Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

Americo Damasceno-3
I believe that nobody can know if a copied (authorized to be) object from another OpenSim region is or is not pirated.
But I respect the Adam's arguments and I have erased the links to the .IAR files.


_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

Frisby, Adam

Sorry about this – but yeah, we need to be fairly careful here about respecting IP rights; we have the same problem on OSgrid policing freebies in the plaza’s – a lot of what people think is free content isn’t, so it’s better to assume none of it is authorized unless explicitly said.

 

Adam

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Americo Damasceno
Sent: Thursday, 10 December 2009 2:34 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Opensim-users] Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

 

I believe that nobody can know if a copied (authorized to be) object from another OpenSim region is or is not pirated.

But I respect the Adam's arguments and I have erased the links to the .IAR files.

 


_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

Karen_Palen
In reply to this post by Americo Damasceno-3
Adam,

While I understand that you are merely trying to be cautious you need to be careful that you are not overreacting.

Remember that the intent of IP laws is to increase the creation of content and the "works" available to all and not to restrict dissemination of legal content.

Those restrictions (e.g. DMCA) are merely a 'means to an end" - the goal is still to increase the content or 'works" available to everyone.

This is why such laws as the DMCA have "safe harbor" and "takedown" procedures for unlawful content rather than requiring and explicit license for all content before use.

Patent law (35 USC, 37 CFR) is founded on the concept of releasing the knowledge of an invention to the "public domain" in return for "an exclusive license to make use or sell the invention for a limited time."

In other words content or "works" must be considered freely available to all unless there is evidence to the contrary.

This is a vitally important distinction, every bit as important as the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" in criminal law.

In practice the difference is the amount of content that is made available at no charge. IP law has always required that this err on the side of maximizing the legally available content.

By all means lets follow the law, but lets not subvert the law by adding provisions that were never intended!

In other words the content must be considered "public domain" unless there is some evidence that it is restricted in some way.

Karen

--- On Thu, 12/10/09, Frisby, Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Frisby, Adam <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)
> To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 6:59 AM
>
>
>


>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
> Sorry about this – but
> yeah, we need to be fairly careful here
> about respecting IP rights; we have the same problem on
> OSgrid policing
> freebies in the plaza’s – a lot of what people
> think is free content isn’t, so
> it’s better to assume none of it is authorized unless
> explicitly said.
>
>   
>
> Adam
>
>   
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Americo
> Damasceno
>
> Sent: Thursday, 10 December 2009 2:34 AM
>
> To: [hidden email]
>
> Subject: [Opensim-users] Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2
> .IAR files)
>
>
>
>
>
>   
>
> I believe that nobody can know if a
> copied (authorized to
> be) object from another OpenSim region is or is not
> pirated.
>
>
>
> But I respect the Adam's arguments
> and I have erased the
> links to the .IAR files.
>
>
>
>
>
>   
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
>



     
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

Karen_Palen
In reply to this post by Americo Damasceno-3
I am sorry to see that you have done that!

Content must be considered as "public domain" unless there is some evidence that it is restricted in some way.

Karen

--- On Thu, 12/10/09, Americo Damasceno <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Americo Damasceno <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [Opensim-users] Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 3:34 AM
> I believe that nobody can know if a copied
> (authorized to be) object from another OpenSim region is or
> is not pirated.But I respect the Adam's arguments
> and I have erased the links to the .IAR files.
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
>


     
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

jeff1564
In reply to this post by Karen_Palen
Hi All,
I agree with Karen, I think that what is happening with OpenSim content is something like the free mp3 song albums that we have available for free in the internet to download but worse, because if it was an Opensim album you will need to call the singer and say
"Hey I found your song can i hear it?"  if you cant contact the singer just don't hear it.

Adam said -- a lot of what people  think is free content isn’t.
I agree with Adam here, because if I am creator and i want to share, why not put a notecard inside the item with the permissions.

Karen said -- In other words content or "works" must be considered freely available to all unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Something like what YouTube does? right? should work that way with OpenSim too. I think if the item is that important for the creator he should try track it not the final user. And of course all of us that know one item that was copied without rights we should do the best to purge it.

