, and as I noted in the previous message, permissions in SL are not a license, they are a technical measure to enforce the LL TOS. Any additional field you might add, unless it is an explicit license, is also not a license, but a technical measure to enforce a license.
My goal is that ALL assets can have broader licensing terms attached to them, rather than restricting that capability to scripts or scripted objects, which is the current situation. That is the whole point of SVC-701. For assets that do not have such terms, copyright law says that there is no right to make copies except as allowed by fair use and the right of first sale. Under the Linden Labs terms of service Linden Labs has the right to make or allow to be made additional copies under the LL rights system, for use withe the SL service (Using LL's servers or the official SL client). There is obviously some discussion as to whether this allows copies to other grids, but unless those other grids restrict access only to the official SL client I'm pretty sure that it doesn't. So creating a license field per SVC-701 and providing a summary of the appropriate sections of the TOS and a mechanism to contact the creators seems to fulfill your requirements. We know the current permission systems aren't licencing, but licencing is what tells the 14yo next door that he can't jump in your car while your asleep and take it down the coast, permission sytem is car keys they need to open the door and start it.
They don't stop determined theives but they prevent the casual laxed morals user of taking the easy way out and hence creating a heap more work for those reporting infringments to the system. By not having any sort of permission check for cross grid transfer by saying the licencing will sort it out, you might as well turn everything on the grid into full perm items and let the licencing sort it out from then on too. I suspect nothing legal will work, especially if there continues to be no verification and unlimited disposable accounts available, so objects will probably sell at higher prices and sellers not care so much of what happens afterwards rather than hit their head against a wall wasting their time filing DCMA's on each pair of shoes that gets pirated and each of the multiple accounts doing the pirating. There is no way any legal process can keep up with the piracy process in a virtual enviroment when no raw materials are even required for disposable alts to market and sell thousands of copies in minutes. The proposal here isn't car keys. This proposal would not actually do anything to prevent anyone from doing anything, it wouldn't even make them click on "Yes I agree not to violate the EULA". It's just something that you'd see if you looked at the permissions tab on the asset.
What I'm suggesting is to actually let people put something meaningful there. No, the proposal isn't a lock at all but if the checkboxes were put in soon as possible so we had the options to start labelling what we want tranfserable between grids and what we don't ASAP rather than do nothing for 6 months till it happens. The actual proposal here in reality, no offense intended is just a sign on the window saying I don't want anyone driving this car stolen or not to take it out of the city I liked the earlier proposal more. If LL haven't planned for this then they need to plan for it and while they're at it stick a couple of extra fields in for future expansion. Otherwise if it really can't be done, gridbinding every assett in SL will kill it as other grids set their system up to allow it without us, somewhere in the future you will be able to step from grid to grid like sim to sim, with 90-100% of our stuff, and people who decide they want to limit their items to one companies grid are going to lose sales against those selling multigrid versions of the same thing. In some ways by being the first we have doomed ourselves as we have a reluctance to disturb/break content to make changes we should have started with, by allowing large amounts of freedom in things like the textures library we have choked ourselves, In some ways LL would be better setting up a new version of SL where grid transfer protocols were ironed out and start afresh with content sorted/modified as it entered from the old but not able to go back.
Hey, I prefer my earlier one too, but I know how the stuff is added to the viewer. The easiest stuff gets done first.
This isn't a viewer change, it's a server change.
You see, unless there is work done on the server to save whatever this checkbox saves, then it doesn't matter whether there is a checkbox on the viewer or not. They can't shove this in by stealing unused bits from prim parameters, because not all assets are made of prims, they have to actually add a new record to the asset database either way. And once you're changing a database, the biggest effort is dealing with the fact that you're changing it at all. It takes no more effort to add copyright and license fields to the database than to add a flag. I'm with Argent, I don't really see the point of this change that does little.
I don't get what all the fuss is about. The ToS specifically outlines what intellectual license users give to LL and other users of the Service on their content. The language of section 3 is very clear and unambiguous: license rights are only granted to users of the Service and only for use inside the Service. No reasonable person would construe that the permissions system implies some kind of actual copyright license, either inside or outside the Service.
If LL decides to start sending your copyrighted content to third-party grids in violation of their ToS, they're breaking the law. If someone takes your content and reproduces it outside of SL in violation of the ToS, they're breaking the law. This proposal asks for clarification that is not needed, and I still don't see any kind of firm citation showing why all this fear and uncertainty is warranted. Furthermore, not only is a blanket "creation grid only" statement unnecessary, it's possibly misleading and incorrect, in the case that the content in question already has wider licensing rights (such as creative commons) that WOULD allow it to be distributed outside SL. We already have a legal system in the real world to handle this kind of thing, with intellectual property law treaties between many major countries. Why isn't that enough? The addition of this flag is crucial to allow content creators to express what should be implicit, but apparently isn't obvious to many. There isn't a single thing I created where I had the expectation it would ever leave Second Life, nowhere on the signup screen, or in the TOS did it say "Hey we may have other grids one day, and you're giving us the right to move your stuff there, wether you have a presence there or not." It would simply be wrong to speak for creators and say 'they obviously meant' anything.
At this moment, moving assets from SL to any other grid is not possible, except by means which are on very questionable legal ground. But in the future this will change. Work needs to be started NOW on implementing changes to the permission system to give creators the tools they need to enforce their desired licensing, just as they have now. As SL is currently a closed world, defaulting to 'Creation Grid Only' would be the correct thing to do, with the expectation that it would become editable at such a time as actual inter-grid transport became possible. Darien: The addition of this flag doesn't change anything nor does it allow content creators to express anything other than, perhaps, the opposite of what you're suggesting... that is they would be able to say "yes, you can take my stuff to another grid".
