"No Philosophizing on What You Think the Open Grid Will Do to the World"

Saijanai's much-ballyhooed "big open public meeting" about interoperability and the protection of IP was APPALLLING AND HARRIBLE. He advertised it heavily in the forums and in groups inworld, but it was written up in such a geeky and obscure fashion that most people batted it away. It sounded too technical. I wasn't able to come due to RL work, and when I finally got around to reading the transcript -- ugh. Because all the usual suspects were there -- *not a single major content creator or land developer of Second Life*. The script-kiddies and code monkeys of the JIRA -- the misfits Mitch Kapor talks about, but also the IBM arch-architectorati Zha Ewry and useless Dale Innis (does his supervisor know he's goldbricking again and not finishing that paper on VWs?!) and -- well, go read it first, you'll see, then come back and understand what went on there.

The Lindens ran a story that puzzled some people -- it was old news. In fact, it even looked like one of those entirely fake made-for-TV occasions where after the real event, it was re-enacted merely so Torley could make a pretty video. But...We forget that news on our blogs, that starts out on Zha's blog and is analyzed on mine and others isn't news at Kremlinden Lab, it is merely TASS blue, not for the masses. All that happened then the other day is that it was the official word, "TASS upolnomochen zayavit'" (TASS is authorized to speak). Hamilton Linden, who when last heard was supposed to be working on why my inventory notecards are always lost, but gave that up ages ago I guess, issued a heavily-massaged, carefully-crafted, legally-combed-and-brushed piece of artwork that constituted in a sense what Saijanai and others had asked about in various office hours: can we get a Linden public statement on their policy about IP and interoperability?

So...this is it. This is what Saijanai folded his tent on the JIRA over -- getting a mere public acknowledgement. And this is flimsy stuff indeed -- take a look. After the shill of "improved performance" is held out (interoperability = open source, and here the canard about many hands making light work is implied), Hamilton gives you all you will ever likely get about your stuff, and whether it will be sucked out to the vast and wild Metaverse:

"Q: How will Linden Lab prevent property from being copied into other virtual worlds?
We’re paying extremely close attention to that question. We will be designing this with the Second Life community to ensure their needs are met. We want to stress that when it does become possible to move avatars between worlds, we will take the utmost care to protect the rights of Second Life property owners and creators. Linden Lab will not design a system that lets people openly violate the permissions of SL goods and take them to other worlds. We recognize that intellectual property is the engine that drives Second Life, and we are completely committed to preserving the qualities that make Second Life the unique, innovative and dynamic place that it is today."

Well, look. You didn't pay close attention at the start, Hamilton, when designing this a year ago or publishing documents for it this year. It was never indicated or underscored. It took people expressing growing alarm about it for you to FINALLY come up with this *policy statement* which is *not a design blueprint*.

Indeed, AFTER you have ALREADY engineered teleportability between SL and OpenSimulator (and beyond), you note that you will pay close attention -- later. You "will be designing this" -- but...the time to design it was yesterday, and first, before you jumped.

When it becomes possible to move? But you just moved them. If you can move them, Adam Zaius et. al. can move them and probably did or will. These people reverse engineered SL. Yes they did indeed. Because they used the opensource viewer to speculate on what else could go with it and they used libsl which his a reverse-engineered product. I'm sorry, but we do know the history.

Now here comes the part that the lawyers probably had like 18 staff meetings and 3000 pages of memos about, listen up:

"Linden Lab will not design a system that lets people openly violate the permissions of SL goods and take them to other worlds."

Here's what's wrong with that statement, and why lawyers have to worry:

1. The time to design the system that would not let people make those open violations was yesterday, not tomorrow, and before teleporting experimentations were made. Devices like Second Inventory with Opensimulator modules or whatever already copy people's inventory with permissions -- is it a trivial matter to copy non-permitted items? Where's the care?

2. What IS that system? Each time we try to raise this, and get answers, on lists or inworld, we are batted away, or various extremist copyleftists (including Lindens) put this off to the future or deny it is ever worth doing. Gigs Taggart can mount a JIRA that says "Let's do away with permissions as they don't work," and no Linden ever really bats an eye and objects. In meeting after meeting, the extremists talk -- not the Lindens, shushing them. Nobody ever gets no the SL Dev list and says 'No, we won't be following that Stallmanite credo, sorry."

3. Linden Lab may not design the system but...others will. Is that how they plan to have "plausible deniability?" And let's go to the rest of this videotape, please:

A. Linden Lab already enabled teleportation to a world that HAS NO PERMISSIONS. That DOES NOT RESPECT SL PERMISSIONS BECAUSE IT HAS NO PERMISSIONS SYSTEM PERIOD. To a world that HAS NO ECONOMY, no buy/sell interface. So...what's up with that? How is that "trusted"? How does that "deal with" permed up items? What's the plan? Who's working on THAT piece of engineering?!

B. Already, the promoters of the communistic sort of world implied by no permissions/no economy/no buying/selling are pushing a meme, that "who will buy stuff in SL if the creators won't let them take stuff to other grids" pretending this is like buying a stereo in NY and not being able to get it through customs in Russia". Please. Stuff is copyable already. So...what's the plan? Maybe the masses want to port their stuff (we didn't hear they wanted to do that yet of course) but...will there be any creators left who will play by these sandbox freebies rules?

C. Welding the CC license into a viewer there or here doesn't cut it -- that merely enables freebie-giving. It doesn't help the person who wants to sell their goods and NOT have them copied. It merely spreads the wacky, useless, non-paying CC kudzu.

D. Even if tomorrow, a flag was added to object menus, and somebody finally knuckled and tried to engineer in obfuscation, there's the very real problem of opensimulator being a world of communist glory -- no economy. What's the plan for having that flag recognized among the comrades? How will people get paid? In Adambucks? Seriously, *why isn't that stuff put in first, and then the teleporting put in?*

Finally, the boilerplate kissoff: "We recognize that intellectual property is the engine that drives Second Life, and we are completely committed to preserving the qualities that make Second Life the unique, innovative and dynamic place that it is today."

