cube3 said on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 (10:41:24 PM)
misguided article.
I suggest its premise will only doom "open sims" to a vrml like future.
You are repeating the same errors of the early vrml and web3d programmers, good luck.
|
um said on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 (3:30:14 AM)
Second Life != mp3 |
Kate said on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 (7:58:38 AM)
Is this Napster? |
jon himoff said on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 (8:45:27 AM)
thoughtful article, thanks for considering points. People taking unlicenced copies of digital content is a reality that online brands need to face. The challenge of how to survive is what people should focus upon, not creating useless barriers that only make it harder and harder for honest people to get value out of their work. |
Kaline Hax said on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 (12:24:08 PM)
Jon, Why can they not keep the permissions in tact? If you spent literally hours of time and invested thousands of dollars creating virtual objects just to have someone copy them easily and sell them in another virtual world, would you be happy about it? I dont have a problem with copying the IP but I do have a problem with being able to adjust the permissions. This is IP theft. RL brands are faced with replicas flooding the market not the original item being sold with no credit to the creator. |
Jani Pirkola said on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 (2:48:02 PM)
Illegal copies are inevitable. Still it should be possible to tag the content with a proper license when taking a copy. Then it is easier for honest people to obey the license as it is easy to find and comply with. Current permission system is not rich enough for many cases and poses another problem when the viewer software enforces permission bits without really understanding the context. |
cube3 said on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 (4:29:13 PM)
The issues as stated are 15 years old.
There was NO mass usage of 3d content on the web(besides within protected games) for those years as "limited" protections allowed for flash 2d interactive, then video (enmbeded in flash for protection) to be ALLOWED by brand content owners to be utilized on the web.
Seems those who have commercial success in content oriented media dont use these non protected media types. I wonder why.
Funny how no non-DRM based virtual worlds exist in commercial "brand" usage after 15 years of sooo many trying.
|
Jules Vos said on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 (7:29:39 PM)
@cube3 I don't think VRML's failure has a lot to do with their "open" system. I can not count the differences between it and Opensimulator on a single hand, perhaps not even on the hands of the VRML developers combined, also in terms of content protection.
VRML didn't do very well because nobody was able to come up with feasible (i.e. revenues exceed costs) applications for it, it's particularly bad usability-wise (if you want to create any kind of nice content with it, even worse than the realXtend or Hippo viewers, which are not usable by any standard). It's just not accessible to non-techies at all. This is where realXtend and OpenSim are both a lot more blessed and in Second Life we have already seen many use cases of revenues exceeding expenses (not to mention Linden Lab itself). Unlike VRML this is something many people (as opposed to just a group of devs) actually like, use and want.
VRML and Opensimulator are two entirely different beasties I'm afraid.
On Topic: In the context of the situation, this move by rezzable seems somewhat petty, borderline vindictive and in particular quite *irresponsible*, especially considering their history on the Second Life platform. The "just cos I can" argument tends to win hearts and minds but is never rationally validated in any discussion. It seems to be their primary one, next to a minor side argument of "we think you should be able to as well".
Even the people behind copybot had the common sense and decency not to release their stuff in such a PR-stormed and usable way that even the technologically uninitiated can use it. Perhaps because they wanted to spare Linden Lab the hassle, but more likely because they wanted to prevent those not very aware of DRM to unwittingly get themselves into trouble, which is what this tool could end up being responsible for.
Considering the implications of DRM and who actually may claim ownership over the content I think this tool is (legally) premature and anyone using it on even the smallest element which was not created entirely by yourself (this includes the infamous plywood texture) opens themselves up to legal harassment not only from the copyright holder(s), but potentially also from Linden Lab as the "owner" of the data. You can't go ripping stuff from a (possibly soon public)big company and expect they won't give a damn if you use it to create value somewhere else, unless that company involves elfs, reindeer, a sleigh and Santa.
I predict Rezzable will "do the ethical thing" (lol) and "restrict access" to the tool alltogether by charging for it, a bit more restricted than their currently envisioned "freemium" model. Quite possibly entirely premeditated, causing the generated media hype to allow them to serve more customers than they would have otherwise. Good for you, Rezzable, you finally found a way to make money on Second Life content! ;)
Other than that I don't see what the fuss is about. People will always find ways to rip content from digital systems that are even remotely open and have rich enough amounts of it. Lawbreakers will be lawbreakers and they might or might not get in trouble for it. I wonder if Linden Lab's lawyers will take the task upon themselves to make sure that they do. |
cube3 said on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 (8:08:07 PM)
jules.
