Talk about object Permissions


#1

Am going to throw it in the forum, and see where we end.
Right now every object that’s uploaded to High Fidelity or own space,
dont have any protection at all. everybody can use it, fine. except if its avatar.

So whats the road for protecting objects and avatars ?
We need at least a flag for objects that you upload to
high fidelity that’s saying 'can only used by creator". I dont think you can ever have a protection on content you put on own webspace. offcorse later there more perms needed.
But that’s one reason i have not looked into making or trying to make some avatar, also my feeling is saying that its to early for permission system.

But i think its not to early to talk about it to get some ideas, so lets start here.


#2

What i mean, its not nice if you spend hours or years in creating avatar and then you see someone else walking around with your avatar.


#3

Well at this point I would suggest not uploading anything that you wouldn’t want to share with everyone due to the fact that right now, everything is available to everyone. At this point, HiFi doesn’t even have it’s own asset servers, so asset permissions aren’t all that doable right now. It’s my guess that object permissions will be similar to Second Life. Objects will be copyable or not, transferable or not, etc.


#4

Right, thats correct.
ALso maby good point is to add Export flag. this usefull for objects with GNU license.
But thats a point that need some good thinking.


#5

We do need some element of trust at alpha stage. As usual everyone who wants to reuse anything beyond the alpha phase does need to seek and obtain permission since there is no way to mark items as permitted to copy and use by attribution and with commercial restrictions yet. And assets need to be loaded from publicly open URLs at the moment. One indicator may be to add into the URL path the permission or licence type.


#6

I’m probably very slightly off topic here, as this reminded me of a half written post I’d forgotten to finish. There was another post where the Marketplace was being discussed, but since this is a newer thread discussing permissions, I thought I’d finish up and post my two pennies worth here.

Permissions

I personally could never work out why SL insisted on either copy or transfer permissions. Surely, it should be possible to purchase an asset, make loads of copies of it in your inventory that would simply be deleted if you transferred the item. Permissions could be as simple as owner or creator - or am I missing something? .

Avi to avi asset transfers

Regarding avi to avi asset transfers, as I touched on in the other post, I see two ways of an avi (@Judas!) selling ‘the shirt off their back’:

  1. An avi can effectively sell a copy on behalf of the original creator and perhaps even get a cut. (sell a copy of the asset)
  2. An avi can sell/give away their copy, in which case all copies will be removed from their inventory and the new owner would hold copies. (transfer the asset)

Following these ideas up:

The first option (sell a copy of the asset) allows for the creation of a ‘sales personnel’ roles inworld. Again, drawing on SL experience, my sales personnel proved highly valuable - I lacked the time (and if I’m honest, interest) for sales type activities.
The amount of commission payable would need to be variable and set by the original creator either on an avi by avi basis or by specifying at upload time.
Such a scheme presents a way of generating revenue from scratch, which may be of great benefit (i.e. provide a starting point to make money) for avis from poorer countries / backgrounds.

The second option (transfer the asset) would also allow for a second hand goods market, which I think is a lovely idea and a great analog of the real world.
If avi to avi transfers like this were possible, perhaps unlike the real world, there may an argument for the original creator getting a substantial cut of subsequent sales, as otherwise it could be construed as a lost sale. Such a model for second hand goods transfers couldn’t really been called fair or equitable in the real world, but inworld second hand assets are still ‘new’ - i.e. they are not (generally) worn out, scratched or washed too many times already! As for actual percentage paid to the original creator, this could be set at the point of sale and the information be available to potential purchasers, as an item’s resale value could influence the purchasing decision.

Collectables

I’d like creators to have the ability to make one-off or limited edition assets. This could also be specified at upload time. Imagine a virtual goods antiques fair or auction where genuinely rare and one-off exotic items could be found! Quests with a truly valuable treasure to find would also be possible. One off items could be made and sold for charity. As in the real world, a market for ‘collectors’ could emerge and the monetary value of prized assets could soar.
I can imagine this providing motivation and therefore an ecosystem that would encourage the production of limited editions of certain assets, particularly beneficial in terms of retaining the value of truly beautiful artwork inworld. This I base on my opinion that art loses value with ubiquity - anyone remember the Athena poster shops of '80s Britain? So many iconic images reduced to cliche…

/braindump

  • Dave

#7

the antiques fair side i have discovered 1 week ago in SL, forgot the name :open_mouth:
the prices let you jump up to. lol. but the feeling of that sim is right, you walk onmarket look around , if you see something nice you pay it, and really take it inworld. so its important that we can buy objects etc. in High Fidelity itself, its where SL screwed things a bit with the marketplace. Only we need to figure a way out the also get commisions on inworld sales. if that works you dont need marketplace, thats just good for finding thing.