To be precise when you write "As SL is currently a closed world, defaulting to 'Creation Grid Only' would be the correct thing to do"... that IS the current default. What's missing is the ability to say anything else. So there's no need for any rush. It's more important to make sure that whatever scheme gets created allows creators to express EXACTLY what rights they are granting. Any scheme has to at a minimum include: Creative Commons licensing. The simplest scheme would be to have a free form license field, perhaps implemented via a UUID link to a notecard that can be attached to the object through the inventory properties dialog. Think of it as a "covenant for assets". I feel I have the right to move any of the content I created over my 5 years in SL to any grid by whatever means I choose !
I do not see that whatever method I choose to do this can be described as "on very questionable legal ground". I own and created the content ! Please be clear on your choice of words. The current proposal only specifies a checkbox with an unchangeable default. This seems to me to only be a viewer change, with no corresponding changes to any other parts of the system. Given that there are many types of viewers that can log in, what mechanism would allow them to display this information? Nothing would force them to address this issue without underlying changes to the packets/messages that would carry this information. Some of these viewer applications are the ones people are allegedly using to move content now, and the developers of these applications would have no incentive to implement this feature. If you truly want a half implemented solution, I suggest it would be more effective if it were implemented in some manner other than a cosmetic viewer change.
ianal.
the tos characterizes content creators as copyright owners and mandates some terms that the rights granted to LL, spelled out in 3.2.a et.seq. are quite generous to LL. the rights that must be granted "to other users" are unspecified in that section. As Argent points out, there are many licenses already attached to many products, with many further restrictions, beyond those mandated by the TOS. So Argent seems to have hit the mark with SVC-701, and Lex seems to have missed it - Patent rights grants are more specifically mandated and are indeed restricted to 'within the Service': The intent of LL is even more clear in the foregoing of further digital right-restriction management: (these terms are) intended solely as an expression of Linden Lab's intention not to require users of the Service to forego certain intellectual property rights with respect to Content they create using the Service, subject to the terms of this Agreement. So, if you want to use the copyright laws to enforce your rights, and you're not happy with the EULA automatically granted by the TOS, a further specification of the rights you are granting seems to be desirable (for you, if you want your license grant of your copyright enforced) , thus SVC-701, which could be as simple as a pointer to a notecard or an offworld copy of some license. @ Argent: Actually the absense of a flag leaves what is indended completely up in the air. You can't look at someone's full perm content and pretend to know what their wishes are.
@ Garth/Argent: Of course you can say what your desires are about your own content that YOU make. But the copying of full perm content made by others is what is being discussed. Don't try to muddy the waters with anything else. This flag is needed so I can express to others that my content either can or can not leave the grid. It's not a hard concept. And frankly the only people who would be in favor of no flag would be thieves. And I chose those words very carefully. To quote my original post
"I feel this is very important. Also just as important is for buyers to be able to see where they can take something they buy in SL. They might buy intending to take it to 'XYZgrid' and find they can't. This needs to be there in your face when you buy, Just as no mod/no copy etc is, then buyer can choose NOT to buy content that does not suit their intended use. It is just as important to give content creators a method TO ENABLE content to be taken to OpenSim grids if they so choose. All for this if implemented in a transparent way and both sets of creators are catered for." Where in that statement do you get the idea that I am against this? I just want to see it satisfying both camps. Not a half done and never completed solution. Also not something that gives content creators a false sense of security for their products. @Darien. After 5 years in SL as a player and 2 working for LL. I resent the implications you make in your statement. Well if we are going to add a dummy flag saying content can't leave the secondlife grid then, I want a dummy flag added under it saying my content can leave the grid.
Proclaiming we don't give permission when we do or may on request is a misrepresentation of the creators wishes and just confusing. A lot of airing out needs to be done on content transfer issues but I think quick panic flag waving isn't benificial in the slightest. People taking stuff to other grids won't bother looking at permissions, it will have no legal standing at all, and people using other viewers won't even know it's there. If LL can't add it to the asset server within 6 months, then they have FAILED in planning an evolving world. Will programs like 2nd Inventory that we are trying to stop with this even know it exists? If I see stuff specifically flagged as not allowed to be used on other grids, I'm going to probably avoid purchasing it for something that is multigrid. Creators not wanting stuff to leave the grid can always put signs on their vendors too stating such, it will probably have more effect than a flag hidden in a menu many residents will never see. A dummy flag is a waste of time, if it doesn't link to anything, you would be better adding a message linking to a popup saying "piracy is illegal, please check permisssions from the creator before taking this object to other grids." that would come closer to satisfy all camps. Darien: If you don't change the database, you STILL can't look at someone's content and know what their wishes are, because if you don't change the database YOU CAN'T SET ANY FLAGS. If you ARE going to change the database then it's just plain daft to only add a single bit flag.
I am NOT saying "don't add a flag". I'm saying "don't JUST add a flag". I've made this point explicitly several times now: since whatever is added is advisory, then make it something that can actually provide advice. No collection of flags will do that as well as an actual license. Also, telling me that I'm a thief because I'm saying "right now you can't take full perm content off the grid" is so bizarre that I can not comprehend the confusion in the mind that would lead to such a conclusion. I also resent Darien's comments. Because I don't want a half-assed, broken implementation in no way implicates me as a "thief." Don't be an idiot.
