Reviewing BuilderBot Release

Somehow I get the feeling that those against the builderbot are the same ones that would have been against the automobile because it would put horseshoers out of work

Seems like a measured, responsible, mature decision.

Self-serving, duplicitious and mendacious post here from Himoff.

Naturally, anyone who had followed the escapades of Rezzable from the beginning would see this PR stunt for what it was worth, first, a thuggish and cynical announcement that one company has the power to screw over the entire economy, a fake request for "input," and then a completely duplicitious pretense of "backing down" and "seeing reason" so that everyone can perceive this thug as somehow "willing to compromise". It's a tried-and-true Bolshevik method thatn Jonathan Himoff knows well. And it's one the Lindens, BTW, use constantly so he's in good company.

This notion of "it's our content and we'll dowhat we want to, do want we want to" is bullying infantile speciousness in a community context in a transparent virtual world. Builds seldom contain the content of only one person. And any tool that copies not just your content but everyone else's is one that you cannot use for selfish purposes because you immediately impact everyone else's rights. Sure, you can use up all the water or pollute all the water with your factory in your town because it's "your property and you can do what you want," but if that poisons all the rest of the townspeople, you are harming other's rights and the government and NGOs are right to step in and stop you. You never seemed to have learned in school that your right to swing your fist ends where another person's nose begins.

What's especially disgusting coming from this arch technocommunist is the idea that now, suddenly, this opensource code, that "everybody" has and "nothing can be done about it" can in fact be sequestered and sold as commercial code and kept from this lovely opensource community. Hahahahahahahaha. This sort of blatant hypocrisy coming from the opensource community is self-discrediting and doesn't even need me to point it out. The other dirty big story as I've noted on my blog is that big IT is always lurking in the background ready to slurp up all this honest opensource code that all these script kiddies tinker with for free What is Himoff's relationship to IBM?

When you offer a tool for sale or distribution, and incite its usage, you are participating in copyright theft. This completely fake and coy notion that tools are neutral, tools can do no wrong, and we are exempt from and legal scrutiny because we merely make tools simply doesn't fly with even the most cursory review from perspective of RL morality and RL law.

You don't put up a lock pick for sale next to each lock and pretend you didn't help with the lock picking. The 9/11 hijackers took down the pilots of the planes with box-cutters. Are box-cutters inherently evil? This is the sort of question argued in the abstract endlessly on Internet forums. No, not when a trucker buys them to rip open big cartons at his job. But, yes, when in the hands of hijackers killing pilots and crashing planes. The idea that tools always and everywhere remain neutral and disassociated from the agents and get a moral and legal pass always and everywhere in their use is one of those fallacies that power-hungry geeks use to keep imposing their tools on everyone -- into which they've coded their worldviews and agendas.

And indeed, some tools have malicious intent welded into them. If a box-cutter with the brand-name "Pilot Slasher" that was especially sharp and swift was sold at every airport newsstand, you could very well say that *that* form of box-cutter *was indeed* inherently evil because its makers welded into the simple tool not only effectiveness, but the name, place, and intent to do harm. Whereas the blunt-edged box-cutter dealer in a rural store in Maine meant only to sell his tool to truckers, store clerks and postal workers to open up big boxes. If one of those store clerks then used his box-cutter in a robbery, you could say the tool isn't "inherently evil" but its use for evil would then make everyone in every store start to think they needed to regulate the sale of box-cutters more carefully because of their propensity for use for evil. Brass knuckles are not like gloves, only for keeping your knuckles warm in cold weather.

In the case of BuilderBox, it isn't just the capacity for copying, or the lack of permission checks that was being contemplated, but the clear intent to harm. This isn't Carl Metropolitan, a builder who sells builder aids already as well as a prominent newbie-helper at NCI, with a sterling reputation, offering a builder's boon. This is RightAsRain, who has a long history of bullying the press, intimidating builders with whom he had disputes, supporting aggressively sycophantish and abusive bloggers like Vint Falken, constantly slamming land dealers and the Lindens, and announcing with dramatic self-importance that he was now leaving SL for the greener pastures of...opensim, where theft is rampant. Reputation and context are important online, of course, as in real life, and that means any tool that RaR suddenly announces for sale is then welding into it all his reputation and intentions made clear already as the most cynical and hateful ones.

To pretend that just because he didn't release this code as free and opensource -- yet -- or that just because it's a bulder's boon tool, it has no moral or legal consequences and isn't an incitement to crime is to pretend that you can hang up a box-cutter for sale next to a departing airplane called "Pilot Slasher".

The posturing about insufficient DMCA protections are the most duplicitious of all. Like Zha Ewing and Dale Innis and other Big Blue reps in SL posturing around opensource that directly profits their own company, this pretend and pious reflectiveness shouldn't fool anyone. They are for putting the stress of the problem of copyright theft not on themselves and other coders who should be building security into the client and all procedures around log-ins with the client, but on external parties. They want to tell everyone to put a Creative Commons notecard in their prim and call their lawyers. DMCA takedowns are the last step, not the first to create a protective regime around intellectual property.

The proposals made during a discussion of this disaster at the Society for Virtual Architecture last night are in sharp contrast to RaR's posturing here:

http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2009/07/concerned-sl-r...