But yes, some ideas mostly all sounds very intressting @davedub. Still preffer if thing can be pushed back to inworld shopping, it still gives a bigger meaning inworld.


#8

@Richardus - Ah, sorry, I should have clarified - is a bit confusing, but the entire assets storage / transfers / permissions system in HiFy I’ve heard called Marketplace, so when I talk about the Marketplace I’m not just talking about a 2D website, but the whole system…


#9

@davedub, you tryin’ to put me out of business !! Lol, just kidding. In SL, when I sold a clock, I sold A CLOCK. Not a clock that could be rezzed multiple times by the owner. If you wanted a clock in two rooms, you had to buy two clocks from me. Giving default copy permissions isn’t a good idea IMO. I do really like the idea of inherent resell ability as long as it’s optional and the creator has the ability to decide weather he wants it available to the buyer for resale. You’re absolutely right that reselling is a great distribution method. 100 people selling in 10 locations is 1000 locations, which is exceedingly difficult to do. Trust me, I know. I had about 10 locations I was selling at at one point, and it was a pain bouncing around to add or remove items for sale (this was before I knew about distribution systems like Jeven), but even with cool distribution systems like Jeven one still had to go places and do setups, pay rent, etc. Just having 10 places kept me busy, my friend who made formal wear had far more, and had to have multiple avatars because most malls and such required you to join a group so you could rez vendors at the location. Reselling is something non-creators can do to make money, and at the same time, provide creators, who would rather create than manage sales a distribution system that could make money for both the creator and the distributor. A complete win-win situation, so yes, I like the idea very much of inherent resale ability to objects, but only as long as the creator can set that ability or not.

As far as permissions go, the same copy/modify/transfer system in SL is the only way to go. Having copy permissions automatically could create issues too. You suggested that items be copyable all the time, but copies would disappear if the item were transferred to another entity. If that were the case, the system would have to remove all in-inventory copies, and all instances resolved in world. In SL that would mean removing any copies in one’s inventory, no problem there, but then the system would have to search each domain’s list of resolved items and remove the appropriate items from the domain(s) as well. That would present alot of overhead for a simple item transfer, which would bog down the asset system. Consider SL, at any given moment, how many inventory transfers are happening? That would be an interesting statistic to know (@philip… hint hint, I bet you could find out pretty easily). When an item transfer occurs in SL, the system needs only to delete the key from the givers inventory and paste it into the receivers. A simple cut & paste operation. So from a technical standpoint alone I think auto-copy permissions with , not to mention one off items, or items (like my clocks) which are no copy, but transferable items because the creator wants to sell individual items rather than copy / no transfer items.

Another thing to consider… say I’m standing in a skybox that you own, and you decided to give/sell it to someone. You do so, and out of the blue, with no warning, the skybox disappears. Also, professional sim builders exist in SL who create an entire, pre-built themed sim, then transfer that to the owner. If that were the case, that would cause the entire sim to de-rez, and the owner would have to set everything up again. So you can see the issues that “auto de-rez on inventory transfer” would create.


#10

Interesting discussion, Cloud Party had a royalties system that meant if someone else sold your item, you got a percentage, if the next person sold it, you got royalties.

Personally I feel that was a great idea, this becomes more relevant, or more complicated, depending upon how you look at it, when your component forms part of another build and you still get royalties for your component.

I think in a digital arena, royalties are viable and make sense.


#11

@John_Laury, You know what, I knew I had to be missing something!

I’d not considered the point about copy perms assets needing to be de-rezzed on resale or transfer - that one point alone convinces me that adopting the traditional copy / trans model is the way forward.

Coming from an animation vending background, copy perms was always the obvious choice, mainly from a customer support perspective. Copy perms items were far less susceptable to inventory loss, were easier for people to use in AOs and other HUDs and could be replaced automatically, for free (via my bot and past purchases database) in cases of undelivered items and inventory loss. But of course, most of these time consuming issues were due to the unreliability of the asshats servers, and so should’t be an issue in hify anyway…

  • Dave

#12

What we have found in in Second Life and even OpenSim with our Virtual University of Edinburgh (Vue) team is that the object and asset permissions are a constant problem. We always end up with a deeply embedded script or texture owned by one team member that means we end up stuck in terms of backup, archive and transfer across the “metaverse”. Group permissions and means to allow asset sharing and transfer across platforms and inside a group could be made to work, but needs some common standards.