1.VRML and web3d from 1995-99: Did you ever sell/develop/work on projects using it, did you ever work with actual businesses using it or attempting to for commercial business? I know you "think" but do you have enough "actual information/experience" to suggest that you "know" to a more certain extent, what went on in commercial web3d from 1995-1999 for example.
2. as to the rezzable situation they created for themselves, you do make good points, they do suggest to me your following web3d 2009 closely.... i do suggest you though check out the last post at rezzable blogs that jon as made....as to ethical reasons for a release? all can view the post.
|
SP said on Thursday, July 23, 2009 (9:19:15 AM)
Isn't it about time somebody revived VRML for nostalgia?
I did rather enjoy reading the v1.0 spec, http://www.web3d.org/x3d/specifications/vrml/VRML1.0/index.html
" multi-participant interactive simulations -- virtual worlds networked via the global Internet and hyper-linked with the World Wide Web. "
circa 1996 but doesn't mention anything about DRM or security - maybe because it's V1?
|
SP said on Thursday, July 23, 2009 (9:27:26 AM)
Actually I just went through the comments over at Rez, looks like RARR has kicked off a right old shitfight including all the usual suspects & an indeterminate number of anonymous trolls ( likely the same person)
*grins*
|
Jules Vos said on Thursday, July 23, 2009 (2:08:04 PM)
@cube3 No I wasn't around professionally back then yet, definitely not in 3d interwebs anyway. I did say think, that's what I meant. Regardless, there is already far more opensim application that is actually adopted by users than there was of VRML back then, even if I wasn't there to measure it myself. Opensimulator having better commercial performance is just an educated guess really.
You know, if we had to base everything we say on first-hand experience we'd hardly be able to carry conversations at all. |
c3 said on Thursday, July 23, 2009 (2:14:13 PM)
well whos a troll:).. the one who starts the dark ages or the ones forced to live under the bridges?
anyway.
the reason VRML had no DRM placed into any apps or expresssions of its usage(vrml was just an open format) was not technical, but IDEOLOGICAL, an thus, no large commercial usage was adopted, add to that no mac support for the "profesional visual design industry" to USE vrml or show it/ sell it to their clients BRANDS:), and so many fightning over only technical issues.....and who would "dominate"..etc..
and here we are. 2009.
Its simple, either you create a system around VALUE of media content or not. IF not, no media content owners will use it. And if you do what napster and others did, youll find those with IP will legally shut you down.
|
cube3 said on Thursday, July 23, 2009 (6:08:06 PM)
lol,
there is no "demand" for you to place an uneducated opinion on the net...lol
and conversations have no demand to be global postings in nature.:)
there is/was more instances of VRML files/ and efforts from 1995-2001, then opensims efforts to date,
i have little doubt about that from the numbers ive experienced dealing with web3d since the early 90s.
I can only suggest the reasons I first hand did experience as to why vrml didnt catch on while rich media like flash did , since some like me used both-together integrated on large portal sites, paid for by large "google" of the day sized players, like AOL in 1997.:)
"performance" wasnt an issue that i saw. bandwidth wasnt an issue either, as 100mb 3d games flourished as downloads in the days of 28.8"_
|
Ken Walters said on Monday, July 27, 2009 (2:34:38 PM)
I create art,sculptures and 3D models in SL. Linden Labs don't give us sufficient tools to protect our work now, this will make matters much worse.
Problem is, until another world like Second Life appears we have no choice but to put up with it.
I know other virtual worlds are out there, I've tried a few and they're nowhere near as good as SL.
