Category: News-Opinion

Exchanging views with Amanda Linden

Posted on by Inara Pey

For the last 48 hours, I’ve been engaged in a surprising forum-based exchange with Amanda Linden over in this unfortunately titled thread (don’t feel you have to go wade through it all, the crux of the issue is repeated below  – I’m including the link for context).

I’m not sure what drew me to this particular thread, given the title tends towards the OP is looking to simply start a flame war – but I was somewhat shocked to find none other than Amanda Linden responding to a post in the thread that raised the issue of the (premature) release of Viewer 2.0.

The reply reads thus:

Thanks Void [Singer]. You bring up a great point. As with any new software product, there are plenty of bugs. And, during the beta period over the last month or two, we’ve been hard at work smashing bugs. We’ve fixed thousands of bugs, in fact. Yes, we have more to do–for sure–and the team is heads-down addressing every bug filed in Jira. We take bugs filed by Residents seriously. They are evaluated, prioritized, and then fixed. So, keep bringing us bugs and we’ll resolve to fix them as soon as possible.

This post – in typical (I have to say) light, trippy, LL form – generated a number of responses, including this from me:

Amanda,

There is a truism that states “no software is ever finished” (or if there isn’t there ought to be)…and as such, it is true that Viewer 2.0 will inevitably have bugs that will need fixing.

But let’s be honest here: Viewer 2.0 was in development – by your own (LL’s) admission – for over a year; yet what was released into Beta was riddled with issues, many of which are so basic, not only should they have been identified and dealt with prior to the public Beta, [they] are still waiting to be fixed. So why the drive to push it into prime time?

When the (then) forthcoming public Beta was initially announced, it was also stated that you intended to “go live” with Viewer 2.0 “at the end of Q1” (i.e. 31st March, 2010) – and you’ve done precisely that. Ergo, one gets the impression that roadmap was not only drawn, but printed, laminated and framed on the wall over someone’s desk at Battery Street before the public Beta commenced, and that as such – the target date wasn’t going to be missed, regardless of the number of issues / bugs found within the code.

By your own admission, Viewer 2.0 needs more work….Search needs more work….shared media needs more work (particularly around issues of security)….yet everything is being pushed out with an urgency that could leave observers speculating as to what on Earth is going on at LL.

One can only assume that LL has become purely a target-driven entity, more concerned with short-term new users acquisition over longer-term user retention.

Is it simply because you have some overall “target” of new user subscriptions – one that has been calculated as needing X months to achieve at an acquisition rate of Y new users a month – which is thus fuelling what appears to be the overly premature release of this software? Is user acquisition in fact going to become your overall measure of “success”, regardless of the potential attrition rate of non-returning users? Are we going to see something like New users in the last 24 hours appearing on splash screens?

Now I’ll be honest. When I posted this, I genuinely didn’t expect an answer. As we’re all only too aware, Lindens have a reputation for peppering the flogs with replies now and again in what seems like a scatter gun approach: it is rare that one will stick around and address concerns / critiques that call into question the “official” line.

So I was surprised when Amanda followed up:

West, Inara, Gideon, Great comments and your challenges with the viewer, including bugs–I understand and I hear you.

Here’s my experience with V2. I’ve been using it since December. I admit, when I first started using it–the bugs made the viewer tough to use–and the new design took some getting used to. Those were early days–first alpha. But, I stuck with it and the software became more stable and usable each release. The V2 that you see today is SOOO much better. For basic SL functions, as any new Resident would perform, the software is ready and stable enough to deliver a much better experience than v1.23. We are not only confident of that fact, but we see it borne out in our analytics–that we’re watching very closely.

Remember, our primary goal this year is to grow Second Life from 700,000 to 1,000,000 actives (spend 1 hour in world each month). With more Residents in SL, the larger the economy, more customers to purchase your virtual goods, more interesting events, more vibrant communitites, and more that we can do to invest in improving the SL experience. In other words, better for everyone.

That said, we think that you’ll love Shared Media and Mesh (coming this year) enough to make the switch and then give us the feedback that we need to integrate into our product roadmap to make it a great Viewer for SL power users too.

