From the Second Life perspective Digtial Rights Management (DRM) is clear enuff. You can +mod/+copy/-trans stuff and that works well enough. But actually the people that buy stuff never really accept/agree a licence on how they will use your content. In fact, the seller also does not expressly state that the content that was sold was theirs to sell in the first place. So while there is quasi-enforcement, is there really a DRM licence?
So the first major question is, can you take stuff off the SL grid? In practice the answer is of course yes. You could rip it and reload it to another grid without too much effort. But let's assume that we are not griefers/theives and want to pay for licences and use them properely. But right now since their is no licence agreement between seller and buyer what is a reasonable practice? Can you +copy something across a grid to your avatar? Is +copy to yourself across another grid not really +trans? If you can't move something to your alt, is your avatar on another grid a legit +copy or is it breaking -trans?
And what about freebies? SInce it was given away for free, is there any harm in moving it to another grid?
So my suggestions for a Code of Practice for Metaverse Content
Content Creators
* So first of all, SL is not the only grid around so understand that if you make something and sell it in SL or any OpenSim grid (or any grid where the SL viewer works) then that content can be ripped and moved around. So you might consider this a threat, but really it is an opportunity to expand your market.
* If you expect people to treat your content with respect, you must step-up and promise that your stuff is yours to sell/claim as yours. So this means that all the pieces are made by you or you have the rights to present them as yours. At Rezzable for example, we have commissioned a ton of stuff and have agreement with all the creators for the rights to that content. We also try as much as possible to give those original creators attribution for their work. This also means btw, not using music on machinimas without rights or permissions (which is a real pain). If you just scanned something out of a magazine and made a texture, it was never really yours in the first place to sell, so you don't have any right to to get all twisted about someone taking it to another grid.
* It is reasonable also to offer different prices for one grid licence to something or a cross-grid licence. So if people want to take your stuff off to another grid, they may have to pay a little more (or not) if that is your pricing policy. So really Creators should put more info about their terms on their products and have some info on their websites to answer FAQs on this topic. I would think a term like SL-Only or Any-Grid could be added to the description of an item easily enough.
* Er, so clearly your own stuff you can do whatever you want it. So you can use a tool to move it around or just re-import/re-prim it on another grid.
Content Consumers
* It is not really reasonable to take stuff off the SL-grid without permission. So er, what's made in SL stays in SL is really the default position. Why? Well, the content creators did not imagine that their stuff could leave the grid, so de facto their understanding is that their content was only ever for SL usage. It is ok to ask for permission and probably you will get it, but you cannot assume you can +copy off to another grid.
* DRM concept should be maintained to the other grid you might take something with permission/rights. There is not mechanism to enforce DRM across grids. In fact DRM and attribution can easily be eliminated on a foreign grid. But if you are not a griefer/thief you will want to honor the appropriate usage, even if you can untick/edit boxes.
* I think it is ok to move freebies around through--as long as 1) you maintain attribution 2) don't sell it 3) honor the DRM which is the same thing you should do in the home grid where you find it.
Grid Owners
* You know your community and you need to police content as some basic level. If you know something is stolen, you need to freeze that asset and the downstream/upstream assets related to it. It is most likely that the account holding this stuff is not intended to defraud the community, so it is most likely a mistake/misunderstanding. But if you have a griefer/theif you need to lock-out their account and freeze all the assets. Actually this is less of an issue for merchandise that is for sale somewhere, than it will be for stuff that is not for sale such as art pieces or chunks of sims.
Things to consider:
* Would a central library of digital content help clarify or make DRM more confusing? Consider how all music is published or how all books are managed.
* Should there be a trust network (like paypal) to validate buyers/sellers?
* If someone takes something, but doesn't sell it, is there really any damage to the creator? So should all digital content be CC as a default?
* What should Linden Lab do in order to help support content creators on the SL grid? Can they expand the info areas on items to allow for more licencing?
<- *click*
(
Comments
great !
Sun, 06/07/2009 - 08:40 — Ralf (not verified)Heho,
i love the article. While i (after checking with 2 layers ) do not agree, that stuff from SL stays in SL (unless i was shown a license statting this prior to buying and i did formaly agree it is just x opies i did license, whereever - at least for central europen users based on their rights) - the rest is pretty much about the main problem:
- creators need to be aware of the world, not only their wishes - things CAN be stolen
- this IS a market chance, even establising a licensing system/database as they are common in other RL licensing fileds
- everyone should respect a license they did agree in
- before selling/giving, first think wether you realy own the stuff in a way you have rights and not someoneels on the web
I exepct as said, that there is not a real problem for high quaility inovative cnontent creators. The RL market did show that the impact in such copying is low. Remeber, that in many countries private copies are legal, aynway - and not limited by accepting a denial in a license.
cheers,
Ralf
Ralf--ty. It seems clear that
Sun, 06/07/2009 - 19:54 — RightAsRain RimbaudRalf--ty. It seems clear that there a at least 3 parties needed to have a trust network for a grid regarding digital content--content creator, buyer and the grid owner. SL so far has not considered anything outside itself--but I suppose there is a question really about whether digital items sold on the SL are usable in a private/closed grid. I would say that the usage breaks the CC standard which is non-commercial. So if the er, military contractors are using items bought on the main grid for commercial purposes, I would argue that they in fact do not have a right to do that. SL should get more serious about enforcing DRM and managing a more complex licencing terms or I would hope there should be some legal test cases to protect the rights of the content creators.
like i said, did check with
Sun, 06/07/2009 - 20:06 — Ralf (not verified)like i said, did check with some layers. I have to do with contracts in RL - but to make my interpretation a bit mor based on the rules.. :-)
In many countries you are allowed to have private copies for non-commercial use (only private people, however).
