Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Aasha Kohime

We need security for animations.

Recommended Posts


Aasha Kohime wrote:

I get my idea isn't perfect. But the bottem line is it's their (LL) job to figure out the
how
. What they have set now is not working. What they have right now pretty much gives the animation itself away if people get animated at all. Stop sitting here and acting like because I don't have the magic solution it can't be done. I am the victim here - as are others in my position. LL is the one that should provide the magical solution. So aim all your "how" questions towards them. It's their job.

No, you are not a "victim" here.  You want to do something that SL was not designed to do.  Because you can't does not make you a "victim."

While on the one hand I do support your idea, you are asking LL to retool the entire system to accomodate your unique use case.  While your idea is a good idea the question is what will it cost to implement it.  Right now LL has decided that the cost/benefit analysis says it's not worth implementing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been working on other methods. Including one that was based on Temp attach and another like you said with the server object giving permissions.

TempAttach doesn't work perfectly. They can get the contents out of it with a normal viewer.

The server object is still in the middle of testing/scripting.

Days into this single little part and so many things that should work that don't we can't help but just say this is convoluted as heck. Not only would it be easier with UUIDs but we can't help but feel the anti-theft restriction makes it easier to steal.

-and yes yes I know you're going to say it's be worse with UUIDs being allowed. I'm talking about them fixing it so UUIDs can work without being stolen so easily. Like I said the "how" is their job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you are not a "victim" here.  You want to do something that SL was not designed to do.  Because you can't does not make you a "victim."

I actually meant the theft part. But SL was designed to use UUIDs. The restriction for animations was added later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Aasha Kohime wrote:

.. 
SL was designed to use UUIDs. The restriction for animations was added later.


is not true this about a restriction being added later

is true tho that LL have looked at LSL animation by UUID in the past on a number of occasions and the answer has always come back No. bc of all the implications we are chatting about again now

+

is not new this topic. Is a perennial. It comes up every few years. Usually when a person ends up in a big hole as has happened to you

what happened to you was not good. Like getting your stuff taken in a way that you never knew was possible until it happened. Is harsh lesson this. Same as is harsh for people who spends heaps L$ for some product and ends up not being what they hoped for. Somebody buying a parcel with fab views and then finding out later that they cant onsell it bc is on a Estate and not Mainland. etc etc

+

i just put some history links about animation by name

a copy of the original manual for LSL can be found here. (see Page 80)

http://www.2lifeblog.com/scripts/LSLGuide.pdf

publish date April 2003. ref here

http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/15/58/1898/1.html

at this time could only play the built-in SL animations by name

+

custom animation came in SL version 1.4. June 2004. ref here

http://secondlife.wikia.com/wiki/Version_1.4

excerpt:

"Custom Animations

◾ You can upload animations from Poser 4 or 5 by exporting .BVH files

◾ Various settings can be changed for the animation, at upload time only.

◾ New script call - LLGetAnimationList() returns a list of all active animations.

◾ Animations can be triggered by scripts by name if and only if they sit in the object inventory."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm. You learn something new everyday. I guess it wasn't originally UUID capable after all. That was where a fair part of my frustration with the subject spawned from; designing the game to use it then just restricting things lazily at the expense of other factors rather than securing them. Now it strikes me more the case of them trying to give it a chance but people abuse the chance.

I still believe it's possible to fix though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should keep my mouth shut here, but I just can't...

To me, what is being proposed is akin to allowing a music company to sell me a CD for use in my home system, and refuse to allow it to work if I want to play it in my car, or copy it to my MP3 player. Yes, I'm sure the music industry would love to be able to do that (and they try), but that does not make it right.

I routinely move animations out of whatever they came in and rebuild them into my own HUDs or objects, and add additional animations into a product to personalise it. Why on earth should I not?

It does not harm the creator of the product if I use the animations in a different HUD, or put them in a piece of furniture that I've made myself, instead of theirs (which I have purchased to get the animations - the seller hasn't lost a sale). I've often bought things purely for the animations, which I would certainly not have bought if I could not have moved the animations out. The fact that I can do this means I buy a lot more than I otherwise would.

It sounds to me like the OP has made a mistake in packaging a demo product with a valuable animation. That's a failing to understand the system, and perhaps a case of theft by those taking the animations if they agreed to T&C in some way not to do so, but it is not a failure in the system or a reason to restrict everyone's freedom to use the animations they have paid for in the way they want.