Again, it’s important to understand that this product is FAR from final. We are committed to making V2 great–stable, easy to use, and as bug-free as possible.

There are two things to note here: a) continuing the spin relating to the value of Viewer 2; b) not actually responding to questions raised. However – a reply is a reply, and opens the door for further potential dialogue; something I was (and am) determined to follow-up on:

Amanda,

Firstly, thanks for replying.

Secondly, mentioning figures like 700,000-,1,000,00 “actives” on a monthly basis doesn’t actually answer my concerns about LL’s position with regards to user retention. Indeed, it doesn’t actually reassure me in any way at all. SL is already hitting concurrent logins in the 60-70K mark daily. Even if we discount 40% of these as bots and alts – that still means SL *is* potentially hitting around 1.2 million “actives” a month….so I’m having major problems seeing any growth here….

So I’ll ask again: Is user acquisition in fact going to become your overall measure of “success”, regardless of the potential attrition rate of non-returning users?

Numbers of “actives” does not equate to numbers of retained users: it is entirely possible to have both a high number of new sign-ups on a weekly / monthly basis and a continuing high attrition rate in terms of repeat log-in falloff. Thus, rather than growing the economy and providing, “more customers to purchase your virtual goods, more interesting events, more vibrant communities” – we could in fact end up with the current status quo being continued into the future.

Once again, I received a reply, this one actually moving towards addressing issues:

Inara–Thanks for such a thoughtful post. And, YES–retaining current Residents is a huge priority here at the Lab. We cherish the SL community and you’ll see more programs rolling out to help make your experience better, too. But, the announcements on Wednesday were centered around the new Viewer and welcome experience–so it feels like we’re only thinking about attracting and retaining new Residents. More to come in the coming months….

Cheers, Amanda

Now…this could of course all be flannel. As the old cliche goes, actions speak louder than words – and as we’ve all too often observed, Linden Lab has a habit of tripping over its own two feet when moved to action. But…action has been promised, and I’m certainly not going to let things go with this, as I hope my follow-up demonstrates:

Amanda,

I’ll take you at your word regarding user retention, and look forward to seeing both future posts and affirmative action on the part of LL that demonstrate this to be the case.

I appreciate the Wednesday’s announcements were close related to new users (welcome experience / Viewer) –  but by the same token, the “new user experience” has been pretty muchthe mantra for well over a year. The “First Hour” experience, the “First Five Hours”, the viewer…search….other changes. Almost all have been accompanied by the mantra of “new users”. When concerns have been raised where some changes are concerned, many of the replies received by Linden Lab could be paraphrased as, “Ah, yes, but for new users….” (you can fill in the “…”) – so much so that it is fair to say that there is a strong perception among established users that “new users” *is* the only measure that counts nowadays.

I also appreciate that it is hard sometimes to pick out concerns above the *noise* at times, given the sometimes heated debates that go on within these forums, and the levels of emotional response that heaped in some postings.So I do appreciate you are taking the time to post here and give support to your initial replies, especially given the emotive title of the thread.

But that said – and leaving aside the “new user” mantra – another major reason why seasoned users are feeling jaded towards Linden Lab is that quite often we’ve been faced with responses from LL that suggest that those who post in these forums are a “vocal minority” (my term), who are not representative of the “majority” of SL users – even when valid points are being made.

This is very much an incorrect perception. The people who ardently post here do so because they are involved in Second Life; the majority genuinely care for the platform and what happens to it – and as such, far from being a “vocal minority”, are actually pretty representative of the feelings of those who are equally as engaged in the platform but who don’t post here for one reason or another (i.e. they themselves are already feeling jaded by what is perceived to be the same rhetoric being repeated time and again – so they read, but simply don’t post).

So again, I very much hope that the time you are taking here is an indication that – as you stated at Metanomics recently – you (as in LL) will be much more active in communicating with residents (as opposed to communicating to residents) as we go forward, and that you’ll do more to demonstrate that you are actively taking on board user concerns and actively responding to them, rather than opting to post replies that read as being both arrogant in tone and suggestive that LL prefer to cherry-pick user views and attitudes that are (possibly) more closely aligned to your desired strategy / direction.

