Masami Kuramoto

That would be too easy.

Gaia Clary wrote: Second Life now "Collada stakeholder" In agreement with the Blender developers Second Life has become the current stakeholder for Collada support. That means whatever future changes will be applied to the Collada module, it will be tested to keep the Second Life compatibility intact. This is what I had hoped to happen when I made that slightly alarmist post here a few weeks ago. It is great news because it makes Second Life the reference implementation that Blender's COLLADA exporter will be tested against. Any change that breaks SL compatibility will not make it into a Blender release. It also opens the door to some improvements that were discussed with Linden Lab recently, such as importing multiple LODs and physics meshes (and maybe even animations, as an alternative to BVH) in a single COLLADA file. Although the question has been answered many times before, there still seems to be some confusion about the reason why Linden Lab chose COLLADA instead of OBJ. As mentioned earlier, there is no way to store skeletal animation properties in OBJ files. Since Zbrush does not feature skeletal animation either, OBJ is just fine there, but for our purposes it is insufficient. There are other alternatives to COLLADA of course, but none of them is an open standard. (By the way, calling COLLADA "open source" is wrong. It's a format specification, not a piece of software. COLLADA exporters and importers can be closed source.) Since the COLLADA specification is supporting a lot of features in a single file format (meshes, curves, skinning, physics, morphs, animation, materials, GLSL shaders etc.), there are literally hundreds of ways to produce COLLADA files perfectly compliant with the specification but totally incompatible with SL's importer. However, that doesn't mean that COLLADA is broken and a bad choice for asset exchange. It just means that exporters must keep the capabilities of their targets in mind, and that is what Blender will do, starting with version 2.62.

Ashasekayi Ra wrote: Frankly, this Collada issue with Blender has nothing to do with LL. It's a problem that will have to be solved by the programmers in the community. Thankfully, it seems like Domino is already on the case. Fixing the Collada exporter for Second Life isn't hard, but Blender's troubles with the format won't end there. Collada's interoperability track record is lousy, and that's not because of bugs. It's because the format specification isn't strict enough. It makes little sense to maintain a C++ version of the exporter in the main branch that works only for a few target platforms. Going forward, I guess the solution is multiple versions of the exporter, each implementing a subset of Collada for a particular target. Fortunately, SL's requirements are rather simple. We don't need support for animations, morph targets, Bézier curves, Nurbs, advanced materials, physics and all the other advanced Collada features.

Due to numerous incompatibilities between existing COLLADA importers/exporters making the format largely useless, Blender developers are now considering to entirely remove COLLADA support from the main code base and official builds. http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2012-January/035006.html

Ceera Murakami wrote: Can you post a link for downloading that altered rigging? No sense in each person re-doing all those linking and rotation changes from scratch. You can now download a free Blender add-on that performs the required transformations automatically before exporting to COLLADA. http://blog.machinimatrix.org/avastar/mesh/

Tateru Nino wrote: "are available to any person on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms" That's referring to copyright rights holders, by the way. It means that you don't impose any undue barriers to rights holders like shutting them out of a service, or making them pay a lot of money or treat them otherwise differently to other users when it comes to their checking things out to see if their rights are being infringed. "As used in this subsection, the term “standard technical measures” means technical measures that are used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works and {...} are available to any person on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms" The payment info requirement is such a technical measure. It is a strong deterrent against repeat infringers, but the Lab isn't applying it in a nondiscriminatory way. Imagine YouTube introducing fingerprint technology to identify copyrighted music in uploaded videos -- and then making that technology available only to one major music label, locking out all the others. If YouTube did that, they would risk their DMCA Safe Harbor privilege too. Linden Lab is aware of the infringement that happens on their platform on a daily basis. A great deal of the DMCA takedown notices they receive is about stolen avatar skins. There is no excuse for denying texture creators the same level of protection that mesh creators already enjoy.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: And they would do that because....they took extra precautions for mesh? Because they took extra precautions ONLY for mesh. Here's what the law says: 17 U.S.C $ 512 (i) "Conditions for Eligibility.— (1) Accommodation of technology. — The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider — (A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers; and (B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures. (2) Definition. — As used in this subsection, the term “standard technical measures” means technical measures that are used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works and — (A) have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry standards process; (B) are available to any person on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; and © do not impose substantial costs on service providers or substantial burdens on their systems or networks." Linden Lab has now "adopted and reasonably implemented" a method to identify repeat infringers -- but only for one asset class. If you happen to be a texture artist rather than a 3D modeller, LL's enhanced protection policy is not available to you, although LL could easily apply it to all uploadable assets.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Are you suggesting anyone who has to go to court for stealing a texture will defend him/herself with "hey it's just a texture, at least i'm not stealing meshes". No, I'm suggesting that someone may drag Linden Lab to court in order to challenge their DMCA Safe Harbor privilege.

