SecondLife and Ownership
Submitted by Taran on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 14:45
There are a lot of apparent misconceptions in SecondLife about ownership - and I'm not writing of virtual land in a virtual world, or the ability to transfer/modify/copy items between residents. I find, in discussion and reading what others write about SecondLife, that there are some misunderstandings which should be clarified.
Open Source vs. Open Content vs. Proprietary Source and Content
In 'Timeless Prototype’s ‘Swiss army knife on steroids’', Timeless Prototype - whose gadget is actually very worthwhile - is quoted:
...Despite his success, Prototype worries about the protection of his intellectual property if Second Life’s servers are open-sourced, as Linden Lab has promised to do within several years.
“There are inherent security problems. Linden Lab owns the servers, so you can’t just do what you like with them. But if the server is put in control of users, they can reverse engineer everything,” he said. “If they had access to that source, they could take (the Multi Gadget scripts) in 10 seconds — it’s a big worry.”...
What's wrong with this is that the server's source code is not the same as the content on the server. Open Sourcing the server code doesn't affect the content; however - if the servers are open sourced, something will have to be done to assure that there are 'asset servers' which coordinate between different iterations of the same world. This gets complicated, but it is probably something which Linden Lab has already thought of.
Yet - does anyone own anything in SecondLife? The property is not owned, even if you purchase it - it's leased, ultimately from Linden Labs (even if you rent from someone on a private island). It's like a phone number or email address. It's yours as long as you continue your agreement with the legal entity who actually owns it. For those who haven't read the SecondLife Terms of Service, take a read:
3.2 You retain copyright and other intellectual property rights with respect to Content you create in Second Life, to the extent that you have such rights under applicable law. However, you must make certain representations and warranties, and provide certain license rights, forbearances and indemnification, to Linden Lab and to other users of Second Life.
Users of the Service can create Content on Linden Lab's servers in various forms. Linden Lab acknowledges and agrees that, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, you will retain any and all applicable copyright and other intellectual property rights with respect to any Content you create using the Service, to the extent you have such rights under applicable law.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, you understand and agree that by submitting your Content to any area of the service, you automatically grant (and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant) to Linden Lab: (a) a royalty-free, worldwide, fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to (i) use, reproduce and distribute your Content within the Service as permitted by you through your interactions on the Service, and (ii) use and reproduce (and to authorize third parties to use and reproduce) any of your Content in any or all media for marketing and/or promotional purposes in connection with the Service; (b) the perpetual and irrevocable right to delete any or all of your Content from Linden Lab's servers and from the Service, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and for any reason or no reason, without any liability of any kind to you or any other party; and (c) a royalty- free, fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to copy, analyze and use any of your Content as Linden Lab may deem necessary or desirable for purposes of debugging, testing and/or providing support services in connection with the Service. Further, you agree to grant to Linden Lab a royalty-free, worldwide, fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, sublicensable right and license to exercise the copyright, publicity, and database rights you have in your account information, including any data or other information generated by your account activity, in any media now known or not currently known, in accordance with our privacy policy as set forth below, including the incorporation by reference of terms posted at http://secondlife.com/corporate/privacy.php.
You also understand and agree that by submitting your Content to any area of the Service, you automatically grant (or you warrant that the owner of such Content has expressly granted) to Linden Lab and to all other users of the Service a non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, transferable, irrevocable, royalty-free and perpetual License, under any and all patent rights you may have or obtain with respect to your Content, to use your Content for all purposes within the Service. You further agree that you will not make any claims against Linden Lab or against other users of the Service based on any allegations that any activities by either of the foregoing within the Service infringe your (or anyone else's) patent rights.
You further understand and agree that: (i) you are solely responsible for understanding all copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret and other intellectual property or other laws that may apply to your Content hereunder; (ii) you are solely responsible for, and Linden Lab will have no liability in connection with, the legal consequences of any actions or failures to act on your part while using the Service, including without limitation any legal consequences relating to your intellectual property rights; and (iii) Linden Lab's acknowledgement hereunder of your intellectual property rights in your Content does not constitute a legal opinion or legal advice, but is intended solely as an expression of Linden Lab's intention not to require users of the Service to forego certain intellectual property rights with respect to Content they create using the Service, subject to the terms of this Agreement.
Yes, it's yours. But it's not just yours, and I won't ding Linden Labs for doing this; if they didn't do this they wouldn't be able to figure out what causes things to break and fix them (like the grey goo issues done by naughty people). So there's a balance in ownership here; by using the SecondLife service you make your content available to Linden Labs.
3.3 Linden Lab retains ownership of the account and related data, regardless of intellectual property rights you may have in content you create or otherwise own.