As it stands, the weekend is here, and I obviously do not expect or anticipate any reply before the middle of next week – but I think the points above are worth making, given dialogue has been joined, and I very much hope that Amanda will continue to keep the door open on what is a developing two-way exchange. Yes, her replies are light on specifics and full of the usual Linden spin – but I can live with that.

I very much hope that she’ll also revisit comments made in the same thread by the likes of Amethyst Rosencrans and Ciaran Laval. The concerns and observations they both raise very much point to the need for better, clearer and more balance exchanges between the Lab and users, especially if Amanda’s statement that retaining current Residents is a huge priority here at the Lab. We cherish the SL community is going to be anything other that hollow market speak.

User satisfaction isn’t simply about a “more predictable” in-world experience. It’s not purely about reducing lag or boosting hardware performance or providing new and better LSL functions or integrating in-world and XSL accounts.

User satisfaction is about taking the time to engage with the community; it’s about abandoning pretences and participating in the two-way exchange of dialogue. Linden Lab has persistently failed in this  – and have been absolutely chronic in the sphere of user relationships in the last few years in particular. While they may be “small” and “parochial” in the scheme of things, even the San Francisco Better Business Bureau have noticed LL’s weakness in customer relations – awarding them a “F” rating.

I’m not foolish enough to believe that a couple of forum exchanges with the likes of me are seriously going to change things – we’ve all see Linden staff drop comments here and there across the flogs. What I do find heartening, tho, is that when pushed on issues, Amanda hasn’t simply blanked me and skipped on to more favourable comments for her replies – she’s met me (almost) head-on.

I really do hope we see more of it.

I couldn’t help it; I cringed.

Posted on by Inara Pey

I’m sorry.

Maybe I’m suffering from a sense of humour failure – but who on Earth came up with the Welcome Video on DiscoveryIsland? I mean, trying to riff on a 30-year-old TV series remembered largely for being the bastion of trite, formulaic television, replete with more re-use of stock footage in a single episode than most TV shows managed in an entire series.

Riffing on Fantasy Island, for crying out loud to promote Second Life as a “hip” place?

While I was too young to watch it when first aired, I do remember it being on-air in re-runs on Saturday afternoons, wherein it was generally received with derisory humour  – before the channel was changed…..

I’m not sure exactly what demographic LL are trying to appeal to. Silver surfers with a taste for “fine corinthan leather” and bad 80’s television, perhaps?

All together now, “The pain, boss! The painnnnnnn!”

Malicious Viewer detection systems

Posted on by Inara Pey

There has been what can only be described as an ongoing war of words enacted over on the official flogs relating to the use of “Viewer detection systems”. This fight has been focused on the Gemini CDS (Copybot Detection System) and it has people hotly divided for the most part: those who are “pro” the system, those who are “anti”, with a lot of name-calling and aspersion-casting going on between the two.

Essentially, Gemini CDS offers people protection from “copybotting Viewers” by detecting them when an avatar using such a Viewer tp’s into range. It can then either alert the land owner to the individual’s presence or it can boot / ban them – and add their details to a blacklist shared among all versions of the system that have been deployed in-world (i.e. there is a back-end database external to SL supporting the system). Further, the ban remains in place, even if the alleged violator subsequently tries to access a protected sim / area using a “legal” Viewer. To support the network ban list, purchasers of the system pay L$700 a month over and above the initial purchase price of the system.

The system apparently works by using the media streaming capability built-in to the Viewer to identify known “copybot” Viewers and thus take action against them (assuming, I gather, the user has media streaming enabled on the Viewer). There has also been a lot of hype surrounding the ability of this system to somehow automatically ban alts of those found to be using “copybotting” Viewers at the same time as the initial ban is handed out – leading to (unfounded) claims that the tool illegally scans the local computer.

Leaving aside these wilder (and pretty much unfounded) claims of data scraping, Gemini CDS would appear to offer a degree of protection against content ripping. However, having toiled through the seemingly endless flog threads on the subject as well as bouncing around other SL-related forums (where the debates surrounding Gemini CDS are as prevalent), I have serious concerns as to the effectiveness of the system, and something of a niggle relating to its validity.

