Concerns around IP Protection

[Drongle McMahon]

Thanks Romaq. That is very clear, and I now see where you are coming from. I certainly would not want to propose any kludge or whatever that punished your fans, or mine, if they exist, but I have not understood how improved metadata security would do that. Perhaps we can let it rest at that.

[Romaq Rosher]

One part of the annoyance I have is watching communities I treasure strongly consider leaving SL (Raglan Shire, City of Lost Angels, Elf Clan) as well as certain friends for non-SL grids ostensibly due to mismanagement on SL's part, and knowing I would have to leave all assets I purchased behind to continue with those communities I enjoy. If it was not for Linden mismanagement and/ or misscommunication and/ or various issues, the loss of all my assets and the very real money value they represent would not be an issue. I'm not ashamed of what I paid, I paid good money for good stuff, but the assets are locked on the SL asset servers, and it remains real money lost should I have to leave SL to participate with the communities that bring enjoyment to SL (and the use of those assets I paid for) in the first place.

Needless to say, my attitude approaching Linden Labs on anything is an attitude of annoyance and distrust. Also, needless to say, I trust the collective behavior of the communities that draw me to SL more than I trust people outside of that community. This is certainly an emotional, rather than a logical issue. But if you smack a dog on the nose hard enough, often enough, even a dog will figure out there is something to be wary of. Such is the reputation that Linden Labs has established over years of 'community involvement.' It is a reputation that will not go away on a wish or change of CEO. And, of course, it is not *personal*. I also desire a change for the better, and I am willing to engage in constructive, useful effort as a part of these communities to see a better world.

All told, I still seek to promote community effort along the lines of http://gwynethllewelyn.net/2008/03/10/content-theft-avatar-rights-and-the-riaa/ back in 2008. In my opinion, and I recognize it is only my opinion, the community "IP Rights are worth protecting" posters, community discussion and community awareness are more effective in the long term than any technical solution. I'm also wary that any technical solution will simply reinforce problems like, "Games I bought I can no longer play in my new computer" and "I have to watch 10 min. of previews to enjoy my DVD I bought." I that those types of technical solutions. I hate those types of technical solutions to a community moral problem with a passion that goes beyond my ability to maintain a reasonable attitude.

Thank you for engaging in dialog with me about these concerns I have over IP protection. I will try to listen to various solutions that allow us to enjoy content produced (as well as the rewards of being original IP producers).

[Jenni Darkwatch]

Actually I think we're more or less all saying the same: LL should do what they reasonably can to protect content, and beyond that, give creators reasonable tools to battle content theft.

In the category of the latter, there might be an additional (techie) solution: From a programmatic perspective it _should_ be possible to rate meshes for similiarity based on its geometry. Computationally, that's a bit expensive, but it might be a tool LL can offer for a small nominal fee: "Show me all meshes that are similar to mine, within x% variance". Realistically, even if two people make the same reasonably complex object, they are unlikely to be perfect matches, possibly not even close matches.

That kind of analysis is too unreliable to use as automatic banhammer for various reasons, but it _might_ be useful for creators to track theft themselves. Mind, it's _not_ a trivial tool to program at all, but I believe it is certainly doable.

My vote would be to create tools for creators to help track theft rather than attempt to programmatically prevent theft. IMO, the current protections are good enough to deter casual theft.

[Drongle McMahon]

A quick g--gle shows that this subject, shape matching, has been addresssed, at least in academic papers. There may be an available solution.  Just to add that this is also something that doesn't absolutely have to be there at release. It can still be added afterwards. So there's no problem with holding things up. Potentially useful for pre-emptive search to avoid inadvertant duplication, as well as detecting copying. Is a bit too much general suveillance though?

[Jenni Darkwatch]

Good question... hence the suggestion to tie a fee to it to deter people from using it for harassment. Shape matching isn't rocket science in this case, and the same principle could be used for textures, sounds, animations and objects, thus making it less specific to mesh.

The big brother aspect is a concern tho... not sure how to effectively limit that, considering DMCA is apparently occasionally/often(?) used for harassment, just like marketplace flagging is abused at least occasionally.