They include things like:

o plug-in authentication only for registered opensource developers who pledge not to inject malicious code

o checking for perms even on the existing builderbot

o policy statements or change to the TOS if interpretation is not sufficiently robust that use of BuilderBot is identical to use of CopyBot in terms of how it is prosecuted as a TOS violation

Cynical technocommunists like RightAsRain think they can endlessly posture, caper, lie, and distract about their true agenda by pretend feints and thrusts like this post, and by claiming "everyone's doing it" or "security is impossible" -- until it comes time to sell their code for $100. Of course it isn't when you have good faith and good will, neither of which Jonathan Himoff has regarding Second Life and its residents.

No, those against the builderbot are not horse-riders against cars, they're the same people who are against automobile theft.

They also don't believe elevating stable boys and garage mechanics to the level of influencers and decision-makers and worse, rulers over us all, merely because they feed the horses or fix the cars. Coders are no more than rude stable boys and abusive garage mechanics who have not yet been put in their place.

All would be fools to buy software that was "marketed" in such a manner. Truly in all of the 15 years of online web3d business and politics I've seen first hand publically and from behinds the scenes, this ranks as one of the most cynical, self serving, and irresponsable display's for the supposed "benefit"  of the "profession of web3d and virtual world design" as an industry.

"Somehow I get the feeling that those against the builderbot are the same ones that would have been against the automobile because it would put horseshoers out of work" - Anonymous

Nope, there is a difference between invention-induced change of business models (the automobile putting stables out of business) and theft-of-IP-induced changes of business models (due to the basic dishonesty of the OS movement itself).     The first is called progress, the latter theft of IP.    I don't know of any content creator who is against innovation...but I do know a lot that are against scummy little content thieves and those that aid and abet them wtih tools and rationalizations.

Rezzable did the right thing in the end...but I wonder whether it was due to public opinion (and possible behind the scenes linden efforts) or a true sense of doing what is right.

@ Maklin -- nothing to do with the Lindens. I think if you ask people for their comments you should listen. We did. 

You are not at all right though about "the basic dishonesty of the OS movement"--pls step-up and suppor that wild accusation. I think you are talking nonsense on that point, perhaps fueled by misinformation from microsoft, oracle etc. OS is the future of software--maybe, but nothing dishonest about it. Theft of IP is very serious accusation and not one to be made lightly.  Any tool can be misused, I don't think we should punish the professionals by starving them of useful tools that might be used badly by petty or more serious rippers.

I'm glad you're taking time to think this over, but I'm still concerned that the genie that's been long out of the bottle will continue to roam free while LL is asleep at the lamp.

-ls/cm

I think it is wise to have reconsidered your position. While I regret the removal of the Open Source license, and while I don't believe in the technical efficiency of any DRM system or of security by obscurity, I think it is essential to add ownership checks to your product.

Not only it will prevent thieves from stealing content "too easily", but it will also keep professional builders safe from accidentally copying bought items or their neighbours' builds.

Keep on the good work. We really need export systems for SL. Our data can't remain captive.

<Prokofy, insert long and furious Maccarthist witch hunting here>

Re: "Attention to all people that may wish to comment on our blog in future..." -- sincerely, it is high time. Well said, and well done! :-)

The terms of release are almost beside the point.  Indeed, the danger to Rezzable's business is in the now widespread knowledge that such a tool is used, copying content based only on ownership.  Not that "DRM" helps in this case, unless by "DRM" is intended a verifiable identity match with the creator of record for the copied content.

Nobody has an implicit license to copy anything from the Second Life grid that they did not themselves create.  "Permissions" are irrelevant: a full-perm item on the Second Life grid confers no rights whatsoever outside the Second Life service.

If it becomes common knowledge (a seemingly inevitable consequence of this move) that the Rezzable grid is a frequent host to content obtained without explicit license from the creators, that grid will be under constant scrutiny for any violations.  The workload in processing the relentless flood of DMCA notices will swamp any other effort in keeping the grid running.

Competent counsel will discourage this entire course of action.

Hey, RAR

Whats up asshat

Anonymouse here again. The same one that saw through your exploiting of SL builders: getting them to do industry level work at SL rates (eg working for fuck all money) while your company pockets the cache, kudos and cash, from their labours.

The same one that predicted that you'd move everything to opensim, set up your own grid, and called out all your bullshit whining at lindenlabs as propaganda to whip your minions up into a frenzy to come with you, because once you burned your bridges in SL, if this didnt work, if they didnt come, and stay, it was curtains. I predicted this months before your 'surprise announcement'

The same one that has always seen through your plans like you drew them on a window. Yeah, its the real me. Howdy.

It hasnt worked, has it. You and I both know it. Numbers arent high. Diversification isnt attracting new viewers in the numbers you need. SL still has too much pull for mainstream audience to invest in your grid long term. Signups on high profile stuff are good, but the 24 hour dropout rate is high. Terrifiyingly high. Nobody is staying.

And now you're making this. Which supposedly wont be opensource. So you're paying LL a bunch of money for a license then? Better check your t's & c's , cause it has to be opensourced, or private, or paid for, if you wanna distribute something that connects to LL's grids. Aw yeah.

So here's what you're gonna do. You're gonna go along with this "not opensourceing it" thing. Its our idea, and you want to listen to us! Right? Right..  And then when LL says "naw dude" you're gonna come crying back and say "WELL lindenlabs wont LET us release this unless its opensource, they're making us give it to the hackers! its not our fault! blame lindenlabs!! bawwwww" You'll say they charge too much for a license, even though you knew those costs in advance, going into this.