For a start, the system appears to have been largely deployed by store owners, who give it the loudest praise in the flog. BUT – the vast majority of stores use vendor systems (with some notable exceptions in the furniture and housing markets) – and goods contained in vendors cannot be ripped. Ergo, aside from those who are utterly naive when it comes to content ripping, it is highly unlikely “serious” rippers are going to be plonking themselves down in the middle of stores.

Even the effectiveness of the system cannot be examined; while store keepers may point to the “fact” that Gemini CDS has ejected X people from their store / sim in any given week – this does not automatically equate to said individuals being genuine content rippers nor does it mean content ripping is in any way being deterred (again, because it is unlikely serial content ripping is taking place in stores).

Then there is the question as to exactly how endemic content ripping really is. The flog shows the level of fear / paranoia circulating on the subject, with ugly fighting erupting among content creators themselves. Within the flogs themselves, some store owners openly admit to ejecting people who stand around in their stores for more than a couple of minutes without moving, because they “know” these people are ripping their content (again, unless the content is on open display – such as being modelled – it’s hard to see how this can be the case).

As such, it is hard to accurately assess the spread of content ripping through the use of malicious Viewers simply because of all the FUD that surrounds them; and this being the case, it is fair to ask whether tools such as Gemini CDS actually feed into this FUD, simultaneously feeding on people’s fears while creating a veneer of comfort and sense of protection – while all the time generating a revenue stream for the creators of the system.

One might argue that profit or not, the fact that Gemini CDS gives the perception of being protected against thieves, then it is sufficient deterrent – and I am, after all, one who is pretty big on seeing perception as a motivator, as my comments around third-party Viewers will demonstrate.

But really, the answer to this must be “no”. Deterrence only works when it is shown to deter (prevent / discourage). When one strips away all the hype, arguments, hyperbole and misinformation circulating around Gemini CDS one is driven to a single conclusion: it will have absolutely minimal impact on “serious” content ripping. While store keeper may well feel comforted by seeing this system boot 5 or 6 people a week from their sim and even consider that in doing so, it is enabling them to “do their bit” to stamp out content ripping – the very sad fact remains that ripping will continue unabated elsewhere on the grid  – and probably at levels that have remained more-or-less unchanged for the last several years.

The there is the annoying niggle over the validity of the system. Gemini CDS is owned an operated by individuals outside of Linden Lab. They have no “official” position within Second Life and no sanctioned authority. They maintain the Gemini CDS system under a blanket of secrecy that goes far beyond the need to protect (as they put it) “trade secrets”. There is no oversight as to which Viewer is or is not branded a “copybot”, there is no oversight of their ban list and there is no guaranteedmeans of appeal should someone feel they have been wrongly banned. Indeed, as Mitzy Shino has already found out, the owners of the system are predisposed not to accept appeals and lift bans.

I won’t go so far as to claim Gemini CDS is insidious or a waste of time per se. While the system has been developed by individuals with a questionable past, others have managed to test it to the point where it is not doing anything overtly insidious – my only caveat being that we only have the creators’ word that it is only collecting data related to the use of “copybot” Viewers (although as I use Emerald, I’m in a bit of a cleft stick in this regard). Further, that it does give store owner a naive sense of security – which they are entitled to, having paid for the system itself and continue to do so on a monthly basis in order to retain their sense of comfort – then I’ll grant that is has done some good for them.

But I’d draw the line far short of Gemini CDS being the kind of panacea for content ripping many portray it to be believe. In the wider scheme of things, the best one could say about Gemini CDS is that it is a placebo – :quit! (for those familiar with Copybot “destectors”).

New ToS released

Posted on by Inara Pey

M Linden has announced the release of a new SL Terms of Service (ToS), that will come into effect from the 30th April 2010.

The timing is interesting, as it coincides with the Third Party Viewer (TPV) Policy going into effect, and it is interesting to note that M’s post also refers to all the policies relating to the ToS as being “new” (i.e. updated).