You agree that even though you may retain certain copyright or other intellectual property rights with respect to Content you create while using the Service, you do not own the account you use to access the Service, nor do you own any data Linden Lab stores on Linden Lab servers (including without limitation any data representing or embodying any or all of your Content).
It's your stuff, but it's not your account. You have a license to use the service, which is something people seem to have a problem understanding. For example, you don't own Microsoft Software, you have a license to use it (read your license) - which means that the license can be revoked.
3.4 Linden Lab licenses its textures and environmental content to you for your use in creating content in-world.
During any period in which your Account is active and in good standing, Linden Lab gives you permission to create still and/or moving media, for use only within the virtual world environment of the Service ("in-world"), which use or include the "textures" and/or "environmental content" that are both (a) created or owned by Linden Lab and (b) displayed by Linden Lab in-world.
The stuff in the Library part of your inventory is not your property.
So when I read stuff like 'Second Life is a 3-D virtual world entirely built and owned by its residents', I wonder how many people actually understand what ownership is in this age of digital communication. I'm not a lawyer, mind you, but I've spent enough time dealing with software and content licenses to wonder why people get wrapped up in some issues... because if they *really* understood how things work, they'd probably make a lot more sense.
When you navigate the issues of ownership in a digital age, you have to consider real issues related to ownership. And if you don't, you're going to eventually be beaten over the head with your own misconceptions.
Of course, it's sort of funny to go to the Creative Commons area in Kula 4(Kula 4 39,36,21) and not be able to take copies of anything...
Clarification
Hi
Yes, I agree, Open Source Server does not imply Open Source Content running on the server. That's not what is intended.
> Open Sourcing the server code doesn't affect the content
It does. It provides a way of exposing the content - in this case, LSL scripts.
At the very least the server (simulator) can request or receive the object code of a compiled script. If the object code is openly viewable by the owner of the server it can be reverse engineered to reveal how the scripts were made.
This is a very interesting technical problem.
If open sourcing the simulators came to be, the public would have the source code to modify and compile as they see fit, they would have authorization to receive and execute other residents' binary object code (compiled LSL scripts). There is no way to prevent them inserting an extra routine to dump that object code to a file for decompiling. Our only hope is to obfuscate the compiled code and make sure it's not compiled on the simulator.
Perhaps, on another line of thought, when you enter an open source simulator you have to accept that your own scripts may be exposed and your proprietary third party scripts are simply never loaded. If the scripts themselves are open source then it can run them.
Will this push everything down an open source route so that scripts will run everywhere?
Well, no.
It does. It provides a way of exposing the content - in this case, LSL scripts.
Does it? The server running this site is a LAMP server - open source. That does not immediately permit people to see what I have on the server.
In context, the asset - a script - can only be accessed by those with the access granted via your modify tag on the script. Open sourcing the server doesn't change that. The access level still has to be granted, and even staring at the source code of the server won't help with that.
I haven't seen the code for the server, but it's not too different from other servers out there. I really think you should reconsider your opinion on that.
Well, maybe.
One way or another the SL economy is headed for a crash... Scripts, ironically, are probably the most secure because they are exectuted serverside (right?), so they are at least as secure as the server they're running on.
I am an advocate of open source, but... Open sourcing and creating a a sort of "SL Multiverse," with people running sims on their home computer, would seem to open the multigadget to more abuse. The sim will have to recieve some form of the script, compiled/encrypted/DRM, but it would still be open to scrutiny of the sim operator. So any script that travels between servers would be less protected.
At any rate... time will tell. Secondlife's economy already seems to be headed for some sort of collapse and reorganization. Scripts are but a small part of it... clothing textures and prims move a lot of the money around. Textures are already being ripped via sl-lib and prims are being imported via sketchup. It's only a matter of time before someone puts a pretty face on these products, and we start seeing largescale pirating, an economic collapse, and a large huge backlash (if unfairly) against LL.
LL is talking about SL being the next internet protocol... So I guess, look to the web to see what may be of value beyond that time. Images can be ripped, but are not generally... because they're part of an bigger experience.
The real money, in a free-love open-source multiverse, would seem to be in making scripts that provide a unique experience in a sim you know to be secure. I'm thinking of Svarga's artificial ecosystem as an example. Something that never has to travel between servers. Think of Amazon or Last.fm whose matching services provide lots of value, but can't really be "ripped."
Hosting special events, like concerts and roleplaying and whatnot, could probably bring in advertising... :shrugg:
Hard to know what lies beyond the SL economic event-horizon.
That would be a DMCA violation
And could be easily proven, I'm pretty sure... but yes, the work of others could be taken through a sim->sim packet interceptor.
It's really hard to discuss this intelligently without more exact knowledge of the software architecture on the server side (and I am betting it is morphing).
The real problem might be in monetary transactions... but then... a secure server for that could be a real asset for an entrepeneur.