[Rusalka Writer]

Heck, even when I find an infringer, it takes an hour to file a DMCA. We never received the on-line DMCA filing system promised in February, 2010. And I'm a known sculpty maker in SL. My customers notify me of infringers. Sculpties are SL and related world-specific, whereas mesh is not. How is anyone supposed to know if a given mesh is ripped off from some mesh cache somewhere? It looks impossible. I'm sure LL is concerned in a general sense that they don't want to be sued, but at the same time I doubt they're going to issue the licensure or limitations that might protect mesh creators. I'm thinking it's going to be a "roll it out, hope for the best" event.

[Blondin Linden]

Hi Guys.

I realize that I'm new to this topic and you all know A LOT more than I do but I wanted to pop in and just let you know that I'm reading all your comments. I may from time to time ask some questions that you might think are silly or obviously. I hope that you won't hold it against me.

[Drongle McMahon]

---

Blondin Linden wrote:  I realize that I'm new to this topic ...

---

If you, or anyone else for that matter, want to become old quite rapidly, you could always read a quite extensive previous discussion of this topic.

 

 

[Romaq Rosher]

"Breach of trust in LL issues"

http://elfclanvr.grouply.com/message/1645 is the original thread concerning Elf Clan being forced to leave Second Life due to a billing mistake, and how slow LL was to sort things out, and how the LL CEO had to get involved.

Zayn Till, the leader for Raglan Shire has been very public of his problems and distrust of Linden Labs, and other Raglan leaders have expressed similar distrust and intent to leave SL. A factor in this distrust has been DCMA issues, but I can't grab specific comments.

Black Swan Rezzable http://rezzable.com/ had left in that period with sim pricing, and I recall DCMA issues but I couldn't locate that in a hurry.

http://dwellonit.taterunino.net/2010/12/16/ozimals-amaretto-in-second-life-copyright-dispute-amaretto-filing-federal-lawsuit/ is a huge stink that makes nobody happy, and some of that funk falls in Linden Labs no matter what they do. Perhaps that is unfair to Linden Labs, but that's part of the package.

I really hate it when someone posts, "Well this and that and some other happened" but they don't have SPECIFIC links or bother to document the problem, and that's exactly what I'm doing here, so SHAME ON ME! Please take these things with the grain of salt you SHOULD unless someone can help pin this down to specifics... I recall reading about a 'steam punk-like' build that people loved (much like Black Swan Rezzable/ Greenies) that had the entire build taken down and removed, products no longer sold because of the ire the content artist had over his IP being copied. I recall this as being the fall of last year. I quickly tried to search for these things that I half-remembered, but I couldn't grab enough in search to come up with it.

All this builds up to a strong distrust of Linden Labs, particularly in relationship to the communities in general, and a track record of unhappiness concerning LL and copy protection. If I'm not Disney Inc., what hope in hell do I have of being treated fairly or even get a hearing by Linden Labs? If I create things, I have to either fear a total smack-down without a hearing or stress over having my IP ripped with impunity. Because I don't have thousands of dollars to spend just on lawyer retainers, I simply do not matter to Linden Labs. THAT is the general feeling I get from fellow hobbiests. THAT is the impression Linden Labs swims against. THAT distrust of LL is going to permeate any discussion of IP protection issues with mesh, because the problem is not mesh... the problem is LL's current relationship and track record with the 'hobbiest' content creation artists. No technical solution is going to fix that.

Thank you Nyx Linden and Blondin Linden for making the attempt through open and candid dialog, and perhaps working together we can reverse this trend. And if there's anyone who remembers the details I lack on the issues I mentioned above, I think it would be helpful to pin down specifics of events where content creation artists felt they had to leave SL or at least remove their work because of IP protection issues. General distrust of LL will take a great deal of work and time. Specific breaches of trust related to DCMA can be delt with in terms of how LL can move forward with better policy and tools so we can avoid repeats of someone believing they have to shut down an entire sim of beloved art simply because they felt they had no protection for their IP and no choice left to them by Linden Labs. That is very much an issue that needs to be repaired, and nothing technical with respect to mesh alone is going to fix that.

[Poenald Palen]

I am not sure if anyone has suggested or thought about this and will apolagise if I am repeating anyone elses ideas, thoughts or hopes.

OK, some online marketplaces work with software companies to integrate thier marketplace right into the software. I beleive SL does this now with it's marketplace.secondlife.com marketplace. But, these ones work with software companies they do NOT own and they work with a few.

