I’m creating an Art Gallery. I need to know High Fidelity’s stance on property owned by an artist that should not be copied? What protections are there for property at this time. Is it still too early to be doing this? I want to be able to have Gallery Openings and Events but I don’t want to bring digital images in of their work, if there is no way to protect it. Any suggestions on this would be greatly appreciated.
Just like second life everything can be copied
There should be an assumption that, anything that you share digitally, has to be copied to be shown.
This applies to content one post into any service.
Currently, the only way to “somewhat” safeguard content in High Fidelity is to host the content locally on the domain you have the content in, through ATP. This obfuscates the content name and makes it slightly tricky to extract from cache. Your domain will be the only place that will map the content to this obfuscated name, and the content you host on the domain, can only be show within the domain, all other domains cannot load the content. Atleast, for now, there are more plans to allow ATP servers to cross communicate and point to each other to load specific content from another domain, along with partial P2P sharing (not of full files, but references everywhere to speed up download) but still would be tricky to just grab the content.
A reminder though, that more technically inclined users can use OpenGL extractors or their own clients (Open Source after all) similarly to what happens in other worlds, such as in Second Life.
If you decide to host the content on an HTTP, anyone can simply get ahold of the url where the files are hosted through the logs, or through a HTTP traffic analyser and download it directly to their disk. This is similar to how the Web behaves.
However, if someone copies your content and hosts it on an HTTP service, a DMCA request to the HTTP Service provider can get the content removed (quite a few providing hosts have a nigh zero tolerance to pirated content), and that instance of the content will be removed forever: and since people pay for those service, it can result into quite a bit of a cost for anyone doing so.
It is much worse for now. Unlike SL, things can be copied trivially here. Understand that HF is alpha, and even when it enters first beta there will be no DRM whatsoever. That will probably change eventually but right now there are no protections.
Without digitally signed viewers (aka interface) that employ DRM measures, and that also requires a trusted system with measured boot and an OS that supports that (presently only Windows 8+ or Mac OS 10.10), it is possible for a person to grab a high quality image, model, etc.
It is probably better to work on watermarking your assets since that means there is a better chance to identify stolen assets and deal with obtaining justice through normal channels.
As menthial pointed out. If you can see it then it’s already on your computer .that’s fine. The illegal bit is re uploading it
No. That is what the TPM is for.
I’ll be happy to discuss high value content protection in another thread to keep this thread on topic. The takeaway here, is that your high value content is not protected, @Grayson2015.
Other than by law …
Intressting, but not see how todo that.
The concept of protection has been brought to the devs many times. In similar fashion to DRM music, the goal is to make it easy to obtain content legally; and using a hash algorithm block-chain format to “stamp” content that was purchased via marketplace.
I would assume, a domain could check for this “stamp” and fail to render anything without one.
Downside is anything you wish to have rendered must pass through the marketplace. It would make sense to allow creators to submit a content for “stamp” approval, but not offer it to the general public. This could create one-of-a-kind items or “rare-drops” in WoW terms.
Hmm, and how do you want to use as example own made clothing that need to be stamped but never on marketplace ?
Mabye marketplace is a wrong word for this part of content protection ?
The assumption here is that block chain is the one true and only panacea. It isn’t albeit does convey some nice attributes. What matters at the minimum is that we need access agents to pass identity information to asset servers and in turn they send encrypted assets to be cracked by those agents. Ideally, a viewer would pass its identity too, that digital signature derived from its measurement by the OS (which in turn is running the viewer in a trusted environment). This is trusted computing at its basics. And no, it does not have to be limited to the marketplace, although the reason that limitation has been suggested is to make the trust chain smaller. It doesn’t scale.
By far this problem here, the lack of DRM and no digital assets tracking, will be the #1 limiter of this technology.
Here’s a good discussion of the issues: http://msl1.mit.edu/ESD10/docs/darknet5.pdf and also that digital fingerprinting is far less useful than one would think. It has to do with the speed of proliferation versus speed of law enforcement.
Or maybe more to the point… just like any web page… in order to render it, the content must be “downloaded” onto the client machine, and ultimately, that means that someone can pull those bits out and have a copy.
That’s not a given. There are several techniques available to make that not possible or hard enough to exclude a large enough population of casual copiers to let the remaining copycats get handled by law enforcement.
Trust me on this point. I’ve been working on digital media and DRM for 20 years… If it’s on your screen… it can be copied. There’s always “the analog hole”.
Trust me, so have I, Are you Peter BIddle? Yes the analog hole is there, but that hole is small enough to let law enforcement deal with that leakage.
There’s no need for a resume battle.
My meta-point remains… we’ve modeled the system after the web, and in that sense like a web browser/web server, the notion of DRM is not something we’ve built into the system, nor is it on our immediate road map.
Menithal’s and Judas’s advice is the best advise.
Or… we could just stop asking the tough questions.
The you and HF have made a grave error in the sense that you have pushed the burden of content protection and identity management onto every content provider. So my answer to the original poster is, no, if you wish to place content here and not have it ripped off by any casual person, don’t place your content here.
please continue to ask all the questions… we will answer them directly and honestly…
This is a critically important set of questions that need to answered honestly:
When does HF intend to address content protection?
Will HF provide to content management/delivery systems (internal or 3rd party) immutable identity information by agents asking for the assets?
Will HF participate in DMCA measures such as takedown demands either directly or by brokering them (specify which methods)?