I said:
As a first step, the Linden Lab viewer should have a simple message added in the permissions section, perhaps in the form of an already X-ed in box, something along these lines [X] Creation Grid Only [Second LIfe Grid] That cannot be turned off (due to the fact that there is no corresponding asset flag) until the permissions system is upgraded. I added that last part a day or so later: "until the permissions system is upgraded." I don't see this current jira proposal as anything more than a short-term bandaide, but a necessary one. When combined with a blog entry about the situation, it serves to remind people of what is going on in the realm of cross-grid permissions, which is to say: the TOS and permission system doesn't cover it. Any asset created on the second life grid, no matter what settings the creator gave it, is de facto "Second LIfe Grid Only" until such time as the wishes of the content creator can be made clear. Until the asset server and permissions system are upgraded, there is NO WAY for the content creator to express her wishes unless someone contacts them directly. Even making that proposed trivial "flag" truly editable will require substantial changes server-side. All this proposed "flag" does is serve as a reminder of the current situation. If, instead, people think a simple text box message above the current permissions flags is a less confusing short-term solution, than I'm all for it. The only real advantage to using the grayed-out check-box would be the implication that eventually it will be unsettable. The first editable settings should be "Creation Grid Only (normal permissions)" which maintains the current settings, and "Any Grid (full permissions)" which switches on all relevant settings and lets you distribute the object on any grid using any method. Not other settings make sense at this point, because there is currently no provision to enforce or even inform, other grids of the creator's intent. More precise and complicated settings might be made available later on, but this is at least a 3 step process, in my view: 1) using a message, or non-editable check box, PLUS a blog entry, indicate the current de facto situation: All current content is "Creation Grid Only" unless explicit permission is gained from the content creator. 2) Modify the asset server and permissions system to allow a simple choice between "Creation Grid Only (normal permissions)" and "Any Grid (Full Permissions)". 3) Create a better, possibly redesigned, permission system that maintains the current options for creator intent available in the current system for Creation Grid Only, and revises them in some sensible way for the meta-grid. Step three may be an ongoing process. As a designer, I think this interim solution is excellent. I DO NOT want my items uploaded to other grids. Don't know of any designers who do. LL owes us this much.
@j3rry:
> the rights granted to other users are not clear and unambiguous, nor do they make it "illegal" to Since the ToS doesn't mandate that you grant them that license, the default is that they don't have it. Copyright on anything you create is by default assumed unless you specifically grant rights or release your work into the Public Domain. > especially by LL which is granted the right to: Wait a minute, let's quote that more fully: (ii) use and reproduce (and to authorize third parties to use and reproduce) any of your Content in any or all media for marketing and/or promotional purposes in connection with the Service, [with a method for you to request that they remove your content from their marketing materials] That doesn't somehow grant them the right to transfer your content to other grids wholesale, except for purposes of putting up some kind of SL billboard. Basically, they're just giving themselves the right to take snapshots in SL and use them in ads. Re: The proposal is not a lock.
Under the DMCA, if you remove this flag, and you are a commercial operation, you can go to jail for not more than 5 years, with a fine of not more than $500,000. Adding this flag just creates another legal mine in the minefield. How many people are going to run an alternative grid when doing so risks 5 years in federal prison? Adding this flag accomplishes nothing, and adds a legal requirement.. Saijanai, as it's impossible to take SL content off-grid right now anyway I don't see what the point of this is served.
I especially, DEFINITELY, do not support anything that says "regardless of what the content creator says" anywhere. LL does not have the right nor authority to decide that for my content. Gigs, I'm not sure where you're reading that. The DMCA has no civil or criminal penalties except for false filings. Joshua,
The DMCA is more than just the Safe Harbor/Takedown/Rebuttal process, though that is what most people know it for. The DMCA prohibits circumventing "copyright control devices" (1201(a)(3)). This means you can't bypass copy protection, no matter how trivial and stupid it is. Bypassing ROT13 for example landed Skylarov in jail for several months. The DMCA prohibits removing "copyright management information" (1202). If you distribute a work and neglect to include the author's name, you could go to jail. The criminal penalties are in 1204: Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain— Those are just amendments to overarching copyright law though.
And the permissions check doesn't exist in OpenSim at the moment at all really, so unless OpenSim deliberately decides to go after people who remove that part of the code when it is implemented (which would be futile given both its open source and open license availability) they wouldn't be breaking any copyright protection by removing that part of the software. Joshua, the solution that Linden Lab has been talking about is a "trust" certification program, where grids that agree to abide by the Linden Lab permission system, are allowed access to assets with less than full permissions set.. The reason why I've proposed the extra "grid only" flag is because content creators never agreed to this "trust" thing so they will need to make their intentions clear before LL can release ANY assets, even to "trusted" grids, even with otherwise "full" permissions.
In the far future when the grid is opened up to third party connections it will be done so, I am quite certain reading over the minutes of the AWG discussions as well as discussions myself with some of those people involved, in a capacity of "Allow only in Second Life," or "Allow transfer to trusted grids" and finally "Allow transfer anywhere."
