Subject: Re: [vwrap] vwrap Digest, Vol 11, Issue 24

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:17:31 GMT

>The simulators (currently) share assets between those units and the 
use-end (monolithic client). How you consider that transfer any 
different between "steal" and "not-steal" mode is quite phantom to any 
actual code.

Please do your homework, and be sure to understand that the current code 
actually transfers to much private data and asset information. Your 
copybot concern could have an easy solution just by the non-transfer of 
the asset dates. If you have any knowledge of double-entry accounting, 
you would agree as any banker would. That's also room to optimize the 
protocol to transfer less data, which could mean faster transfer rates.

Anyways...

I've done my homework. Just because of the exigencies of accessing a virtual world (or anything on the Internet) with your browser meansthat "if you can see it you can copy it" doesn't mean that you have to facilitate, incite, abet, and serve as anaccessory and accomplice after the fact to content theft. You don't have to. We've been over this a million times. Most creators in Second Life do not want a check off box that says "transfer to other grids". There's a good reason for that: the open sim grids are flush with stolen content. Hello! So there is no call for interoperability except among this small cult group fussing with interoperability for ideological reasons. WHEN there is need for it by *CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS* THEN it can be done in ways that preserve permissions. As has been said may times before, there is absolutely no reason on earth or in cyberspace that the protocols can be set upto respect the exact same DRM that SL currently has: mod/copy/transfer permissions to be checked on or off. Only ideologicalreasons would prevent this on the specious grounds that "you can crack that" or "you can copy it anyway" or "obfuscationdoesn't work blah blah blah". You make it work through organic POLICY; you make it work by making sure that software code reflects ORGANIC POLICYthat is MANIFESTED as hard coded preventions of copying at least at the casual level. That's all.You don't drive a complex interactivesystem among grids by what happens in 17 percent of the cases, you go with the other 83 percent you can achieve. Prokofy
____________________________________________________________
Groupon&#8482 Official Site
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city&#39;s best!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4d9608ead458b4ae704st05vuc

---

From: Dzonatas Sol <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:29:54 -0700

Re: "Most creators in Second Life do not want a check off box that says 
"transfer to other grids"."

Then why would anybody want to send any e-mail from one location on the 
net to another. I think the only ill-concept here is the impersonation 
of turtles on turtules (or the virtualization of virtualization). It all 
begins somewhere, just as you have used to send your e-mail. What do you 
want to do instead, send it only to yourself? That is basically what it 
seems you suggested and argued against.

As for the "crack" comments, you started to argue the very nature of 
digital vs analog and the abilities to copy (digital) or not-copy the 
other (analog). This is not the list to argue such nature and 
copyability. You'll find that same argument everywhere across the net. 
Even a walled garden (with guarded high-rises in SF) is no protection to 
stop either from being stolen.That point is moot. Can people copy your 
conscious? Probably not, and that is example of analog non-copy-ability. 
This is basic data network knowledge, so we aren't that dumb.

[email-masked] wrote:
> I've done my homework.
> Just because of the exigencies of accessing a virtual world (or 
> anything on the Internet) with your browser means
> that "if you can see it you can copy it" doesn't mean that you have to 
> facilitate, incite, abet, and serve as an
> accessory and accomplice after the fact to content theft.
>  
> You don't have to.
>  
> We've been over this a million times.
>  
> Most creators in Second Life do not want a check off box that says 
> "transfer to other grids".
>  
> There's a good reason for that: the open sim grids are flush with 
> stolen content. Hello!
>  
> So there is no call for interoperability except among this small cult 
> group fussing with interoperability for ideological reasons.
>  
> WHEN there is need for it by *CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS* THEN it can be 
> done in ways that preserve permissions.
>  
> As has been said may times before, there is absolutely no reason on 
> earth or in cyberspace that the protocols can be set up
> to respect the exact same DRM that SL currently has: mod/copy/transfer 
> permissions to be checked on or off. Only ideological
> reasons would prevent this on the specious grounds that "you can crack 
> that" or "you can copy it anyway" or "obfuscation
> doesn't work blah blah blah".
>  
> You make it work through organic POLICY; you make it work by making 
> sure that software code reflects ORGANIC POLICY
> that is MANIFESTED as hard coded preventions of copying at least at 
> the casual level. That's all.You don't drive a complex interactive
> system among grids by what happens in 17 percent of the cases, you go 
> with the other 83 percent you can achieve.
>  
> Prokofy
>
>
> *Groupon™ Official Site*
> 1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best!
> <http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3142/4d9608eacae1b1111ast06vuc>Groupon.com 
> <http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3142/4d9608eacae1b1111ast06vuc> 

-- 
--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant