After the provocation of Rezzable’s announcement that they might release a full sim copying tool for Second Life and the vocal reaction of the community, Linden Lab has released a road map for content protection and permissions and is inviting community feedback.
The reply by the Lab is, to my mind, a stunning articulation of their position on content protection and, while it invites community feedback and has some wiggle room around new options for licenses (the devil will be in the details), I can only loudly applaud their response.
I can now officially retract my previous post where I stated:
“But I’m also a big believer that this should be facilitated within a thoughtful framework of policy, enforcement, communication, code and tools. But Linden Lab continues to place a priority on the tools themselves. The latest permission bug, to my mind, is a bug, sure, but it’s one that arose from a change to the tools without a broader policy context.
The lack of an executive-level response to the Rezzable announcement was again an example of tools trumping policy - and the obfuscation of values in code, as Malaby pointed out.”
Their road map addresses all the things that I feel are critical to facilitating a thoughtful, multi-pronged approach to protecting content, although again, the devil will be in (some of) the details:
Improved Enforcement:
“In response to Resident feedback about the time and effort involved in submitting (DMCA) notifications to us, we’ve been developing an improved process. In the not-too-distant future, intellectual property owners will be able to submit complaints to us electronically through an online form. The form will make it easier for intellectual property owners to submit complaints, and it will help us expedite their processing.”
This is a significant step ahead. While the DMCA process is open to abuse, and the accused doesn’t know who their accuser is, making DMCA filings easier will be a significant improvement.
Better Policies:
The Lab made very clear in this post that tools such as the one proposed by Rezzable are against the TOS:
“As we’ve discussed above, the Second Life “permissions system” does not grant any legal permission to use content outside of Second Life. Even content that is “full permissions” may only be used within Second Life absent a specific license agreement from the intellectual property owner(s) authorizing the content’s use outside of Second Life. Thus, a check that the user is the Second Life “creator” of the content helps protect intellectual property because the “creator” is potentially the intellectual property owner of the content, while a user who is merely the Second Life “owner” of the content is not likely to have permission to use the content outside of Second Life.”
Improved Communication:
Well, this post is a big start. The Lab is “committed to clarifying and updating our policies to promote awareness of intellectual property and protect against infringement. We believe that informative and educational policies often help people do the right thing.”
Improved Licensing
The post also leaves open a discussion on content licensing. With the arrival of Nebraska this fall, there will be content creators who want to sell or transfer content to the ‘private Grids’.
I’ll leave the discussion of what this licensing should look like to a future post, but they’ve hit a few high notes here, in particular the thought that if a content creator provides permission for such transfers, the attribution should remain in the metadata of the content:
“As we develop our stand-alone, behind-the-firewall Second Life solution, we’re aware of the opportunity it presents for talented and entrepreneurial content creators to reach more customers in a broad inter-connected 3D marketplace. To help facilitate this marketplace, we are developing the ability to attach “sticky licenses” to content sold to enterprise customers running a stand-alone version of Second Life. Content with these “sticky licenses” will have additional metadata such that the license information can “stick” to the content as it is distributed to the enterprise customer’s server, and users of the server solution can review the license terms through the Second Life viewer.”
And finally, the Lab is opening up discussion of a Content Seller Program - which makes it clear how critical XLStreet was to the Lab. I’ll leave discussion of that for another time as well.
All in all, the Lab has taken a huge step forward in both articulating how important content protection is, and in explaining how the evolution of the Grid is also opening up new opportunities for content creators.
“The Lab made very clear in this post that tools such as the one proposed by Rezzable are against the TOS” …
Don’t you mean … The lab made very clear in this post that *using* tools such as the one proposed by Rezzable *to move content created by others* is against the TOS? Is the tool itself a violation of the TOS? Or is it a particular use of the tool that is the problem? Nothing in that excerpt suggests that LL has a problem with a content creator using the tool to extract their own creations…
To paraphrase the gun rights activists:
Rezzable’s tools don’t steal content. People steal content.
Jenniver, I’m not sure how they could be more clear when they say:
“As we have said in the past, the use of CopyBot or similar copying tools to infringe others’ intellectual property is a violation of our Terms of Service and may result in suspension or banning of infringers’ Second Life accounts, including any alternate accounts.”