If someone upload an item, oar or etc.. to my website its ok. but the problem starts when someone complain rights about that item to me and after that the item still available in the website, then yes we have a problem.

Karen said -- This is a vitally important distinction, every bit as important as the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" in criminal law.

this is 100% true besides Brazil where the cops shoot you before ask.(I am Brazilian, I know that country, just kiddingggggg)
you know what you are doing when you backup your inventory... so please lets just... you know... be cool about it.. do the right thing. if you know that is a restricted item please just don't.

Karen said -- Content must be considered as "public domain" unless there is some evidence that it is restricted in some way.
indeed.



On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Karen Palen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Adam,

While I understand that you are merely trying to be cautious you need to be careful that you are not overreacting.

Remember that the intent of IP laws is to increase the creation of content and the "works" available to all and not to restrict dissemination of legal content.

Those restrictions (e.g. DMCA) are merely a 'means to an end" - the goal is still to increase the content or 'works" available to everyone.

This is why such laws as the DMCA have "safe harbor" and "takedown" procedures for unlawful content rather than requiring and explicit license for all content before use.

Patent law (35 USC, 37 CFR) is founded on the concept of releasing the knowledge of an invention to the "public domain" in return for "an exclusive license to make use or sell the invention for a limited time."

In other words content or "works" must be considered freely available to all unless there is evidence to the contrary.

This is a vitally important distinction, every bit as important as the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" in criminal law.

In practice the difference is the amount of content that is made available at no charge. IP law has always required that this err on the side of maximizing the legally available content.

By all means lets follow the law, but lets not subvert the law by adding provisions that were never intended!

In other words the content must be considered "public domain" unless there is some evidence that it is restricted in some way.

Karen

--- On Thu, 12/10/09, Frisby, Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Frisby, Adam <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)
> To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 6:59 AM
>
>
>


>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
> Sorry about this – but
> yeah, we need to be fairly careful here
> about respecting IP rights; we have the same problem on
> OSgrid policing
> freebies in the plaza’s – a lot of what people
> think is free content isn’t, so
> it’s better to assume none of it is authorized unless
> explicitly said.
>
>   
>
> Adam
>
>   
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Americo
> Damasceno
>
> Sent: Thursday, 10 December 2009 2:34 AM
>
> To: [hidden email]
>
> Subject: [Opensim-users] Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2
> .IAR files)
>
>
>
>
>
>   
>
> I believe that nobody can know if a
> copied (authorized to
> be) object from another OpenSim region is or is not
> pirated.
>
>
>
> But I respect the Adam's arguments
> and I have erased the
> links to the .IAR files.
>
>
>
>
>
>   
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
>




_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users



--
Visit http://myopengrid.com
Visit http://myopensim.com

_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

Mic Bowman
In reply to this post by Karen_Palen
Just a couple observations on this discussion...

If you want professional content creators to be willing to license high quality content for use in opensim grids, you need to gain their trust that content will be used appropriately. That can be through well documented (and demonstrated) take down procedures. Or through some common set of agreements among grid owners about how content will be handled. Or...

And... many companies won't touch "free" content unless its provenance can be established. I know we require some form of "certificate of origin" or a clear license that grants rights to use the content. And for content we use internally, we keep those licenses archived. Providing a means for a content owner to describe the license for use seems like a good thing no matter what. Given that oar and iar files are just tar files... could we add an optional "license" file in a well known location without messing up the load/save?

--mic


On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Karen Palen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Adam,

While I understand that you are merely trying to be cautious you need to be careful that you are not overreacting.

Remember that the intent of IP laws is to increase the creation of content and the "works" available to all and not to restrict dissemination of legal content.

Those restrictions (e.g. DMCA) are merely a 'means to an end" - the goal is still to increase the content or 'works" available to everyone.

This is why such laws as the DMCA have "safe harbor" and "takedown" procedures for unlawful content rather than requiring and explicit license for all content before use.