Apologies, I think my comment was slightly confusing
What I'm getting at is that the compiled scripts can be disassembled back into LSL code if someone writes a disassembler.
When a simulator needs to run a script it gets the asset. The asset being compiled LSL code. The LSL source code remains as a separate asset in the asset server and can only be retrieved if the current owner has modify permissions.
If you have a simulator of your own, and you have modified the simulator's code to dump the compiled script asset to a file, you can potentially disassemble that file using a specially-made disassembler outside of this system.
This assumes that the open sourcing of the simulator involves handing it over to you so that you can run it on your own hardware that is completely under your control.
This does not imply that people can just open scripts up whenever they see one.
OK... So it's not about Open Source
It's about people having their own sims, which could even be of a proprietary nature. That makes sense.
It doesn't matter whether a sim's server runs on open source code or not. Analyzing the packets (as pointed out by Baodi, above) can be done, and a disassembler would work. But that would be reverse engineering, which is considered a violation of DMCA, which would get someone into a lot of trouble.
And Linden Labs has demonstrated some interest in DMCA, though I see unlicensed copyrighted material for sale everywhere - from porn to music. Looks like the RIAA and MPAA need an office.
FOSS and DMCA
/1 blather on
I'm just curious where they've shown interest in DMCA... I remember when sl-lib came out they seemed not to care, and I believe they even gave it a lil nod.
I believe you, because the DMCA in their interests... but it just seems weird that a company could support both FOSS and the DMCA. One, because I don't think I've seen anyone take that position... and two, because there are serious philosophical and practical contradictions between the two.
At any rate, anyone seeking to pursue and enforce the DMCA (or a copyright issues) will run up against the same issues that the MPAA has:
- Jurisdiction issues if the violators live outside the US.
- Investigative issues... it's hard to even track down offenders and prove an offense.
- Resource issues... meaning someone has to be willing to pay for the lawyers and everything else that would go along with a lawsuit.
In short, there is a legal recourse... but I just don't see it as happening in the real world. And even if it did, I doubt a legal solution is a maintainable one. There will always be people out there who could fly below the radar, or just not care about the possible consequences, just look at the bittorrent sites or DeCSS.
Right now, LL is sort of riding the fence between open and proprietary. They seem to be a proprietary company with open ambitions. But at some point they'll have to make a decision:
- to lock down the technology and the servers.. and go forth in the mold of Warcraft and iTunes. DRM/encrypt everything, and hope to stay one step ahead of the hackers and rippers.
- to open everything up in the mold of the World Wide Web. And allow everything's real value and *intrinsic* irreproducibility to determine the price.
It's a hard decision to make, either one could make or break the company, and I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.
False scarcity (copy permissions) has really created a strong market in SL, and I have tons of really unique items to prove it (including the wonderful multigadget). I don't think there'd be nearly as much cool stuff out there if the artists weren't getting paid current prices...
But ultimately it will keep *true* market from developing. If LL doesn't open up, SL will never become the standard 3d protocol. And if they don't, someone else will... the need for the 3d protocol is out there. So... i guess in some ways their choice will be between being the next Prodigy or the next Netscape... lol. Neither of which seems too appealing.
/1 blather off
DMCA
DMCA doesn't have to be supported by Linden Labs, but failing to support it would be illegal. As far as SecondLife and the DMCA - you can read here (which I didn't find in a site search but found through Google).
Supporting FOSS and following the guidelines of the law... isn't that much of a turn, I think. Supporting FOSS in prison next to Bubba for enabling copyright/patent/trademark infringement would really suck.
I like how you wrote 'DRM/Encrypt'. 'DRM' in it's present instantiation is actually kind of weak. I'd think hash encryption could happen fast enough for it to be used sensibly. But I don't know enough about the servers that they have - and I don't know that any information out there is dependable until they... let us see? :-)
Really, the answer to what Linden Labs will do is really about where Linden Labs sees itself in the future. I mean - I imagine running SL is really cool, and it's been about 3 years in the making. But I also understand that doing the same thing can get boring, and maybe Linden Labs wants to move on to the next thing too. There's no saying. I imagine if IBM walked in and said, 'We want SL, here's a check' Linden Labs might take it. And IBM hasn't made promises of making the code open source.
I think you're dead on about the 3d protocol (I just haven't thought of what to call it, but 3d protocol fits). Something I had read dealt with SL being integrated into a Firefox/Mozilla package (I would prefer SeaMonkey, it's an integrated app versus FireFox). But who knows.
Timeless and I chatted some about this, and there's a lot of room for discussion about what the community really wants... and I think that's a discussion that LL would listen to, as the community and it's wants drive SL more than technology does. It has to, or the technology wouldn't be as useful - and any competitor has to face that hurdle.
Post new comment