[Opensim-users] Opensim-users Digest, Vol 28, Issue 18

Thu Dec 10 22:36:21 UTC 2009

> From: Marcus Alexander Link <manupool at gmail.com>

> Is there a reliable way to protect the source of a
> script in a .oar file ?

The standard technical response to the content protection questions are
often repeated here.... "there is no way to prevent reverse engineering
efforts"  and "maybe it should be free anyway",  But there are things we can
do to help insure we can identify and protect content.

The object "permissions" system in SL is not ideal, but at least
implementing that properly would give us a foothold on the bigger issues.
The fact that object creator fields is either missing or changeable by the
platform backup utilities indicates how far we have to go.  I would  +100  a
permission scheme that lets ONLY the content creator set a "public
domain/standard BSD license" flag.

If OpenSim is going to point at the DMCA as its method of content
protection, we should learn from the Linden's that NOT providing the proper
utilities to track ownership of content doesn't impress content providers.
( IANAL, so no legal advice here...)  It seems to just make them upset and
leave.   This exodus from SL is growing  and Marcus's post here is evidence
of what they are looking for.

Doug

*********   the interesting bits so far....    ***********

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:51 PM, <opensim-users-request at lists.berlios.de>wrote:

>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Justin Clark-Casey <jjustincc at googlemail.com>
> To: opensim-users at lists.berlios.de
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:27:20 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)
> Mic Bowman wrote:
>
>> Just a couple observations on this discussion...
>>
>> If you want professional content creators to be willing to license high
>> quality content for use in opensim grids, you need to gain their trust that
>> content will be used appropriately. That can be through well documented (and
>> demonstrated) take down procedures. Or through some common set of agreements
>> among grid owners about how content will be handled. Or...
>>
>> And... many companies won't touch "free" content unless its provenance can
>> be established. I know we require some form of "certificate of origin" or a
>> clear license that grants rights to use the content. And for content we use
>> internally, we keep those licenses archived. Providing a means for a content
>> owner to describe the license for use seems like a good thing no matter
>> what. Given that oar and iar files are just tar files... could we add an
>> optional "license" file in a well known location without messing up the
>> load/save?
>>
>
> Possible though getting messy.  What about the solution of simply putting
> LICENSE text cards in objects themselves?  Are the cons too much? (e.g.
> duplication of license files, not visible without loading up the iar, etc.).
>
> In principle, one could also simply untar the IAR/OAR, put a license file
> in and retar it.
>
> I remember a Linden Labs discussion a while ago about them putting a
> checkbox or settings in their client which would indicate whether an object
> was cross-grid licensed.  This discussion resurfaced a bit with Second Life
> Enterprise.  If this ever occurs it would be trivial to lever the
> information into IARs (and maybe there would be a solution for OARs).
>
>
>> --mic
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Karen Palen <karen_palen at yahoo.com<mailto:
>> karen_palen at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    Adam,
>>
>>    While I understand that you are merely trying to be cautious you
>>    need to be careful that you are not overreacting.
>>
>>    Remember that the intent of IP laws is to increase the creation of
>>    content and the "works" available to all and not to restrict
>>    dissemination of legal content.
>>
>>    Those restrictions (e.g. DMCA) are merely a 'means to an end" - the
>>    goal is still to increase the content or 'works" available to everyone.
>>
>>    This is why such laws as the DMCA have "safe harbor" and "takedown"
>>    procedures for unlawful content rather than requiring and explicit
>>    license for all content before use.
>>
>>    Patent law (35 USC, 37 CFR) is founded on the concept of releasing
>>    the knowledge of an invention to the "public domain" in return for
>>    "an exclusive license to make use or sell the invention for a
>>    limited time."
>>
>>    In other words content or "works" must be considered freely
>>    available to all unless there is evidence to the contrary.
>>
>>    This is a vitally important distinction, every bit as important as
>>    the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" in criminal law.
>>
>>    In practice the difference is the amount of content that is made
>>    available at no charge. IP law has always required that this err on
>>    the side of maximizing the legally available content.
>>
>>    By all means lets follow the law, but lets not subvert the law by
>>    adding provisions that were never intended!
>>
>>    In other words the content must be considered "public domain" unless
>>    there is some evidence that it is restricted in some way.
>>
>>    Karen
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jeff1564 <jefersonc at gmail.com>
> To: opensim-users at lists.berlios.de
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:10:05 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)
> Hi All,
> I agree with Karen, I think that what is happening with OpenSim content is
> something like the free mp3 song albums that we have available for free in
> the internet to download but worse, because if it was an Opensim album you
> will need to call the singer and say
> "Hey I found your song can i hear it?"  if you cant contact the singer just
> don't hear it.
>
> Adam said -- a lot of what people  think is free content isn’t.
> I agree with Adam here, because if I am creator and i want to share, why
> not put a notecard inside the item with the permissions.
>
> Karen said -- In other words content or "works" must be considered freely
> available to all unless there is evidence to the contrary.
>
> Something like what YouTube does? right? should work that way with OpenSim
> too. I think if the item is that important for the creator he should try
> track it not the final user. And of course all of us that know one item that
> was copied without rights we should do the best to purge it.
>
> If someone upload an item, oar or etc.. to my website its ok. but the
> problem starts when someone complain rights about that item to me and after
> that the item still available in the website, then yes we have a problem.
>
> Karen said -- This is a vitally important distinction, every bit as
> important as the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" in criminal law.
>
> this is 100% true besides Brazil where the cops shoot you before ask.(I am
> Brazilian, I know that country, just kiddingggggg)
> you know what you are doing when you backup your inventory... so please
> lets just... you know... be cool about it.. do the right thing. if you know
> that is a restricted item please just don't.
>
> Karen said -- Content must be considered as "public domain" unless there is
> some evidence that it is restricted in some way.
> indeed.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Karen Palen <karen_palen at yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> Adam,
>>
>> While I understand that you are merely trying to be cautious you need to
>> be careful that you are not overreacting.
>>
>> Remember that the intent of IP laws is to increase the creation of content
>> and the "works" available to all and not to restrict dissemination of legal
>> content.
>>
>> Those restrictions (e.g. DMCA) are merely a 'means to an end" - the goal
>> is still to increase the content or 'works" available to everyone.
>>
>> This is why such laws as the DMCA have "safe harbor" and "takedown"
>> procedures for unlawful content rather than requiring and explicit license
>> for all content before use.
>>
>> Patent law (35 USC, 37 CFR) is founded on the concept of releasing the
>> knowledge of an invention to the "public domain" in return for "an exclusive
>> license to make use or sell the invention for a limited time."
>>
>> In other words content or "works" must be considered freely available to
>> all unless there is evidence to the contrary.
>>
>> This is a vitally important distinction, every bit as important as the
>> concept of "innocent until proven guilty" in criminal law.
>>
>> In practice the difference is the amount of content that is made available
>> at no charge. IP law has always required that this err on the side of
>> maximizing the legally available content.
>>
>> By all means lets follow the law, but lets not subvert the law by adding
>> provisions that were never intended!
>>
>> In other words the content must be considered "public domain" unless there
>> is some evidence that it is restricted in some way.
>>
>> Karen
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-users mailing list
> Opensim-users at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-users/attachments/20091210/825ecb1f/attachment.html>