But your example is about commercial usage. We just got some cases about this in the Eu/german.. quite clear here: as long, as the license is not cristal clear - your allowed to use your copy as you like (the allowed count, however) and even resell it. A manufacturer is allowed to limit this right, by a license the customer has to agree formanly. If he does not agree, he must be able to opt out without payment.
This is more about contracts - so, at that point the grid op´s are not involveld. But i agree, to enforce the agremments the help from a grid op like a DRM (wich SL does not have, they have rights managemenegt only, not baed on digital certificates) would be very helpfull. Many laws are based in such way, that you only brake the law if you need to put in some effort.
Again - thanks for taking care of the topic from a biz perspektive.
cheers,
Ralf
Digital certificates is also
Mon, 06/08/2009 - 10:39 — RightAsRain RimbaudDigital certificates is also a very good point. One of the issues in SL in particular though is that people often want to maintain their anonymity and a licence has to be with a real person at the end of the day. I guess (though not at all sure) that the licence agreement can be worded to tie to a person even if not named, although enforcing a breach would be impossible then. Having said that, avatar persona are often more "valuable" to a person as a member of communities that their actual real identity.
not really sure about
Tue, 07/28/2009 - 19:25 — RightAsRain Rimbaudnot really sure about Freebies...i guess since there is nothing specific to allow full perm freebies that they really cannot be moved across a grids.
You're hardly an honest
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 09:13 — Prokofy Neva (not verified)You're hardly an honest broker on this discussion, given your absolutely disgraceful performance with the thuggish posturing with BuilderBot, RightasRain, WrongAsUsual.
The concept keeps failing you over and over again -- but let's try again. Copyright is inherent. You don't have to "express your intentions" to claim them and have them guaranteed.
This idea that the inherency of copyright is somehow diminished because you can't prove you're the creator is merely another gambit out of the same socialist playbook designed to decouple copyright and commerce, and insist on some registrational approach to copyright than inherency.
If someone claims a copyright and someone else believes it to be false and believes they were the first and the other has copied (see, oh, Mitch Kapor's lawsuits, for example, with software) then...you can go to court. But this isn't the norm. The norm is, most people are the authors of what they say are the authors, and they have inherent copyright.
By introducing the sheer idiocy and outright criminality of Creative Commons, you once again bang away at inherency and try to diminish and break it. Making "the addition of a CC card" as some sort of ad on that people "need" to establish their "intent" not only undermines inherency, it sets up a fake registrational regime implying that some body -- "the Commons" -- or is it the Comintern?! -- has validated you. But no body needs to validate you.
All of these gambits are about one thing: nihilism, and the destruction of private property out of a deep-seated technocommunist ideology. Of course, this ideology has cult-like status in and around OpenSim and Second Life.
No, no one in SL decided their freebies could also go to other grids, where they are ripped out of a social context that perhaps those creators wanted them kept in. They're not freebies to help some other sandbox or some other enterprise in another world far from the store of the freebie maker where he doesn't even show up in search. So, no, get your paws off it.
There was already a JIRA or two on this issue when I objected to the plans for interoperability, saying that the AWG hadn't wired down copyright first, which I thought they should do (and I reject all the analog hole defeatism as so much ideological posturing by one faction). And Saijani Kuhn postured further by creating a JIRA to add another flag on every SL object that would say something like "good to go to other grids". And opensouce fanatics and the Lindens were lukewarm to hostile about this idea which in fact would have been a boon for some. Shows you their true nature.
You do not need "a license between maker and user". This is a wedge that is ultimately only about one thing: destroying the concept of private property and collectivizing it to "the Commons". The default is that no, you don't get to grab it and take it to another grid -- full stop. And eventually creators will get a system whereby they will be able to have their rights acknowledged and their items distributed, but that will come when we can get the dysfunctionals off the interop project and have grownups who will attend to the agreements that will have to be signed between grids before items are transferred.
RightAsRain, if OpenSim is so fabulous, *go there*. Get people to make new stuff for free, since that's your belief system. Stop leaching and poaching off those who make content, sell it, and value it.
Issue is not whether or not
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 18:14 — RightAsRain RimbaudIssue is not whether or not someone has copyright to their own creation--they do, The issue is about how to licence usage of digital goods which in fact SL does not and never intended to do. Perms are not a good enough substitute for a licence between parties. Creators have the right to licence their work however they want--CC or limited use or whatever else--see the latest options on the CC site. The point on registering/trust for a piece of digital content is to aid the seller in knowing that they are buying a legitimate item and not something that is identical but ripped. I think most people want to do the right thing when they purchase a digital item and there needs to be more assurance that can do so.
Post new comment