Patent law (35 USC, 37 CFR) is founded on the concept of releasing the knowledge of an invention to the "public domain" in return for "an exclusive license to make use or sell the invention for a limited time."

In other words content or "works" must be considered freely available to all unless there is evidence to the contrary.

This is a vitally important distinction, every bit as important as the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" in criminal law.

In practice the difference is the amount of content that is made available at no charge. IP law has always required that this err on the side of maximizing the legally available content.

By all means lets follow the law, but lets not subvert the law by adding provisions that were never intended!

In other words the content must be considered "public domain" unless there is some evidence that it is restricted in some way.

Karen

--- On Thu, 12/10/09, Frisby, Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Frisby, Adam <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)
> To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 6:59 AM
>
>
>


>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
> Sorry about this – but
> yeah, we need to be fairly careful here
> about respecting IP rights; we have the same problem on
> OSgrid policing
> freebies in the plaza’s – a lot of what people
> think is free content isn’t, so
> it’s better to assume none of it is authorized unless
> explicitly said.
>
>   
>
> Adam
>
>   
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Americo
> Damasceno
>
> Sent: Thursday, 10 December 2009 2:34 AM
>
> To: [hidden email]
>
> Subject: [Opensim-users] Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2
> .IAR files)
>
>
>
>
>
>   
>
> I believe that nobody can know if a
> copied (authorized to
> be) object from another OpenSim region is or is not
> pirated.
>
>
>
> But I respect the Adam's arguments
> and I have erased the
> links to the .IAR files.
>
>
>
>
>
>   
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
>




_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users


_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

justincc
Mic Bowman wrote:

> Just a couple observations on this discussion...
>
> If you want professional content creators to be willing to license high
> quality content for use in opensim grids, you need to gain their trust
> that content will be used appropriately. That can be through well
> documented (and demonstrated) take down procedures. Or through some
> common set of agreements among grid owners about how content will be
> handled. Or...
>
> And... many companies won't touch "free" content unless its provenance
> can be established. I know we require some form of "certificate of
> origin" or a clear license that grants rights to use the content. And
> for content we use internally, we keep those licenses archived.
> Providing a means for a content owner to describe the license for use
> seems like a good thing no matter what. Given that oar and iar files are
> just tar files... could we add an optional "license" file in a well
> known location without messing up the load/save?

Possible though getting messy.  What about the solution of simply putting
LICENSE text cards in objects themselves?  Are the cons too much? (e.g.
duplication of license files, not visible without loading up the iar, etc.).

In principle, one could also simply untar the IAR/OAR, put a license file in and
retar it.

I remember a Linden Labs discussion a while ago about them putting a checkbox or
settings in their client which would indicate whether an object was cross-grid
licensed.  This discussion resurfaced a bit with Second Life Enterprise.  If
this ever occurs it would be trivial to lever the information into IARs (and
maybe there would be a solution for OARs).