Recognize...but we have no plan, no group, no wiki, nothing. If you care, go to Zero's office hours.

Bleak advice indeed. So tune in there, and see the awfulness of his thinking.

Note how all through this hour, people assail him with ideas or concerned queries. Someone wants to use a keys system for encryption. No comment from Zero. Instead, the usual transhumanist freetards like Morgaine Dinova shoot down such solutions as the Lindens' bulldogs -- and we're five seconds away from somebody screaming "RIAA" or "Disney" and shutting down debate.

At one point, when asked to consider what we might be facing in these other worlds, Zero comes up with an absolute gem:

"Again - people- no philosophizing on what you think an open grid will do the world because - really - no one here *knows*".

Well, we can guess. It can do to the world what is already being done by exploits and thieves and griefers: destroy its value. So why can't we ask some hard questions about this, Zero?

Trinity Coulter -- she of the former SL5B leadership glory cast down into Linden disfavour -- asks "why do this at all?" and gets batted away. We're beyond that now, definitely. LL doesn't ask why do it; they don't even ask "why not do it" and listen; they are doing it. It's too late.

Zero explains that building in what I always found curious -- you can't have no-transfer AND no copy -- isn't a technical issue but a political decision (I thought as much). "there is a bit of a balance in the design of those bits between the desires of the creators and the desires of the content owners for example, you *can't* be both no-copy and no-transfer.

(Of course, as I've explained elsewhere, you want to be able to copy that which you can't transfer or sell or even return to show it's broken! -- prefabs are a good example.)

Zero now performs a really deadly sleight of hand, so pay attention very, very closely, because this is where the intellectual argumentation is being unveiled to undo the permissions system COMPLETELY -- KNOCK IT OUT -- and replace it with something retarded like Creative Commons. Watch:

"These bits essentially enforce part of a contract, or common assumption, between two parties in the transfer."

Lots of objections.

Then, "Actually, let's not get into the specifics of the current or the future system," says Zero. since - we have bigger fish to fry before we get to this bit or that bit. Right now - the system depends on LL, who runs all the servers, to honor the bits and implement the permission. The permission system is only part --- no the be all and end all --- of the agreement. There is no way we can mechanically implement every possible intension [sic]."

See how this is going to work? It's incredibly devious and cynical. Let's go over it.

The system depends on LL now -- hey, we have a system that depends on LL, but other people are now going to be called upon to uphold it, so we may have to scrap that system and re-do it (preparing the groundwork.

Linden Lab has bigger fish to fry now and not just this or that piece of the permissions system -- it has to build the open architecture. "Honoring the bits" means having a system that mechanically prevents copy/modify/no transfer. That is "implementing the permission".

BUT -- wait for it! here it comes!

"There is no way we can mechanically implement every possible intension [sic]."

What he does with this line is lay the groundwork for implying that because there is now going to be "such an infinite number of bits" Linden Lab can't possibly undertake the implementation anymore.

Watch for them to scrap copy/mod/transfer and put in CC or a gaggle of alphabet soups of licenses and tell everybody to wing it with a prayer -- you heard it here first. All the ideological groundwork is being laid.

This cunning reversal on LL's "implementation" claims that there will be this plethora of intentions (false). Like, "copy this just in newbie sandboxes" or "don't copy this unless you are an educational sim" or "this is free for SL but not free for other weird places".

And gosh, when people sound like they're going to get persnickety and not let their stuff go, and not be *cooperative*, why they seem silly. They seem like they have UNREASONABLE REQUESTS. They sound FICKLE and FUSSY.

Wow. We went from a simple copy/mod/transfer to suddenly this "confusing infinite number that LL can't possibly undertake."

What he's saying is LINDEN LAB CANNOT POSSIBLY UNDERTAKE TO PROTECT AND IMPLEMENT YOUR PERMISSIONS BECAUSE WE THINK YOU WILL BE TOO DEMANDING OR HAVE TOO MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF REQUESTS SO WE'RE SCRAPPING THE WHOLE THING.

Look, we're very, very FAR away from Hamilton Linden's carefully-modulated claim that "Linden Lab will not design a system that lets people openly violate the permissions of SL goods and take them to other worlds."

Precisely. They may have to undo a system they already designed and gut it and kill it because Zero says it is "too complex". They may design a new one that only contains CC tabs and say that *is* protective. They may do nothing.

"We all commonly understand the implied license in the act of, say, buying a cup of coffee. we don't need to read one, or review the license -- we just do it. if I share the drink with a friend --- I'd be outraged if the cafe owner walked over and said "NO SHARING". there is a common understanding. Well - there is also a common understanding on what "bottomless" drinks mean too -- there I would expect to not share -- at least excessively."

See how the stage is being set? Of course, a RL consumable you pay for, paying for both commodity and server in one go, is a false analogy to SL, but that doesn't trouble Zero. What he wants everyone to do is to incite themselves and each other into rage about anyone getting in the way of "sharing."

Imagine, you pay a creator, but then later you want to share your shirt -- how dare they come over and say NO SHARING!. Well, ok, maybe they can say don't share with the entire world, but surely they can stomach me sharing around a few copies!

See, that's how Zero thinks. Creators are an engineer's obstacle. They need to get gone.

And here comes the clincher -- and utterly absurd "hat" example that is sure to show just how evil and ornery content creators are -- coming out of an earlier suggestion from a resident that perhaps a script could go into an object to further enforce permissions in some way. Zero replies emphatically:

"So - for example - I don't think it is fair, or open, to allow the creator to put a script in the object that enforces what they think is a reasonable permissions. It isn't open or transparent what happens if the script has a case that says if I say a curse word while wearing this hat it will delete itself. 'cause the creator thinks people shouldn't swear while wearing their goods?