So My (now obvious) question is this. Wouldn't it be easier to work with a few warehouses to integrate thier marketplaces and also in turn allow them to store some kind of ID to spot things (via vert/face arrangement etc.) and since at least one of those markets also converts models they would be able to possibly offer this service to thier creators. This culls all of their stuff, makes it to where LL can work out a license with them and thier creators AND it obviously might make it easy for SL creators to possibly offer thier creations models right on that site to non-SL use AND have SL covered.

As it is now it is hard to make something for an online market and then sell it here and expect people to understand that when they are selling a model in SL they are selling the model and NOT a greater work..in fact, some license changes would have to be made for those creators who want to sell thier models both here AND offer the same model for others in other creation edevours that do not at all mingle with SL market. Why do this? Because why not! It boosts SL content quickly, lets SL creators now moving into 'normal' 3D modelling to work both markets and not have to create 2 versions, an SL version and a lesser quality (if SL is a major income) model that will invariably end up being bought and used by SLers as it will most likely be also available in COLLADA due to the formats rigging and other features that let the model be sellable beyond SL.

Heck, maybe there might even be a non-SL market for sculpt maps since we have more and more services using the opensim tech and SL style systems might get a boost! A simply 3 step proccess that loads your sculptie creations and charges a quick fee for listing (obviously splitable OR simply goes to LL due to the marketplace getting all the commission..or they might even split commission a little?) um..well, this is all details that mean nothing BUT are obviously teh hard part. But the linden dollar purchase of those 3D objects might really be appealing because some do not want to cash out linden dollars due to fear or worry of taxation. But, I figure someone would have already figured out this and never mention it...but, since it might help create a easy way for SL to get those marketplaces to make a database of some sort of mesh ID system...well, it might help SL creators who make mesh. Really and truly, they are game content makers or 3D cg model creators and letting them sell and keep it all clear offers models for BOTH markets in a much easier to understand way for those most likely to commit copyright infringment! But, really and truly....well, who cares about them anyway, right? Just upset them by sending a DMCA based notices when they basically are just sick of reading fine print and are more or less innocent?

I figure it is a way to easily do a few things that are all a Win win.

First win: Content increase with easy way to keep honest people honest! Happy people is good!

Second win: Both marketplaces being slightly integrated makes it easy for both markets creators to easily get licenses and so on all sorted out and also earn via linden dollar sales for items they might not otherwise have sold. Plus, SLers can offer items easily and safely with a licence for OpenSim users.

Third win: LL gets commisions somehow, stays a bit sticky with creators since some have sort of 'left' for opensim and now they can easily convert and maybe even keep stuff here without needing to run a marketplace.secondlife.com magic box thingy. In otherwords, they don't log in BUT they can still offer thier objects. So instead of lossing rent AND commision they lose rent but keep commission. OpenSim items become profitble via a upload to third party fee from your inventory directly or something like that!

Fourth win: The third party marketplaces can make money via extra sales and also have a new market becasue people who are spending lindens sometimes do not make them into cash and go through all the struggle of converting and uploading. They simply spend it on something else or never spend it. Of course, this does not benifit LL who can keep the money after so long and doesn't care as long as they spend it and buy more Linden dollars. BUT, since LL can win with retention of products and also attract more creators who will pay more upload or conversion fees....well, it is a small loss form dormant accounts vs. population keeping and growing content increase and activity increase.

 

I will also attack my idea, just for the heck of it! This is all hinged on data I do NOT have. I have no data on demand for any of this, no clue how valuable conversion to SL formats wll be and if creators will bother to convert and list (even if it is like 4 check boxes to get it all done) so.....well, this is a shot in the dark based on noticing software from marketplaces integrated into software AND a hope that a good "mesh ID" system can handle most uploads so people can upload with no bother and no worries for creators.

[Maylin Murakami]

Regarding the stealing of mesh content, would the thief have to pay upload charges for whatever he steals and rezzes a copy of in world?

as far as I know.. for prim content.. it doesn't cost anything for them to steal.

 

someone suggested unique hashes for each mesh uploaded.. and blocking any more uploads by other users.. I don't think that would be a significant impediment because the thief could easily adjust the mesh data  etc to give it a different hash.