You're not proposing an extra flag that has meaning in the first place, secondly you're not proposing a flag that reflects what a content creator might want, you're just deciding for all of us that we don't want cross-grid transfers. I for one have no problem at all with deciding that I want my content to transfer to trusted grids who have made contractual arrangements with LL. LL isn't going to allow the transfer of content at large outside of SL without giving content creators that decision. Beyond the fact that it's against their own ToS and they've already had the experience of having a judge say that whatever potential loopholes that might exist in their ToS are unconscionable, I cannot even imagine the PR blunder and lawsuits they would open themselves up to if they made such a stupid move. Again, I fail to see what this proposal will do for anyone and why it's anything more than a half-hearted protest over an issue that's not going to work out the way you seem to think it will to begin with. Argent's proposal is much better and will result in legitimate work on the permissions system instead of demanding a useless flag that will only inspire confusion and concern. Joshua, ARgent believes that what I have suggested is already the case, and therefore redundant. My suggestion only serves to clarify what Argent and I both agree is the current situation. Argent doesn't see that the flag (or message) is necessary, but I believe that it is, because the creator of Second Inventory, and many people who use it, are under the impression that they DO have the right to transfer "full permissions" flagged assets to OpenSim without first obtaining explicit permission from the content creator.
This flag (or message) is meant to make clear the current default situation: that no-one has permission to take assets out of Second LIfe and put them in OpenSIm unless they have obtained explicit permission from the content creator to do so. The NEXT step in revising the permission system, in my mind, should be to revise the asset system in a simple way to allow a choice between "Creation Grid Only (Normal Permissions)" vs "Any Grid (Full Permissions)" but even this simple change probably won't be trivial. LL may not want to implement such a change until they have a better permissions system designed to replace the current one, but I think that they can and should implement the proposed change before the new design is in place, because a new and better system may prove to be much more difficult to come up with than they imagine and they need to have something ready NOW, rather than 6-18 months from now. The first change is merely cosmetic as far as programming is concerned, and only serves to clarify the existing situation: all existing assets are legally "Creation Grid Only" until the content creator says otherwise. This clarifies the situation for Second Inventory users--that they need to get permissions before doing a transfer to OpenSim. The second change will allow users of Second Inventory to automate this process, at least for new content, and possibly for existing content, depending on the practicalities of allowing content creators to set a flag for existing content on a grid-wide basis. The third change is the biggie, and will requite much debate and design work and may incorporate Argent's suggestions as well as many others. Google "RIghts Expression Language" to see what I mean. Check the new references at the top for discussion of how complex this situation is likely to become and why we need a mutli-stage process to address it:
See also 1. Your suggestion would establish a bad precedent and raise false expectations that Linden Labs would be able to create a technical measure to prevent applications from transferring material from one grid to another. It would also make it harder to implement a real license mechanism in the future because people would expect an implementation of this checkbox rather than a license. It would be better to add a (License) button that pops up a default notecard saying something like:
2. A license field does not require a "better permissions system". It merely requires an additional 8 bytes of storage per asset for the UUID of a notecard. There is no requirement in any law I am aware of for anything but a human-readable statement of license. A license field is not merely part of a larger system, it's a logical first step and possibly a legal requirement for any such system. 3. Expecting people to create "rights expression language" descriptions of the license they want to use seems more than commonly unreasonable. Argent, its all about automation. A licensing system that could be automated to allow cross-grid transfers without human evaluation would require a machine evaluateable version of the license, which would require a Rights Expression Language. And of course, its even more unlikely that the average content creator is going to choose some specific license out of large number of choices, rather than simply click a flag or two. The first step I propose is merely a message or non-editable checkbox that reminds folks of the current situation: you can't transfer assets off-grid without explicit permission. The second step enables this as a choice within the permission system, allowing creators of tools like Second Inventory to automate the testing after content creators have indicated their choice. The third step, as I pointed out, is the biggie, and may require more than one iteration to satisfy everyone: design a permissions/rights system that will work in a meta grid system with varying types and degrees of trust possible between 2 or more grids.
Your license proposal is a very tiny subset of the possible issues that may need to be addressed in some way. Zero LInden office hour explicitly about this jira:
https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Zero_Linden/Office_Hours/2008_June_17 Saijani, Zero's office hour does not at all adequately address this issue, and it's nearly impossible to hear his thinking clearly and get a full explication of it when particularly Joshua Nightshade is constantly interrupting and trying to drown him out with the false premise that "no one needs these new permissions" and "it's confusing" – neither of which is true, and neither of which he is legitimate in lobbying as if he "represents" the content creation community. I've addressed some of the many issues in my blog: http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2008/06/how-they-sign-y.html
People in fact do need this. It isn't resource intensive. And the process for people to decide isn't a Linden office hour or a JIRA, and I certainly don't think there can be any ethical means of deciding this by a straw vote at a Linden office hour, which is how some would like to accomplish it. Here's the main problem with Zero's claim of "validation" of all permissions "as is" on "any grids" – it's an abstraction, extrapolated from the notion that "if nothing is explicitly disallowed, it must be allowed", i.e. permissions are a given so they will go on being a given. But...there isn't any validation. There isn't any interface on the open sims with any permissions! Period! Nothing! no buy and sell interfaces inworld with microcurrency! So what on EARTH are we talking about here?! There's no marking of intent on the object menus. Oh, sure, we can be clubbed over the head a many times as you wish by those wealthy enough to hire lawyers and incorporate their businesses that "your IP must all be protected and IS protected outside of SL in real life" Yeah. We know all that. But the reality of virtuality is such that many people come to the virtual world to create precisely because it holds the promise of faster entry to invention and business without all the expenses and difficulties of real life like having to trademark everything and get lawyers (and did you realize that all these ballyhooed trademarking cases in fact are not all complete yet?!). Take that away, and you have no point for virtuality. The Lindens' permissions system, which they credit Lawrence Lessig for, was supposed to be a 3-D online world's implementation of Creative Commons in ways that CC itself never caught on in real life – and it held, up to a point. But it's precisely the attitude that it need not have any mechanical back-up that makes it a hollow claim. If Linden Lab is not willing to have checkoff boxes for not transfer/transfer to open grids, or permissions for created grid only/all trusted grids/all grids then they are not making good on their original pledge to enable 3-D object creation and a simulated economy to buy and sell them with protection of IP. I don't believe that you can say that all creators will by default expect – and jump for joy at – notations that say "this item transportable to all trusted grids". You cannot assume that. That's absurd when we have no trusted grid system yet, "trusted grid" isn't defined, by name or by type, and where we can't expect sims with no monetary systems and no permissions worked into their object menus to be better at protecting IP than SL. Garth, one of the fallacies of Creative Commons that is constantly hammered at people is that it exists because creators "want to share free copies and need an easy way to do this legally". Well, yeah, some do. But some actually would prefer to be paid, too, not just credited. And CC is lousy at that. You never hear of anybody making a living with a CC license. Instead, you find community peer pressure, and the copyleftists, browbeating people into making their items CC, in order to "help people learn" because "sharing is good" etc.