Absurd, eh? But what if the script in fact merely detected it was...no longer on SL's servers. Gosh nobody is for boobytrapping objects, that's absurd, and not even practical. But...if LL isn't going to protect IP, how WILL it be?

In fact, though he might not admit it (usually copyleftist freetards are against the reselling of freebies -- the two ideologies go together), this "hat" example is a perfect case of what people do when they say "don't resell my freebie". They are setting an extra-permissions condition -- it's like an exploding hat. They want to use public censure as the explosive device. It isn't fair or transparent, because there is no way to indicate it -- if it is written, it can be erased. They are hoping that the explosive put in to go off on forums or websites or somehow that people will "just get it" (that's what Zero hopes) will lead people never to sell freebies and shun those who do.

Someone named MarillaAnne Slade struggles to counter this idiocy -- somebody who apparently actually creates things and has a store, and says: "You are also going for worse case scenarios that are ridiculous and can't even be accomplsihed!!!"

Because she's right. Nobody can make a hat that explodes if you resell it when it was marked "copy". So Zero is being utterly manipulative here.

This isn't a meeting where people like MarillaAnne Slade are supposed to be talking and getting a hearing, however!

And Zero makes it all so simple! "Okay - so my point is not philisophical - just that we must take it as a given that permission system can't implement every possible system."

In other words, this is -- again -- very, very far from:

"Linden Lab will not design a system that lets people openly violate the permissions of SL goods and take them to other worlds."

Because, what Zero is telling us is that he won't port the existing permission system to other grids -- it's too complicated. Too many configurations. Not enough clarity. And...LL will design some new thing that "won't allow violation" but "doesn't ensure implementation".

We have moved from the era when LL was willing to enforce permissions with implementation in tools, when LL did this while they needed to finance their early years. But now they are dumping that, and moving to an era where they "won't allow violation" meaning simply that they will cooperate with DMCA notices delivered by RL lawyers.

See how this is going to work?

But wait, there's more! Says Zero:

"I've heard people suggest that keeping the current system and adding "limit to gird that it was created on" is a reasonable option. I've heard others suggest a check list of grids. I want to ask - does it make sense to allow the creator to set the list -- or does the buyer get any input?"

See where *that* one is going?!

Keeping the current system and adding "limit to this grid" or adding lists even of specific grids or "only to trustworthy grids" -- this is a rough consensus now even by people who are freaks on the JIRA -- because frankly, some of them do make content.

Now Zero is ready to undermine that, and he sets the stage -- in the form of a question, making it seem like "the public asked it".

Gosh, why have that pesky creator set the list! Shouldn't the buyer get any input! That buyer feels he's ripped off unless he can port that item to other grids!

See how it works?

He next opens up the door to incite boycott of pesky creators who won't check off "take with you to other grids and I don't care what happens" (remember, we're not supposed to "philosophize" about what happens there.

"I like how BlueWall stated it: "if an object is clearly marked with the permissions, then the buyer votes with his/her purchase - or not"," says Zero.

Yeah, right. Splendid idea.

Tessa Harrington struggles to get the Lindens to answer the clear question of why they can't accept a key encryption system, and Zero, instead of saying "We will never do that due to our copyleftist netroots" tries to put Tessa on the spot, demanding that she come up with a three-sentence example on the spot. "Uhm...wait" he says with all the snarkiness implied.

The peanut gallery cackles and groans and face-palms with all the predictable reactions to DRM.

So the answer HOW, which is asked in the FAQS but not answered in the FAQs works like this:

"Linden Lab will not design a system that lets people openly violate the permissions of SL goods and take them to other worlds."

How? It will not be by DRM. It will not be by implementing the existing permissions system with ad ons. It wll not enforce "quirky and capricious desires of creators" not to have their goods used in certain ways through engineering enforcement.

It will just...do a blog post. And call it a day. As Joshua Nightshade suggested on the JIRA. Tell people to be good.

And -- here it comes -- wait for it:

The Freetard Republic National Anthem, sung by Zero:

"I agree that the web has done staggeringly well without any permissions systems whatsoever. The difference is that most content on the web is beging given away free, though there is the implied contract that limits reuse"

I'm going to just *blink* and leave the reader to ponder that one.

Zero concedes that in SL, unlike the fake CC monoverse that he apparently inhabits, people are selling content, so "we have a different set of issues".

I'll say!

"Alas, that is something we have to contend with: RL legal systems aren't yet ready to handle virtual worlds" -- again, complexifying what is a dirt-simple little brilliant thing, called "copy/mod/transfer" as if there is something hugely expensive and complicated that only lawyers, not yet ready for VWS, can parse.

Why would people go on creating in a system where the permissions are crumbling, not because of exploits and thieves, but because it's makers have talked themselves out of caring about implementation?

And...read some of the other ensuing office hour transcripts to learn the script kiddies hacking away at the TOS, and pressuring LL to change it because of seemingly insurmountable "contradictions" that seem to imply LL has copyright and not residents.

This is why I pointedly complained about this meeting in the Metanomics group, and this is where I got to see Zha's true colours.

He said he could swear that Second Life Inventory poses no copyright theft problems.

That's like swearing that SL itself doesn't pose any copyright theft problems.

He said that they didn't take any inventory when leaving SL and going to opensim. I argued with all of them on this, because it's clear to me that this isn't a technical obstacle but merely a political/moral inhibitation, and frankly, that's not something I trust them to recognize as a continued barrier, for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which is their arrogant high-handed approach to this entire issue.

