Should the permissions system be revised?

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

9 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

What you're saying is a personal preference. Yes, if you have something and don't want to share... go ahead. Nobody can MAKE you share, even if everything in SL became transferrable with no form of no-transfer.

But if I pay to commission something to be usable only by the members of my group, there's no reason any of those members should go passing that thing out of the group.

It's not about being unique or "having what others can't have." I've literally been the person to say "Your thing is not special, I'm going to make your exact thing and give it out for free." That's fine! But making things takes time. Respecting the money and effort someone else spent for That Thing is not evil.

once you give something to someone else you dont really have any say on how they choose to use it or what they use it for. you dont get to be their boss and tell them if they are allowed to do something or not. which is why copybotting was started to stop those who think they have the right to put gateways on certain things.

can a car manufacture tell you how you are or are not allowed to drive a car? no, nor can you if you sell or give that car to someone else..

you may have had it created but it does not give you exclusive rights over how it has to be used. you only get those rights by not giving it out to anyone else at all.

can a tv manufacture tell you, you cant watch certain shows on the tv you bought or was given. no..

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Drakonadrgora Darkfold

[Wulfie Reanimator]

2 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

once you give something to someone else you dont really have any say on how they choose to use it or what they use it for. you dont get to be their boss and tell them if they are allowed to do something or not. which is why copybotting was started to stop those who think they have the right to put gateways on certain things.

can a car manufacture tell you how you are or are not allowed to drive a car? no, nor can you if you sell or give that car to someone else..

I guess I should point out that I'm like the embodiment of generosity. I share everything I can, from the things I make to the knowledge I have. I ask very little pay when I get paid for my work.

But the entire SL Military Community is based around that idea. Each group has its own gear that they develop in-house. People pay hundreds of dollars for content on top of hosting their sims. When you join the group, the group gives you all the gear you need for free. When you're out of the group (either because you're a bad fit, wanna join another group, or just quit the SLMC), your gear stops working because it was made specifically for that group.

You can lock down objects even if it's transferable or even if you still own it.

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

2 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

I guess I should point out that I'm like the embodiment of generosity. I share everything I can, from the things I make to the knowledge I have. I ask very little pay when I get paid for my work.

But the entire SL Military Community is based around that idea. Each group has its own gear that they develop in-house. People pay hundreds of dollars for content on top of hosting their sims. When you join the group, the group gives you all the gear you need for free. When you're out of the group (either because you're a bad fit, wanna join another group, or just quit the SLMC), your gear stops working because it was made specifically for that group.

You can lock down objects even if it's transferable or even if you still own it.

and that is why copybotters exist to stop such things. thing is you dont own if if you give it away to someone, you own the original not the copy that was given away. its not really your choice on how or why they chose to use it or not even if you want to think it is.

or else every creator could arbitrarily say I dont like how you used my object stop or else. which would lead to even more copybotting. I know a few creators who try this already and they dont always get their way, people can find a way to break that control if they really want.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Drakonadrgora Darkfold

[Wulfie Reanimator]

3 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

and that is why copybotters exist to stop such things. thing is you dont own if if you give it away to someone, you own the original not the copy that was given away. its not really your choice on how or why they chose to use it or not even if you want to think it is.

I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement on how ownership of something non-physical works, and the practicalities of what I just described.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

Just now, Wulfie Reanimator said:

I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement on how ownership of something works in the digital realm.

we will have to agree to disagree on this point of contention.

[Fauve Aeon]

17 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

can a car manufacture tell you how you are or are not allowed to drive a car? no, nor can you if you sell or give that car to someone else..

Those are not digital content or assets. Quite a few ‘rules’ changed with digital content. You are technically not buying ‘a thing’, you are purchasing the rights to use some content within the way the creator or the platform allows. 

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

Just now, Fauve Aeon said:

Those are not digital content or assets. Quite a few ‘rules’ changed with digital content. You are technically not buying ‘a thing’, you are purchasing the rights to use some content within the way the creator or the platform allows. 

not entirely true, can a software designer tell you how to use their software on your computer after you buy it. no they really cant. even though sometimes some like to think they can.