[Drongle McMahon]

A suitable hash algorithm should be robust against small changes. However, using something like Blender retopo could always get around it. It still makes it a bit harder though.

[Feynt Mistral]

Ok, so being a programmer, modeler, and uber leet haxor (on the grounds that I know how to write a program now that can read vertex data from video memory) I think I can answer this exhaustively for everyone concerned.

 

First things first, it is impossible in the current system to prevent someone from obtaining data about textures, sound, and mesh.  Any work to make it more obscure to obtain this data through hard drive scans is pointless.  It's akin to putting a 4 foot thick bank vault door in a simple 1/2" thick plywood wall.  There's no special tools that aren't readily available necessary, even a bit of effort on your own part will get you through to the treasures you seek (in the analogy, taking a running start and shouldering through.  In reality, my path of learning to read the video memory is a good example).

The analogy of locking your car doors is also a poor example in this situation, as the end result is a devaluing of your property and a removal of that property (damage, plus probable car theft).  You are losing the car.  IP theft will always leave you with what you made, someone else just gets a copy of it for little or no cost.  The correct analogy would be if you were on an magic island with two other people and infinite resources, and you used those resources to make something to sell to the other two.  Imagine, then, when you've made this wonderous item, one of the people sees your creation and uses the magic of the island to conjure up an exact duplicate.  You still have your original, he just has an exact copy.  And now he sells his to the other guy for a lower price than you were offering him just a few moments ago.  The magic in this case is hardware level inspection of the data in use.

We also can't do a shape comparison because, as mentioned, 3 seconds (or more, if you're more involved about the process) once you have someone's data can change its form entirely in the appropriate software.  In the GIMP you rescale, recolour, and/or rotate ever so slightly and you've made a brand new texture that doesn't match the original by any automated test.  Likewise in most modeling software packages there are automated retopology functions which preserve the shape but redo the lines to be neater, or can make shapes more complex (multi-res or subsurf mods) in a moment.  The weighting portion of a mesh is harder to copy, and that you can't do from video memory, but a dedicated enough copier could repaint it all in a couple of days (or hours if he knows what he's doing) and be selling it himself.

 

This means that automated methods of preventing copying, or further encryption is pointless.  The counter argument that "locks on doors are easily defeated, we should stop making better locks" is moot because they cover different things entirely (theft of property versus theft of an idea).  Instead of focusing on prevention, there needs to be a system in place to report and enforce in a quick and effective manner.  As previously said, the community is the best tool for finding and pointing out copied materials.  This item needs to be easily flagged by the community on a global basis (the base item, rather than an individual item being worn by someone).  With enough flags the DMCA process should be filed automatically and actions taken.  Likewise a community certification process would allow people to register in the database that not only did they upload this at such a time, but the community (friends and fans) recognized the file is authentic to the creator.

This is essentially a digg process for items on SL, you rate up or down items and at certain thresholds they get reported or certified, only they don't detract from each other.  You get X reports against the item and you get a DMCA claim filed based on the flags stating the original creator's name.  Once certified, the report process will take longer to occur.  After a certain time period (like, a half a year to a year), no further ratings can be done and DMCA processes would have to be done the current way.  There shouldn't be a notice to the public about what ratings the items have either.

 

Now to those of you who will continue to contest that an automated solution to prevent copying can be obtained, yes, there are two solutions to automate the process:

The first will negate everything but screen capture copying.  This is the oft rumoured server side rendering.  We would never get actual object data, we would only ever get a picture of it.  This stops almost all copybot activity and mesh appropriation from the memory buffer simply because there's nothing there to scan.  This is ridiculously expensive for LL to maintain with over 30k people online concurrently, not only on a render farm level but a bandwidth level as well (rather than a burst of object, animation, sound, and texture data there's a constant streaming cost).  Onlive, if any of you have used it, is not an example solution to this situation.  It's a good idea, but it's poorly implemented.  Second Life streamed in this manner though will be subject to lower frame rates (for some, drastic improvements for others) and a delay in responsiveness relative to the rendering time and network speeds.  This is a step backward however, as it will make anything requiring quick interaction an impossibility until we get standard gigabit connections throughout the world (or quantum networking where stuff is there the moment it's created, in theory).