Zha asks me snarkily if I am a coder, indicating that if I am not a software engineer, I don't get to decide this. This is totally low for IBM to be doing this. It implies that society's issues cannot involve "lay people" unversed in computer science. That Oppenheimer just gets to make the bomb -- for whomever -- and nobody can complain.

Here's some of the chat in the Metanomics groups -- that Saijanai constantly turns into an extension of AWGroupies:

Alaya Kumaki: sanjai can i ask u in what context someone inventory content would be taken out of it prims on island ? whas that having to do with the content rules and tos right now?
Saijanai Kuhn: well, right now, the only way to do it is with a 3rd part application like Second Inventory. Eventually, they will create a new permissions system that will work with "trusted" grids to allow items to be taken to another grid by copying it from one asset server tothe other
Prokofy Neva: "they"?
Saijanai Kuhn: if the grid isn't part of hte "trusted" system of grids, the asset server won't copy assets.
Saijanai Kuhn: They being Stuido Icehouse of LIden Lab
Alaya Kumaki: ty
Steveo Rhiano: hi Alya
Steveo Rhiano: alaya
Alaya Kumaki: :)
Prokofy Neva: it's good that you are admitting that what your priority and "theirs" is, is copying assets from one grid to another, and what matters is whether you and "they" like that grid and "trust" it by its lights, and not whether our assets in fact need to be copied, want to be copied, should be copied.
Saijanai Kuhn: the details are being worked out. There will b quite a few public meetings about this. Zero will appear on MEtanomics sometime after he gets back from vacation for example
Prokofy Neva: And BTW, Saijanai, I never saw a more fake thing then that office hour with 80 people, 78 of whom were JIRA regulars and none of whom were major content creators inSL outside the little JIRA magic circle
Prokofy Neva: Public means you and your friends.
Saijanai Kuhn: Prokofy I didn't say that assets WOULD be copied, only that they would not be.
Prokofy Neva: thecommunity
Prokofy Neva: here's what you said: Eventually, they will create a new permissions system that will work with "trusted" grids to allow items to be taken to another grid by copying it from one asset server tothe other
Prokofy Neva: then -0- as always!!! -- here's what you tacked on:
Saijanai Kuhn: it is far, FAR easier to not allow aset servers to talk to each other than to figure out when they should talk to each other
Prokofy Neva: if the grid isn't part of hte "trusted" system of grids, the asset server won't copy assets.
Prokofy Neva: Saijanai, if that's true, you start by first working out how NOT to copy it
Prokofy Neva: THEN engineer interoperability
Prokofy Neva: you are doing it in reverse
Prokofy Neva: and no accident, comrade, given that you are all reverse engineers
Saijanai Kuhn: Er, prokofy, assets can't be copied right now. DIdin't you get the memo from torley
Prokofy Neva: They sure can
Zha Ewry: Prok, you base this on your software engineering expertise?
Prokofy Neva: What do you call what is in Central Grid, chopped liver?
Saijanai Kuhn: not during the TP that Zha and Tess demoed
Prokofy Neva: No, I base it on your vast retail and business management experience, Zha *cough*
Amelia Daffodil quietly closes the window that should be in private chat
Prokofy Neva: So what? SO WHAT if your little interop hop didn't copy stuff
Prokofy Neva: but Joshua and every other script kiddie is out there using Second Inventory
Saijanai Kuhn: Prokofy hw do you suggest thatLL prevent assets from being copied by hand?
Prokofy Neva: you want to swear to me that has no holes in it?
Zha Ewry: Prok?
Prokofy Neva: By obfuscation, Saijanai, we've been over this
Zha Ewry: I will gladly
Zha Ewry: Acutally, if you could read source code, you could tell fdor yourself
Prokofy Neva: So uh, Zha, glad to hear that you think only people who can "read source code" like code MONKEYS should get to decide what happens to THEIR assets?
Prokofy Neva: glad to hear that come out in the open
Zha Ewry: No, but you act as if you get to decide, which is just as offensive
Prokofy Neva: If these things have no holes, then, gosh, let's rely on the fabulous permissions system in open simulator to carry the day -- NOT
Prokofy Neva: I do get to decide.
Prokofy Neva: Not you.
Mystical Demina: not sure about this whole copy model, instance if i am a corporation with a grid, not sure i want to let peolpe bring stuff randonly into my grid.
Prokofy Neva: I do, and everybody else who makes stuff or adds to assets
Prokofy Neva: you are garage mechanics
Mystical Demina: also seems like the will be content servers, that can feed many grids
Prokofy Neva: I DO sure as hell get to decide, along with anyone else who has a stake, Zha
Zha Ewry closes the window and hopes that the mechanics keep Prokofy from crashing, or that he does it on his own
Prokofy Neva: Does IBM pay as much tier as some of us do???
Prokofy Neva: I'm glad we're getting exposure to your real attitudes Zha, it's helpful
Prokofy Neva: 1. Unless you code you cannot rule the world.
Prokofy Neva: 2. If you have any opinions or stake in how you think the world should run, shut up, learn to code, or go away, you can't rule the world and if you do, Zha will say "You are trying to rule the world".
Prokofy Neva: just so we're clear on how it works
Saijanai Kuhn admires how Prokofy can manage to twist words to suit his own misperception of reality