[Fauve Aeon]

6 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

not entirely true, can a software designer tell you how to use their software on your computer after you buy it. no they really cant. even though sometimes some like to think they can.

You are buying a piece of content under limitations and designed for certain applications. You enter a legally binding agreement to do so in many cases by purchasing said content. I guess you can also stuff a hammer up your ass too, it’s probably physically possible but that’s not the intended or recommended usage. You ‘can’ do a lot of things. 

[Wulfie Reanimator]

11 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

not entirely true, can a software designer tell you how to use their software on your computer after you buy it. no they really cant. even though sometimes some like to think they can.

They might not be able to literally prevent you from not doing things that break their rules, but they can make the game literally unplayable if you break their rules. Online games anyway. Just like how LL is able to take away your entire account and everything associated with it, even if you can make a few edits to the viewer to be able to make copies of anything you want.

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

Just now, Wulfie Reanimator said:

They might not be able to literally prevent you from not doing things that break their rules, but they can make the game literally unplayable if you break their rules. Online games anyway. Just like how LL is able to take away your entire account and everything associated with it, even if you can make a few edits to the viewer to be able to make copies of anything you want.

And then you create a new account and begin again and again and again, it cant be stopped. those who do it dont mind starting over again if needed. its the fact that they can do it that is all that matters to them.

Even in some online games some things cannot be stopped or controlled. Many games have tried to create ant-cheat systems or anti-afk systems to have them defeated over and over again. Its a giant cat and mouse game that never ends.

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

10 minutes ago, Fauve Aeon said:

You are buying a piece of content under limitations and designed for certain applications. You enter a legally binding agreement to do so in many cases by purchasing said content. I guess you can also stuff a hammer up your ass too, it’s probably physically possible but that’s not the intended or recommended usage. You ‘can’ do a lot of things. 

actually its not legally binding in all cases. you are buying something to use how you chose not how someone else thinks you should use it. several game companies has even have their wrists slapped before for trying to use such tactics. play my way or else...

there is no legal contracts about what you buy here in sl.  except between you and LL for the price of the item purchased. beyond that its do what you want with it even if the creator disagree's. content creators are not the gods they like to think they are at times. the only true gods in sl are LL. Even a sim renter is not a god even if they like to think they are.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Drakonadrgora Darkfold

[Wulfie Reanimator]

Just now, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

And then you create a new account and begin again and again and again, it cant be stopped. those who do it dont mind starting over again if needed. its the fact that they can do it that is all that matters to them.

Even in some online games some things cannot be stopped or controlled. Many games have tried to create ant-cheat systems or anti-afk systems to have them defeated over and over again. Its a giant cat and mouse game that never ends.

Stating the obvious / arguing the semantics there. Of course I wouldn't try to deny that.

Any time you have access to the hardware that's running the software, nobody can stop you from changing it. The only protection you have is moving more and more things server-side, for example how it's literally impossible for copybotters to gain access to scripts, or how you can't really cheat in League of Legends because that game is basically entirely server-side besides camera controls.

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

6 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Stating the obvious / arguing the semantics there. Of course I wouldn't try to deny that.

Any time you have access to the hardware that's running the software, nobody can stop you from changing it. The only protection you have is moving more and more things server-side, for example how it's literally impossible for copybotters to gain access to scripts, or how you can't really cheat in League of Legends because that game is basically entirely server-side besides camera controls.

everything can be cheated if you learn about it enough. there are even probably ways of copybotting no-mod scripts as well. for you can copybott scripts out of mod items already even if you dont own the item.

nothing is or ever will be uncheatable.

even LoL can be cheated because you dont have just camera control you have a client that runs scripts and those scripts can be modified to allow you to do things others cant. someone smart can easily manipulate the camera controls to give them an advantage over others. its been done before in lots of games online.

moving it all serverside does not stop cheating, for then you run attacks through the code that the server allows.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Drakonadrgora Darkfold

[Ardy Lay]

I will say no, absolutely not.  My reason?  I would not want to burden anyone with that.  The thought of touching SL permissions code has got to be nightmare fuel of the highest order for  programmers working for Linden Lab.