The second is hardware level DRM.  Microsoft already tried this with Vista and its hardware enforced DRM hardware/software bit combo.  But that's been defeated now, such that you can be using any version of windows and still see and hear things at maximum clarity even though you downloaded it from some guy you know across the river who got a copy that fell off a truck.  Not only is it ineffective (long term) it's ridiculous to think that hardware manufacturers would listen to Linden Lab about this change and implement it in their hardware.  Likewise, everyone who uses SL would have to get this hardware or the copy protection would be useless.  As a strong proponent against DRM (my media, my methods *gives RIAA/MPAA the finger*) I would reject such hardware outright, and would leave SL if it came down to a decision about using such hardware or not being able to log in anymore.  I'm certain a good many people would share this sentiment.

[Drongle McMahon]

Executive summary: A more explicit claim of right to upload might help a bit, but then again, it might not.

I'm afraid arguments based on the claim that copying is not theft are irrelevant. Copyright law exists. The reason is that illegitimate copying harms the genuine creator, by loss of sales and/or reputation*. The fact that he is left with his original copy is immaterial.

Looking for exact matches in comparing images for similarity would be naive indeed. The fact that it is possible to recast the same shape with different meshes is actually the basis that should allow algorithms to reduce meshes to a consistent minimal set of essential geometric determinants. I suspect it is hard, and certainly not feasible in this case unless a solution already exists. There are certainly some papers published on the subject, but I haven't read them and probably wouldn't follow them if I tried. So I will refrain from judging that issue. However, I see no reason at all to preclude automatic detection of exact copying simply because it will not detect all copying.

The automated community solution sounds to me like an institutionalised lynch mob. The idea that reputation (or conspiracy) should be capable of determining propriety is contrary to basic principles of justice. Reputation is a very poor guide. Have you forgotten Madhof? Then there may legal issues. Whose RL details will be provided to the complainant when the counter-DMCA is filed? Who would be liable for the charge of perjury when the automatic DMCA is found to rely on insubstantial grounds?  I am not a lawyer, but I believe a valid DMCA can only be filed by (one who claims to be) the copyright holder or his representative. How can that be arranged with an automated system based on unsubstantiated gossip?  The problem is that any such system is unaccountable and manipulable, while it's effects can have serious consequences, including legal consequences in RL.

I agree that the major approach to solutions lie in ease of detection and the unequivocal determination of precedence. Any effective aid to those should be considered provided it does not interfere with other aspects of the platform. Detection is hard, and if automatic solutions are inadequate, must rely on reporting. Simplification and collation of reports (more precisely, accusations) would help a great deal. That would be the first part of the community system. However, extending that to automated action is dangerous, unacceptably so in my view. Even without automatic action, there needs to be some protection against frivolous and spurious accusations, without which such a system is guaranteed to degenerate into a tool for griefing, whether for "fun" or for commercial competition. Precedence, at least within the grid, should be easy. All it requires is proper database immutable timestamps and user IDs that don't originate in and never go anywhere near the viewer. I would find it surprising if they don't already exist. Probably all that is required is a formalisation of their efficient use.

Unfortunately, both reporting and detection break down for things that come from outside sources. There are at least four cases of two "creators", both unlicensed, both licensed, first unlicensed, second unlicensed. I wrote a analysis of each, but it is too long. Suffice it to say that the community system is quite likely to make the wrong decision in any of the cases, and is always subject to nefarious manipulation. Precedence has nothing to offer in the absence of accurate pointers to licensed source. The only thing I could see that would help in some cases is to require more accurate information to go with the present claim simple of rights on upload. It could be nore effective if it were expanded to include either the explicit claim to be the copyright holder (usually the originator) or a url for each of the source and the license. That would settle the argument where one uploader was legitimate and the other was not, as only the former would have pointed to the valid license. Also, the community could do the looking up in this case, and it might improve their likelihood of making accurate accusations. It would also settle the case where both uploaders were licensed. Where both claimed falsely to be the originator, it would not help unless and until a third party pointed to the source, and any system is likely to award undeserved legitimacy to one party in the case of dispute (or vendetta).

Even more unfortunately, that all assumes the licensing information out there is valid. In truth sites exist that claim false rights to license content for which they are not the rights holder. An uploader may use such a source, thus inadvertantly propagating false license rights. Or he might set up his own such site to claim whichever he wants, that it is open or exclusively his. A complainant might be misled by such sites. So even increased acuracy of the nature of the claim to rights on upload is still relying on questionable sources. Does that mean it should not be used?