>
> --mic
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Karen Palen <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Adam,
>
>     While I understand that you are merely trying to be cautious you
>     need to be careful that you are not overreacting.
>
>     Remember that the intent of IP laws is to increase the creation of
>     content and the "works" available to all and not to restrict
>     dissemination of legal content.
>
>     Those restrictions (e.g. DMCA) are merely a 'means to an end" - the
>     goal is still to increase the content or 'works" available to everyone.
>
>     This is why such laws as the DMCA have "safe harbor" and "takedown"
>     procedures for unlawful content rather than requiring and explicit
>     license for all content before use.
>
>     Patent law (35 USC, 37 CFR) is founded on the concept of releasing
>     the knowledge of an invention to the "public domain" in return for
>     "an exclusive license to make use or sell the invention for a
>     limited time."
>
>     In other words content or "works" must be considered freely
>     available to all unless there is evidence to the contrary.
>
>     This is a vitally important distinction, every bit as important as
>     the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" in criminal law.
>
>     In practice the difference is the amount of content that is made
>     available at no charge. IP law has always required that this err on
>     the side of maximizing the legally available content.
>
>     By all means lets follow the law, but lets not subvert the law by
>     adding provisions that were never intended!
>
>     In other words the content must be considered "public domain" unless
>     there is some evidence that it is restricted in some way.
>
>     Karen
>
>     --- On Thu, 12/10/09, Frisby, Adam <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>      > From: Frisby, Adam <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)
>      > To: "[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>"
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 6:59 AM
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > Sorry about this – but
>      > yeah, we need to be fairly careful here
>      > about respecting IP rights; we have the same problem on
>      > OSgrid policing
>      > freebies in the plaza’s – a lot of what people
>      > think is free content isn’t, so
>      > it’s better to assume none of it is authorized unless
>      > explicitly said.
>      >
>      >  
>      >
>      > Adam
>      >
>      >  
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > From: [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      > [mailto:[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>] On
>      > Behalf Of Americo
>      > Damasceno
>      >
>      > Sent: Thursday, 10 December 2009 2:34 AM
>      >
>      > To: [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      >
>      > Subject: [Opensim-users] Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2
>      > .IAR files)
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >  
>      >
>      > I believe that nobody can know if a
>      > copied (authorized to
>      > be) object from another OpenSim region is or is not
>      > pirated.
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > But I respect the Adam's arguments
>      > and I have erased the
>      > links to the .IAR files.
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >  
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > Opensim-users mailing list
>      > [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
>      >
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Opensim-users mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users


--
Justin Clark-Casey (justincc)
http://justincc.org
http://twitter.com/justincc
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

Karen_Palen
In reply to this post by Mic Bowman
Yes indeed you touch on a couple of the essential issues! I won't even try to present the alternative and opposing views apart from observing that they exist.

You only have to look at the blogs to come up with a huge volume of discussion, debate and name calling on this subject.

At present my thought is to emulate the Linux software repositories, Ubuntu being the one that I am most familiar with.

Ubuntu has several levels of repository:

"Canonical suported (main)"
"Community maintained" (universe)
"Proprietary drivers" (restricted)
"Software restricted by copyright or legal issues" (multiverse)
"Software that is restricted by geography, free speech restrictions, crypto restrictions etc." (Medibuntu)

Finally for those who want totally unrestricted content there is always PirateBay.com.

In this way the end user may determine what level of restriction or licensing is appropriate for their individual requirements and/or conscience.

It is far from a perfect solution, but it seems about as good as any that I have seen.

Getting back to my original point (rant) though, while the repositories are completely independent, the Ubuntu documentation includes directions for finding and evaluating all of them - except for PirateBay :-)!

My model for the OpenSim content "library" is something similar. Several "levels" of repository with a central index of repositories and descriptions of their content in the OpenSim Wiki.

Only one of the repositories need be actually supported or endorsed by opensimulator.org, but I fell strongly that all legal content should be findable through the wiki.

If that is not done then eventually other distribution channels will certainly spring up with things that none of us want to see distributed. For example the latest copybot - apparently V5.00 10.2.2009 which can be found with little effort on the P2P networks.

Karen

--- On Thu, 12/10/09, Mic Bowman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Mic Bowman <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 12:13 PM
> Just a couple observations on this
> discussion...
>
> If you want professional content creators to be willing to
> license high quality content for use in opensim grids, you
> need to gain their trust that content will be used
> appropriately. That can be through well documented (and
> demonstrated) take down procedures. Or through some common
> set of agreements among grid owners about how content will
> be handled. Or...
>
>
> And... many companies won't touch "free"
> content unless its provenance can be established. I know we
> require some form of "certificate of origin" or a
> clear license that grants rights to use the content. And for
> content we use internally, we keep those licenses archived.
> Providing a means for a content owner to describe the
> license for use seems like a good thing no matter what.
> Given that oar and iar files are just tar files... could we
> add an optional "license" file in a well known
> location without messing up the load/save?
>
>
> --mic



     
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

Dickson, Mike (ISS Software)
The repository idea as a means of classification is a good one.  I like that.

It doesn't address what criteria are used regarding what gets into them.  In the Ubuntu case everything has a known license that's been asserted for the content.

