[sldev] Permissions - A content creator's view

[Iridium Linden]

I have found this thread to be as useful as it is substantive. I'm 
passing this along internally to my team for evaluation. I think it 
might be interesting to set up an in-world meeting in order to discuss 
how you would like to see Linden Lab weigh in on permissions issues (and 
we're working on our abuse system so your points there are taken) in 
part because many Lindens who would be involved are not subscribed to 
the SLDev list. The key to this kind of in-world brainstorming for me is 
actionable feedback and a wide Linden/Resident audience, so if you think 
that an in-world roundtable would be a useful exercise, please ping me. 
Otherwise, we might think about sticking this in a wiki so that I can 
direct my team members to a more organized repository of information on 
the topic.
Iridium
michi at luskwood.org wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
> /index.html
>