Prokofy Neva: No, I think it's pretty much what you really think, and are poor at disguising it
Jane2 McMahon: wooo prok, you must be saying something of import!
Differ Darwin: and confuses the bystanders. I have no idea what this is about anymore.
Saijanai Kuhn: neither odes Prokofy
Prokofy Neva: Saijania's office hour thing was as fake as the day as long, good lord, no body but the lifers showed up
Quinn Houston: lol
Differ Darwin: oh
Prokofy Neva: and now we can have another fake "public triage" -- two lies in two words
Saijanai Kuhn: yeah, teh fact I spammed it to 2 jiras, the forums, a dozen or two different groups, 4-5 times before the meeting started, made sure that no-one knew about it
Saijanai Kuhn: the fact that Zero has agreed to come on Metanomics to talk about it is a sure sign that the LIndens are avoiding the issue
Prokofy Neva: No, it was placed int erms of being wonky, people didn't realize it was about their stuff
Prokofy Neva: that's why
Prokofy Neva: Absolutely -- they are spinnig it MIGHTILY by putting it on Metanomics
Prokofy Neva: Do you know why the Ruths didn't take stuff on the interop hop, Saijanai?
Saijanai Kuhn: where would you have them put it, Prokofy?
Prokofy Neva: Do you know why?
Saijanai Kuhn: because the asset servers were not set up to comunicate with each other , Prokofy
Prokofy Neva: No, Saijanai, that's not the reason
Prokofy Neva: it's not because they couldn't
Saijanai Kuhn: ah.,. you have a more fundamental reason?
Prokofy Neva: they could set it up to do it in a jiffy and you know that full well
Prokofy Neva: they didn't to avoid controversy, and to make it look clinical and scientific
Prokofy Neva: they could do it tomorrow if they wished
Prokofy Neva: they don't to avoid the appearance of not caring, even though of course they deeply DO NOT care
Saijanai Kuhn hands Prokofy a dictionary: "were not" is not he same as "could not"
Prokofy Neva: Saijanai
Prokofy Neva: that's just what I said
Prokofy Neva: they could have -- it isn't that they CANNOT but they DID NOT for POLITICAL REASONS
Saijanai Kuhn: [19:30] Saijanai Kuhn: because the asset servers were not set up to comunicate with each other , Prokofy
Prokofy Neva: NOT SET UP BUT COULD BE AT ANY SECOND, DUH, NOT MECHANICAL REASON WHY THEY COULD NOT BE
Prokofy Neva: THEY COULD FLUSH ALL OF SECOND LIFE TO CHINA AND YOU KNOW THAT
Saijanai Kuhn: I didn't coment on that. I don't believe that you are correct, but even if you are, the fact is, they did not
Prokofy Neva: click < send
Prokofy Neva: did not, but could
Bjerkel Eerie: curiouser and courioser, how do you "deeply not care"?
Prokofy Neva: and that's not good enough for me, seeing as how Zha, who I thought better of, is able to say "Do you know how to code? Then shut up>"
Saijanai Kuhn: did not. Zha said "could not" several times in Grouipes chat, but perhaps she is lying
Prokofy Neva: Lindens are good at that Bjerkel
Prokofy Neva: Zha's "could not" is a very, very VERY slender reed upon which the content and economy is resting
Differ Darwin: So is this now about IP concerns?
Prokofy Neva: and I'm sorry, but Zha's slender reed is not something I trust
Saijanai Kuhn: you see, Zha spent a good bit of her time a few weeks ago modifying the OPenSim code to be compatible with the new protocols that LInden Lab has set up. There's no protocol estalibshed yet for asset servers from SL talking to OpenSIm, so for Zha to do this on her own, would be quite amazing
Saijanai Kuhn: possible, but she said she did not
Prokofy Neva: I'm sure it won't be a problem for the very talented Zha to code up something to flush SL into opensimulator or Yonkers, NY, wherever
Saijanai Kuhn: actually, not even possible, unless LL gave her the asset server code to look at in the first place
Prokofy Neva: IBM is big; LL is small
Prokofy Neva: I'lll bet she's had a good gander
Prokofy Neva: The Lindens are promiscuous with their code
Bjerkel Eerie: that is why it has aids
Saijanai Kuhn: heh. Zha refuses to even look at the viewer code because it is GPLed, which IBM lawyers forbid IBM employees to have anything to do iwth
Wiz Nordberg: opensim is bsd right?
Saijanai Kuhn: but libsecond life and OpenSIM are BSD licensed so Zha CAN look at that
Prokofy Neva:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._IBM
Wiz Nordberg: there ya go :)
Sierra Janus: lol now SCO? I feel that Godwins law will soon be invoked...
Saijanai Kuhn: in fact, I've been Zha's clean room partner on understanding how the current protocols work. I tear my hair out and go bald, and Zha gets to read what I've learned
Prokofy Neva: Maybe they'll give you a job at IBM then
Latha Serevi: The SCO case is an example of honest rights-holders being trampled by IBM's lawyers. I can see why Prok brought it up.
Saijanai Kuhn has a 2-year degree. Zha's cowrkers all have PHD's
Prokofy Neva: so Wiz that's how it works: first libsl and opensim reverse engineer the code, license it under BSD, then Zha can look at it, walla
Rose Springvale: wasp
Rose Springvale: click the 2 and teleport
Prokofy Neva: actually that wasn't the best case I was looking for there's another one where IBM employees are instructed in fact to violate their procedures privately, they do so, then they get hung out to dry by IBM later
Differ Darwin: nah. That brings the class action lawyers in to the game.
JenzZa Misfit: ....... Wiz Nordberg !! ??
Saijanai Kuhn wanders off ot get something to eat

