More on the SexGen Case: A CopyBot?
While actual legal issues still haven't become clear (in fact, the case seems pretty weak), VintFalken points to one possible way that the poseballs may have fallen into someone else's hands.
It's all fun and games until unauthorized people start playing with your poseballs.
Vint points to this comment:
Well, in the case of the SexGen beds, as reported here in Second Life Insider, there’s some indication that Cattaneo, or whoever supplied him with the beds for sale, may have used D35V-bot (also known as “Desu-bot,” a variant of Copybot) to make the actual copy. This bot allegedly exploits a security hole in SL to copy scripts, which was one of the things Copybot didn’t do.
Right. The premise of the bed-copying-bot seems to be a little... dangerous. If it is true, then it sounds like a definite exploit - scripts are supposed to be server side, and the code is supposed to be only available to client side for editing if permissions are given to do so. If the bot can somehow bypass those permissions, it is possible that the bed would be copied.
Take a moment and a breath - a deep one. If this is true - why target SexGen beds? Sure, they make money - but there are plenty of other things out there which do as well, so why limit the use like this? It almost fits, but one has to wonder that if this alleged bot existed and were used - wouldn't it be used on other things as well?
There are so many If statements running around I feel like I'm writing some BASIC code on a Vic-20. I think Linden Lab will have to make an announcement soon, but experience has taught me that timely interventions from their weblog are uncommon.
On another note, does anyone think that there is a Linden Lab politburo which oks whether things are posted or not? Truth be told, the community can probably deal with 'oops' and corrections better than a considerable lack of information on something accused of being a blog...
Technorati Tags: - Nobody Fugazi's blog
- Add new comment
Delicious
Digg
Technorati- 1738 reads
Someone needs to start treating their business as REAL.
There is programming being done to test the permission system, there probably always will be. From my view there is no present way to bypass the permission system. One thing people must know, if you're item is modifiable, then you're giving them the instructions to reproduce this object, although you may have no copy, no transfer, if it's modifiable -- you're giving out the data needed to reproduce, it's simple.
When you buy something from someone and there are modify permissions, based on SecondLife's policy, it's not illegal to duplicate someone's creation so long as the name on the new object is not the original authors and there is no copyright. There is no recourse when going to Linden Lab for a resolution. It's then a civil matter. If it's not the original and a mere duplication, you need a legitimate copyright. It almost disturbs me how people think that because they are creating something on SecondLife that you don't need a copyright because it "randomly appears". It's like this, if you don't have a legitimate copyright, then you're indirectly authorizing reproduction. No, they can't copy your work, but reproduction is just as good -- especially when a script can recreate the object from the ground up -- in a matter of seconds. Your work is being recreated in seconds compared to the hours you've spent making it -- yeah, imagine the look on DiVinci's face.
Permission system in a nutshell;
Copy: Allows user to copy the file, save the file to disk.
Modify: Allows user to modify the file, save the file to disk.
Transfer: Allows user to transfer to another party.
Copyright offices aren't lingering around to look pretty.
In this case -- I imagine someone used MLP engine, some people need to get off their high horse
and stop pretending they are the only innovative souls to touch ground in SecondLife.
Without further wait, I give you this: meep meep.
Not so simple...
Copyright is implicit. That is the crux of the issue from a legal standpoint.
I can make anything and make it available with modify permissions - it is still under copyright though by my use of permissions I have allowed derivative works. While I could turn around and say that people who create derivative works are infringing, it is a very weak case since my actions allowed the use - one could say consciously (the default permission is no modify - it would have to be changed).
Again, I'll say this: Copyright is implicit. Registering the copyright makes for easier court cases, but - the copyright system in the context of virtual objects might be very interesting indeed. To be done properly, it would take a lot of data indeed - prim sizes, rotations, much more. Then textures, etc. Then scripts, etc. Then the prims relative positions in linked objects. Then...
Copyright is still implicit. While companies should register copyrights (especially BEFORE alleged abuse happens), there is room for maneuvering if this did not happen.
Trademarks, on the other hand - right out.