We do need to think beyond one platform and long term for a permissions system, and have the ability to licence assets and mark them appropriately with their licence.

I am mostly concerned with open source asset sharing where proper attribution (BY)and respect for the usage restrictions (NC or any use/LGPL style) where often we are scuppered with the “single creator” backup restrictions in SL and OpenSim). But commercial assets also need proper marking so those who respect such things can act responsibly, and those that do not can be identified.


#13

Maby its sayed before.
ip rights ok, but what if you buyed some object. and later it seems to be void ip rights.
i think its not fair to remove the object for all users that own it already.
That would be the same as that you get the police at the frontdoor. or what amazone did with kindle e-book, and the where compleet wrong with the massive removal action. I think it would be better to remove the wrong object from the marketplace. and if needed change perms so it cannot be redistributed anymore if its full perm. but let the owners that payed for it keep it. otherwise on day you login and your whole home would be vanished because some ip claim (far or not)

I wanted to say this, its maby seen from the law side wrong. but law is many times wrong because its not aimed for digital products. we need more talk.


#14

If you buy stolen goods, the general rule is that you are not the legal owner. In other words, you do not have good title. This applies even if you paid a fair price and didn’t know that the goods were stolen. The person who originally owned them is still the legal owner. This might not seem fair, but it’s the law, and the company doesn’t have a choice to allow you to keep the goods, so you’ll have to either return the goods, or pay the rightful owner. The company’s obligation is to return the goods to the rightful owner (in this case, remove it from your inventory). If you want the goods, you could purchase it from the rightful owner. Again, High Fidelity isn’t the rightful owner of the said goods, and don’t have the legal right to allow you to keep them. This is how it is done in Second Life, and it’s how it will have to be done here.

Look at it this way, let’s say I make a 3D model that I sell online to game creators. I sell it to them for say, $20, and I give them royalty free rights, which means they can make and sell a game using that item, and they own me nothing more than the original $20 price. So far, High Fidelity has nothing to do with anything. I’m my own entity making the item, and game creators are the other entity buying them. Now let’s say “Bad HF Avatar”, a 3rd entiy, gets a copy of my item without paying for it. Then, he comes into High Fidelity, uploads the item, and sells the item to you, Richardus, the 4th entity. How is it fair that High Fidelity, the 5th entity tell me, the first entity, “Well, Richardus paid SOMEBODY for it, so we’re going to let him keep it.” That’s not fair, and not legal. High Fidelity would have to have the legal right to allow you to keep it, and they don’t have rights to the item either. Therefore it’s their obligation to remove the item at the request of the owner. I know it’s not fair to you because you paid the seller in good faith, but it’s not fair to the creator just because you were essentially robbed.

So, don’t hold your breath hoping what you suggest be approved, I can tell you right now it won’t. What I would like to see is some sort of system where some level of vetting content creators is done, and a list of offenders be available, so honest, paying shoppers like you can have some level of protection against being ripped off. It’s a sticky situation all around. The company doesn’t want to enable cheaters to sell stolen goods, but at the same time it’s exceedingly difficult to prevent theft because of the nature of how things work. If I walk into a store to examine legitimate goods, that item has to be downloaded into my computer so that my client software can render it, so, with the item existing in the local computer, it’s not too difficult to create software that will copy the item from the game cache to my hard drive as a copy. At that point, the copy can be re-uploaded to the system, and at that point, the uploader is marked by the system as the creator even though they are not.

The one thing that you have to keep in mind is that when you buy something digital, just because it’s digital doesn’t mean it will last forever. The host company may go out of business, the seller might have stolen it, etc. One needs to weigh how much they’re spending on the product vs how badly they want it, and in every case understand that just because a digital item won’t “wear out” like a real world item. I doesn’t mean the buy has purchased rights to own the item for all of eternity either.