Comments

[Robert Bloomfield]

You seem very concerned with the possibility that someone might infringe on a resident's IP rights over content they created, and you take Linden Lab and IBM to task for not making such infringement difficult. But weaknesses in this 'code as law' approach (which there will always be) can at least be remedied by bringing in the lawyers, and suing the pants off the infringers.

I encourage you to focus more on a much more disturbing possibility--that Linden Lab may take the position that the content creator does not even have the right to take his or her own property to a server not controlled by Linden Lab.

Look at the terms of service, esp. parts 3.2-3.4. Note that you have IP over your goods "within the service" according to 3.2, and --the scary part--look at the word "only" (my caps) in 3.4:

***
"3.4 Linden Lab licenses its textures and environmental content to you for your use in creating content in-world.

During any period in which your Account is active and in good standing, Linden Lab gives you permission to create still and/or moving media, for use ONLY within the virtual world environment of the Service ("in-world"), which use or include the "textures" and/or "environmental content" that are both (a) created or owned by Linden Lab and (b) displayed by Linden Lab in-world."
***

So, if you take a picture of something you made in SL, you do not have the right to show it on NBC. If you make a shoe in SL, why should you be able to take it to an OpenSim world?

Maybe LL won't be able to defend this position, but if they can, this seems like a far more serious problem for content creators than that someone else might illegally copy their goods into another world.

Zha will be making a brief appearance at the beginning of Metanomics on Monday the 14th to talk about his teleport. Maybe I'll ask "Zha, did you arrive into that OpenSim world with no assets because you couldn't get them in, or because Linden Lab wouldn't let you take them out?"

[Ann Otoole]

Other people already hold patents on 3D virtual worlds anyway. It is only a matter of time before humpty dumpty falls. Linden Lab is pushing as hard as they can to toss 3D virtual worlds out the door and cleanse themselves of it and will try to be a data service provider instead of the owner of a virtual world. (With a track record of LL's handling of transactions and inventory assets how can anyone not want them handling theirs?)

It is all moot. Enjoy it while it lasts because it has an early expiration date.

As for licensing I'll say it again. Linden Lab cannot facilitate the transfer of IP they do not own out of Secondlife. The TOS is specific to Secondlife. Linden Lab has not been granted a blanket license to port content they do not own outside the realm of Secondlife. And if they do then it is a matter of time before the lawyers are cleaning their bones. I don't think Linden Lab is really that stupid. However they are a bunch of unmanaged tekkies and do not follow the proven principles of requirements first then code. Linden Lab has a bunch of guys that like to make prototype technology demonstrators and then call it production because that whole thing about those stuffy requirements and laws make coding so unfun.

So in the end it will be the lawyers that decide the fate of Linden Lab. Anyway Linden Lab belongs to Mitch Kapor and it is his private playground. Mitch will do as he pleases with his laboratory and there is nothing any of us can do or say about it. Besides... We are all a bunch of dumbass retarded misfit social rejects to Mitch Kapor and he is willing to stand there and say it to our faces. (At least he gets some street cred for being willing to say these things to his customer's faces) What more can anyone expect from all of this?

[Troy McLuhan]

I'm both a content creator and a coder, so have a bit of a different perspective.

While I recognize that DRM/perms can often be gotten around, I agree that they do serve a useful purpose and therefore shouldn't be scrapped.

In addition to keeping perms, I'd wish for SL items to clearly state 1) the owners of the associated copyrights (who may be different from the creators), and 2) the licenses between me and the copyright holders.

For 2), any kind of license should be allowed, not just Creative Commons licenses or some Bettina-Tizzy-approved list of possible licenses.

Incidentally, it's pretty easy to make a no-perms object. For example, if you put a no-modify/no-copy notecard inside a no-modify/no-trans prim, the overall object will be no-perms (no-modify/no-copy/no-trans) and the next owner can't delete the notecard from its contents.

[Cocoanut Koala]

Well, I said on the blog I would hold them to it. Doesn't mean they will actually do it.

coco

[Prokofy Neva]

Robert,

Zha will likely duck such a question, which isn't really how it should be worded, because he will say that he simply didn't take anything himself. SHE didn't try. And we are to trust the impeccably righteous personality of Zha in this.

Linden will say they didn't permit this -- but of course, there is nothing to stop them from changing the setttings. THEY CAN change the settings -- when they say the next grid is trustworthy.

What you're failing to grasp by refusing to look at the very simple issue here is that the Lindens are dumping their enforced permissions regime. They are not identifying another, new grid that reverse-engineered them as automatically untrustworthy on that fact alone; and even aside from that, the fact that OpenSimulator has no permissions system in it to even reflect those set in SL doesn't phaze them. THAT ALONE should be a red flag dubbing it "untrustworthy" but that's not what the Lindens mean by "untrustworthy".

Therefore Zha can lightly answer "NO" to this question and yet essentially be ducking the real questions, which have to be phrased as followed:

1. Will Linden Lab ENFORCE its current permissions regime of no mod/no copy/no transfer by declaring other grids that do not signify and respect these same permissions as "untrustworthy"?

2. Is Linden Lab able to shut off mod/no copy/no transfer permissions within its grid globally and make a decision to default all content as portable?

3. What prevents other grids, once trusted, from being able to access global permissions and shut them off or nullify them?

4. Is Linden Lab only going to focus on how merchants can distribute freely with full perms with gimmicks like Creative Commons license? Or is it going to focus on how it can protect IP through existing tools?

5. If not, is Linden Lab utterly repudiating then the enforcement of permissions implied in its tool-based implementation of inteded permissions currently operating, albeit with exploits and flaws, in SL? What is its technical position and legal position in this regard?

You are completely muddying the waters and trying to use copyleftist incitement, Robert, by raising this utterly false spectre, that will never be the case and is not the case now in all design documents and statements from the Lab, to the effect that "no content can leave the server".

By fanning the flames of that completely false and non-indicated, you are merely helping the copyleftists to say, "OMG, SL is such a walled garden, it won't even let merchants port their merchandise created in SL and sold there to be sold or given away elsewhere, aren't they cruel."

This is bullshit of course, as they do not say anything of the kind. And anything that even appears to hint at anything of the kind, why, they are under pressure to change immediately by serial-stalker and griefer and forums manipulator creep Joshua Nightshade or teenaqe autistic liberation front freedom-fighter Gareth Nelson. SO I'm sure you can count on the TOS being cleaned up to spec.

And Robert, I hope you are a better accountant than you are a lawyer. Because any careful reader can understand what this means: "its textures and environmental content". That means ITS textures -- textures that Linden Lab staff themselves make, i.e. for the ground. "Environmental content" means SL trees, sun, etc.

