Reply
Honored Resident
emSynth
Posts: 35

Re: sculpt2mesh Applescript source code

Reply to Knowl Paine - view message

Also, a few words are appropriate in response to Chosen Few's accusations.  The threats were twofold.  One person said that if I carried out my plans to offer a sculpt2mesh service, I should expect to hear from a lawyer, the obvious implication being that there could follow a lawsuit.  The other was that someone might get angry at me and have a friend who was a hacker, and the implication was that I could expect to be hacked.  

Rather than act fearfully as Chosen Few has suggested, I replied that I did not fear lawyers or hackers, and that their thinly veiled threats were ineffective.  What Chosen Few has chosen to do is twist the situation around, implying that I am behaving in an unreasonable way.  This is just one example of many such manipulations of the facts that clearly indicate deception and manipulation on the part of Chosen Few.  

Yes, it does read like abuse because it is abuse.  This is Second Life, Chosen Few, many of the participants of this forum are thoughtful and intelligent people who will read through your smokescreen of distorted facts and argumentative techniques.  You are not helping your argument by behaving in this way.  Please stop.  

emSynth

Advisor
Chosen Few
Posts: 1,744
0 Kudos

Re: sculpt2mesh Applescript source code

[ Edited ]

Reply to emSynth - view message


emSynth wrote:

Also, a few words are appropriate in response to Chosen Few's accusations.


What accusations?  I never accused you of anything at all, not once, ever.  I don't know where you're getting this stuff.

 


emSynth wrote:

The threats were twofold.  One person said that if I carried out my plans to offer a sculpt2mesh service, I should expect to hear from a lawyer, the obvious implication being that there could follow a lawsuit.


You're kidding me.  That's what you saw as a threat?  Really?  Wow.

OK, let's recap what actually happened.  You yourself mentioned part way through the discussion that many of the legal issues that had been raised were more complicated than you'd anticipated, and that some of what you had thought to be true of the law was incorrect.  In response, I tried to help you by explaining some relevant need-to-know information, and I went on to suggest that you also keep keep an attorney on retainer, to help you deal with any and all legal issues that might arise.  That's the exact same advice I'd give to anyone starting any new business at all. 

Now, is it true that you could potentially have been sued had you distributed a tool that would rip content from SL?  Absolutely.  Did I ever once imply that I would sue you?  Absolutely NOT.  And did anyone else in the thread imply that they would sue you?  Not that I could see.  For my part, it was quite the opposite.  I was trying to advise you on how to minimize your risk.

The whole thing was an attempt to help you, not threaten you.  I really have no idea why you might have thought otherwise.

 


emSynth wrote:

The other was that someone might get angry at me and have a friend who was a hacker, and the implication was that I could expect to be hacked. 


That also was not a threat.  Someone (not me) merely asked what safety measures your tool might have built into it, to protect her content from hackers, as at the time you were talking about running your service on a web server.  That's a legitimate concern for anyone doing business online.

How you went from receiving that innocent question to feeling that someone threatened to hack you, I simply cannot imagine.

 


emSynth wrote:

Rather than act fearfully as Chosen Few has suggested, I replied that I did not fear lawyers or hackers, and that their thinly veiled threats were ineffective.


I did not suggest you act fearfully.  I suggested you engage in the very same reasonable practices that anyone starting any new business should utilize.  Having a lawyer on retainer is not fearful; it's the only smart thing to do.  Taking measures to protect your clients' data from hackers is not fearful; it's your responsibility as a service provider.  I would have thought all this was common sense.

 


emSynth wrote:

What Chosen Few has chosen to do is twist the situation around, implying that I am behaving in an unreasonable way.  This is just one example of many such manipulations of the facts that clearly indicate deception and manipulation on the part of Chosen Few. 


Again, where are you getting this stuff?  In the other thread, I was trying hard to help you, and in both threads, I simply asked you to explain the usefulness of the tool.  Why you see fit to read more into it than that is beyond me.

 

As for these "many such manipulations of the facts" you you feel so "clearly indicate deception" on my part, would you care to explain what any of them were?  What is it you feel I've been deceitful about, exactly?  What facts did I allegedly manipulate?  And for what purpose?

 


emSynth wrote:

Yes, it does read like abuse because it is abuse.  This is Second Life, Chosen Few, many of the participants of this forum are thoughtful and intelligent people who will read through your smokescreen of distorted facts and argumentative techniques.  You are not helping your argument by behaving in this way.  Please stop. 


Nobody abused you in any way, least of all me. If you feel otherwise, please tell me exactly what I said that you found offensive, and I'll be more than happy to try to examine it, to try to find where the misinterpretation may have occurred, and clear it up.  I certainly did not try to say anything unkind.

Same goes for the "smokescreen of distorted facts", as you put it.  What facts did I distort?  As I mentioned earlier, I've quoted you, word for word, each and every time I've responded to you, precisely to avoid the possibility of distortion.  Do you really feel your own words misrepresented you?

As I said earlier, if you feel I've misinterpreted any of your statements, go ahead and point them out.  Tell me what I got wrong in my interpretation, and I'll be more than happy to take another look.