This brings us one step closer to builders leaving SL, or everything becoming free, either way it will badly damage SL. |
Tessa Harrington in Virtual said on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 (8:00:09 AM)
This whole argument of "its inevitable things will be ripped off' and thereby openly and loudly proposing that is a GOOD thing to condone and even encourage content theft is abhorrent - from a legal, ethical and technically stand point. (Disclosure here – my business partner is IP, COPYRIGHT, PATENT and TRADEMARK attorney, Stevan Lieberman out of Washington, DC , so I’m probably a bit more committed and well versed on this subject). I find programmers who speak about this issue in this manner are lacking morals and creativity. Its super easy to allow theft. What a cop out. I'd challenge the programmers involved in OpenSim to apply as much effort to protect content as they do to allow it to be created and stolen. If they did then this would be a mute subject. It’s a shame that someone like me, who can’t script anything at all, can think of so many ways to protect content from a technical POV and make it actually work!
Sure, money gets stolen from cash registers and cars get stolen on the streets. Sure, banks get robbed from the inside and trade secrets get whispered to the wrong ears. And yes, its impossible to completely wipe out this behavior. Bit, does this mean we abandon all efforts to stop these infractions? Does that mean we actually applaud the parties that attempt to make it easier to do them?
That would be no different than someone saying ‘Hey! There is no way to really stop someone from stealing your car if they really want to, so why not just leave the keys in the ignition? Or better yet, I’ve made a tool to copy your key without your knowledge and I’m going to sell it to them.’
Content protection is not only possible, but we’ve done it. On our grid, http://spoton3d.com, we've created front door security by effectively routing all other clients to safe places that do not expose our designer's content. We'll also be actively involved and promoting a FREE community driven Mediation Panel for disputes of all types - not just content protection issues - and if the parties involved aren't happy with that decision, then they can bump it up to be heard by real world Judge whose decisions are recognized by most countries, for a nominal fee of 100-300 USD. So, the big message here is, if you come into the SpotON3D grid thinking you’re going to get a free ride on the theft issue, think again. We’ve made it afford and accessible for anyone to pursue in very legal means retribution and you’ll certainly not be welcome on our grid, nor any others we’ll be creating and linking up to in the future. This is important to everyone – not just the designers. I don’t wanna find out I spent 2 bucks on something someone else grabbed illegally for free. Corporate client don’t want the 100’s of thousands of dollars they spend on content to create their 3D web presence available for anyone to easily grab and use to spoof people on the web in thinking THEY are the corporate grid or sim instead of the legitimate one.
As far as membership security goes, we've created a clear separation of mature and general population that isn't just in name only. You really can't access mature areas or see or buy mature content on our grid without the purchase of a mature membership on top of the standard general population account. We have a freebie account, but its restricted to chat, exploring and purchasing only - not scripting, building or owning land, thereby supporting our revenue model, greatly reducing the risk of griefing as well as protecting kids and our content designers. We hope to roll out our content tagging system in about three months. This will allow designers to identify content as Mature or General in nature. With this done, we can automatically replace and/or detach anything that is tagged as mature content if someone forgets and TPs into the General Population from Mature. We call this responsible tolerance and hope that these measures give everyone a chance to enjoy their experience without inhibiting anyone elses.
So, as you can see, the idea that there are no real technical solutions to this is just an excuse in my book. If we used that logic for all software development we'd still be banging on an Atari keyboard in MUD rooms, pretending to see stunning vistas. It is absolutely possible and the right thing to do by everyone. It just takes a bit more creative thinking and a commitment to respect everyone's rights. If you are a programmer and you just fall back on the lame excuses we're hearing here, then you're not a very good programmer IMHO, nor very creative. Yes, that's calling a spade and spade. I understand most will flame me for saying that, but come on into our grid and see how it works and then maybe you'll stop being lazy and get creative about this. It can be and should be done.
|
Ben (Arkowitz) Lindquist said on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 (1:49:38 PM)
To some content creators, it may be worth the risk of getting ripped off, if the copy software is released... why? Because the copy software will allow them to get their own stuff out of Second Life and into a less expensive, more open platform.
You can't have both an open metaverse and a protected metaverse. Right now we have a protected one (Second Life). Who wants an open one? I do.
To truly protect IP, you have to make it intelligent and house it outside the virtual world, using CICP or MXP to make perceivable, copyable things go in the virtual world... and keep the intelligence outside and protected. What people can perceive, they can copy. |
Jani said on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 (4:35:28 PM)
Ben Goertzel, who is making AI stuff, said that if one copies an Intelligent virtual dog, he would get only the form, but not the brains behind it... their solution is to use externally hosted AI. |