So yes, it is the use of the tools, but they go further and say that the tools themselves need to be developed against standards:
“We are looking for thoughtful ways to balance the tools’ usefulness for intellectual property owners against the potentially bad purposes that they may be put to. We will be listening, watching, and reaching out to members of the community.”
and
“To those developing copying tools, we urge the simultaneous development of standard industry practices that protect against intellectual property infringement.”
Their implication is that following this discussion period, and upon broad agreement of what those standards should be, the Lab will act accordingly to protect IP.
So, they are fairly clearly invoking a move towards regulating, or at least setting standards for the tools themselves.
This idea that “people steal content” is ridiculous. When you are able to place restrictions and guidance on the tools themselves, as the Lab is in a position to do, saying that it’s not the tools that are the problem but the people using them is erroneous.
Yes, it’s people who copy the content. But providing them with the tools to do so easily means that more people will find it easier to copy more content. When you can put barriers in place, why wouldn’t you? Those barriers can be standards, enforcement, policy, and technology.
Having said that, I agree that content creators should be able to extract and back-up their own content and I didn’t imply or state anywhere that this shouldn’t be the case.
The Lab made clear that the tool Rezzable proposed WAS against the TOS because they made clear that copying others’ content (not your own) is against the TOS without a system and documentation of licensing; they made clear that the tools need to be released against standards that reflect this; and that copying others’ content IS stealing and is punishable.
Rezzable, of course, decided NOT to release a “full sim, everyone’s content can get vacuumed up” tool, and if they have perm checks in place then more power to content creators.
Ditto.
I think I am among the minority of SL Residents who actually has a lot of faith in Linden Lab at least always trying to do the right thing, as long as it maintains or improves their own mission and business prospects. It doesn’t mean I always agree and that I am never frustrated with anything they say or do, but I do understand 95% of all they say or do (the ‘gaming’ ban is still an area I wish they would revisit, but suspect it has more to do with script usage and agent limits on sims than anything moral or otherwise.)
I have said many times that I believe Linden Lab hears us and they really do react. Sometimes it is simple miscommunication, such as the removal from search results for those running “traffic bots” or “camping systems” - *not* any other kind of ‘ban’ or other ‘disciplinary’ action, which people complain, whine and get all in a tizzy about.
Sometimes it is outright mistakes, albeit genuine mistakes, such as the original introduction of “Openspace” sim availably to the public at large. (Can you say “New Coke”?) - Jack and Linden Lab should have created the “Homestead” variety first or at least roll-out such a product incerementally, slowly, see what the result it and then adjust availablity accordingly.
And then sometimes outright stupidly, dumfoundedly wrong, such as the raising of tiers on these Openspace sims by drastic amounts; rather than simply placing the restrictions (scripts and agent count) first; then raising tier through attrition, or the one-day deadline to eliminate any and all “games of chance” rather than do as they did when they eliminated “return-based investments” with a 90-day ‘ramp-down’ window.
All in all, I believe those in the wheelhouse of Linden Lab are genuinely trying to do right in such a way as to benefit the Second Life community *as a whole* - because that is where their business lies. They tried the hands-off routine. The beginning of the end of that, where their hand was forced to begin adding to policy, I believe, was during the “age-play’ fiasco and that German “news” orginazation (which really wasn’t - it’s a tabloid) and Linden lab *tried* to remain hands-off and allow the circuis to right itself.
But now, Linden Lab, because of certain events, the loudest ‘whiners’ and business plan adoptions and corrections must now begin ’steering’ or ‘directing’ the way residents act and police activities where the self-policing just didn’t work, or didn’t work well or fast enough.
I’ve written my own response to this “I.P. Roadmap” at Common Sensible (will publish Thursday morning) and proclaim this roadmap is just that: a ‘map’ and we don’t know how close to the stated intentions they will be able to remain. At least their intentions are in the right place.
But in the end, I really do believe Linden Lab and it’s employees are genuinely trying to ‘do right by the residents’.
Please allow me to stand and applaud Linden Lab with you on this move.