CC is not a regime for really protecting IP at all, I've come to conclude, especially watching its proponents in Second Life. It's a regime for trying to wean people who still cling to the idea of copyright away through a staged system to giving away everything for free and making all content shareable by leaving them the vestige of a copyright system crediting their work – but not encouraging not enabling copying to protect IP, which should in fact be part of any real protection regime. In the same way, when you say, "It is just as important to give content creators a method TO ENABLE content to be taken to OpenSim grids if they so choose" – you are speaking from the CC hymnal, it seems to me. That's not the purpose of copyright; the purpose of copyright is to protect copyright, protect IP, not "enable content to be spread around". It's an absurdity to imply, as CC does as well, that content somehow needs the "permission" of CC to help it spread. It doesn't. It spreads anyway. And that's why we're all trying to stop the flood with some kind of permissions regime! In fact, all content IS ALREADY ENABLED to spread to all open sims, Garth. if not by Copybot or Glintercept, then by the lack of any permissions regimes and TOS within open sims that are designed to step theft. The default is ALREADY spreading, so why worry about it? SL Inventory ALREADY makes it possible to copy everything to an offline sim, and surely it's not far to then enabling it to go further. So what's really needed is not some putative "permission" to spread around more content freely, but restrictions to enable people to protect IP. As for the claim that SL inventory only copies your own stuff or full perm stuff, the point is that ANY device that increases the copyability of anything in SL outside of SL makes anything in SL more vulnerable, especially as these "offline sims" will eventually start to connect more to each other. I agree with Darien's formulation.
I think the TOS also doesn't support the idea that your creations with the SL tools are portable to other applications. That's not how I read the TOS. It really depends on the type of creation. Obviously if I have a real-life t-shirt with a design, or a tablecloth with a design, whether it's in Second Life, Kaneva, or IMVU, it's all the same decal or screen, and obviously I can port it hither and yon. But a building? with prims? How can you transport that to other worlds like Multiverse that won't have prim-based scenes? A vehicle? That runs with SL physics? Even a dress, that works because of the sizing and proportion of SL avatars, but may not at all work on an IMVU avatar? There is a sense in which some creations are welded to the SL tools and really can't be conceived outside of the world without drastically changing the world's physical properties. >You're not proposing an extra flag that has meaning in the first place, secondly you're not proposing a flag that reflects what a content creator might want, you're just deciding for all of us that we don't want cross-grid transfers. I for one have no problem at all with deciding that I want my content to transfer to trusted grids who have made contractual arrangements with LL.
No, what's happening here is that Joshua is deciding for everyone that they should default to having their content be transferable to other grids, and not have flags of any kind because it's "confusing" or "takes coder time" etc. And yet right in this thread, we've heard resoundingly from several creators that they DO NOT want such a default. NO MEANS NO. >Proclaiming we don't give permission when we do or may on request is a misrepresentation of the creators wishes and just confusing.
Tegg, you are speaking as a small faction of content creators, not the whole. You cannot speak for the whole. Your desire to make your content available for full permissions or for free is not everyone's desire, and that's what copyright is all about. Nobody misrepresented you, and there is nothing confusing. What WILL BE misrepresented is a default of "enable to transfer to other grids unless otherwise specified". That's just plain wrong, because it's an assumption based on only one school of thought in SL, not representative of the mainstream. Please just take your closed world russian isolationist desires elsewere, this is an evolving 3D world, if so many creators think gridlocking products is best , I'll believe it when they start making sales because they advertise content as "exclusively for SL use only", while people from other grids walk into SL with content they brought elsewhere that is allowed to transfer. I respect creators desire to have a choice, not being railroaded into gridlocking of all items. I am quite happy to have it default to gridlocking, but I want the right to make a choice. To deny choices is wrong.