 

As for the subject of  whether I'm "helping my argument" or not, the fact is I was never trying to have an argument with you.  I can't help an argument I was never engaged in.  I tried to help you at first, and then I asked you a few questions about your product.  Anything beyond that was introduced by you, not me.

"It's a big universe. Everything happens somewhere."
- The Doctor
Helper
Knowl Paine
Posts: 3,560
0 Kudos

Re: sculpt2mesh Applescript source code

Reply to Chosen Few - view message

I believe that you have the best interest of Second Life, in mind.


Some of your questions, are philosophical in nature, and may be best answered, in a newly created thread.

 

Where in the Terms of Service, does it state that a person must protect other Users products?

A person who illegally uses a Converter, is the Criminal; Not the person who made it. You're barking up the wrong tree.

 

You've asked a lot of good questions, and those questions should be answered, but not by emSynth. These are Community questions, moral and ethical questions.

Let's not kill the messenger.

 

I don't believe that you have attacked or threatened any person.

I admire your tenacity. :smileyhappy:

 

 

 

Advisor
Chosen Few
Posts: 1,744
0 Kudos

Re: sculpt2mesh Applescript source code

[ Edited ]

Reply to Knowl Paine - view message

Thanks, Knowl. 

Regarding your point, about how some of the questions raised have been philosophical, ethical, moral, better aimed at the community than the developer, etc., please understand, it was not my intent to introduce any of those into this thread.  There was plenty of discussion on all of that in the other thread, and  I really wanted to keep the focus squarely on questions of the utility of the program this time.  It just happened that some stuff from the other thread ended up bleeding into this one, for better or worse.

Now let me respond to your questions. :smileyhappy:

 


Knowl Paine wrote:

Where in the Terms of Service, does it state that a person must protect other Users products?


Oh, it doesn't, of course.  Sorry for any confusion, as the conversation between the OP and me has unfortunately been spread across two different threads.   I wish that had not happened.  It's not surprising that it's a bit hard to follow.  Let me try to clear it up.

In the first thread, the OP was talking about offering his program as an online paid service (an idea he now seems to have abandoned).  My comment about protecting customers' data was in regard to discussion we had had of that (hypothetical) service.  I simply meant that if one endeavors to run an online service of any kind, and one does not take steps to protect users' data, one likely won't be in business very long. 

In other words, service providers have an inherent responsibility, both to their clients and to themselves, to take security very seriously.  That's an entirely different subject than anything that is or is not in SL's TOS.

 


Knowl Paine wrote:

A person who illegally uses a Converter, is the Criminal; Not the person who made it. You're barking up the wrong tree.


I fully agree with you that that's how it SHOULD be, but the US Congress does not.  Under the Circumvention Clause of the DMCA, it is a federal offense to "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that... for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."  In other words, if your product or service circumvents DRM or other access controls, you are a criminal.  Absurd as that may seem to you and me, it is the reality on the ground.

Of course, the person using the product or service is also a criminal, as the law also sates, "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."  There are some exceptions built in for fair use, but they're not easy to use as a defense, far more difficult than other types of fair use claims that do not involve circumvention.

You can read the full title at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title17/html/USCODE-2011-title17-chap12-sec1201.htm .

In the other thread, I cited the example of DVD decrypters.  They have plenty of legitimate uses, but nonetheless, they are now illegal to create and distribute.  You can find my full comments on that in the fourteenth post, in the other thread.  It's the fifth comment section in the post.

Had the OP gone ahead with what seemed to be his original plan, to run an online service capable of pulling sculpt maps directly from SL, I suspect the service could easily have been deemed illegal, under the Circumvention Clause, and he could well have suffered the same fate as companies such as 321 Studios.  But now that the program has been changed to work just on locally stored sculpt maps, that's most certainly not the case, and he's got nothing to worry about.

Since it is now a non-issue in this context, I wasn't planning to bring it up in this thread at all.  I only mentioned it response to Helium's comment on the subject, since his (common sense) assumption about it was incorrect, just as yours was.

Once again, I agree with you, and Helium, and pretty much everybody else I've ever discussed it with, that how it should be is exactly how you described.  Only the person who misuses the tool should be at fault, not the maker of the tool.  But whether we like it or not, how it should be is not how it is. 

If you want to see that changed, write your congressman.  In the mean time, we all do have to abide by the existing law, whether we like it or not.

 

 

Anyway, thanks again for your friendly, fair-minded comments, and for your engagement in meaningful discussion. :smileyhappy:

"It's a big universe. Everything happens somewhere."
- The Doctor
Helper
Knowl Paine
Posts: 3,560
0 Kudos

Re: sculpt2mesh Applescript source code

Reply to Chosen Few - view message

Thank you, for taking the time to share your viewpoint.

I believe that the Creators of Objects, bear a degree of responsibility, related to the products they create.

The Law also recognizes Limited Liability Corporations, in part, for some of the reasons being discussed here. Creation, and innovation, requires freedom in thought, and flexibility in action.

I've had a few grande ideas which were not possible, simply because corrupted people, may take my idea, and do bad things. It is a monumental shame, and is in part, the reason why I was motivated to comment.

I believe that those with the best interest of SL in mind, will act in that capacity, as you have done.