[AdminGirl]

Yes please! I mainly decorate and what annoys me the most is when things can't be resized. If an item is no-mod and if I were to use it, I'd have to scale everything else to be in proportion to that one thing. So annoying and sometimes impractical.

 

[Adam Spark]

6 hours ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

once you give something to someone else you dont really have any say on how they choose to use it or what they use it for. you dont get to be their boss and tell them if they are allowed to do something or not. which is why copybotting was started to stop those who think they have the right to put gateways on certain things.

can a car manufacture tell you how you are or are not allowed to drive a car? no, nor can you if you sell or give that car to someone else..

you may have had it created but it does not give you exclusive rights over how it has to be used. you only get those rights by not giving it out to anyone else at all.

can a tv manufacture tell you, you cant watch certain shows on the tv you bought or was given. no..

 

Creators have every right over the distribution of their intellectual property. Those behind a movie you purchase have every right to tell you not to use it in certain ways (hence the warnings about distribution/public broadcast without permission). Just because certain restrictions are not placed does not mean a creator doesn't have the right to do so. I am very open with the usage of my products, but I have every legal right not to be.

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

6 minutes ago, Adam Spark said:

Creators have every right over the distribution of their intellectual property. Those behind a movie you purchase have every right to tell you not to use it in certain ways (hence the warnings about distribution/public broadcast without permission). Just because certain restrictions are not placed does not mean a creator doesn't have the right to do so. I am very open with the usage of my products, but I have every legal right not to be.

No they really dont. Once you own it it is your choice in what you do with it. Same with digital content on the internet. Once its out of your hands you have no say in what anyone else can or cannot do with it beyond that point.

You give an item to someone they can do with it as that want if they want and not have to care if you like what they did or not. Your only recourse is to contact LL and see if you can have it removed.

You dont continue to own the copy of the one you gave them. Its not yours anymore. You were just the creator of the object and nothing more. Your not some god that gets to tell others how to use your product or else.

if you look at the object itself it even stats you were the 'last' owner, not the current owner.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Drakonadrgora Darkfold

[Adam Spark]

1 minute ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

No they really dont. Once you own it it is your choice in what you do with it. Same with digital content on the internet. Once its out of your hands you have no say in what anyone else can or cannot do with it beyond that point.

Two words: copyright law.

Second Life exists legally because it offers a permissions system to comply with the rights of creators.

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

5 minutes ago, Adam Spark said:

Two words: copyright law.

Second Life exists legally because it offers a permissions system to comply with the rights of creators.

LL can do what ever they want the moment you put your items on their servers. you no longer own it they do. you have no special rights to the obejct anymore once someone buys it or you give them a copy.

can an ebook seller take the book back from you? no they cant.

can they stop you from using it how you want? not without taking you to court.

SL does not have to have the permissions system in it for it to be legal at all. it can run as an 'as is' business. use their service at your own risk.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Drakonadrgora Darkfold

[Adam Spark]

13 hours ago, Jennifer Boyle said:

There are two areas in which it seems to me that the current system unnecessarily restricts and inconveniences users with no benefit to creators or anyone else.

One is my inability to rename no-mod items. This is particularly irksome with texture-change mesh clothing. As an example, I may have shoes that have many choices of colors. I want to put on black, ones or red ones, etc., and not have to attach and fiddle with a HUD every time I wear them. If they are no-mod, the only way I can record the color of a copy is to create a separate folder for it. It would be more convenient if I could add "red" or "black" or whatever was appropriate to the name. An alternative would be for creators to not make things no-mod. I don't want to mess with the design of the shoes; I just want the convenience of renaming them. Why not have a "sub-perm" under the next-owner permissions like "may rename only?" Why shouldn't I have that? What would be the harm?