I'm far less comfortable with your earlier assertion that in the absence of a license its safe to assume something is in the public domain.  Especially since you cited patent law which really doesn't apply to electronic content anyway.  Personally I'd prefer that if a repository mechanism is set up it require that a license is asserted for anything that goes into it.  If I put something up I'm stating that I have the right to do so and under what terms.  I suppose you could have a "use at your own risk" repository for things where the creator is unknown.  I'd personally never use something from such a repo...

This is a case where we can build some goodwill with the content creation community by being careful how content is classified and shared.  

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Karen Palen
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 4:34 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

Yes indeed you touch on a couple of the essential issues! I won't even try to present the alternative and opposing views apart from observing that they exist.

You only have to look at the blogs to come up with a huge volume of discussion, debate and name calling on this subject.

At present my thought is to emulate the Linux software repositories, Ubuntu being the one that I am most familiar with.

Ubuntu has several levels of repository:

"Canonical suported (main)"
"Community maintained" (universe)
"Proprietary drivers" (restricted)
"Software restricted by copyright or legal issues" (multiverse)
"Software that is restricted by geography, free speech restrictions, crypto restrictions etc." (Medibuntu)

Finally for those who want totally unrestricted content there is always PirateBay.com.

In this way the end user may determine what level of restriction or licensing is appropriate for their individual requirements and/or conscience.

It is far from a perfect solution, but it seems about as good as any that I have seen.

Getting back to my original point (rant) though, while the repositories are completely independent, the Ubuntu documentation includes directions for finding and evaluating all of them - except for PirateBay :-)!

My model for the OpenSim content "library" is something similar. Several "levels" of repository with a central index of repositories and descriptions of their content in the OpenSim Wiki.

Only one of the repositories need be actually supported or endorsed by opensimulator.org, but I fell strongly that all legal content should be findable through the wiki.

If that is not done then eventually other distribution channels will certainly spring up with things that none of us want to see distributed. For example the latest copybot - apparently V5.00 10.2.2009 which can be found with little effort on the P2P networks.

Karen

--- On Thu, 12/10/09, Mic Bowman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Mic Bowman <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 12:13 PM
> Just a couple observations on this
> discussion...
>
> If you want professional content creators to be willing to
> license high quality content for use in opensim grids, you
> need to gain their trust that content will be used
> appropriately. That can be through well documented (and
> demonstrated) take down procedures. Or through some common
> set of agreements among grid owners about how content will
> be handled. Or...
>
>
> And... many companies won't touch "free"
> content unless its provenance can be established. I know we
> require some form of "certificate of origin" or a
> clear license that grants rights to use the content. And for
> content we use internally, we keep those licenses archived.
> Providing a means for a content owner to describe the
> license for use seems like a good thing no matter what.
> Given that oar and iar files are just tar files... could we
> add an optional "license" file in a well known
> location without messing up the load/save?
>
>
> --mic



     
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

Frisby, Adam
> I'm far less comfortable with your earlier assertion that in the
> absence of a license its safe to assume something is in the public
> domain.  Especially since you cited patent law which really doesn't
> apply to electronic content anyway.  Personally I'd prefer that if a
> repository mechanism is set up it require that a license is asserted
> for anything that goes into it.  If I put something up I'm stating that
> I have the right to do so and under what terms.  I suppose you could
> have a "use at your own risk" repository for things where the creator
> is unknown.  I'd personally never use something from such a repo...

This.

_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

Karen_Palen
In reply to this post by Dickson, Mike (ISS Software)


--- On Thu, 12/10/09, Dickson, Mike (ISS Software) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Dickson, Mike (ISS Software) <[hidden email]>

> The repository idea as a means of
> classification is a good one.  I like that.

Thank you.

I see it as being about as close as we are likely to come to a solution in the present environment.

I would be delighted to see this suggestion inspire something better though.
 
> It doesn't address what criteria are used regarding what
> gets into them.  In the Ubuntu case everything has a
> known license that's been asserted for the content.

The point is that the criteria differ widely for each repository. What you are saying is true for the main repository (Canonical supported). However in some of the repositories the licensing is far from clear. Much of the older code (pre GPL era) never did have any explicit license for example.