Take away my ability to move animations around and believe me, I'll stop buying them. I cannot imagine that I am the only person to do this.

Just my two cents, ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vulpinus wrote:

It sounds to me like the OP has made a mistake in packaging a demo product with a valuable animation. That's a failing to understand the system, and perhaps a case of theft by those taking the animations if they agreed to T&C in some way not to do so, but it is not a failure in the system or a reason to restrict everyone's freedom to use the animations they have paid for in the way they want.

Yes it's exactly that.  Allowing the animations to go out in a demo product instead of doing what I suggested should have been done.  Server object containing animations on the sim, communicating with a demo sword script.)

I understand and appreciate the OPs frustration but it's this sort of thing that has to be thought through before commiting products to demo/sale.  We've gone through all sorts of "what if's" with our own products.

Ones that communicate with web back ends need even more careful consideration because the object could be running on aditi, SL's beta grid, communicating with a back end web service which doesn't differentiate between beta and production grid.  An exploit that hit Hippo vending system when people were rezzing vendors on the beta grid, buying items on the beta grid with lots of free L$, vendor says to web back end "deliver product to avatar" and web service duly sent the deliver message to the server on the production grid.  Free products for all...

Demo items are a nightmare, in your example, you would probably be quite happy if the Studio gave you a demo CD but failed to propery secure it which is the scenario here.  I remember a magazine that did just that with software, they gave away a "limited" version of a companies software such that it couldn't print.  It was a graphic design bit of software.  Only what they did was just delete the dll's that allowed printing from a production disk and mastered from that.

It didn't take long for someone to simply undelete the dll and have a full featured bit of software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You act like this isn't the case for textures and sound. Just because animations would be activatable via UUID doesn't mean everyone would sell them only as script parts. Honestly when selling animations I'd give the actual animation itself. I just want the option of security other things get when it comes to things like this.

If someone makes a texture they can apply it to things and it's rather safe. It won't get reused for something else unless the creator allowed it by adding the texture in the contents.

If someone makes a sound it's rather safe too. A script can activate it with the UUID and no one is going to snag it from the contents. Unless the creator wanted to sell a sound itself.

Demos of other things are fairly safe too. If I were to make a demo of a vehicle it would be easy to keep secure. If I want to make a demo of a simple dance it'd be easy to keep safe as well. Builds? Just plop the object down and people can crawl all over it. Sounds? Sure. Just toss the sounds in a scripted object that plays from a list of sounds to show what each sound sounds like. So on and so forth. It's harder with weapons though.

Now I'm well aware there will always be people that buy things specifically for the animation. That's fine. There are peopel that buy things just for the sound too but sounds are not always directly included in the contents of things that aren't meant to sell the sounds. Sounds still sell though. Textures sell as well despite not being included for direct use from the players' inventories if they come plastered on other things. Animations would be no different. You're just thinking of them this way merely because it's what you are used to. It's the same reason you likely aren't saying this same argument towards texture and sound creators.

That said I do sell the actual animations with the object. And plan to even if UUIDs were usable. Though I do think it should be a right that we can decide how to give it out I also do think customability is a thing people deserve if they paid for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not acting like anything, I'm just commenting from the point of view of a consumer, not a seller.

To an extent I understand your concerns, and certainly agree that if you want to sell something with the T&C's to exclude someone taking out your animations (or whatever) then that is your right to do so. You already can, and are (supposedly) protected legally from IP theft already. I might not like you selling something that way, but that's irrelevant except for the fact that I would shop elsewhere, given the choice. Which is probably highly relevant in fact. I really believe enforcing this would hurt sales more than benefit sellers.

The issue I have is that I think sellers (in RL and SL, I see no difference) are often given (or try to get) too much power to control their consumers. Apple does it with all of their products; that's why you will never find an Apple product in my home. The software industry has tried to do it; I've even bought expensive commercial software that was licenced only to be used on the specific computer on which it was first installed to the preclusion of moving it to another even in the event of hardware failure. Ridiculous, but they tried it. The music/movie industry is the obvious example of control forced on people because the music gods are simply rich enough to pay the politicians.