The other is that no-transfer is absolute. Creators have a legitimate reason to want to prevent two accounts from using an item at the same time. They have no legitimate reason to want to prevent ownership from passing from one account to another. Imagine what RL would be like if no one could sell their house or car and no one could donate used clothing or books? Since the goods that we are considering are fragile digital files that can become unusable or even disappear for many reasons or for no apparent reason, backups are essential, so a user must be able to make copies. Creators are rightly unwilling for purchasers to be able to transfer something they bought while retaining a copy. But, why couldn't we have, instead of absolute no transfer, either "transfer and delete all copies" or, better, "transfer all copies" as the next-owner permission. This might require that a unique identifier field be added to properties; the unique identifier would never change, once assigned. A single copy of the item could always be transferred without restriction by the creator. What would be wrong with such a change?

 

Pretty sure the entire grid would have to be rebuilt and rewired for such things to work. Just adding adding the unique identifier system to replace the UUID system sounds like something 1000 times more difficult than anything Linden Lab wants to dream about, let alone attempt. Good ideas for someone who wants to get it done, somewhere, eventually.

One thing I want to see changed is the ability to see the coordinates on all prim locations, not just those with rights to edit. This would make collab building so much easier and more accurate. Decorating a sales booth, for instance, would be a use case for such a tweak.

[Adam Spark]

13 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

can they stop you from using it how you want? not without taking you to court.

If you break in to my house and steal all my stuff, and I discover it the next day, can I do anything about it? Not without taking you to court.

The "taking you to court" part is accurate due to the rights creators have. Sure, you can copybot my stuff. If I catch you doing it and I can take you to court and make you pay for it, because I have rights over the distribution of my creation.

Napster no longer exists because musicians had the right to distribute their content however they saw fit, not however you or I see fit.

[Arduenn Schwartzman]

8 hours ago, steeljane42 said:

How they'd sell their 45 color versions and fatpacks then? Someone might just buy white pants and tint them black, the horror. /s

Would you? I don't think so.

[Charlotte Bartlett]

12 hours ago, ChinRey said:

Oh yes! More detailed mod perm settings is high on my wish list too.

I have a feeling the "transfer and delete" and "transfer all copies" ideas may be hard to implement though. The assets server would have to shift through its entire database with several billion entries every time somebody wanted to use these functions and that may be a bit too much to ask for.

I would shudder to think what this would do considering the "duplicate" bug hah,

Not directed at ChinRey:  Are there really that many user cases who want this?  I have never seen any Jira's asking for this that I can remember....   fringe user cases shouldn't really direct complex development that takes precious resources - unless I just never have found them, which is possible!!.    

LL don't have any major time to spend on new stuff until the cloud work is done - and it would be amazing if Quarter 3/4 once that is finished, they could then ramp back up on resolving the long and multiple (and many voted for) outstanding Jiras on things like the Marketplace.

If you have purchased a copy item on one avatar and want to use it on another avatar the real change perhaps should be the account structure in SL - that ties all "alts" to one parent account.   The parent account buys items then can use it on whatever "alt" they create.   I suspect this is an impossible requirement due to the asset server and the complexity this would create.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Charlotte Bartlett

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

6 minutes ago, Adam Spark said:

If you break in to my house and steal all my stuff, and I discover it the next day, can I do anything about it? Not without taking you to court.

The "taking you to court" part is accurate due to the rights creators have. Sure, you can copybot my stuff. If I catch you doing it and I can take you to court and make you pay for it, because I have rights over the distribution of my creation.

Napster no longer exists because musicians had the right to distribute their content however they saw fit, not however you or I see fit.

who needs napster when there are things like azureus and bitlord. where you can still get anything you want pretty much for free. towards tv and movies you use kodi.

[Adam Spark]

Just now, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

who needs napster when there are things like azureus and bitlord. where you can still get anything you want pretty much for free. towards tv and movies you use kodi.

Way to avoid my point.

Those things are no less legal, they just haven't been taken down.