*Many disagree, but that doesn't change the fact that this is the basis of law.


[Feynt Mistral]

---

Drongle McMahon wrote:

Executive summary: A more explicit claim of right to upload might help a bit, but then again, it might not.

 

I'm afraid arguments based on the claim that copying is not theft are irrelevant. Copyright law exists. The reason is that illegitimate copying harms the genuine creator, by loss of sales and/or reputation*. The fact that he is left with his original copy is immaterial.



---

I'm not disagreeing, to a very fine point.  I'm not my friend, he would argue that copyright does great harm and should be abolished.  But I do argue that the loss of sales is an illusion provided someone else doesn't copy the object and sell it to someone instead, gaining a profit off of another's work (plagiarism).  The person wouldn't have bought it in the first place most likely, so the "loss of sales" doesn't exist for them.  This is why I also laugh at the idea that software piracy hurts the various software industries.  I won't buy Maya.  I can't, it's thousands of dollars I don't have.  But I'll pirate it to dink around in it for a while and get bored, then uninstall it.  If someone is copying stuff on SL for their own personal use, it's annoying and if I discovered it I'd probably report them, but at the same time I almost don't care because they aren't profiting.  As soon as they give away even one copy, I care, because they are affecting sales at that point.

The analogy though that you made is in error and I stand by my assertion.  The damaging or theft of property is completely different to the theft of an idea.  At the end of the day, you still have your idea in your own form, untarnished by outside influence (unless it isn't created yet, in which case your potential thief is really good).  And again, unless someone turns around and uses your idea for their own purposes without due credit (and permission) you likely would have lost nothing because they probably wouldn't have bought your item anyways.

 

---

Drongle McMahon wrote:

 

Looking for exact matches in comparing images for similarity would be naive indeed. The fact that it is possible to recast the same shape with different meshes is actually the basis that should allow algorithms to reduce meshes to a consistent minimal set of essential geometric determinants. I suspect it is hard, and certainly not feasible in this case unless a solution already exists. There are certainly some papers published on the subject, but I haven't read them and probably wouldn't follow them if I tried. So I will refrain from judging that issue. However, I see no reason at all to preclude automatic detection of exact copying simply because it will not detect all copying.

 



---

The point is it will work for entry level copiers only, and I'm talking about the people who know absolutely nothing except "if I use this I can copy someone's stuff!"  The trouble is it'll only work for a short time before the community around those tools realizes that they only have to perform X change to make it dissimilar enough and the process is brought to its knees.  To take sounds as an example, slowing it 3%, trimming the peaks and then normalizing can produce largely the same sound but it's completely different to look at in a wave graph.  For 3D someone just needs to spend a minute removing or adding some edge loops, resizing the odd loop slightly, or removing parts of the mesh itself (like the inbetweens of toes, which aren't necessary.  For textures, a light gaussian blur, rotation or paralellogram by 1 degree, and rescale by 2% will defeat most similar picture analyzers (it's a subject that incurs a great deal of cost to maintain and develop, look at facial recognition software).

 

---

Drongle McMahon wrote:

 

The automated community solution sounds to me like an institutionalised lynch mob. The idea that reputation (or conspiracy) should be capable of determining propriety is contrary to basic principles of justice. Reputation is a very poor guide. Have you forgotten Madhof? Then there may legal issues. Whose RL details will be provided to the complainant when the counter-DMCA is filed? Who would be liable for the charge of perjury when the automatic DMCA is found to rely on insubstantial grounds?  I am not a lawyer, but I believe a valid DMCA can only be filed by (one who claims to be) the copyright holder or his representative. How can that be arranged with an automated system based on unsubstantiated gossip?  The problem is that any such system is unaccountable and manipulable, while it's effects can have serious consequences, including legal consequences in RL.

 



---

The submission can differ in that it enters a queue for review.  An actual person would then review the object (flagged by the community) and contact the alledged owner about the item and if it's found that it is a copy a DMCA claim can be filed and processed as normal.  In the case of "the mob flagged the item, the creator wasn't even involved" then it can be beneficial because the mob potentially has the owner's best interests in mind and is alerting them to the (possibly elusive) forgery through the agent contacting about the flagged item.  On the flip side, a group maliciously intending to flag an item with no grounds to fight the true creator (as in, the item flagged is indeed the true item, and the copier is trying to get their item banned) would be subject to investigation themselves, possibly forfeiting the item in question in their ownership  or even facing banning for attempting libel.