Many countries charge additional tax on things like blank CDs and DVDs, and this might now be coming to the UK. I use a lot of DVDs for computer data archiving. I've never copied a movie to one in my life (expect some of my own making), but if this desire of the powerful music/movie industry goes ahead, I will have to pay them a tax for every disk (and storage medium) I buy. It's outrageous and wrong. It punishes everyone for the crimes (in this case, illicit copying) of the few. I hate that more than I can express in mere words; punishing/restricting me for what others do is absolutely unacceptable, and happens every single day.

In contrast to that, the UK very recently passed a law specifically allowing the copying of purchased music etc* for personal use. Until that a large proportion of the UK population was breaking the law. Me included. It's a really positive change (I'm actually amazed), but is being used now by our music gods to insist that the UK adds this recordable media tax on blank CDs, DVDs, Hard Disks, Memory Sticks, MP3 players, mobile phones, you name it.

Just because someone breaks the law and copies something, doesn't mean that everyone else must suffer a reduction of their 'rights' to use a product they have purchased as they wish, at least within the T&C's they were made aware of before purchase.

/Soapbox.

 

*I wonder, how that would apply to 'virtual' goods in SL... not really, life's too short, ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aasha Kohime wrote:

If someone makes a texture they can apply it to things and it's rather safe. It won't get reused for something else unless the creator allowed it by adding the texture in the contents.

Textures are wholly unsafe.  With nothing more than the standard viewer, the UUID is easily discoverable from anything viewed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're going off on a tangent that isn't relevant out of your own "I want more" mentality. It's basically a "Stop being greedy, because I want to be greedy" argument. If you don't want to buy something than don't. If you do want to buy somethign than do. If people actually try selling animations as scripts they most likely won't sell unless they're part of something impressive enough to make it - like a combat system. That's a no brainer. When those people that try to sell them as just scripted animations and find no sales going on they'll realize it too.

Also don't just relate every merchant as some rich music industry trying to live it easy. That knocks the wind out of your argument as fast as possible when you realize we're just normal people. Like you. Only that happened to put a lot of time and effort into making something. Your argument is even further crushed when it keeps going on about selling them when this whole issue is about a free demo that gets taken advantage of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aasha is allowed to be annoyed that this happened with a demo product. Also by raising the issue Aasha has helped other new animators who werent aware of the problem to now be aware and what they need to consider in the same situation

equating Aasha with the evol empires is nonsense

 

 

edit: take out rage stuff (:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't get personal - I haven't.

What you are asking is effectively "let's lock things down so that people CANNOT do something unless we approve". You are automatically protected at the expense of a purchaser's freedom.

What I am saying is "let's not lock things down so that people CAN do something unless they are told not to". You still have protection under law, and the ability to decide how to sell your product. Just as you have now.

There is nothing wrong (or greedy) about about wanting some built-in flexibility as a consumer, and not to be treated automatically as a potential thief who needs to be rigidly controlled and only allowed to do what we are told with what we buy. That is the effect of what you want to implement.

Should the music industry be allowed to insist (by manipulating law and protection methods) that we make a new purchase for each way we want to play music that we have bought? They think so, in their eyes they are protecting themselves and their income. In the eyes of many others (including now UK law) that is not right and we should be allowed to buy the music once, and use it how we will (for personal use, at least). It's a difference of opinion that needs to be regulated fairly somewhere. The comparison with this issue is, to me, direct and obvious.

Yes, I'm a normal person, the same as (or at least similar to) you. I make my own animations. I sell my own creations on the MP and (when I have the room) in-world. I sell things in RL too.

I have my opinions about where the balance of power should lie between merchants and consumers, and it is clearly not congruent with yours. I did not consider your manner to be 'greedy', as I said, I actually see your point to an extent. It's a shame you cannot seem to see anyone's but your own.

Whether the issue was raised due to something you sold, or a free demo you gave away in an inappropriate way, is completely irrelevant to the discussion of what you propose to implement. It is similarly irrelevant that you say you would still package the animations directly in general products, so that people could use them. That does not change the shift in the balance of power that your proposal would bring.

You see it your way, I see it mine. You've made your argument, I've made mine.

 

Mostly to irihapeti:

As to 'rage': Yeah, I'm raging so hard that I can state my opinions and debate my point by example rather than making personal attacks. When someone wants to restrict my freedom of choice, just like my freedom of speech, I will not stand by quietly and bow my head as that freedom is further restricted. That way lies bigger trouble in the long run.

