[sldev] Permissions - A content creator's view

[michi at luskwood.org]

Tao Takashi posted recently that he was wondering what content creators
thought of these upcoming changes to the structure of the grid, and how
permissions relate.

A little background, I'm one of the founders of Luskwood Creatures, we've
been making avatars since 2003, and we use the income from those avatars
to support the area (Luskwood) on the grid. Now, some folks may have
argued with me in the past about Copybot, I'm hoping that it doesn't get
to that point here - I really believe it does not have to.

First of all, I do want to get a few things out of the way.

1) I'm aware that there is no technical way to stop permissions breaches
cold. I'm aware that once the information is sent to the client, it can be
accessed.

2) I also am aware that expansion of the grid in this matter also
increases exposure for content in a positive way.

I'm not looking to simplistically say "Don't do it!" - No, but at the same
time, I'm pretty positive that there's enough thought and active minds
around to come up with -something- that is fair and equitable to everyone;
preserving some viability of content production without becoming "messy
and restrictive DRM", which I've had my own troubles with in the past.

A little background: Our avatars, we sell them moddable and copyable. The
only bit we restrict is transfer. We've got no problem with anyone pulling
our avs apart, seeing how they're made, modifying them, tweaking them,
customizing them, learning from them or making them their own.

We also will ALWAYS give a replacement (even though they are set copy-ok)
to anyone who's ever bought an avatar from us. We also give free upgrades,
even if the new ones are more complex.

 In this way, I consider our stuff to be pretty open to begin with. I
don't believe we restrict fair use -- "first sale doctrine" is another
matter, which arguably is a very difficult thing to establish digitally.

The only thing we try to deter is folks essentially "hitting a button,
turning around and pretending that they're us." - I'll explain a bit more
on that stance in a bit.

First I do want to differentiate between "DRM" and permissions. DRM is
intended to restrict the item down the stream -- it's a technical measure
to resist countermeasures. It's aim is control.

Permissions, however, I see as an expression of the originator's intent.
While there are some built in controls that respect said permissions if
the client chooses to engage in that level of trust, it usually doesn't
involve cryptography, wrappers, and the 'usability and maintainability'
problems mentioned in other threads here.

While permissions can be broken, they do at least minimally establish a
"norm" and a "trust level", at least defining what you 'should and
shouldn't do'. And that's how maybe this should be defined:

It's not a matter of "can vs can't", it's a matter of "Should vs shouldn't."

An object always CAN be copied or retransmitted. Yes. But keeping
permissions (and the 'norm' being that servers, clients do at least
respect them) establishes a level of systemic trust and respect as to what
the author wishes to be done with their work. It's a matter of choice and
expression of that choice.

So in that way, it is indeed an honor system. But one that I do not
believe adds unneccesary weight to the system: look at unix permissions on
files, and simple .htaccess restrictions to web directories. I don't
believe those would be considered "DRM", but they are permission controls
- indeed breakable if a person is determined enough.

But again, to me, the point is establishing a norm where "can" doesn't
equal "should".  If permissions were gone, a person new to the "new grid"
may indeed believe that simply because copies and transferrence, or
reassignment of "identification of authorship" is facilitated in the
system, it is in fact -encouraged- in the system.

It's a matter of sanctions, I think, and norms of what is considered OK to
do.  Trashing perms says that "this is the norm; we have made the decision
for you, you cannot dictate your wishes across to others" - plus I believe
making what's essentially an "easy button" to make transfers, you have
newcomers who just don't understand and figure that if the option is
there, they are supposed to use it.

A few things I think could be in place to simply establish a level of
norms, without having to dive into the technical examination of what is
"possible vs impossible":

Remember, the ability to technically defeat these is a known quantity -
I'm talking about the establishment of intent, and technical compliance to
the level of what is feasible.

1) A simple trust level - Servers that connect to the SL grid at least
should purport to follow a similar level of standards (i.e., 'listening'
to perms) as the SL grid. Of course, someone could lie. But this at least
establishes intent and a norm.

2) I think an extension of permissions to give the ability to comply with
copyright as well as copyleft should exist. In addition to "no copy", "no
transfer", "no modify"; we could indeed have "may not set nomod" or "may
not set no transfer". And the eternally asked-for "may not charge money
for trasfer".

3) Grid level permissions, i.e., "May rez/attach on a trusted grid" vs
"May rez/attach only on SL grid" or , "May rez/attach anywhere".

These, I think, would at least set up some levels of intent. As Forseti
said in a post before, - people can choose to not engage the products that
people feel are too restricted.

As far as "technical feasibility" goes: Often the argument will be, "It
can be cracked, so why bother?" - We return to this analogy of, "Any
determined burglar will be able to break into your house, but that doesn't
mean you leave your door hanging wide open at night."  The average lock
and key on a door is a pretty weak mechanism. But break-ins are still the
exception, and not the rule.

And that's what I think should be -able- to be established: that ripping
and redistribution is not IMPOSSIBLE (it never will be) - it's just
abnormal. (Unless of course that was the author's intent.)

"There's nothing we can do that is technically fireproof, so we shouldn't
do anything!" is a similar mentality to what many OSS people would never
like to hear from a content creator: "It might be tough, so we should drop
OSS!"

Neither of these are really the right path, or right declaration to make,
I believe.

There are also slightly different schools of thought regarding artwork vs
code. (builds vs scripts).

There are going to be a lot of philosophies in the course of development
of the new SL: People who think that everything should be locked tight,
people who think that everything should be open and free, (both as in
open, and as in beer).  And people who reside somewhere in the middle, or
slightly to either side.

Those who choose to produce what they do completely open will likely never
be restricted from doing so. I do believe that folks who have had another
model work for them for a long time should be able to continue along that
path with at least some mechanism of making it the norm -for their
productions.-  I absolutely believe there is room in SL for several of
these models.

I also know that in the process of this there'll be flames and
disagreements - but I'd just hope that there can be an open dialogue about
it.

I don't really think saying things like those who set "no transfer" are
"evil" is entirely fair. It's enabled us to support a place that a lot of
folks - including OSS folks - have enjoyed. I think we've always been fair
to people, and will continue to be.

You can disagree with a certain model - but that doesn't neccessarily mean
that one model should be imposed on another person. We are not talking
about restrictions forced upon anyone. Everyone has the choice to
participate and parttake to whatever level they feel comfortable.

Granted, ideals and philosophies could just be blanket-imposed, but I
don't think that would be nearly as positive for the grid(s). Just one set
of philosophies and one sort of person on the grid would make for a rather
uninteresting place.

Thanks, for what it's worth, for reading - and hopefully considering,

Michi Lumin
Luskwood/Luskwood Creatures