If they want to make their intents clear just advertise it on their vendors or in their shops. that "this content is not alllowed to leave SL" why hide it in a little checkbox 90% of residents will never look at, then complain they didn't obey the checkbox. The point of running a home sim is to be able to move stuff both ways, of course some people might just be worried about the future of the rental industry when people have their own "islands" connected to the grid. And right in this thread we've heard from other creators that we don't want all content gridlocked, we want the choice to not do so. I didn not say I wanted to make my content full perms on other grids or free, but I would like the option to do so on all content regardless of it's permissions, as I believe trusted major grids will respect permissions systems. YES and NO, means YES and NO And the views of less than a dozen creators are a poor representation on the creators on the grid not in this thread and creators to come in the future. Saijanai - You get exactly the same result by putting a plain text string "Note - full permissions do not permit transferring to another grid", WITHOUT making it harder to do a better job. And, you know, a non-editable checkbox violates the principle of least astonishment.
Adding "click here to view the creator's profile and contact them for permission" would resolve the question of people who DO want to give permission. As for rights expression languages... they are completely unproven in practice, may not ever be able to provide an expression of even the most common licenses, and shouldn't even be considered until they have a useful track record of success. As for content creators and licenses... over the past 30 years I have seen far too many unique licenses to believe for one minute that most people are the least bit unwilling to put one down on paper or pixels if they get the chance. Look at all the estate covenants if you doubt me. Exactly, as many have said, the perms boxes are just a technical device, they represent no license or authority to copy. That however is not the common view, and people should be educated in that. Perhaps mandatory copyright lessons in Orientation Island?
The way copyright works is that is you have a specific license to do something, then you can. If you don't or a license is absent, then you can't. Plain and Simple. If you don't have permission, you can't do it. It's an education thing. And none of the content in virtual worlds will be out of copyright, because they haven't existed for the minimum terms of years as laid down by law. And that also applies to textures or pictures of out of copyright work, like paintings, because in that case it's not the original work, it's the picture or texture itself that is copyright. And under copyright law, the copyright holder has exclusive rights to assign any rights (s)he likes, and by geographical region is very common with books, magazines and images. The same should apply to virtual worlds. The danger with transferring it into open sims and grids without a creator's permission is tremendously important. Because, in their wisdom, LL went the open source route, and the open source crowd tend to believe everything is free and copyable, whether the license actually states that or not, and they abide by the license terms (which many don't), but that because both viewers and grids are open source, a coder can pretty much do what they like. Who's to tell they can't rig up their own app to change perms, and then import it back where they like? It's a thieves paradise. At least with LL you are dealing with a proper company, under legal rules, with a history of acting on DCMAs, even if not perfect. "No, what's happening here is that Joshua is deciding for everyone that they should default to having their content be transferable to other grids, and not have flags of any kind because it's "confusing" or "takes coder time" etc. "
I've never said anything like this at all and if you've read my comments in both discussions it's plain as day I don't feel that way. Argent, I realize this thread is to unwieldy to read everything everyone says, but I don't disagree with your point about a simple note. As I said above:
"Even making that proposed trivial "flag" truly editable will require substantial changes server-side. All this proposed "flag" does is serve as a reminder of the current situation. If, instead, people think a simple text box message above the current permissions flags is a less confusing short-term solution, than I'm all for it. The only real advantage to using the grayed-out check-box would be the implication that eventually it will be unsettable. " Now, the problems I see with EULAs are many. I'm not saying they can't be used, but as a default situation, they have drawbacks, such as being often hard to read and understand, even by humans, especially in situations concerning nested objects. More importantly, the system LL needs to implement has to be automateable, so that the asset server/Agent Domain can us the permissions info stored in the asset database plus whatever trust agreement or other policy statement an individual grid has announced, in order to determine wither a given asset will be released to the sim that the avatar is attempting to rez an item in. EULAs just won't allow that, unless they are carefully embedded in a machine-understandable Rights Expression Language, which will make them difficult to write. Again, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be used, only that they can't easily be used in the way that LL needs for automated distribution of assets. We need something simpler for that, at least at first. Saijanai: Implying that it would eventually be unsettable is not an advantage. It constrains future implementations in ways I do not believe are appropriate. Documenting the TOS does not have that problem.
An automated system for sharing partial trust between trust domains will probably be needed, eventually, however that mechanism needs to be developed as part of the trust model, it is far too early to even create a placeholder for it. What we are faced with now is the fact that everything outside the LL grid is outside the union of all trust domains. The only mechanism for describing the restrictions on distribution in this situation is a plaintext license. We need to address the situation we are currently faced with, where there are only two trust domains: the Linden grid, and everything else. We need explicit licenses for this. We need explicit licenses anyway, even within the grid, for situations where the simplistic rights "language" LL has created is inadequate... people have been struggling with that for as long as I've been in SL. Sai, a non-user changeable field that does not respect the full wishes of content creators and has what you assume to decide for them is not an acceptable solution.