 

---

Drongle McMahon wrote:

 

Unfortunately, both reporting and detection break down for things that come from outside sources. There are at least four cases of two "creators", both unlicensed, both licensed, first unlicensed, second unlicensed. I wrote a analysis of each, but it is too long. Suffice it to say that the community system is quite likely to make the wrong decision in any of the cases, and is always subject to nefarious manipulation. ...



---

This I entirely agree with.  Outside copyright holders and licenses are difficult to deal with.  But such a system could not be automated, and likely never would be, as external DMCA filings are where the legal pursuits come in.  Internally, licensees would have to provide proof of their license and have it verified by the creator, but again that's where actual people rather than automation comes in.  There will always be a human element to this process.

[Drongle McMahon]

Several people have expressed the fear that the introduction of mesh will alienate them from building because it will bring benefits only to those who have the skills to make meshes, and those using the existing tools will not be able to keep up. Their skills will be devalued. One of the answers I have given to allay that fear was that people would produce mesh components, that these would be cheap or free because of competition, so that nmesh would enhance, not devalue their building.

But is this true? We are talking here about making copyright protection more effective for meshes. How far will this go? I am concerned that a result could be to constrain the provision of simple building components and thus compromise the benefit that would otherwise be gained by builders who can't make their own mesh. This is because I am unclear about how simple a mesh might be the object of protection.

For example, if A makes a set of columns, or bevelled building blocks, can A then stop B from offering a similar set? What about window frames, doors, fences, stairs? Can copyright apply to these? How similar do they have to be to be infringing? How different do they need to be to avoid competitor's takedown?  I am afraid there will be a mad rush to monopolise all kinds of component to maintain a high price them by claiming copyright for what are essentially trivial designs. Will the first mesh brickmaker have a monopoly of mesh bricks, or the first mesh fence maker have a monopoly of mesh fences? What if I included the stairs in a single mesh house? Could the stairs mesh monopolist have them ripped out of my houses?

Would this confirm the fears of  the meshless builders? Is it a paranoid nightmare? Are we going to see a nasty DMCA war start the day after mesh release? How many of you have your components ready for the competitive upload binge?

[Drongle McMahon]

Good. Rhetoric apart, we are approaching common ground. Streamlined "community" monitoring, as long as it is subject to fair human moderation, could be prodcuctive. I will accede to the suggestion that effective shape comparison may not yet be feasible, although I would still consider it to must be possible to devise a robust, transformation-insensitive analysis.

You didn't say anything about the only poytentially constructive thing I said - do you think at least the opportunity to supply a more explicit definition of the source of the claimed rights on upload could be useful?

[Feynt Mistral]

---

Drongle McMahon wrote:

Several people have expressed the fear that the introduction of mesh will alienate them from building because it will bring benefits only to those who have the skills to make meshes, and those using the existing tools will not be able to keep up. Their skills will be devalued. One of the answers I have given to allay that fear was that people would produce mesh components, that these would be cheap or free because of competition, so that nmesh would enhance, not devalue their building.

 

But is this true? We are talking here about making copyright protection more effective for meshes. How far will this go? I am concerned that a result could be to constrain the provision of simple building components and thus compromise the benefit that would otherwise be gained by builders who can't make their own mesh. This is because I am unclear about how simple a mesh might be the object of protection.

 

 

---

 

It's true, meshes can enhance their building.  Just as sculpties do now, and in some places sculpties exclusively take hold (avatars for example).  Meshes will see similar use, where some applications will see tremendous mesh use (again, avatars), but they will also enhance conventional builds employing a lot of prims simply because prims are easier to work with and faster to load.  What good is a 60 room mansion if it takes 5 minutes to stream and costs L$3-6k to upload?

This system doesn't just apply to meshes though, and I never intended that.  I fully see this idea working for every object, or sub portion of an object (flagging a texture on an object because you know it's yours).  This works to protect every creation on SL.