Much of the code I wrote for the 8008 and 8080 (1972-76) was never explicitly licensed. A simple copyright of the printed publication was considered sufficient even with corporate sponsorship. That was often ignored by both originator and users alike with no thought of objecting (the company was delighted to actually see real users!)

Obviously explicit licensing is a consideration for many users. How serious a consideration all depends on your situation and how you use the code/content.

> I'm far less comfortable with your earlier assertion that
> in the absence of a license its safe to assume something is
> in the public domain. 

This has always been the presumption in any form of ownership dispute. It is up to the person who claims ownership to assert those rights before they can even be considered. There really is no such thing as the "IP police" unless outright counterfeiting and fraud is going on.

Naturally every owner would be happy to have the taxpayer assume this burden, but it simply is not workable.

> Especially since you cited
> patent law which really doesn't apply to electronic content
> anyway. 

I was actually referring to the general principles involved rather than the laws of any one country.

However since you raise the issue, the US Supreme Court has defined patent laws as applying to "anything under the sun which is made by man". Electronic content certainly falls into this category.

In practice almost every country has similar provisions. When I was in active practice I had software patents allowed in just about every country of the world. What was claimed obviously was vastly different in each case, but the intent and the practical effect was exactly the same.

> Personally I'd prefer that if a repository
> mechanism is set up it require that a license is asserted
> for anything that goes into it.  If I put something up
> I'm stating that I have the right to do so and under what
> terms. 

Yes clearly that is one dimension that is needed. Another dimension would be the common requirement for pure FOSS type material - typically GPL, CC or BSD licensed.

> I suppose you could have a "use at your own
> risk" repository for things where the creator is
> unknown. 

About 90% of classical music and literature falls into this category at least to some extent, likewise just about every "Holy Book".

It is not too much of a stretch to forsee "digital classics" of this sort someday.

I even have a few candidates like the venerable "moon lander" game distributed by DECUS (Digital Equipment Corp. User Group) for many years. My copy never had any claim to ownership or licensing, only a disclaimer from DECUS!

> I'd personally never use something from such a repo...

Others only use FOSS material and others have still other requirements - like no crypto in some countries!

The point here is that this must be a choice for each user to make based on the best information we have. It is certainly NOT the role of the OpenSim community to act as some form of censorship board for "acceptable" content!

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

> This is a case where we can build some goodwill with the
> content creation community by being careful how content is
> classified and shared. 

Certainly this is needed, but lets not try to deceive anyone into thinking that this is more than it is - a classification based on "best available" information. Even a claim of ownership and an included "license" is hardly foolproof except as corporate "CYA".

Also we all need to be aware that PirateBay and its successors will not go away any time soon.

We also need to maintain a balance and remember that the very small number of "professional content creators" are not the only ones with interests to be protected!

We do need to raise some barriers, but no barrier will be foolproof and every form of barrier has a cost in terms of extra effort, bugs, and user inconvenience.

Karen
 


     
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

Dickson, Mike (ISS Software)
In reply to this post by Frisby, Adam
Adam, your reply got truncated.  In the past I've found your posts to be well thought out so I'd encourage you to repost your thoughts. I for one would like to hear them.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frisby, Adam
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 11:09 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

> I'm far less comfortable with your earlier assertion that in the
> absence of a license its safe to assume something is in the public
> domain.  Especially since you cited patent law which really doesn't
> apply to electronic content anyway.  Personally I'd prefer that if a
> repository mechanism is set up it require that a license is asserted
> for anything that goes into it.  If I put something up I'm stating that
> I have the right to do so and under what terms.  I suppose you could
> have a "use at your own risk" repository for things where the creator
> is unknown.  I'd personally never use something from such a repo...

This.

_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

Michael-9-3
In reply to this post by Karen_Palen
the goal is still to increase the content or 'works" available to everyone.

I fully support the spirit behind this statement. Too bad it doesn't always seem to work out this way, though. :(

In other words content or "works" must be considered freely available to all unless there is evidence to the contrary.

IANAL, etc...

