Forgery of a prim's creator, possible?

[Suzanne Starship]

Is it possible to forge the key of a prim's creator? Given that the creator makes only no-copy, no-modify, yes-transfer prims. In scripting terms is the data returned by

llGetObjectDetails (KeyOfSuspectedPrim, [OBJECT_CREATOR])

a guarantee of the original creator?

Thank you.

Apologies in advance if this belongs in the Commerce > Merchants forum or wherever.

p.s. Corrected, thank you Qie Niangao.

[Qie Niangao]

You mean OBJECT_CREATOR, right, not OBJECT_OWNER ?

Even so, I'm not sure a complete "guarantee" is safe here; there are reports of item permissions being changed, in which case one could imagine a prim created by somebody who intended to distribute only no-mod prims might have had those permissions compromised, and could end up with one of their prims transmogrified into any possible prim. Ordinarily, who cares, right? but I guess I could imagine a case where somebody got framed for ripping, say, a sculptmap and applying it to "their" prim, when in fact somebody else did it--even if the accused never intentionally distributed any modifiable prims.

On the other hand, is there really anybody so careful as to never let any of their objects escape full perm?

[Nexii Malthus]

Yes, it's not a guarantee.

 

I can take your no-copy, no-modify, yes-transfer prim and rip out the script to put it into a plywood cube.

 

Where plywood cube = *ANY* full perm object/prim you ever created and gave to any person ever.

[Suzanne Starship]

I understand the problem with released full perm prims, which is why I specified only no-copy, no-modify prims have ever been created by the avatar. Certainly, I have given away full-perm items to people.

I am thinking of enrolling a new alt solely for the purpose of making these prims. I assume that is not against the TOS.

[Peggy Paperdoll]

If it can be rendered by a video card then it can be ripped.  Anyone who has the knowledge and the software can take any rendered object and change it to anything they choose.  It's the nature of the digital age........there are no guarantees.  A price to pay for using the medium for income or fame.

[Suzanne Starship]

[original post] I am aware that prims and textures can be copied. But when an imitation is built and uploaded to the asset server, doesn't it bear the pirate's key as the creator?

[what I should have said]  I am aware that prims and textures can be copied. But when an imitation is built and uploaded to the asset server, doesn't it bear a key that is not mine as the creator?

Thank you to the sender of a private message.

[Peggy Paperdoll]

Yes it does.........but who's got the power to know who is the real creator?  LL doesn't and neither does anyone else except maybe the original content creator.  And to make that determination a DMCA must be filed by the original creator against the suspected copier.  When that happens the suspected copier has the option to counter the claim.......then it goes to a real life legal system.  That can be expensive (not to mention time comsuming and with no guarantee of a successful outcome.  That's the problem with copybotters and Intellectual Propery rights (IP).  Messy and very difficult problem to solve.  The asset from both the copier and the original creator will have their own UUID on the item.......which is the real creator and which is the copy bot is the big question that a court of law has to decide.

It's ugly but that's the law as it stands right now.

[Suzanne Starship]

I have edited message 6 above. I was reminded that a pirate could create and upload a prim with a creator key other than his own. But my focus is that he cannot create and upload a prim with my key as the creator.

Peggy, thank you for your information and analysis. I apologize for not having made myself clearer in the original post. I want only to be able to verify that a particular prim was undoubtedly created by me. The design of the prim and the designer & the textures of the prim and their designers are not part of my question.

Again, thanks to everyone who has responded.

[xigaro]

I think data integrity - particularly records of creators and permissions - is one of LL's highest priorities because of the commercial nature of SL. Mistakes happen though and it's in everyone's interest to keep details of the vulnerability private until it's fixed. Where possible any asset transactions which are suspicious or can be traced back to the vulernability would be reversed. Only LL can say if every patched vulnerability is publically reported though.

I can't think of a way in script (or otherwise) to cross-reference LL's reported vulnerabilities with the object you're studying. I think llGetObjectDetails() will be 99.999% accurate though The time spent on that last 0.001% may cost you more than you'll save.