LL is “protecting” its own liability. Any item created by a user is their IP and they own it. LL is just licensing via TOS the usage of that expression. If they allow a third party- like rezzable to interfere with “their” offered management of anothers IP, they can be found liable, thus the announcement as constructed.
if LL attempts realife solutions for content management they will be “sellable” to the realworld, not the under 15 mental set. If they attempt “wiki solutions” and “gameable ratings toys” and the usual old SL “community” managment gimmicks, the SL grid will continue to demise, and the company will be as Forterra, or Croquet, or many others, just trying to sell corporate 3d chat rooms. PLUS they still have the huge albatross of the last few years “wild west” approach to raising income with “cute advertising slogans”- “IP violations of major corporate brands and properties” and “general consumer affairs issues not resolved financially”.
“the time to put away childish things” has not only struck Americas realities, but its latest SL children in virtuality as well….
Children who i suggest visit the post/issues around exitreality ( who just bought out vsides assets-another dead metafav place of pundits)
and the “web3d search/copy/ use with no pay or credits” search engine they placed on the web only 9 months ago or so…
http://news.hiperia3d.com/2008/09/worst-of-exitreality.html
it sucked up a decades of nonDRM vrml web3d from unknowing first generation vrml designers and attempted to present it, resell it/ package it as their own for their commecial interests… the few “obsolete vrml” designers who caught this werent very happy…. and now when a rezzable or the core of LL future biz plans hold millions of pieces of work/content of others in hostage to their -motives– only then does it become “important”..;)
growing up isnt only about getting to drink and screw legally folks…;)
learn from history, even if its only 9 months old.:)
c3
@Ari - look forward to your post. Link it over!
@Cube - Do you offer Cube3 interpretation courses? Sometimes I feel like I’m reading another language.
In any case, what you say sounds profound and really important, and of course hearkens back to the 90s as always, but I really can’t tell whether you think this is good or whatever.
Anyways, love ya - you always give me something to puzzle over.
It is all meaningless.
Against TOS or not - it will be used (and certainly by REZZABLE).
Not until the viewer becomes proprietary. (no longer Open Source), all texture and prim data encrypted, and access to the server requiring a passkey obfuscated withing the compiled Viewer code, will there be any hope of content security.
Al - what I find interesting is the question of hitting the ’sweet spot’ in content security - because I’m going to take it as a given that there will never be 100% security, and so wonder whether there’s some sort of magic line where there’s “enough” security (and I don’t mean enough technology protection, I mean security as provided by: policy, enforcement, communication, and creation of social norms) that the remaining percentage of ‘rippers’ is a nuisance and damaging but out-weighed by a culture where content protection is far more the norm than its opposite.
nope, no EZ lessons or cliff notes…
ya gotta work at the meaning..everything has a cost.
The “reality” of 3d content/IP and its value as “seen” by “vc funded programmers” is as current at 9 months ago or 9 years ago…. and only “seems” new in SL blogs 9 hrs ago.
Do i think what is good?
LL’s finally addressing “real” things?- Yes
All the time/money many spent again needlessly?- No;)
“security sweetspot”
seems its no problem for many in 2d media. Or in 3d gaming. Or using so many services online for a decade.
owners of property put the protections on their property.
USER(slave) GEN biz plans to gather many eyeballs or offer some ’service” other than the creation of the content offered– will always err to allow the greatest distribution of that content, all to build their “brand equity” and “valuation” to the others in the same room as them.
notice BTW- YAHOO is now “officially” a MEDIA company now…lol
“nope, no EZ lessons or cliff notes…
ya gotta work at the meaning..everything has a cost.”
Actually, it’s beholden of the person communicating to make sure people get the message in most of civilized society. Why would you expect someone to work at understanding you when you’re not willing to work at BEING understandable? Not a flame. Just an honest opinion.
The same thing applies to Rezzable, IMO. Why do they expect people to trust them that this is the right move when they weren’t willing to work with LL on it in the first place? Now that they’ve created an uproar, they’re suddenly telling everyone how it doesn’t matter because there’s no such thing as digital rights anyway.