 

---

Drongle McMahon wrote:

For example, if A makes a set of columns, or bevelled building blocks, can A then stop B from offering a similar set? What about window frames, doors, fences, stairs? Can copyright apply to these? How similar do they have to be to be infringing? How different do they need to be to avoid competitor's takedown?  I am afraid there will be a mad rush to monopolise all kinds of component to maintain a high price them by claiming copyright for what are essentially trivial designs. Will the first mesh brickmaker have a monopoly of mesh bricks, or the first mesh fence maker have a monopoly of mesh fences? What if I included the stairs in a single mesh house? Could the stairs mesh monopolist have them ripped out of my houses?

 

Would this confirm the fears of  the meshless builders? Is it a paranoid nightmare? Are we going to see a nasty DMCA war start the day after mesh release? How many of you have your components ready for the competitive upload binge?

---

Copyright law has been overturned on creators when trying to enforce it on simple objects.  The idea of a door frame for example is so common that you couldn't enforce a copyright even with every lawyer in the world on your payroll.  Even the lowest judges in court would laugh you out.  If there was some cause for that door frame to be unique though, like elaborate molding, it could then be enforced that someone with that unique look is infringing on your property.  Likewise a brick could not be enforced unless it was special in some way (a set piece for a dungeon scene, all chipped and pitted), and even then it's possible it could be overturned.  But there's no way someone making a mesh pillar or mesh cube could claim against a prim builder.

In fact, copyright law allows for this.  Even though two people can make nearly identical devices that perform the same task, if it can be proved that they came about because of entirely different methods of construction or from different sources of inspiration (the harder of the two) then both copyrights are valid and neither is in the wrong.  It's part of the fair competition law.  Hell, reverse engineering is perfectly legal as well, as long as you don't use any of the original subject in the creation of the derivative work.

[Drongle McMahon]

Indeed, but when you start selling a door with two panels and a round doorknob and I file a DMCA against you because I am already selling one that can be stretched to be "identical", what happens? Do they make that judgement and ignore it? Or do they comply? I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Does it matter if yours is painted blue while mine has a nice woodgrain? Does it matter if yours i part of a house and mine is on its own? I'm not expecting answers. I am just drawing attention to the existence of the questions.

[Feynt Mistral]

How similar something is and whether it's possible to kick out someone with a similar design is for the lawyers to determine.  I admit at this point, the questions far out strip my legal knowledge.  Son of a legal secretary that I am, I don't know all that much about copyright enforcement.

[Drongle McMahon]

That's sort of what I worry about. If the people who process the takedowns have the same uncertainty, they more or less have to err on the side of caution and do the takedown. :matte-motes-frown:

[DanielRavenNest Noe]

The Linden staff who process DMCA requests will need to be trained in IP law sufficient to do their jobs.  Otherwise they expose the Lab itself to legal risk.

On the topic of what can be copyrighted, the courts have held that some minimal creative spark is required.  An idea can not be copyrighted (that's what patents are for), only the specific embodiment in a tangible medium.  Thus "a door with a knob" cannot be copyrighted, since that is just an idea.  Neither could a box prim slab door shape with an ellipsoidal knob at hip height, as there is no creativity relative to real life doors. Add glass panels of a unique artistic shape, embodied in a model file, and it would likely pass the creativity test. Now if a second person uses the same artistic shape for the panels, and a door of different dimensions, that would likely be infringing.  They are copying the creative portion of the design.

How much of a more complex work can be copied without infringing is not entirely settled.  Taking a whole paragraph verbatim from a book likely would be, as would a story plot where the only change was the character names.  The latter is a mechanical change with no creativity.  For 3D models I don't know of any legal cases where how much was copied was at issue.  Merely converting an existing model to another file format is mechanical, without creativity.  Making some changes to the model that are new creates a "derivative work", which can gain it's own copyright on the new parts, but permission would be required to use the previously existing parts.

(All the above refers to US law, and I am not a lawyer :matte-motes-nerdy: )

[Ashasekayi Ra]

If a DMCA is properly filed with LL, they have no choice put to takedown the material. They can't decide not to do a takedown because it doesn't look like it infringed to them. Of course, the other party can file a counter DMCA and get the material put back up if the original filer doesn't take the case to court within a specific timeframe. And frankly, I would hope that someone going to court would have something more unique than doors, windows and columns, which more than likely resemble designs found in real life since the possible forms for those items are so common.