My impression has always been that the way copyright works (at least as it works in the U.S.) in broad terms is that all rights are reserved unless a use is explicitly allowed or given up by the owner of the copyright. Copyright is automatic... if you create something (i.e. it is not just an idea, but left your head in some form), it is protected by copyright law. So copyright should be assumed, and you must have evidence that something was placed in the public domain or somehow licensed via a notecard, acceptance of a repository's submission EULA, or something. Even full perms aren't a release from copyright. Permissions are just that... permission for some use cases. They don't relinquish all rights protected by law, including where and how they may be distributed.

However since you raise the issue, the US Supreme Court has defined patent laws as applying to "anything under the sun which is made by man". Electronic content certainly falls into this category.
...<clip>...
This has always been the presumption in any form of ownership dispute. It is up to the person who claims ownership to assert those rights before they can even be considered. There really is no such thing as the "IP police" unless outright counterfeiting and fraud is going on.

Patent, Copyright, and Trademark law all share similarities and would probably make for a fascinating Venn diagram. There are definite differences though. For example, a patent or trademark must be explicitly filed for, while as I mentioned previously, copyright just happens. Since it is a civil and not a criminal matter, it is up to a copyright owner to pursue violation of his rights. If they've filed a copyright then they've got a great case, and in the case of automatic copyright they'll have to prove authorship. But unlike a trademark, failing to assert rights can not cause one to lose copyright.

And honestly, that's where we come to the heart of the matter. Putting my very amateur (and yes, quite possibly mistaken) legal theory aside, right or wrong, with or without merit, OSgrid and/or OpenSimulator can be slapped with a civil suit by some ambulance chasing dingus with legal expertise on par with my own. Safe harbor exemptions or not, lawyers will rattle sabers with each other. I'm not saying we should be cowering in constant fear, but any reasonable policies by OSgrid or OpenSimulator that will weaken a false accusation is a good thing. Lawyers cost money neither group has, and the quicker they can dismiss it the better. Otherwise it will drag the developers, grid admins, their supporters and users into a time wasting black hole of hell better spent coding, testing, and improving the platform. That's my worry, anyway, and I find it no wonder that Adam errs on the side of caution. I don't blame him one bit.

Marcus Llewellyn



_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Free objects (dmu1 and dmu2 .IAR files)

Karen_Palen
In reply to this post by Americo Damasceno-3
--- On Sun, 12/13/09, Michael <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Michael <[hidden email]>

> the goal is still to increase the content or 'works" available
> to everyone.
>
> I fully support the spirit behind this statement. Too bad
> it doesn't always seem to work out this way, though. :(

In essence that is the reason that IP laws are changing.

I think Alan Greenspan summed it up the best in saying that current IP laws and practice are based on real estate where "they don't make any more" so the laws are set up to encourage the owner to make the "highest and best use" of that fixed resource.

By contrast IP laws should be based on a model where the value (and reward) is based on increasing the amount of IP available rather than merely rewarding those who "maximise" the use of what already exists.

This reaches its greatest absurdity when the value of an artist's work soars when that artist dies! (Michael Jackson comes to mind) This is because the artist won't be "diluting" the pool of works by producing anything to "compete" with their existing works!

In his autobiography Greenspan identified this as one of three major "challenges" the US (and world) economy for the next century!
 
> In other words content or "works" must be
> considered freely available to
>  all unless there is evidence to the contrary.
>
> IANAL, etc...

I have not practised for 15+ years, so my comments must be considered as general comments only and not related to any particular situation.

> My impression has always been that the way copyright works
> (at least as it works in the U.S.) in broad terms is that
> all rights are reserved unless a use is explicitly allowed
> or given up by the owner of the copyright.

[snip]

Who "licenses" the works of Shakespeare or the Judeo-Christian Bible?

We seem to insist on getting dragged into the minutiae of IP law here.

There are two types of infringement (1) "innocent" infringement and (2) "wilful" infringement.