The OP has every right to be annoyed, but that annoyance should be directed inwards because of (to me) an obvious mistake in packaging a demo, and to the people who took out the animations if they were told not to. If they were not told that, welll, why not? (I certainly hope for the creator's sake the animations weren't full perm - I've missed if they were or not in  the thread). The annoyance should not be taken out on everyone else by implementing a 'law' that curtails purchasers' freedom to use their purchases. That's my point, anyway.

I agree, raising the issue is probably helpful for many people who might not have realised it existed, and might have made the same mistake.

 

That's all I'll say on the matter since further debate would be pointless and is likely to degenerate further into unpleasantness.

Good luck with your products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Vulpinus wrote:

 ... because of (to me) an obvious mistake in packaging a demo ...

 

is not obvious

if it was obvious it wouldnt of happen

things only become obvious in hindsight gained thru either personal experience or the experience and understandings of others

except for awesome people  who know all things. Like Jesus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


irihapeti wrote:

except for awesome people  who know all things. Like Jesus


Ahem...

From Matthew 27:45-46, Jesus cries out... "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

So, not all things.

The generation gap is sometimes simply uncrossable?

;-).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


irihapeti wrote:

except for awesome people  who know all things. Like Jesus


Ahem...

From Matthew 27:45-46, Jesus cries out...
 "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

So, not all things.

The generation gap is sometimes simply uncrossable?

;-).

Jesus already knows whats going happen. He knows he will be abandoned by his Father to the darkness

Mathew 26:39 ... "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. ..."

in the 9th hour Jesus knows he is about to die as a human being. Knowing that he will be in that state until his Father bring him back into the light. Into a state of darkness where he has never been before. which he cannot bring himself back from

Jesus is crying

+

can say if Jesus knows all things then he could of just chilled out a bit. Or maybe just harden up dude

is a bit difficult that tho sometimes when you been nailed up by the hands as a human being. It kinda hurts that does

if was me I would probably start crying about that time as well. Before even most likely. Like if was a eternal creature always in the light. And am now going in the darkness where is no light. I be terrified of that and be bawling my eyes out at that thought. And my hands hurt and all my bones

knowing all this Jesus still cries. So maybe he just not hard enough. like he is just some kinda wuss maybe. or maybe not

+

ps. here is a cherry picker q; (:

CherryPicking-728746.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This here is the response I got from Linden Labs to my DMCA. I just want to show how they are with dealing with it.

 


From:
IP Team
<
>

Date: Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:26 PM

Subject: Re: Your Notification of Copyright Infringement


 
Linden Lab has received your notification of copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 512.


After having reviewed your notification we were unable to act on it because you did not provide all of the information necessary to process your complaint or you did not provide accurate information.   More specifically:  
 
 * You did not provide the information required in step 2 under the “To File a Notification” section of our DMCA policy.  You must tell us the name and the location for every item that you believe to be infringing and that you would like removed.  Please do not provide UUIDs.  These are not useful in helping us locate the content to be removed.  We understand this may be time consuming for you; however, you must be very specific or we may be unable to process your complaint. 
 
Please review our DMCA Policy and notification requirements provided at
and, if appropriate, correct and resubmit your DMCA notification to Linden Lab.



Sincerely,


The IP Team at Linden Lab


 

Now first off. The things that are ripped are sword animations. They can't possibly have an in-world location to point out. I clearly mentioned they are animations in the DMCA. So this is a technicality that LL is using to not take action.
 
Secondly the UUIDs are probably the easiest way to pinpoint data in storage. Very much so better than providing the name of the animation seeing how that can be changed. I'm very certain they need the UUID to get rid of the animations had they actually decided to do it.
 
I honestly believe Linden Lab's intention is to deny action for the sake of LL's own convienence as long as they can hold out; hoping we just give up and go away defeated. I feel they don't care about our rights. Had I sent them a DMCA with the name of the animation they likely would have told me they required UUIDs instead. After all what feasible good is the name if the person can just change it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

removing products by name from the inworld and inventory data stores is how is done typically

this assumes tho the anims perms were set to no-mod for next owner 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Aasha Kohime wrote:

This here is the response I got from Linden Labs to my DMCA. I just want to show how they are with dealing with it.

 

From:
IP Team
<
>

Date: Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:26 PM

Subject: Re: Your Notification of Copyright Infringement

 

 
Linden Lab has received your notification of copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 512.