It doesn't mean "your textures you make with our tools".

As for their clawback on machinima, I think all you have to show there is their non-enforcement of any strict interpretation of this for five years on the gadzillion blogs and YouTubes and whatnot with a trillion screenshots and machinimas, and that will end that.

Also, again, the construction seems to be narrow -- Linden Lab's own created textures: "which use or include the "textures" and/or "environmental content" that are both (a) created or owned by Linden Lab and (b) displayed by Linden Lab in-world."

If "displayed by Linden Lab" means "the entire world because we stream that world" then they're awfully late in enforcing this and that will go badly for them.

No, the real disturbing stuff here is the stark undermining of DRM by Linden Lab.

Linden Lab, even being a hippie dope-smoking commune, at least put in DRM of sorts in the tools. Now they want to deprecate that and roll it back. There is nothing wrong with DRM. It is not evil. It is not "RIAA and Disney". It's good. It is what holds the economy together.

Nobody thinks of copy/mod/transfer limitations in SL that physically prevent copying and moving as "like DRM". Yet it is. And that's a good thing. The Lindens will fill in those dots, make the linkage counting on thecommunity's hatred of DRM, and stop worrying about the resident's economy.

Remember the other piece of what they are planning: the certified merchants. That way they will create a very feted class of people they recognize as non-thiefs but also of people they are willing to go to bat for if they are subject to theft. These people will then rule the economy, something they've long sought to do, with the Good-Housekeeping Seal.

[fword utorid]

words.

computer based copy protection was tried in the 80s on every system from the commodore 64 to the Nintendo Entertainment System.

legal based copy protection is solely used to sue unsuspecting teenage mothers into debt because they downloaded an mp3 off the internet instead of waiting to record it off the radio.

My advice to you is to assume both of these are things of the distant past. Digital media IS copiable and SHOULD BE copiable. Copyright and patents are there to keep your heart medication at $100 per pill.

The Good-Housekeeping Seal and all remnants of the past should be set on fire.

Get to work on better solar powered vehicles, the cure for cancer, and things that actually have value to a world of sick, hungry, overworked people, instead of pretend triangle configurations that boost your ego and do no one any good.

you type too much.

[Prokofy Neva]

Did you cure cancer yet today Fword, or were you too busy blathering on forums comment sections and JIRAs?

[Lidiya Martynov]

A nice bit of PR bullshitting from the labs there - but ofcourse they know that there's absolutely no way whatsoever that they can have interoperability between their grid and those owned by other parties, without the permissions system becoming utterly useless.

The day interoperability arrives will be the day that it becomes absolutely effortless to full-perm everything in your entire inventory.

[Yumi Murakami]

Robert, that bit from the TOS only applies to the textures that the Lindens provide, in the Library and in the Bazaar/Newbie Store. Basically it says you can use them to make things in SL but you can't save them to disk and use them in 3D art for your game you're writing.

I think that we need to be careful about talking about content theft via OpenSims. The reason is because, all content can already be stolen through the client anyway - except scripts. An OpenSim could potentially steal scripted objects, which is a worry. But I would think that theft through the client, which is far more common, should be a bigger concern because it's happening right now, and if a method can be found to prevent it, the same method can probably be used on OpenSims too.

[Gareth Nelson]

"teenaqe autistic liberation front freedom-fighter Gareth Nelson"

lol (hint: i'm not a teen)

As to DRM:
I think what fword has just been grasping at is the concept of artificial scarcity. Basically, in RL you can't copy objects (yet, give it a century or 2 and try again) because they're limited by the laws of physics. In virtual worlds or when dealing with other media you can produce infinite copies of something without actually taking away resources from the creator. DRM when used to prevent this is creating an artificial scarcity which will almost inevitably end.

The question that comes next of course is: "is it ethical for such an artificial scarcity to be enforced?"

Now, we can answer that looking at the main schools of thought on ethics and morality quite easily.

The altruist/egalitarian systems advocated by many major world religions often tend to promote helping one's neighbour and performing charitable work. Within this school of thought, we are taught to give of ourselves and help others and not to take from them. We are especially encouraged to give where there is no cost to ourselves and in some religions usury is a sin. (for christianity see Exodus 22:25-27).

However, it can be said that regardless of artificial scarcity, to lie and take credit for other's work is sinful in many religions too.

We then look at more modern schools of thought, and here the works of Nietzsche , Ayn Rand or Anton LaVey come to mind.

Nietzsche of course ultimately held that all values must be re-evaluated on the way to the uber-mensche (I won't go into the massively complex detail behind these concepts) in a process known as "the transvaluation of all values". These new values must be based upon a love of this world and no other based on this world and not platonic idealism, other worldiness and similar beliefs. Now, if we consider that artificial scarcity is precisely that - artificial - we can also safely go on to say that ultimately enforcing it is pointless. Inevitably DRM systems will be broken, copyright laws altered, loopholes found and artificial scarcity in creative content will fade. You can delay this process, but you cannot defeat it. The answer, if one is to hold one's values in this world rather than the delusions of having moral rights in one's work or the greater delusions that artificial scarcity will be maintained forever, is to create new values which reject the copying as "evil" or "criminal".

For all who would copy your work they fall into 3 camps: creative, plagiarist and neutral. Creative individuals will most likely improve the overall results greater than you yourself if enough of them are allowed to do so. Plagiarists are generally scum and parasites - these are the ones who will copy your work, slap their name on it and pass it off as their own. Then there's the neutral ones who are most likely fans of your work - these are for example the ones who will download mp3s of their favourite music.