The remedy for "innocent" infringement is essentially to stop infringing ASAP - typically a "cease and desist letter". The cost of this depends entirely on your situation. If (like Microsoft recently) you have billions of dollars riding on a new OS release set for next month, then it could be a disaster. On the other hand if you are an individual using some artwork on your website then the cost is almost nothing.

"Willful" infringement requires that you knew that the work is restricted. That is where the big penalties apply. For example if you download an MP3 of some famous artists latest release, you certainly knew that the work was not "public domain" (or any equivalent). If you download Bill's Jam session from the corner pub then things are not nearly so clear cut, especially if Bill is an amateur who performs for fun.

To bring this back to digital content; Nike, MacDonald's, etc. are very well recognised trademarks so it would be very hard to argue that you didn't know about them and that your use was "innocent"!

But how about John Doe's greatest Second Life window blinds?

In that case (absent any other information) if you received it for free and with no content restrictions then it would be very reasonable to assume that John Doe had abandoned the content. Especially with the enormous "churn" of SL participants!

> ...<clip>...
and [snip] :-)

> Patent, Copyright, and Trademark law all share similarities
> and would probably make for a fascinating Venn diagram.

It would make a fascinating study for almost any area of law not just IP law! Especially since there tend to be totally illogical exceptions for example when some judge in 1622 decided something should apply to moving a manure pile on a Thursday then a modern judge applies this to a case involving patents on spy satellites! (Not totally made up BTW)

As a personal opinion, IP law is far more straightforward than many areas of law.

For a real treat read the recent US Supreme Court case on the "right to keep and bear arms". It turns out the original text on which the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was based concerned allowing conscientious objectors NOT to be required to carry a gun and join the militia!

> There are definite differences though. For example, a patent
> or trademark must be explicitly filed for, while as I
> mentioned previously, copyright just happens. Since it is a

[snip]
> failing to assert rights can not cause one to lose copyright.

Not always true, but you don't want to read it all.

All the same you MUST assert those rights for anything to happen!
 
> right or wrong, with or
> without merit, OSgrid and/or OpenSimulator can be slapped
> with a civil suit by some ambulance chasing dingus with
> legal expertise on par with my own.

I can't think of any group who have been as careful about legalities and non-infringement as the Linux core developers, yet this did not stop the SCO lawsuits. I leave the rest for alt.conspiracy!

> Safe harbor exemptions
> or not, lawyers will rattle sabers with each other. I'm
> not saying we should be cowering in constant fear, but any
> reasonable policies by OSgrid or OpenSimulator that will
> weaken a false accusation is a good thing. Lawyers cost
> money neither group has, and the quicker they can dismiss it
> the better.

Again I cite the example of SCO/Linux!

BTW the word "reasonable" has probably occupied more lawyers in more man-years of debate than any other word I can think of!

> Otherwise it will drag the developers, grid
> admins, their supporters and users into a time wasting black
> hole of hell better spent coding, testing, and improving the
> platform.

I agree 100% here, and this is essentially why IP reform is so badly needed. I have no illusions that OpenSim will be the vehicle to make that happen though, nor that the most restrictive of rules will affect this in any way except to accomplish the same thing.

The whole SCO/Linux/Microsoft episode is well known today, but compared to some of the building of the trusts like Standard Oil in the 19th century it is downright friendly!

> That's my worry, anyway, and I find it no
> wonder that Adam errs on the side of caution. I don't
> blame him one bit.

When Adam is speaking for OSGrid and "official" endorsement by Opensimulator.org then I too agree here.

What I want to avoid is the situation that has arisen with Poser and similar 3D modelling systems where a user needs to spend significant time (in my case almost 50%!) hunting for obscure repositories of content (both free and paid for) due to conflicting ideas of what is "legal" or "moral" to include or even to talk about. Sadly it is often easiest to get such content via underground P2P rather than through legitimate channels!

I am not advocating a "PirateBay" approach of "we will post whatever we please", rather that an index with links to legitimate repositories is maintained without necessarily endorsing everything those repositories contain.

Different users have different needs and different constraints. Not everyone will spend $1M to remove or replace content that they reasonably thought was free to distribute.

Karen




     
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users