As to the ToS itself, the language has evidently been cleaned up with a view to making it somewhat more comprehensible – even if the document is much longer than the older ToS.

However, longer does not automatically mean better.

Overall, the ToS appears to encompass something of a paradigm shift that has been hinted at in various blog postings from LL for a while now: that they no long consider themselves a platform provider, but rather a service provider, licensing aspects of their service for use, ostensibly as the user requires them.

Some elements of this move appear to be “good” – on the land front, for example, we finally move away from the absurd and highly misleading notion that “land” in Second Life is “owned”. In the past, this has given rise to all sorts of misconceptions and ranting within the official flogs.  The new ToS makes it clear that the acquisition of “virtual land” and the fees relating to the same are now effectively a licence to use LL’s server space and fees relating to the use of that space.

That said…this blatant move it liable to cause massive upsets: Linden Lab have long promoted the concept of “ownership” within Second Life – while the ToS has tended to make it clear users don’t actually “own” anything beyond IP rights to their own creations. As such, the ToS was found to be coercive during one famous case. While times have changed, one can well see the move to “licensing” land to be a causing of much potential upset in some quarters.

Similarly, the new approach is liable to cause much gnashing of teeth where Linden dollars are concerned, inasmuch as any fiscal value associated with them has now been almost completely stripped away up until they are actual converted to “real” currency and withdrawn. One cannot help this a) has been done to reduce the prospect of litigation following future account terminations; and b) will vastly reduce the funds people are willing to hold in their accounts.

These implications are potentially bad enough; then things get worse. Section 7, dealing with content, is perhaps the most confusing aspect of the new ToS, in that it appears to have been written around the God-awful “Second Life as the web” paradigm many at LL seem so in love with (and which is in keeping with their shift in now regarding themselves as a service provider along the lines of an ISP). As such, licences, rights, etc., are all talked about in terms of “uploading”, “publishing”, “submitting” and so forth, vis: You retain any and all Intellectual Property Rights you already hold under   applicable law in Content you upload, publish, and submit to or through the Servers, Websites, and other areas of the Service, subject to the rights,   licenses, and other terms of this Agreement, including any underlying rights   of other users or Linden Lab in Content that you may use or modify [my emphasis].

But what of content created in-world? The ToS implies that content created in-world (prim linksets, LSL scripts written in-world, etc.), fall outside of this section and thus are by default the property of Linden Lab. Even Section 7.6, relating to IP rights limit’s the user’s ownership of such rights to content you upload, publish or submit to the Service.

If this is the case, then it is worrying on several levels – both for users and potentially for Linden Lab.

Elsewhere, the new ToS introduces the TPV Policy in what is again bound to cause outrage. As I’ve mentioned previously (and more than once), the TPV is flawed in that the TPV confuses the use of third-party Viewers with the development of said Viewers. This has already given rise (rightly or wrongly) to outpourings of scorn and hurt from third-party Viewer developers  – and it now looks set to do the same with users of such Viewers. One can – to a point – see why the two have been mixed: TPV code is open-source and thus moddable – not only by the original developers, but by users why are so inclined.

Even so, it would have been far better had LL restricted the TPV policy itself to developers and the development of TPVs, and included a short, unambiguous section on users’ responsibilities in the use of TPVs within the body of the ToS. This would have scored two quick wins: i) it would have enabled LL to simply specify what users cannot do to existing TPVs without getting confusingly embroiled in deeper development issues; ii) it would enable developers to more clearly state their own EULA to ensure they both remain within the confines of the TPV Policy and limit their liabilities in the face of those determined to hack their code for malicious ends.

It’s also hard to fathom the policy around snapshots and machinima. Promoted by LL as an “aid” to such work, the entire policy looks set to achieve exactly the reverse. People are already trigger-happy with the AR option when it comes to “copybotting”; one dreads to thing what will happen when folks start innocently taking snapshots of one another as they hope around places that interest them and others start getting objectionable…..