Tateru Nino wrote: It provides an additional legal protection to Linden Lab. (ie: It can't be shut down for being negligent about this) On the contrary. The fact that LL has developed a means to deter infringing uploads but chooses to apply it selectively is a perfect display of negligence. The argument that mesh "sticks out more" and is more worthy of protection absolutely won't fly in court. Images and music are not minor forms of intellectual property. Treating them like second-class citizens (when there is no need to do so) is a lawsuit waiting to happen. The continuity argument doesn't hold up either. Introducing those prerequisites for all uploads wouldn't break any existing content on the grid.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Fact is this: a model from a game is easily recognizable as that model from a game, so chances LL gets a legal division after them is a lot bigger than with textures. Would you have trouble recognizing Mickey Mouse on a texture? Would you have trouble recognizing a popular song triggered by an avatar gesture? What makes those types of copyright infringement less recognizable so that LL can afford to turn a blind eye to them?

Chosen Few wrote: you'll immediately dismiss any attempt at legitimate explanation for why and how things actually work I have yet to see a plausible explanation for treating mesh different than all the other uploadable asset types. What is the difference, from a legal perspective, between uploading a Mickey Mouse avatar and uploading a Mickey Mouse T-shirt texture? What is the difference between uploading a Half Life 2 character and uploading a collection of Half Life 2 building textures? I'd argue that there is none. Yet the Lab continues to give texture thieves a free pass while putting all mesh creators under general suspicion. It's an obvious double standard, and the OP is right to point this out.

Mircea Lobo wrote: So if your SL account is not connected to a bank, you cannot import meshes although you can upload as many images and sounds as you like. Where is the logic in this guys? You are absolutely right. There is no logic in it. The potential to infringe copyrights with image, sound or animation uploads is just the same, yet the Lab is treating those different. But I wouldn't blame LL. It's all due to the residents who begged LL to penalize mesh. When Linden Lab announced their plans for mesh import, there was a lot of opposition from old-school content creators who perceived mesh as a threat. And even many of those who considered themselves ready for the change were concerned about freebie competition, e.g. newbies importing free models from Google 3D Warehouse or similar sites (which in many cases would be perfectly legal). The whole copyright issue is just an excuse. This is about established content creators defending their business turf, aka. protectionism. It's not a secret that a great deal of the textures and sounds in SL are not original creations. If there were an honest concern about copyright infringement, the tutorial and the payment info requirement would have been introduced for all types of uploads, not only for mesh. In fact it's quite ironic that copybotters, i.e. people using modified viewers to bypass the permissions system and replicate content in-world, will never be addressed by Linden Lab's copyright lecture and never be required to expose their RL identity.

The armature's rest position must be set up so that all the bones point in the positive Y direction. If you reconnect the bones, they will rotate back towards their parents. So you have to leave them disconnected. However, this won't affect the rig's ability to be used in pose mode. For example, you can still work on the skin weights after modifying the rig. If you rotate a bone in pose mode, its children will still inherit that rotation as if they were connected. Tail length doesn't matter. Only rotation does.

If you are tired of keeping old versions of Blender around for rigged mesh projects, here's a trick to produce SL-compatible COLLADA files with the latest version: http://www.secondcitizen.net/Forum/showpost.php?p=410101&postcount=1

Deltango Vale wrote: For this reason, it will probably take years before the full benefits of mesh are utilized by residents. Even if Firestorm produces a mesh version next week, few people are going to walk around looking like idiots to 1/3 of the population. There are third-party viewers based on Linden Lab's Snowglobe 1.x (i.e. with the old UI) which are capable of rendering mesh (e.g. Astra Viewer).

DanielRavenNest Noe wrote: I do have an opinion. Insistence that different asset types should all be treated the same is simplistic. No, it is fair. It is a statement that the Lab considers the work of a texture artist no less valuable than a mesh modeler's creations. The hash method does not work; you know that as well as I do. Depending on the fingerprinting method you'll either get a new hash every time a pixel is changed or you'll get false duplicates for similar skins.

DanielRavenNest Noe wrote: That does not mean those are *my* opinions, they are my analysis of *their* possible reasons. If you cannot tell the difference, I feel sorry for you. This solution was requested by residents. It wasn't LL's idea. You declared your support by saying "I want SL to continue as a viable world". So don't tell me you don't have an opinion on this.

