I’ve heard some bits and pieces here and there about what the inner planners have in mind for protecting merchant’s content from easy thievery but I’m a mite hazy on the details. I was trying to explain to someone recently that yes, HiFi does have plans for making purchasable content not be readily ripped, so that merchants can feel more comfortable about coming here. (Though at the same time I believe the prospect of needing strong protection against rips is actually overrated: most people are honest enough to buy what they want if its easy to find the products, its easy to find and get to the merchant’s page, and the potential customers don’t feel like they’re being price-gouged, which means therefore that the nature of copy protection is more of a crutch for the merchants than anything else, which his why I’ve used the Pirate Party’s definition of DRM above instead of the traditional one. But I also realize we have to ween them off of the closed, walled-garden approach to virtual products protection, which is an even bigger crutch.) Anyway, it strikes me it would be useful to have a thread we can come to that spells out what the current expectations are of how the anti-ripping scheme is going to work for the HiFi world, if someone who knows the details of it could possibly list them here, even if they’re a mite hazy and might be in a state of flux. No need to go into great details, just give a general overview of it or something. I remember some elements of it being brought up at last week’s meeting, but the details escape me at the moment.
As far as I can establish at right now, There is no form of content protection per object/script, nor global digital rights oversight being worked on.
Hifi is developing a marketplace and this marketplace will register and log each object submitted and its creator and perhaps other info, for specific use in the marketplace.
The idea being, a creator makes something, and submits it to Hifi’s marketplace products catalog where it gets digitally signed.
This object is now protected to the degree where another user cant just buy it and then also submit it to the marketplace, and any other attempts at selling it in Hifi will show the signed object as stolen (not the correct owner).
The system is designed so Hifi can control and tax products they sell (and rightly so). We will know if we buy an object from the marketplace then the money goes to the proper creator. Thats the business model right there. You can be assured that Hifi will make this as robust as possible.
In my opinion the biggest game killer for content creators is when their stuff gets ripped and cloned and sold right back into the same marketplace thereby totally diluting the creators income. The proposed system seems to address this problem and give some assurances to creators that their originals will remain the only originals in the marketplace.
This system will begin to have an effect when and if Hifi becomes globally used by millions, then you know most of users will just buy stuff from the proper market, and the black market will be confined to ripped products, griefing tools and other socially unacceptable content.
Nothing is safe in an open world, anybody with half a degree in IT science will be able to take your flintstones car and pretend they made it. Artists and publications companies and a thousand other Creatives publish their works for sale and licensed usage every day. They risk some of it being stolen, some stuff gets stolen, but they survive because the majority of people are either honest, or dont have the skills to rip content from computer code.
Using ATP to serve valuable or limited licensed content restricts use of that content to the specific domain, which means people cant just go to your URL and download your goodies, This is why some vendor (I think Mixamo? need cit) has specified their stuff is only licensed for use if its stored on your ATP.
Hmm, cannot remember that with mixamo. Mabye you mean turbosquid or daz ?
I’m eagerly still watching this issue and waiting for some concrete news. If UGC is an essential cornerstone of any virtual world, so it then follows that HiFi needs some degree of IP protection before the cornerstones are all in place and HiFi can start to thrive without external funding . Very few people can afford to produce high quality content just for fun. Any IP protection scheme doesn’t need to be (and of course can’t be) perfect; it simply needs to make piracy more hassle / risk than spending a dollar or two.
Would love to see IP protection get prioritised!
DRM came into being because the ability to make copies trivially and the speed of pirated proliferation vastly exceeded the ability of law enforcement to be effective. DRM cuts down the number of theft players to a fraction of the use population so that effective law enforcement becomes feasible.
So, the theory that registering items in some repository to help people identify unauthorized copies and then tell law enforcement to ‘go after them’ is simply not going to work well.
[quote=“Balpien.Hammerer, post:5, topic:10966”]
DRM came into being because the ability to make copies trivially and the speed of pirated proliferation vastly exceeded the ability of law enforcement to be effective. [/quote]
You’re describing copy protection. DRM (digital rights management) is more about preventing people from using content however they like. It enables things like renting you a movie online, instead of just selling it to you.
[quote=“Balpien.Hammerer, post:5, topic:10966”]
DRM cuts down the number of theft players to a fraction of the use population so that effective law enforcement becomes feasible.[/quote]
It’s less about law enforcement becoming feasible, so much as selling digital content being profitable. Very few people take enforcement of digital rights seriously. The few prosecutions that have occurred have not appreciably changed the landscape.
The problem he is that it’s trivial to identify an exact duplicate of an asset, but only slightly less trivial to modify an asset (audio, video, images, 3D models, etc) so that to the human eye it’s indistinguishable from the original, but to a computer, identifying what existing content it matches in a database of thousands or millions of assets is impossible.
Copy protection is a sub item of DRM. It is just one method.
Honestly, I do not believe that libertarian thinking, @Jherico, is going to help HF much when it gets shunned by all the majors. It will have to offer protection means else get side-railed by other VR ventures. That would be a sad day indeed.
Hello everyone! I just wanted to chime in on this thread.
While we are considering a couple of different technical solutions for managing the protection of assets (and there are at times debates internally of how to best do this), I want to let you know this is something we are taking very, very seriously and is at the core of the design of our coming marketplace.
We’ll should have a formal writeup of the plan in July.
But rest assured, more than anyone, we absolutely realize that there’s no point in having a metaverse if you can’t protect your livelihood.
So please do hang in there! We’ve absolutely got this.
PS. Do you have thoughts on how you would like it to work? Even though we have people working on it now, it’d be interesting to hear your takes.
I want it to be over complicated , I want it to create lag and I want it bypassable by the average secondlife griefer.
Oh if we can make it include complex scripting and portforwarding that would be terrific.
The only problem I see, is the average builder wants hifi to deal with protection of their work, and hifi wants to try to limit criminal activity in its own market it but with no actual legal obligation to do anything to prevent stuff being taken else where.
so if its stolen from hifi it wont be re uploaded back to hifis market
but it it turns up on secondlifes market well then that your problem.
I’m in the school of thought that the copy-protect should only be just good enough to discourage the casual ripper, not something that tries to overthink the plumbing. It is interesting that Kitely Market is actually doing reasonably well with sales of stuff over the Hypergrid to opensim worlds, having basically just the regular opensim/SL copy restrictions mechanism with a couple extra little bits and bobs added to the security, and they’re still doing pretty good with sales. I think that one is the one to watch, wrt how to bring the “but they’ll steal our stufff!!!” reluctant merchants into the fold.
I think the problem with selling content isn’t about DRM, it’s about telling counterfeit items from authentic items. It’s ok to have low priced(free) knock off assets if they can be told from the genuine. is Tom Ford said, “the counterfeit consumer is not our consumer” https://utappia.org/2012/08/08/what-can-fashion-industry-teach-us-about-open-innovation/
No you could list the domains that an asset is authorized on and users could check that to see if they are genuine products, but you can’t check if an avatar is authorized for that user because you can’t tell who that user is.
In short I think the metaverse should go the way of the Fashion industry and not the way of the Movie industry