 

After having reviewed your notification we were unable to act on it because you did not provide all of the information necessary to process your complaint or you did not provide accurate information.   More specifically:  
 
 * You did not provide the information required in step 2 under the “To File a Notification” section of our DMCA policy.  You must tell us the name and the location for every item that you believe to be infringing and that you would like removed.  Please do not provide UUIDs.  These are not useful in helping us locate the content to be removed.  We understand this may be time consuming for you; however, you must be very specific or we may be unable to process your complaint. 
 
Please review our DMCA Policy and notification requirements provided at
and, if appropriate, correct and resubmit your DMCA notification to Linden Lab.

 

Sincerely,

 

The IP Team at Linden Lab


 
Now first off. The things that are ripped are
sword animations
. They can't possibly have an in-world location to point out. I clearly mentioned they are animations in the DMCA. So this is a technicality that LL is using to not take action.
 
Secondly the UUIDs are probably the easiest way to pinpoint data in storage. Very much so better than providing the name of the animation seeing how that can be changed. I'm very certain they need the UUID to get rid of the animations had they actually decided to do it.
 
I honestly believe Linden Lab's intention is to deny action for the sake of LL's own convienence as long as they can hold out; hoping we just give up and go away defeated. I feel they don't care about our rights. Had I sent them a DMCA with the name of the animation they likely would have told me they required UUIDs instead. After all what feasible good is the name if the person can just change it?

I've been watching this thread and trying to wrap my head around the legalities here since it started and actually I have more questions than answers.  Note, I am not a lawyer so I know there is a lot that I don't know. But here we go.

The problem as I see it here is that what you are filing against is an unauthorized use and not an illegal copy of your animation.  And I'm not sure if a DMCA applies to this unauthorized use here.

If I understand correctly from THIS THREAD what you were originally doing was giving people the actual animation to use (demo?) on your SIM.  You meant for the object containing it to be temp but people pulled the animation out while the object was in their possesion.  Part of the problem here is that while your intention was you meant for their possesion to be temporary you had no agreement with the people.  Before you gave them the object you did not say to them that the animation was only for use on your SIM and was not to be pulled from yout object.

So while you might not have realized people would be able to pull the animation out or it did not occur to you that they would you still freely gave it to them.  And you had placed no limitation on its use.  You had no clearly stated license that people agreed to first.

Now adding to the problem is this and I understand LL's problem.  You gave them the UUID of the animation.  But they have on way of knowing which are legal copies and which are not.  In affect you have filed a DMCA using the UUID and if LL simply removes the UUID then your own copy goes 'poof' too.

I know the nitty gritty of this can get onerous.  And we understand your frustration in this situation.  But we also know that DMCA's are succesfully filed against illegal animations.   We know that Vista, Sine Wave, Akeyo for example have done it.  One thing that I suspect is that the illegal copies had a different UUID than their original annimations because the illegal copies had different perms (were full perm).  You may want to contact them and ask how they proceeded in their situation.  Though they are not to my knowledge lawyers so would not really be able to give legal advice.

On a final note we undertsand that better security is needed.  I'm not with out empathy for your situation.  It appears to be a pretty big mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were told the items only work in my sim. Early on a few even asked if they could get free demos that worked in other sims believe it or not. 

They didn't break SL's terms of service when they took the animation. That much I do agree. But I'm fairly sure they did break my own interlectual property copyright of the item through the service of SL. The item was designed to only work in one sim - which was hard to not realize as the demo sword the animations were in at the time would announce it only worked in my sim whenever changing region or being attached in another region. They sought a way around it's allowed range of use. Admittedly not a very hard way but it still fits the bill for infringement.


Perrie Juran wrote:

Now adding to the problem is this and I understand LL's problem.  You gave them the UUID of the animation.  But they have on way of knowing which are legal copies and which are not.  In affect you have filed a DMCA using the UUID and if LL simply removes the UUID then your own copy goes 'poof' too.


That's the intent actually. Aside for the animations in my own inventory - of which I uploaded identical backups that will function the same but have different UUIDs  - there are no legitimate versions of the animations I provided UUIDs for. At the time of those getting out the only way people could possibly attain them was via ripping them out of the demo. The full version of the sword which I released in my shop later uses the new set I uploaded. Even the new demo sword (which uses a server like many in the forums suggested to me) uses the re-uploaded animations. There is literally no negative impact to come from deleting those UUIDs I provided. The only ones that would lose the animation are the ones that ripped them and myself.