In the post that you write to refute this one, you'll deny the above. Either in part or in whole. But we both know you have an angle. You're trying to smash SL wide open, so that content isnt a draw anymore, experience is. Once the marketplace for items becomes moot, what will attract people? What will make them come, and stay. And this is where you hope you can take over as market share leader, and go to potential clients with a vastly superior value proposition to your rivals. Because you think you can provide the best experience. And you dont care about literally destroying a world to succeed. You're like darth vader but skinnier and with homosexual undertones. You want to cut the hen that lays the golden eggs wide open. We all know the moral of that story. Its an arrogant position, and you're destined to fail.

In the past when I've nailed you to the fucking wall, you've stayed conspiciously silent. Whats with that? Do you consider your position so weak that it cannot withstand debate?

Everything you have ever done, even things ostensibly altruistic, have been for your own gain, to further your own aims within this sphere of virtual worlds. You came to the game a little too late to make it big, you bought your headlines with swathes of sims all, connected up.

You kept it a 'secret' about who you were, and what your plans were, to obfusicate things and create interest, Which is fine. But when the mist settled, you still hadnt come up with anything. You tried to hit the ground running, to make up speed and lost time. You failed.

Your aim was to build up a massive loyal audience, that you could then advertise to. We'd be your sheep, we'd swap our time for your adverts, it was going to be the new way. JB, SV, RS, they all said so. You know who the initials represent. You believed. I pity your naievity.

So dont give us this smiley crap, dont offer to shake our hands as a community with one hand while you go to stab us in the back with the other. You're here to lie cheat, and fucking steal, its a dishonest con. We arent your smiley placid sheep, You underestimated us badly, and overestimated your reach and ability.

With cool regard, I notice your latest vacancies and hirings - still paying vaastly under market value. Someone that will build, script, texture, shoot machinima and project manage for that amount of money? You should know you get what you pay for, and nobody worth hiring will work for that little money. Thats why the vacancy is unfilled after so long, even in this current economic climate. But it doesnt matter. Times are hard. Someone will need the money badly enough, and again, you'll be there, ready to exploit. You prey on the weak and needy. We are watching and we do not approve. Once again, its a calculated exploitative move.

What shall be done? Nothing. You're failing anyway. Nothing needs to be. But know that not all of us are fooled by your smiles and promises, your smoke and mirrors. We see the man behind the machine, a small frightened man acting in desperation as his house of cards falls around him.

Transmission ends.

From the world of aliens to the world of demons lol

Secondlifers need to remember 'when the storm is over, we are all still stuck in a teacup'.

I am betting that you don even believe yourself what you are trying to sell us here.
You guys are desperate and that is your move to satisfy investors because you know this is gonna sell and you also know that there are more potential thiefs as people that actually want to move to open sim. You also seems to ignore the re-import possibilities and since you still trying to sell us Fire for water you can't be taken seriously and have to be faught legally.

There are tools out there that respect user permission, group permission and that is the only way to proceed. Not making it open source is supposed to protect YOUR intellectual property and not ours because you have realized this might be a risky business with possible lawsuits but it will also create a revenue which you need so badly.

In your defense I was not expecting that you would act frank about your intentions and reveal the real reasons for this "products"
In the end you define yourselfs by your own actions and no matter what, when Rezzable is finally bankrupt and you are trying to get a job on the 3D development market the people will remember who you are and what you did. I'd be super careful because when one of the dozens of lwasuits is going to be succesful you have destroyed your reputation plus your financial responsibilities.

Shoving the issue over to Linden Labs might work for you and is ALL THAT YOU WANT, and you are actually provoking them to ban your own customers!

Funny trivia,
you might end up being banned yourself 
About the usage of CopyBot (because that's how your product is identified) http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/CopyBot#CopyBot
Future of bots https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/land/blog/2009/03/26/much-ado-abo...

No matter what, anyone who is buying this "product" is automatically commiting a crime because the usage of copy bots is not allowed.
You should put that on the box otherwise you might receive lawsuits from angry thiefs as well, lol!

It is  amazing how the word "CopyBot" and for that matter, any utility that has the ability to copy objects in SL, can generate such unbridled fury and paranoia.

So, how do we keep the more paranoid among us from howling with great anger and issuing 100mb manifestoes (like this ersatz Prokofiev chap above)?

The best thing I think Rezzable should discard any attempt to market or distribute this code, and not make the code available to the public at all. in other words, keep it as an in house solution to moving their sims to OpenSim.

Barring that, setting up a registry that requires a check against the customer (meaning the avatar buying the BuilderBot software) for payment information and one that records each time BB is used in SL might be something to add as an accountability tool, along with basic permissions checking: avatars that don't have payment info with SL simply would not be allowed to buy BB, and users who acquire it wuold be unable to run it in SL without payment info.

I must admit, that RaR floated this "trial balloon", and like flies to meat left to spoil, it has generated much ugliness.  A softer, saner approach would have been to *presume* that the certain percentage of builders who scream "OMG! COPYBOT! ASDFG!!" (these same folks who put those annoying "!quit" spammers near their telepoints, not knowing that those things are a. annoying as hell and b. useless) would be upset much more so by a tool that could zap an entire sim and copy it regardless of who owned what that was rezzed on it.

In other words, RaR might have gotten a saner response from the community had it asked (a) "if we release this as Open Source Software, what sort of license should use, and (b) what sort of protocol should we put into it to safeguard (wihin practical limits) creators' IP rights?"

- - - - - -

As a coder with no particular stake in what Rezzable does or doesn't do with this code, I do not receive Prok's rather arrogant diatribe against car mechanics, stablehands, or coders with a smile.