I am in no way against a checkbox system when it has actual meaning and can be changed by users. As I said in the office hour yesterday, your proposed solution suddenly decides for me what I can do with my content and where I can allow it to go. That's a decision I don't want anyone but myself empowered with. This really seems to be less about content creators and more about enabling you to tell the developer of Second Inventory he can't back up freebies. Montana wrote on 18/Jun/08 06:55 AM:
The way copyright works is that is you have a specific license to do something, then you can. If you don't or a license is absent, then you can't. Plain and Simple. If you don't have permission, you can't do it. it is not the case that in the absence of specific license grant that all rights are reserved to the copyright holder, and no other uses are permitted. montana might mean "may not do it", rather than "can't do it". even then, there are only certain things that one may not do. 1. there are exceptions and limitations cf http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html 2. specific license grants have been made by the TOS. the substance of these grants is open to interpretation. 3. it is within LL's purview to decide what "the service" is even if only what constitutes marketing and promo, 4. are SL creations literary works, visual/graphics works, a combination? http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.pdf 5. time and space shifting are allowed uses, as are backups. running your creation on my sim might be just as allowable as watching the sopranos having tivo'd it, a point mooted in practice by second inventory already (let's beat this dead horse). is it not permitted to make a backup copy for onesself with e.g. second inventory? 6. a digital "rights" management language, like western civilization, might be a good idea lol though admittedly progress has been made, thanks for pointing this out sai. for another viewpoint, there's always stallman http://www.masternewmedia.org/drm/digital-rights-management/drm-as-digital-rights-restrictions-Stallman-interviewed-20070224.htm who's running this show, the riaa? (thank you JayR) Joshua has said repeatedly inworld, and on JIRA entries, that the flag system is "not needed" and "confusing," and I fail to see why that is being denied now, except to be disruptive.
Tegg, I'm hardly any sort of "Russian isolationist" – I'm not Russian in real life, but Irish, only my SL name is Russian – not that someone's nationality should be invoked in an argument any way. I'm not isolationist, either (nor are most Russians I know in real life); I'm for liberal democracy and a free market and for the free flow of people, ideas, and goods across frontiers. I'm not for the free flow of stolen goods across borders, and I'm not for communism or its Internet socialist "generatives" variants, encouraging copying everywhere, and enabling only a few consultants to make money off customizing opensource. That's an elitist system; it's a good example of how open source is its opposite. I knew that this debate would degenerate to a blanket accusation of people "gridlocking" their goods and not "freeing their customers to take their purchased items to other worlds". But of course, that's a sensationalist mischaracterization of the real situation, which is: o Most people don't even know this is an issue NO MEANS NO. As for these kinds of silly barbed attacks, "The point of running a home sim is to be able to move stuff both ways, of course some people might just be worried about the future of the rental industry when people have their own "islands" connected to the grid" – I hardly can worry about the ability of some open sim to serve as competition to me in the already-acknowledged risky and difficult business of SL mainland rentals. Anyone who remains in business on the mainland in Second Life for nearly 4 years obviously has seen tremendous economic and technical upheavals, and I've seen more than my share, so my staying in business isn't merely about making a profit and my concerns about opensim aren't about my personal business. I'm far more concerned about the destructive implications of worlds with no permissions, no respect of copyright, no respect of private property and proprietary rights, constant harassment of creators to open up their permissions and "share" (read: be expropriated); constant browbeating of creators to make their creations portable "or else" – in other words, the same sort of spirit of brutal collectivization that happened in real life in the Soviet Union that so destroyed people, land, and nature. It didn't work in real life; it doesn't magically transmute itself to becoming working just because it moved online. Who's running the show, the Stallmanites? It's important to understand that Stallman and his disciplines are a narrow sect, they aren't the mainstream opinion even among geeks, and particularly not among software companies of all types, including those firms that encourage and use open-source software.
One of the tacticts of the Stallmanites is to demonize everyone who questions their destructive extremism as "RIAA". RIAA itself is demonized, but you don't have to be an RIAA nut to wish to have permissions hold in Second Life. Again, I'm not seeing anyone here argue at all that the permissions system needs to be revoked.
I have never said the flag system "is not needed," I've said Sai's proposal here, which does nothing but add a flag that no one can touch and have ABSOLUTELY no choice over what it says, is not needed. I have said repeatedly, in discussions here and in forums and elsewhere, that I fully support a system that gives everyone the choice of where their content goes. I do not support Sai's proposal which has no technical advantages and results in Sai deciding for me that my content can't travel outside of SL. That's not a decision I have enabled him to make for me. A alternate route would simply be to put a text notice at the top of the permissions flags section that reminds people that they must obtain permission from content creators before transferring content out of the Second Life grid. Note 17 June Zero Linden office hours discussion on this issue, listed below.
https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Zero_Linden/Office_Hours/2008_June_17 Zero raised an interesting point: many people would be confused by any "constant reminder" and Linden Lab's support staff would be overwhelmed by people asking for clarification from people who have no interest in taking assets off-grid in the first place. I DO think a blog entry and a clarification in the TOS needs to be done, at the very least. Actually I think I raised that point.
If we're going to ask for that reminder, frankly, I would also like a text notice also stating that "If there is any confusion on reselling full permission items, please contact the original creator first." Followed by a text notice saying, "If there is any confusion on whether or not it's appropriate to use GLIntercept to steal skin textures, or copybot to steal prims, please contact the original creator first." And below that for good measure maybe we ought to also add, "Don't be assholes to one another." Hmm.... @Joshua, Why not add the full TOS
Instead of having a greyed out checkbox that violates human interface guidelines, why not make a working button called "Export permissions..." What is left is Argents objection that it will make it it harder to implement a real license mechanism. I feel the permission system should indeed evolve along the lines Argent suggest, i.e. emphasis on licensing instead on some DRM scheme that is ultimaltely deemed to fail. But I do not think that a button that says "Export permissions..." will raise false expectations or hinder future implementations of whatever mechanism we dream up. Actually that does seem like a better idea.