If LL just hit the button they could clean the mess up very easily.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Aasha Kohime wrote:

They were told the items only work in my sim. Early on a few even asked if they could get free demos that worked in other sims believe it or not. 

They didn't break SL's terms of service when they took the animation. That much I do agree. But I'm fairly sure they did break my own interlectual property copyright of the item through the service of SL. The item was designed to only work in one sim - which was hard to not realize as the demo sword the animations were in at the time would announce it only worked in my sim whenever changing region or being attached in another region. They sought a way around it's allowed range of use. Admittedly not a very hard way but it still fits the bill for infringement.

Perrie Juran wrote:

Now adding to the problem is this and I understand LL's problem.  You gave them the UUID of the animation.  But they have on way of knowing which are legal copies and which are not.  In affect you have filed a DMCA using the UUID and if LL simply removes the UUID then your own copy goes 'poof' too.


That's the intent actually. Aside for the animations in my own inventory - of which I uploaded identical backups that will function the same but have different UUIDs  - there are
no
legitimate versions of the animations I provided UUIDs for. At the time of those getting out the only way people could possibly attain them was via ripping them out of the demo. The full version of the sword which I released in my shop later uses the new set I uploaded. Even the new demo sword (which uses a server like many in the forums suggested to me) uses the re-uploaded animations. There is literally no negative impact to come from deleting those UUIDs I provided. The only ones that would lose the animation are the ones that ripped them and myself.

If LL just hit the button they could clean the mess up very easily.

 

OK.

I really don't know enough about the asset system and UUID's to comment further on LL's position here why the UUID is not sufficient. 

Perhaps if you knew the names of some of the people who have it ???  Maybe that would suffice for a 'location.'  Just thinking out loud here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Aasha Kohime wrote:

They were told the items only work in my sim. Early on a few even asked if they could get free demos that worked in other sims believe it or not. 

They didn't break SL's terms of service when they took the animation. That much I do agree. But I'm fairly sure they did break my own interlectual property copyright of the item through the service of SL. The item was designed to only work in one sim

As we've discovered elsewhere in the thread, although that was the intent, the animations themselves cannot be technically limited to work in only one region when they are in the posession of an object owned by someone else and while the item was designed to only work in one region, removing animations from the object is compliant with the current permissions system, thus a DMCA seems inappropriate.

What I do find comical though is that LL have stated that they NEED to know the location of these items and can't work on UUID.

If haha... IF that's the case, how come they have twice now, run jobs that wipe legally purchased animations from MY (and plenty of others) INVENTORY?!  They'd not have had that location reported duh!

They're so full of it at times, it's sickening.

Anyway, my advice would be to forget trying to pursue this one, make a better animation and do as suggested, have a sim side animation engine for demo purposes that remains within your ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Aasha Kohime wrote:

The only ones that would lose the animation are the ones that ripped them and myself.


Forgive my pedantic nature on this please, nobody "ripped" anything though, that implies a different task from using the viewer provided functions to extract correctly obtained animations from an object, also not obtained through any nefarious means.

I do understand the frustration but as you've said, they went out in demos, worse things could have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They ripped me off. That's the terminology I'm going for. And I'm sure that's what the term usually used for ripping originates from. I'm not wrong in using it.

Don't confuse "easy" with "not nefarious means" - though I wouldn't actually use the word nefarious so much as just greedy myself. But just because they didn't break out a 3rd party program to snag things didn't mean they didn't steal it. They conciously realized a way to take something without paying and did so. That's the base definition of stealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Sassy Romano wrote:

What I do find comical though is that LL have stated that they NEED to know the location of these items and can't work on UUID.

If haha... IF that's the case, how come they have twice now, run jobs that wipe legally purchased animations from MY (and plenty of others) INVENTORY?!  They'd not have had that location reported duh!

They're so full of it at times, it's sickening.

Anyway, my advice would be to forget trying to pursue this one, make a better animation and do as suggested, have a sim side animation engine for demo purposes that remains within your ownership.

I feel that's what they're hoping for honestly. They know that we know they're full of crap. They just want to play stupid and talk like recorded messages enough until we go away. I think their mindframe is if they "give in" to little things we'll ask them to take care of big things. They don't care about right and wrong so much as how little effort they can get away with. It's obvious if you try to talk to a Linden. It's like talking to a scripted chatbot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...