Technology *is* largley neutral. The box-cutter vendor is the one who must decide how she will market her product, the same as the gun and ammunition manufacturers or cigarette makers market theirs, and just as importantly, those who buy or acquire the tools or items and subsequently use them. There are a few exceptions, perhaps... such as nuclear weapons or bouncing betty landmines whose sole design is to kill and maim (but even this is debatable, as these are design to do so to cause the "enemy" to die so they will be less likely to harm us).

Please don't tell me (Prok) that you are the sort of gal who wants the government to come and take my guns away because "guns are evil and they kill people and fuzzy little bunnies"... or take away my computer because I write code... because my guns aren't evil - nor are the "Gut Ripper" brand bullets I at "Fuzzy Bunny Killers Ltd."

The only time that these devices become an accessory to an evil act is, if through my negligence, somebody else accesses them to commit a crime, or if I willingly use them in the commission of a crime.

And it is the same with code, and car mechanic tools as well.

hugs and kisses,

-Ryoma V.

Some of the best software on the planet is open source. Operating systems, both low and top level applications created by the open source community provide a vastly alternative and rich experience on many fronts. People are uneducated and want to remain that way. They have been raised to believe in the "Microshaft" way of doing things despite clear evidence that there remains a better way to compute. That is the bottom line. There are superior ways to compute.

In terms of not using the BSD license for the product when clearly Libomv is BSD is not what I had hoped for. I would personally prefer a software based on it's parent open source type licensing if you intend to use others work for your product. Either a binary or source that could be compiled on GNU/Linux.

This whole tirade of uneducated masses spilling their fears of content theft is ludicrous. There isn't any piece of content within the SL database that cannot be taken, abused, resold etc. by anyone with a mere entry level knowledge.  The Linden permissions system is not a true DRM and anyone wanting DRM code written to protect virtual assets are not all that bright.

Just as with any open source software, people donate or pay for the proucts within SL because they want to support the effort of the content creator. No other reason. And to believe that the better alternative is to create a software limiting, or in some way adding digital rights management type code to a product is just not the direction I would have taken.

I do think that backup tools should have been provided by Linden Lab. However, tools are needed, and many will prefer open source type tools where possible.

Most that complain have never ran a web server let alone an opensim server. They have no clue how and what is under the hood of anything they operate and want to remain ignorant and fearful.

Catherine--ty. Also worth noting that the SL DRM concepts are only concepts within SL at this time. So for example, if something is +copy in SL as a matter of convenience for SL use, does that imply that it +copy to leave SL?? There is no click-wrap on digital goods in SL and TOS does not address the content creators rights at all. And what about Freebies? I made a post awhile about this topic--you might find it interesting enuff http://rezzable.com/blog/rightasrain-rimbaud/digital-content-rights-and-metaverse-trust-freedom-and-risk-opensim-grids

Spot on, Tracy.

SL permissions system ≠ DRM.

A true DRM would mean implementing something along the lines of data encryption, and perhaps having content creators register with LL and generating  encrypted keys with a hashes unique to their avatars, and then some means of associating these keys with the content that would reduce the content to scrambled garble when some other avatar tried to copy or pull in an encrypted resource via its UUID.

I have a feeling though, that this is a sort of thing LL really wanted to avoid having to implement.

And my take on DRM as a flawed concept is, it's just another dimension of the "bigger wall, taller ladder" security game that has beset the proprietary software model for years. It's great fodder for copyright attorneys though - after all, they have kids to put through private school too!

Hiro -- libomv is BSD

I feel that any creator that is a little tech savy already understands that there is no absolute security and that is not what people are asking for. The amount of theft will rise and fall with both the ease it is possible to conduct theft, and risk of repercussions involved. The easier it is to obtain and operate a tool for thievery and the smaller the chance of being caught or not having suffer consequences that have a bearing on the thief, the more it will prosper.

So while it's true that there is no absolute technical solution to the problem, what the technical side very well can do is eliminate a large number of 'casual' thieves by not making it easy to do and possibly provide means to increase the chances of a thief getting caught. To use an analogy thats been brought up a few times...Locks on doors arent meant to absolutely stop burglars. They do however make it more inconvenient. A small lock on a door will mean you need to kick in the door (makes noise and increases the chances of being caught) or have knowledge of locks and tools to break it silently. If there is also an alarm the person to break and enter will also need knowledge of alarm systems, thus reducing the number of potential criminals to those that are willing to take a greater risk or have knowledge of all systems in place.

As you can see from above example, the second component to the locks being a workable means to provide *some* security are the repercussions one might face for commiting a crime. In the first stage it is the responsiblity of grid operators to take a stance against violators, both by letting the populace know that it is not an accepted practice to steal and by taking strong action against those that do get caught. Turning to court frequently is an approach to solving disputes that is a common practice in the US, and indeed US citizens turn towards the courts far more frequently than for example europeans do. It's a longwinded, costly and risky process that should be reserved for the most servere cases but surely it cannot be the one and only means to solve problems of microeconomies like SL and future grids.

The outcome of an opensource project stands and falls with it's community, and i hope that most will agree with this sentiment. While i can understand the 'we want to get our things out of SL' sentiment, the approach with which this is done quite surprises me. 3D worlds are a symbiosis of technology and content. To be sucessful they need both. Sure content can be taken from SL, legally or illegally as has been prooven time and again. The question that arises to me is, do the pioneers that seek to build better world without LL and their policies really care so little about their own project that they are staggering it's success with a strange 'fuck all' attitude displayed by some. Providing some security to content where LL has failed to act thus far, would be tremendously beneficial to the project and bring residents, sim operators, supporters and attention to the project.