My big objection to Sai's proposal is that his flag is not editable by users and amounts to nothing in the database either. It seems that he's seeking some button to point to the owners of SI to say "See! Ha! You have to shut down!" which is frankly lame to me. I fully support a larger permissions system adjustment where content creators can clearly specify that they do or don't want content traveling across grids. I also wouldn't mind a blog entry specifying clear policy on copying and theft and so forth, but quite frankly it took a royal uproar after copybot was first introduced for Phil to begrudgingly concede that it would be against the rules--- SO! I won't really count on one. I've personally been asking for years that they make a policy statement about freebie reselling and theft and all that and it's gone over deaf ears. Anyway, a checkbox I can't edit where Sai decides for me that it's against the ToS for me to take my content out of SL, when neither he nor LL are given that decision in the first place, is not an idea I support. A system where content creators can choose where and to what degree their stuff can be taken off grid is. Just a heads up: Xan LInden will be guest-hosting Zero Linden's office hours this Tuesday at 1PM. The topic will be inter-grid permissions and related issues. I'm going to suggest they move i to a bigger venue.
I was reading this issue fighting with myself in order to stay away from joining it because I'm the creator of Second Inventory and so my opinion could be considered biased. But I lost my internal war and so I'm joining it.
I wholly disagree with Saijanai about this idea. This would just add more useless bureaucracy into Second Life instead of making it more flexible and ready to deal with the coming competitors. I said useless because even if any restriction would be applied, the people that at the moment are illegally migrating stuff from SL to the other grids won't stop to. Those who ignore the asset permissions now, would just continue to ignore them later, regardless the license. The idea to create a new flag: 'Port' or 'Migrate' or whatever, could be a good one, I'm not against it. The content creators would have the opportunity to establish unequivocally the market range for their products. But until it won't be added to the current flags I think that the existent full perms items should be considered portable. The reason is fairly simple. Literally full permissions (M/C/T) means that the owner of these items can Modify, Copy and Transfer them. If is not differently specified (with the new flag) he should be able to Copy and Transfer them wherever, regardless the destination grid. Considering that until now you can restrict the ownership of an object with these three limitations, if the original object's creator don't use any of them, he is, in fact, freeing the next owner to Modify, Copy and Transfer them also in a different server. Of course there can be hundreds of different points of view about this argument, maybe one for each content creator but IMHO we are concerning about something marginal. The only item full perms are usually Freebies and they have a not relevant commercial worth. Regarding Second Inventory it won't be damaged because, due to the limitations we wanted inside, our customers are mostly content creators and so they can and will be able to port their stuff wherever they want. Just for your information, I've started a Second Life forum thread on this:
http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread.php?t=267473 Please vote if you're planning on attending Tuesday's meeting, and let friends know about it if they are planning. LL needs to be prepared if more than 40 people plan on showing up. Saijanai, I thank you greatly for trying to drive this issue forward, and open the discussion to a wider segment of SL's community. Personally, though, I think that adding this permissions flag would not be worth the effort (which I cannot believe would be trivial).
I've not been able to be inworld lately, so have missed Zero's discussions in June, apologies if my comments are obviously dated. But I think this flag would: > Be a temporary measure, that may or may not eventually fit into the final interoperability permissions solution. > Probably provide no greater security than a simple policy statement on LL's part that no one other than the creator can transport content of any kind between grids. Of course unenforceable, but that's another issue. > Require an unrealistic amount of training of both content creators and residents. In general, until solutions are better thought out, I think it would be best to keep things very simple. Meeting at Zero Linden Office hours at 1PM SLT Tuesday, July 1. Due to the large number of responses, I'm suggesting we meet in Pooley Auditorium instead of Grasmere at Zero's office.
Zha Ewry lead a discussion about "trusted grids" today at the AW Groupies meeting. Covers some of the issues about the more convoluted "trusted" issues that need to be ironed out when dealing with inter-grid permissions:
https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/AWGroupies-2008-07-01 And don't forget Zero's office hours Tuesday July 1 at 1PM at Pooley. inter-grid permissions discussion: https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Zero_Linden/Office_Hours/2008_July_01
Looks like you've got your clarification here: http://blog.secondlife.com/2008/07/08/ibm-linden-lab-interoperability-announcement/
Specifically: =============================================================================================== Q: When the avatar teleported between worlds, did it look the same in both places? Q: Is it possible to transfer assets between Second Life and OpenSim? Q: How will Linden Lab prevent property from being copied into other virtual worlds? So I think everyone can calm down now, right? Note what this Linden blog says: "Linden Lab will not design a system that lets people openly violate the permissions of SL goods and take them to other worlds. "
Ok, they say in a vague, abstract manner that they won't deliberatley create a way for people to openly violate permissions. That's nice. That tells us what they won't do. But...what will they do in a positive manner to protect IP? How do they plan to operationalize copyright as it has already been operationalized in copy/mod/transfer? What is the plan? That we haven't heard. At all. It's nice to know that they "recognize IP is the engine" and they are "committed" etc. But...how will this be rendered in code? And in policy? It's especially urgent as in fact prims are already being transferred, and at least one program exists to copy inventory in SL and upload it on opensim. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
Meta Issue
Open
Normal
Request for policy clarification concerning cross-grid copying of assets
This needs to be there in your face when you buy, Just as no mod/no copy etc is, then buyer can choose NOT to buy content that does not suit their intended use.
It is just as important to give content creators a method TO ENABLE content to be taken to OpenSim grids if they so choose.
All for this if implemented in a transparent way and both sets of creators are catered for.