(bear with me here)

If we now look at good old Ayn Rand, we can find something that Rand herself would almost certainly disagree with but which makes sense as a logical extension of her philosophy. Essentially, by granting an enforced monopoly on production of certain works to private parties (both individuals and companies) via existing copyright law, the government is impeding innovation and progress and impeding competition in the free market eventually.

If you can't figure out how DRM restricts the free market, here's an example:

"OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market."
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html
http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/11/0153247&mode=thread

Now, microsoft in particular the US government did start antitrust proceedings against:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2600/2613toc_htm.htm

But they're still corrupting standards bodies to get their patented stuff spread and thus locking out the rest of the free market:
http://www.noooxml.org/

And now, we get back to SL...

As someone who owns a competitor to SL myself, I can say that any kind of DRM which prevents people from easily leaving SL and coming over to my alternative is directly impacting upon competition in the market place. I can also say that anyone who takes my code and locks it away is doing likewise but also taking away more and effectively exploiting my labour.

While I wish copyright law was different from what it is, I have to put up with it and abide by it. In a perfect world copyright law would not be used to enforce artificial scarcity but would enable authors of creative works to be credited for them and contract law would still enable intellectual workers to be paid for their efforts (i.e if they produce work for hire).

[Gareth Nelson]

Also, I have to laugh hard at this:
Latha Serevi: The SCO case is an example of honest rights-holders being trampled by IBM's lawyers. I can see why Prok brought it up.

In the SCO case SCO were the malacious party:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sco/sco-v-ibm.html
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031222174158852
http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html

IBMs lawyers were simply defending themselves, Red Hat (a big linux distributor) actually filed suit against SCO for what amounted to fraud:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_v._SCO

[Prokofy Neva]

A little knowledge is a danger thing; a college education with peers can help to take the sharp edges off literalism and the stupidity that comes with it.

The lawsuit was cited merely as an example of how IBM can find itself in lawsuits. There was actually a btter one more illustrative of the point but I couldn't find it. The point about SCO is merely this: IBM has lawsuits, and they can hang people out to dry and people will differ about who is in the right.

We left Ayn Rand behind in the last century, most of us, if we ever picked her up. To continue to invoke her is some sort of wikian retardation as she never had any significant following.

Copyright does not hamper innovation; it protects it and makes it able to be sold so that innovators can get paid. This religious belief of copyleftism to the contrary is very infantile and destructive, but eventually, like eunuchs, some zealots die out, because they can't survive.

There is a silly neo-communist movement that claims that by endlessly contributing to the collective and making collective work produts or community goodfeel and groupthink that you will advance yourself and...somebody will pay you. Other than your Mom, the Government, or your Big IT Corp I can't imagine who that will be. Not real customers, who usually back off from such hippie goo pretty quickly.

[Gareth Nelson]

"Copyright does not hamper innovation; it protects it and makes it able to be sold so that innovators can get paid."

Re-read my comment above, software patents and copyright are both extensively abused to hold back innovation.

[Prokofy Neva]

I notice you took of "age 19" from your profile, Gareth. Turn 20, did you? Put down the red bull.

You are not tethered to reality. People make and sell patents and trademark copyrighted items all over the world, every day, in every way, like my father, and grandfather, and many people all over the earth working jobs, and supporting families -- unlike you, who sit in your mom's basement, and hack on computers all day.

Write when you get work.

[Sean Williams]

A college education merely teaches you to think inside the box the educators and others want you to think in Prokofy. It is no substitute for personal education and actually thinking on your own.

The practice of dismissing an opinion simply due to age or current work.education status is a foolhardy and quite frankly pompous one.

Under the current copyright system, the first person to jump through the hoops to get their works registered is the one that is given the credit. All too often it is used and abused by companies to get a choke hold on certain technologies so that they can develop it as they see fit .... or stop development in its tracks.

While I agree that the system should remain in place and that it does have its uses, there needs to be a revamp of it to prevent such abuse.

To use a technical example: some time ago, Creative bought out the rights, patents and copyrights of an audio technology made by Aurreal: A3D. This was a direct competitor to their own EAX Shell and CMSS 3D technologies.

They bought A3D and then stopped all development of it.

Had this not happened the A3D technology would have been a very viable alternative to Creative's own setup. Instead they used and abused the system to crush a competitor.

[Gareth Nelson]

"I notice you took of "age 19" from your profile, Gareth. Turn 20, did you? Put down the red bull."

Which profile is this?

"You are not tethered to reality. People make and sell patents and trademark copyrighted items all over the world, every day, in every way, like my father, and grandfather, and many people all over the earth working jobs, and supporting families"

People make and sell patents and trademarks every day - when did I deny this? My problem of course is when they abuse patents or trademarks to restrain innovation and freedom.

"unlike you, who sit in your mom's basement, and hack on computers all day."

I love how you presume to know the details of my personal life. Oddly, my house doesn't seem to look like my parent's basement.

"Write when you get work"
http://mrsun.garethnelson.com/resume.pdf

Write when you know the reality rather than the stereotype in your head

[Tak Naglo]

I have to admit though that I'd never hire anyone with a resume as badly written as this one.
Do they teach in college how to write your resume?
Wife in 2004? Is this a joke? Is this whole resume a joke?
I think pictures of the house come next.

[Gareth Nelson]

"wife in 2004"
It says "I co-founded with my wife in 2004", not "I got married in 2004" as you seem to be suggesting.

And yes, I admit it's not written very well but i'm not actually using it right now. Were I to actually apply for a job right now i'd update it.

Regardless, picking out the errors in my resume is a bit pointless.

[Silenus]

"We left Ayn Rand behind in the last century, most of us, if we ever picked her up. To continue to invoke her is some sort of wikian retardation as she never had any significant following." Tell it to Alan Greenspan and supply-side economists.

Is it just me or is Prokofy Neva the Ayn Rand of the Metaverse? The constant invocations of the Russian Revolution are getting rather tiring.