I know some may think that security is not their concern, but i feel that providing *some* security is both a key issue as well as a great opportunity for the OS project. The bottom line is, where will people go? To the places where all the stolen shit from SL is (some will *nod*)  or to grids where they feel a sane level of security?

 @Aveline Stein

Even if drawing analogies between computer securities  and real home security it's just not that clear cut, penetrating in a system does not require skill, it only take skill to devise the first tool for it, after it's just a matter for any clueless person to open a program and push a button.

Hundreds of websites get defaced everydays not due to the high skill of the defacers but by exploiting known vulnerabilities in the software.

When it comes to computers and networks, once a security system is cracked, it's cracked for good and anybody with the proper tool will be able to make short work of it with the same efficiency as the cunning person who took the time to crack it in the first place.

The question really is that are you willing to devote a significant amount of resources to play the arm race with hundred of tousands of peoples that will see it as a challenge to break?
It means devoting significant amout of time, and money to build a protection only to see it broken and make a new one.

In my opinion, a software engineer that advocate this kind of temporary solution is either dishonest or trying to ensure he keeps his place permanently in the company.

Kyrah you may call me naive but isnt that how even opensource software also works and how it benefits from the 'more eyes are better' principle? Yes stuff gets broken, but yes it also gets fixed. And if i am looking at my linux laptop there is barely one day that goes by where there isnt a patch to this or that, *and* more often than not, patches are out before a security hole creates huge mess on systems around the globe. Patches are written by people that have interest in their own security and systems. Does that mean the security is absolute? Certainly not, but it one of the major advantages OS has over slow cooprorations providing software whos interest solely lies in the money they make.

You wrote that: "The question really is that are you willing to devote a significant amount of resources to play the arm race with hundred of tousands of peoples that will see it as a challenge to break?
It means devoting significant amout of time, and money to build a protection only to see it broken and make a new one."

Do you have a login on your computer? A router and/or firewall? Do you use ssh, https or encrypt passwords on your website? Do you secure your wireless? (now *that* is really useless, is it?), Do you use PGP or keep your system updated? Because if i were to follow your logic, you should not be using or doing any of it as there is no point. It's there so it can be broken, why bother? Or IF you are using any of the above, why do you do it? Isnt it out of the same  reasons creators are asking for means to help reduce theft? To fend off the majority of simiplicistic villians?

I am not proposing this to a company, nor am i with any company or so dependant on SL that i would commit suicide if it all went to hell. I am a smalltime creator that has fun building and gets frustrated when i see people taking my things. If they had asked nicely enough in the first place they *may* even have gotten what they wanted in a legit way. Back to the point, i am proposing to the community that security certainly *is* a topic, not a one time project but an ongoing one. Much work? Yes definately(!), but it is my deep and honest belief that it is one of the key issues that can make this thing really fly.

Perhaps it is not time...yet, but i do hope that some of the fury and vengance against LL does not ruin it all before the time comes. I for one would love to see virtual worlds grow, and be a part of it, rather than see it all go boom over stupid content wars and non existant security which make the whole thing about as desirable to visit and use as a phishing site to most people.

So....

you do intend to release software tools that are designed to remove CMT settings as it copies all content within a particular sim?

you then intend to "sell for profit toward rezzable" a version that is limited " to only copying a creators prims or with some sort of CMT checking" within a particular sim.?

Do i have the "facts" correct?

walter

Dumb question:

Isn't it against Linden Lab terms of service / community standards to do anything that breaks their permission system?

Dear all you people who think that releasing tools such as this is harmful:

You do not understand technology, do you?  This is a tool, and it's not a tool for content theft.  Only an idiot would say that all paperclips need to be made out of non-malleable alloys so that they can't be bent into lockpicks.  So why would you say that this software needs to be closed source?  People will copy shit from second life.

To these clowns who think that censoring software tools will actually help protect your content: EVERY TIME AN AVATAR VIEWS YOUR CONTENT, HE IS COPYING IT, IN IT'S ENTIRITY, TO HIS COMPUTER.  Let this sink in, because it's true.  That's how the thing goddamn works.  I can't see your dumb build if Second Life's servers don't send it to my computer.  My computer can only show me things that are on my computer.  That is a fundamental fact about how computers work.

If you think that any of the designs you make in second life are safe from copying, you are every bit as stupid as the web developers who back in the old days whenthe net was young, thought they could protect their images with transparent overlays or anti-right-click javascript.  They are, of course, wrong, and stupid, and I have all their images.

To extend the metaphor, asking a developer to bottle up a second life tool because you don't like the fact that it can steal your prims, makes just as much sense as asking web browser developers to disable the "view source" menu.  It's friggin' retarded, and anyone with some competence will be able to cheat anyways.

This software does not break Second Life's permissions.  Second Life's permissions simply do not extend beyond the confines of their own servers.  Second Life always gives the content to the viewer full perms, out of technical necessity.

I guess it's already been decided to make this project closed source, but that's okay.  Somebody else will see it, like it, and make an open source one.  All of you luddite content creators have already lost the war against content copying, given that CopyBot has yet to magically stop working.  All you're doing now is fighting a losing war against freedom.