Itazura Radio had it right on Coronaverse. They are going to make it open and are discounting the whole “builderbot as a service” idea because they know that there’s not enough of a market for LEGITIMATE use of the tool. Maybe a handful of people will ever need it, until there’s an SL-compatible (opensim based) world that content builders are migrating to in huge droves. Right now, that market doesn’t exist, I’m willing to bet. If there was a legitimate use, they’d try to do something with it which they couldn’t figure out how to do in SL in the first place, make some money.
same thing for civilized folk?
YOU get to choose if what i offer has any meaning or requires a deeper examination for any value.
rezzable though attempted to affect you via actions that you had NO control/ or choice toward the actions they would/could take.
theres a difference? yes? beyond an opinion.;)
I’ve been banging on the content protection drum for about 1.5 years now and while I am glad to hear it finally being addressed, LL and other providers of tools and products that FACILITATE the creation of content need to be careful here. From a legal point of view stating that people can’t take the content they create from Second Life could easily been seen as an Anti-Trust issue. Here’s a definition of Anti-Trust and Restraint of Trade from a legal stand point:
Restraint of Trade
http://www.answers.com/topic/restraint-of-trade
Contracts or combinations that tend, or are designed, to eliminate or stifle competition, create a Monopoly, artificially maintain prices, or otherwise hamper or obstruct the course of trade as it would be carried on if it were left to the control of natural economic forces.
As used in the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.), unreasonable restraints of trade are illegal per se and interfere with free competition in business and commercial transactions. Such restraint tends to restrict production, affect prices, or otherwise control the market to the detriment of purchasers or consumers of goods and services. A restraint of trade that is ordinarily reasonable can be rendered unreasonable if it is accompanied by a Specific Intent to achieve the equivalent of a forbidden restraint.
Combination in Restraint of Trade
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Combination+in+Restraint+of+Trade
An illegal compact between two or more persons to unjustly restrict competition and monopolize commerce in goods or services by controlling their production, distribution, and price or through other unlawful means.
While I greatly understand the texture and sculpty artist’s worries over content protection in their particular business model, their announcements about restricting their use to SL only can not legally be applied to purchases before restrictions were stated and have to be included in the product and clearly announced at the time of purchase. Furthermore, if someone creates textures or sculpties design to assist content creators in making their goods and sells them full rights, the suggestion that they then have the right to restrict a creators choice of selling venue is probably not going to stand up to a court of law. That would be like an artist buying oil paints and reading in the small print that they can only sell it through the store they bought the paint in. Its simply too far reaching and unsustainable in a court of law, which I am sure LL’s legal department is well aware of.
Yes, the texture and sculpt artist have a right to restrict their products from being sold by themselves as a product, but they don’t have the right to tell people who use them, where and how they can sell them.
Yes, LL gives themselves equal rights to any content created on their grid, but to say that gives them a right to restrict it to the Second Life grid is again, too far reaching legally speaking and won’t stand up in even the most light inspection from a court of law.
LL’s IP rights stance has been heavily criticized for years by corporations, and one of the major reasons to not invest too much. While LL has fought to be looked at a simply a 3D hosting solution, but their stance on IP rights belied that. When was the last time your web hosting company reserved equal IP rights to your website and it potential revenues? GeoCities might come to mind for some, but their demise should be a warning to LL on this stance. They’ve been implored repeatedly for years to switch to a simple license to distribute that wouldn’t step on anyone’s toes and would make it perfectly legal to conduct their business.
Ultimately what needs to happen is a reality check here. NO ONE CAN OWN THE 3D WEB AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, THAT IS WHAT IS BEING BORN FROM ALL THIS. A grid war will ensue in the next two years and LL rightfully wants a stake in that. That’s fair and understandable. But to restrict a company or content provider’s ability to expand and compete outside their garden walls is just not legally sound and can only further erode their support from the community.
The solution here is allow this thing to grow and embrace the competition that comes of that. Everyone agrees LL and SL have made some real sustainable changes over the last year to reach out and listen to the community. But, having said that can we honestly say this would have happened without some healthy competition in the horizon? I thought this was LL’s intent when they released their client open source community? This can be done – protection of content without restricting its expansion onto other trusted grid systems, while still respecting the rights of content providers. We all just have to be willing to think outside the box on how to sell and control the distribution of our products and work together to settle disputes these mechanical solutions can’t address. And BTW, a simple change in how a DMCA is process is not going to achieve that IMHO.