#15

Yes john, i know the problem good. its a tricky problem. thats why SL have made it a bit harder to claim illegall content. I think am just missing 1 piece in the puzzle. rigth now everybody can store content everywhere. so its different. But i guess the plans are to let run all content true High Fidelity marketplace ? But what if someone else start a marketplace, with own object storage. It feels like in High Fidelity its a bit harder to know where the content is comeing from at the end. in SL everything is in the hands from Linden Lab. but am not sure if thats the same with High Fidelity. And i think thats possible the reaction i wrote above. Technical you say, buy full perm textures and make your own objects :wink: and thats what am missing in some other grid and make high fidelity so good… its combining 2 good things in one. Would be nice if there’s some way to know if something is right to buy Especially in the begin when creators need to settle. if the are smart the use the same labels as the use in SL as example… Wish there where a good way to know if you buy from the right seller. Anyway but pretty technical a problem. what happens with items rezzed inworld ? the disapear ?

I understand both sides compleet, its also reason why i did hold things back in opensim. just because you can say the lack of any permission system. and thats why High Fidelity is so much better. As long the illigal stuff dont get out of control.

Maby its possible todo a compare ? object thats upload get at some point checked with existing content, if creator name is not the same but the look pretty identical. give a warn so it can be checked by moderator ? Just idea’s…

Btw, it happend once in SL with animation. someday it where replaced for ugly one, with message. shamly no refund. never knew it where illigal to.

Add: i think what i try to say, find a system that try to keep wrong objects out of marketplace. or at least identify it as possible problem so it can be cheked before it canb e sold if there’s a warning. if this is combined with that you always can redownload a lost object you buyed. only this ideacan give problems with textures… hmm. maby only check on items that are not full perm the first time uploaded ? OK, now am official lost. :open_mouth:

Hope everybody knows what i mean, avoid illegal stuff on marketplace, so object dont get lost from inventory.


#16

I am not quite sure if a talk about if a virtual item is legal should go in a object permissions treat.
There for sure will not be a kill switch in the object permissions.

There should be somewhere a copyright tag tough, where you can put in the type of license you got on the object.

It is not true that high fidelity will become the rightful owner of the object if you upload it. It is not possible to give away intellectual property rights of a virtual object away by uploading them, at least not under the laws of the country where I live in.

Anyway when some object will disappear from inventory, then the users will explain it as the fault of the inventory server being broken.


#17

Unless High Fidelity gives a notice to the perons where the object is removed like Linden lab did. Maby i look to much in the dark side. it confused me in opensim, and there its easy to get confused. Think am just afraid to buy wrong things. The license type is good idea !


#18

Well, the way things work in Second Life, Linden Lab doesn’t remove anything from anyone’s inventory on their own. The only time they step forward is when a copyrighted items is requested to be removed by it’s rightful copyright owner. Linden Lab does this because it’s legally obligated to do so. Because they host the world content, they’re the ones removing it, but they don’t actively seek out copyright infringement. It’s the job of the creator to do that, and the legal right of the creator to request the removal. It’s my understanding that HF will be hosting all of the assets. It’s the domains themselves that will be distributed. As far as items resolved in world, I’m not sure how that works in Second Life. I know they inventory object is replaced with a dummy object that’s labeled such that it informs the user that the item was removed due to copyright infringement. I don’t really think items resolved in world are that big of a deal because server restarts are fairly common, and rolling restarts cover all servers, and if an item is removed from an inventory, after a sim restart, the object will be gone and either nothing will be there. I don’t think Linden Lab actively deletes resolved items, they probably just let sim restarts take care of that.


#19

Feels where on the same road now. I think in case it happens. that its faster gonme with high fidelity. if the object cannot be loaded its gone. But this thread is maby a bit blown up. how many (valid) copyright claims does LL really get. i dont think really much.


#20

Just a question that comes up,

Can High Fidelity get a good permisison system. im talking about one that dont let others wear items from you like your avatar. I think its possible as long its under control of High Fidelity’s marketplace and storage system. But if im understanding things right everything is webbased. Sofar i know the client is getting the mesh object from webserver by url. In other words everybody that knows the url can see it and wear it. Not figured out how you want to block access to your object but still keep it visible for others. I see this a bit as the embedding problem in webpages.

But is there a way to block wearing some items ? Maby the devs have some idea’s already or @philip. As long you run it on own webspace i dont ewxpect protection. Maby HiFi add extra data into the assets, and let the viewer check that before some action is done. that fix 90% of the problemsm because not many go modify the viewer to work around it. Otherwise if discovered that viewer need to gte blocked. (not sure hwo, because…)