Mr. Kharg,

The following is a list of your failures in the last post:

1. Ad hominem. Your post reeks of personal attacks.

2. "Only an idiot would say that all paperclips need to be made out of non-malleable alloys so that they can't be bent into lockpicks." - straw man. A paper clip is designed for job X (namely, clipping paper), and picking locks is job Y. Further, to use a paperclip for job Y, it must be deformed to a point where it will almost definitely never be able to perform job X again. Software that copies content being used for copying content is, in fact, a tool with inteded use X being used for use X. The difference is that the job can be performed on your own content or someone else's. For example, I can use a screwdriver to take apart my laptop. That's fine. If I use a screwdriver to take apart someone else's laptop, that's not so fine.

3. "EVERY TIME AN AVATAR VIEWS YOUR CONTENT, HE IS COPYING IT, IN IT'S ENTIRITY, TO HIS COMPUTER. " This statement is a technical fallacy. Visualization of data is not the same as the data itself. If I give you a cake, that's not the same as giving you the recipe to the cake. In the case of Second Life, some of the data is, as you point out, transmitted to the end-user's computer. However, not all of it. I realize this may be splitting hairs, but since you went to such a point as to put it in ALL CAPS, you should probably be sure to not make misleading statements that are not entirely true.
 

4. While you're correct that, indeed, content in Second Life - at least, the graphical elements of it - the rationale of "if it's possible, it's okay" is simply nihililst and pretends that social contract and laws don't exist.

5. "Second Life's permissions simply do not extend beyond the confines of their own servers." In the literal sense of "this data of whether something is no-transfer, no-build, etc is only on Second Life's servers", you're ... wrong. This same data is transmitted to the viewer. If you mean it in the figurative sense of "Second Life permissions only apply to data on the Second Life servers"... you're wrong. The permissions have to do with their use, per Terms of Service / Community Standards. Linden Lab's Terms of Service - scratch that. DMCA law indicates what is and is not appropriate fair use. Redistributing data without permission is not fair use.

Now, I'm not an advocate for extreme control of data. My personal belief is that as long as people are using data for personal use, and are not avoiding purchases that they normally would be making, if data's shared by the creator, then it's fair use. So, as a backup tool for content that you've created yourself, I see no reason why BuilderBot would be offensive. Or CopyBot. Or whatever. But should the software be used as a "You bought stuff for use in Second Life, but go make a copy and bring it to a private grid", it gets sketchy. And should the software not even do any basic checks for permissions (as any file-copying tool would need to do in say, a Unix-based environment), then the software does, in my opinion, violate terms of service / community standards of Second Life. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been pretty good at following along virtual copyright cases and predicting results.

6. "Second Life always gives the content to the viewer full perms, out of technical necessity." Incorrect. It transmits data along with a clear set of Terms of Service and Community Standards, as well as the permissions, to be used together.

6. "All you're doing now is fighting a losing war against freedom." This statement is loaded with assumptions. You assume this "war" is "stop all content theft" and that "freedom" is "all data is free".

The first problem is that the objectives of many of the people who've left comments is not to "stop all content theft" but to (a) prevent people from making non-trivial amounts of money off copyright theft. Anyone can steal a little, but to steal a a lot and make good money takes a lot of effort that can be easily seen and counteracted. (b) prevent precedent from being set of easy-to-use Second Life copyright-circumventing software from being seen as permissible. Both of those goals are goals that, in fact, people are winning.

The second problem is the idea of "freedom" is only one freedom. There are a variety of freedoms involved. Ones your "freedom" doesn't include is people to create content and be free to do business without content theft. Freedom, in the genuine sense, includes individuals being able to create Intellectual Property, own that property, do what it they like (without interfering in others' freedom) and not have this infringed.

Data and truth doesn't seek to be made free. It has to be actively pursued. The concept of the ideal that data ought to be free as a value in and of itself conflicts with other values. To make a blanket statement and refer to data freedom merely as "freedom" with no qualifiers is simple rhetoric.

7. Learn to be polite. Don't refer to folks as "You people". It's condescending, and so is your entire tone. If you're here trying to make a technical point, you're going to win no fans by being hostile.

Excellent technical exposition, many thanks for posting that.

 They should have released it anonymously, but i think they kinda wanted the PR stunt

@Kharg

Once again, you're showing that you're not doing much thinking or research before you type.

"There is absolutely no legal precedent for a company being held responsible for what people do with their software, if the software also has legitimate purposes."

Napster? Pirate Bay? And don't give me the "they don't have legit purposes" excuse - there's plenty of free-to-share files that can and were shared on both.

"the American Civil Liberties Union would support Rezzable in higher levels of court and win"

They would, eh? You've got a few problems with thaat. The first is that Rezzable is based in London, England, UK, which, as far as I know, is still not aa part of the United States of America, which is where the ACLU operates. Assuming the lawsuit was American-based (maybe the Philadelphia operating wing of Rezzable was sued), I haven't seen anything virtual world related hit the ACLU's radar. But assuming it did, ACLU really hasn't been focusing at all in software law. (http://news.cnet.com/2100-1025-996245.html may have had something to do with it.)

"because the ACLU is a wonderful organization which protects freedom of speech."

ACLU also doesn't have a blanket "we will defend all freedom of speech issues". They're quite opposed to, for example, church and state entanglement issues. (like when they sued to get the cross off Los Angeles County seal). So making a statement like this doesn't add anything to your argument.

If you're going to articulate an argument why Rezzable should release the software, you may want to take note from Pavig Lok. While I may not agree to all his points, Paviq states a case and supports it with rationale evidence, rather than relying on rhetoric and half-researched half-truths.