Ciaran Laval wrote: If you start taking such basic features as texture uploads away from those who are NPIOF then you're causing more problems than you'll cure. What makes texture, animation and audio uploads more "basic" than mesh uploads? Care to explain why you think it's ok to treat different what is essentially the same?

Daniel, which part of "stolen content hurts content sales in SL" don't you understand? Stolen textures uploaded and distributed for free, even if the original creators never take note of them, make it impossible for texture makers to make money in SL. It's hard enough to compete with freebies, but if those freebies are professional content ripped from commercial games, it is almost impossible. These things hurt the SL economy, regardless of the legal issues. You demand special treatment for meshes because you are a mesh builder. It doesn't make a difference whether you sell them under this account or an alt. You say you want SL to continue as a viable world. In that case you better make sure that all content creators are protected equally. Why is it wrong to ask uploaders for their RL ID to prevent copyright infringement? Those people you mentioned who upload their own photos won't be affected at all. Residents without payment info on file need L$$ for uploads anyway. They may get them from a friend, so why not ask that friend to upload the photo in the first place? If the friend refuses to do so because the image is in fact a stolen texture, great! Isn't that exactly what we want? All I'm asking for is consistency. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that, except those who wish to be treated better than others.

DanielRavenNest Noe wrote: I listed practical business reasons No, you didn't. You said applying the above rules to all asset types is impractical but failed to explain why that impracticality is not a concern for mesh uploads. And you said that texture and audio clip theft is less obvious and recognizable, which is plain wrong. You said Disney has more lawyers. Rest assured, Sony Music and Valve Corporation have plenty of lawyers, too, and their IP can be found on the main grid right now -- in the form of textures and songs. I think the reason why you don't want to see these rules applied to textures, animations and audio is because you don't sell these types of assets, so when someone uploads stolen or freebie content of that kind and gives it away for free, it doesn't hurt your business the way freebie mesh content would. The business point of view you are talking about is in fact yours, not Linden Lab's. However, you're not alone on the grid, and your vested interests don't matter to the rest of us -- and certainly not to the Lab.

DanielRavenNest Noe wrote: Practical business reasons: - Disney (Marvel Comics) and Blizzard (World of Warcraft) have more lawyers than Dosch Design (textures) and typical SL animation creators. A stolen character model is more obvious and recognizable than a texture among hundreds of other textures in a typical Second Life scene. - There have been an average of 100,000 uploads per day for the past ~5 years that SL has been large. Most of those are textures or photos. That is 180 million uploads. Policing the past would be utterly impractical. If you impose the rules on new uploads, that creates an artificial distinction between past uploads and new ones. - Many uploads are things like snapshots that are captured to disk, cropped, and then uploaded as a texture, so you would be preventing many users from doing that if you required PIOF. - Upload fees on 100K uploads a day are a major "sink" for Linden Dollars - they vanish from the economy when you upload. Sinks are required to balance sources like stipends to keep the L$ value stable. Your arguments make no sense. There are textures in SL which have been ripped from commercial games. People decorate their virtual homes with 2D artwork copied from websites or scanned from catalogs etc. They use commercial songs in gestures. Clothing designers "photosource" their textures from RL clothes. How is this different from grabbing a mesh from a game? How is this less obvious and less recognizable? It's the same thing, and it deserves the same treatment. The past isn't over until those copyrights expire. Stealing in the past doesn't earn you the privilege to keep on doing so forever. The example of mesh shows that a PIOF requirement and an upload privilege "kill switch" are practical and useful to keep uploads legit. This is not about "policing the past", it's about correcting past mistakes.

Those rules should be applied consistently to all uploads, not only meshes. There is already massive copyright infringement in textures, animations and audio clips on the main grid. Why do these get a free pass while mesh builders are under suspicion by default?

You forgot about Non-SSE2 people! "The application failed to initialize properly (0xc000001d). Click on OK to terminate the application." I met a guy on the beta grid who had exactly the same error message. It turned out he had installed the mesh viewer over an existing installation of viewer 2. Make sure to install into a separate folder.

Hmm, I wonder if there will be any bone mesh templates avalable for blender by then, or maybe I can use the one they already have avalable at domino designes. The official templates are here: http://secondlife.com/community/avatar.php Just import one of the BVH files into Blender and delete the animation keyframes.

As Jennifur pointed out earlier, there will be no Avatar 2.0 without Linden Lab making it the default built-in one. Mesh is not a solution here because there are no clothing layers on a mesh. Which means you can't combine <random skin> with <random tatoo> and <random shirt>. And then of course there is the problem of missing morph targets.