Interesting article from Peter http://www.rezmagazine.co.uk/2009/07/short-history-of-copying.html and he links to another good piece here about Copybot issues: http://rikawatanabe.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/on-copying/#comment-341

@Encore Mayne, try researching what happend over Openspaces before believing the balderdash you post, try Jack's forum post in 2006. Try Zee's blog post in July 2008, try the umpteen office hour logs about the subject before you call people who followed advice from Linden Lab greedy.

Napster originally was not a data service. It was p2p software.

To RightAsRain,

Most large builds in SL use megaprims extensively these days.  If the BuilderBot cannot be used to backup these then it is pretty much useless for the purposes of backing up large builds in SL.

As you probably know Megaprims cannot be made with the builder's name as creator, so the tool will have to allow backing up all you *own* as opposed to all you have *created* or fail to backup vital parts of a large SL build.

I stand by what I said, and what I said is in fact a giant pushback to the sheer wilful and malicious arrogance we get from coders, starting with RightAs Rain and his gaspingly atrocious act here.

Once again, anyone who pushes back against the tech-thugs is then themselves accused of "forcing their opinions on others" or "arrogance".

I just can't be concerned about your beliefs in this regard precisely because there's a very urgent public task here which is to counter those who originate with the malice and the aggressiveness. No, code is not law; coders are not rulers. And indeed *they will* learn their place just like stable boys and garage mechanics. Stable boys and garage mechanics might well be noble professions and needed professions, but not when those in these jobs imagine they rule everyone and lord it over everyone and even sabotage things.

Coders are the garage mechanics of this century, imaging they have everyone over a barrel, dependent and queuing up to them. It's about putting the entire role into perspective -- and indeed into place, big time.

There aren't any "threats" in my comments but pragmatic statements of fact. Coders *are* too arrogant, aggressive and even malicious, imaging that the exigencies of technology enable them to destroy others' value and property. We've seen an appalling criminal act here perpetrated by RightAsRain which is symptomatic of a whole class warfare he and his gang are constantly waging on other people. And it's wrong. And I for one will fight it, and fight it hard.

You're weepy concerns about people aggressively imposing their views was utterly missing on the first threads where RightAsRain airly announced he'd be imposing his copyleftist technocommunist views on the entire population of Second Life. Hello? And you were missing in action. THAT didn't bother you, though you "support musicians and content creators".

Where were you when Kyrrah Abattoir was threatening "repercussions" if a JIRA expressing concern about builderbot was not closed to her whim? That's the sort of thuggish threat you have to be concerned about, not me comparing RightAsRain to a crude stable boy and an arrogant garage mechanic making others dependent on his whims.

Welcome to the Newly-Acquired Conscience Society.

@Hiro

Actually Napster only got sued because they had a centralized indexing server, ie, data service.  It was not a decentralized system.

ok abbatoir..

so why wanting to have a jira closed expressing concern about builderbot?

@Prok:

"Once again, anyone who pushes back against the tech-thugs is then themselves accused of "forcing their opinions on others" or "arrogance"."

No one is denying you the right--nor the ability, it seems, since you're still able to post on Rezzable's response wall--to express your misgivings about BuilderBot, content creator's rights, or RightAsRain's actions.  What most people who have responded to you have been trying to point out is the TONE with which you express your displeasure.  It is entirely possible to state your piece without stooping to the level of name-calling ("tech-thugs", "copyleftist technocommunist", and other interesting ones I've seen you use).  THAT is the point I was trying to make, and others.  I have no problem at all with you being against BuilderBot or anything else; I'm not so arrogant as to assume that everyone else must agree with me or they're dead wrong.  You might try to step back and try the objective-vs-subjective thing from time to time.

"I just can't be concerned about your beliefs in this regard precisely because there's a very urgent public task here which is to counter those who originate with the malice and the aggressiveness. No, code is not law; coders are not rulers. And indeed *they will* learn their place just like stable boys and garage mechanics. Stable boys and garage mechanics might well be noble professions and needed professions, but not when those in these jobs imagine they rule everyone and lord it over everyone and even sabotage things."

No, I don't think anyone wants the coders, stable boys, and garage mechanics of the world to overthrow society as we know it; I just don't think that most of them are exactly gunning for that end.  Arrogance on the part of those in a management position is no better than arrogance on the part of the one doing the dirty work; all it ends up being is arrogance for its own sake, and either way it's bound to piss someone off.  A little humility goes a long way, regardless of your profession.

"Coders are the garage mechanics of this century, imaging they have everyone over a barrel, dependent and queuing up to them. It's about putting the entire role into perspective -- and indeed into place, big time."

Generalize much?

"There aren't any "threats" in my comments but pragmatic statements of fact. Coders *are* too arrogant, aggressive and even malicious, imaging that the exigencies of technology enable them to destroy others' value and property. We've seen an appalling criminal act here perpetrated by RightAsRain which is symptomatic of a whole class warfare he and his gang are constantly waging on other people. And it's wrong. And I for one will fight it, and fight it hard."

Fight what?  "We've seen an appalling criminal act here..."  So far, the only act I'VE seen is RightAsRain asking for opinions about a software tool he's made that happens to have both very positive capabilities (if used for its intended purpose by an honest person) and very negative capabilities (if used for unintended and illegal purposes by a dishonest person).  Is it a criminal act in the US--or the UK, where Rezzable is located--to ask for feedback about an as-yet-unreleased piece of software?  Fight it if you want, but I don't know of too many courts that will convict someone for the heinous crime of asking for feedback.

"You're weepy concerns about people aggressively imposing their views was utterly missing on the first threads where RightAsRain airly announced he'd be imposing his copyleftist technocommunist views on the entire population of Second Life. Hello? And you were missing in action. THAT didn't bother you, though you "support musicians and content creators".

Where were you when Kyrrah Abattoir was threatening "repercussions" if a JIRA expressing concern about builderbot was not closed to her whim? That's the sort of thuggish threat you have to be concerned about, not me comparing RightAsRain to a crude stable boy and an arrogant garage mechanic making others dependent on his whims."

Where was I?  I'm currently deployed in Iraq, Prokofy.  I'm sorry if that means that I can't rebut and debate as quickly as you seem to prefer, but I have other concerns here that trump flaming message boards on the internet.  I get online when I am able.

As I've said before, I'm not a coder, or business owner, or content creator in Second Life.  I'm just an average user who occasionally buys things he likes and tries to support the originators of that content when I can.  I don't apparently have the lofty view of the matter at hand that you seem to deem yourself in possession of; but I have an opinion which I am just as entitled to as you are of yours.  Keep this up, if you want to; for my part, I *refuse* to stoop to the name-calling game or unnecessarily lacing my rebuttal with negativity under misguided notion that it somehow makes my argument "stronger".

"Welcome to the Newly-Acquired Conscience Society."

Funny, I don't feel any different.  Ahh, that's right... I already have a conscience.  Thanks anyway.

What we have to this point are a few softwares that I am aware of that help with the copying of data within SL. For both backups and transfering to local or remote machines. Here's my take and/or experience with what we have.

Libomv - Libsecondlife - TestClient

1) Copybot - while it's use, it's code, and it's function were originally to be used for good purpose, it has been used for not so good purposes. Thus Linden made a point to state that it was not acceptable due to the misuse. So, this is no use in it's present form for those that want to pursue this in the proper way as it breaks the Linden Lab  Terms Of Service (TOS).

2) Second Inventory (Copybot with permissions checks) - Windows based proprietary. Bot like client where you log in and create a bot for the purpose of backing up data to local disk or for use with remote servers. You do not login with your usual SL client, you cannot view what you are doing. This software lacks quite a bit in what is really needed. It's made progress over time to where you can backup directories (folders) with it's content, but with large inventory it does take time and is a bit on the "clunky" side. For those that don't mind paying for this code. You'll have to sign up with Second Inventory and have your account tied to the machine. More or less like your hardware is tied to your Microshaft software licenses.

Restoring your work to a local or remote OpenSim grid is not all that difficult in it's process, but the way this software works is nothing as it really should do. All your work is dumped in the middle of the sim and nothing is restored as it would be done with OAR/XML. It does however give you the option to take back the import to inventory.

3) MeerKat Viewer - open source client. Now this is impressive. A client with backup capabilities that I've wanted without the fuss in terms of large build backup on the fly. A whole room, house etc.. You basically select your build and back it up to XML. It's simple, it's easy, and no hassles.

Restoring is just as easy and what's nice is that you are logged into SL or your local/remote server and watching it be placed where it should. It's not a bot client, it's an SL client with permission based backup accessible via the pie menu.It works pretty good and this is really the right direction to go in. However, this client will not backup everything as SI would do at this point. It doesn't grab prim contents, doesn't backup scripts, textures etc... and does have a few quirks of it's own. It's not really an db asset/inventory type of backup as you see with SI, but has potential to do what is needed.

I would certainly prefer to backup from within the SL client and most end users would as well I'm sure. If (or better yet when) MeerKat would have some of the function that SI had in terms of the inventory/folder type scenario coupled with allowing for emeded objects, scripts, textures and anims to be backed up.. We wouldn't even be looking any further for what we need in a tool.

But at this point, the items need be rezzed before being backed up to xml, you cannot backup from inventory with MeerKat. At least not that I am aware of.

Looking for a solution that works for everyone is not an easy task. You have those that want open source code, you have the proprietary naysayers. But in all reality, the answer to the question is to have both. Just as both are needed.

Last but not least.... Large prims (megaprims) need to be backed up no matter whom created it in SL. People build large builds using these prims to save both time and ... well... prims. So we need to be sure that the large prims can be backed up and restored to local/remote servers. Owner checks in this case.

thank you Ciaran for the off topic ad hominem attack. as far as i know (you can put out some extra effort and provide the links you refer to, thank you) LL's policy on initiating the Openspaces has always been up front and well understood to those doing even a limited amount of research. if your tangent is to diminish MY opinion of RaR's juvenile "blaming" LL for his own emotional responses i'd prefer RaR do that directly. perhaps further reading of RaR's opinions (jumping off the page into some other people's faces here) would adjust your adoration of He Who Can Do No Wrong. "None of this would be an issue if..." is merely another nail on the coffin called the blame game. of course, black being white, that might be one of his greatest qualities for you.

Seems like we have had enuff comments by now. I am closing comments here. If anyone would like to make blog post about a related topic (or even a totally random one) pls drop me an email at rar@rezzable.com or use our contact form. But if you want to spew some diatribe, go elsewhere to vent.

Thanks to everyone for posting. Lots of interesting points raised.  I have learned many things in this and we will try to find a good solution reflecting the concerns at hand. 

The biggest open question still remains though--how can you thrive  in making digital content when it can be copied by your customers, competitors and rippers.