The biggest problem with the new ToS is that while it is cohesive pretty much of itself, some contradictions are apparent – most notably between the ToS and the supporting policies. The ToS also absolves Linden Lab of virtually any and all liabilities – even in the case of them either turning off SL with no warning, or simply being so grossly negligent that they completely break the platform; at the same time, it enforces liabilities upon user even after they cease using the service. Hard to see either of these surviving a court case intact.

One can no longer doubt that the times are a-changin’ – but the question really remains as to how much this new ToS will really affect the overall use of SL. On the one hand, I can see elements giving problems, as mentioned above vis photos / machinima and possibly the use of third-party Viewers (possibly because the majority of “new” users will be driven down the Viewer 2.0 route), but I honestly suspect that – as with past upheavals in SL, life will go on more-or-less with an air of “business as usual” as the dust surrounding the new ToS settles. At least until the first lawsuit pops up.

Unless, of course, LL themselves see fit to rock the boat to the point of capsizing it themselves.

TPV: First casualty

Posted on by Inara Pey

imprudenceImprudence issued a statement earlier this week that they are withdrawing from Second Life as a result of the Third Party Viewer (TPV) Policy. In the statement, they set out their reasons as to why they are withdrawing, pointing to clauses 2b, 4a(i), 4b(iii), 7a and 7d, and 8c and 8d as being “unreasonable”.

Having gone over the TPV a number of times, I have to say I find Imprudence’s position for the most part hard to understand, as their interpretation of four of the clauses then mention seems to be wilfully subjective and misleading; while their reaction to two more of the clauses seems to lack any professional clarity of thought.

Imprudence state that (4a)i, (4b)iii, 8(c ) and 8(d) require us to promise to obey Linden Lab’s every future whim and that as such, the Imprudence team are unwilling to make such broad promises, not knowing what they may request.

This is a very sweeping statement, with Imprudence further claiming that 8(c) requires that they agree to stop using or distributing the viewer at Linden Lab’s request and that 8(d) requires that they agree to add, modify, or remove parts of the viewer at Linden Lab’s request, within a time frame dictated by Linden Lab.

However, these claims can best be described as over-exaggerated. Here is what clause 8c actually states:

If a Third-Party Viewer or your use or distribution of it violates this Policy or any Linden Lab policy, your permission to access Second Life using the Third-Party Viewer shall terminate automatically. You acknowledge and agree that we may require you to stop using or distributing a Third-Party Viewer for accessing Second Life if we determine that there is a violation.

Note my emphasis: the qualifier is clear. If a third-party Viewer breaks the TPV Policy, the Linden Lab require it no longer access Second Life. This is far short of Imprudence’s blanket assertion that Linden Lab require they “agree to stop using or distributing the Viewer” – a denial of access to Second Life clearly does not prevent them from continuing to distribute their Viewer for use on OS Grids, etc.

Similarly, clause 8(d) states:

If you are a Third-Party Viewer Developer, you agree to provide any content, data, executables, or for Third-Party Viewers based on our viewers, any source code that we may request to verify compliance with our policies, licenses, the GPL, or the law. If we believe that your Third-Party Viewer is not in compliance, we may request that you add, modify, or remove features, functionality, code or content, and you agree to comply with the request within a reasonable timeframe specified by Linden Lab.

Again, note the qualifiers I’ve emphasised. There is really nothing unreasonable here – if you wish to play in Linden Lab’s sandbox – which, by connecting to their servers and services a Developer is in fact doing – then sorry, Linden Lab have the right to ensure, so far as is possible (or, as I’ve stated elsewhere, give the perception they are ensuring) that your code does not constitute a threat to their services in and of itself  (excluding, obviously, mods any user introduces – which the Developer should again be able to prove relatively easily via the provisioning of their own source code).

Similarly, it is hard to see why Imprudence should be so upset of clauses 4a(i) and 4b(iii). Clause 4a(i) refers  to data received from Linden Lab’s servers – data for which Linden Lab has certain legal responsibilities (likely to be both State and Federal in nature (such as data privacy laws). As such, their various policies, terms of service, etc., must reflect such requirements  – and by extension, they need to ensure (or again, give the perception) that they are doing all they can to ensure that this data is protected when used by the software connecting to their servers.

Similarly, clause 4b(iii) relates to the protection of user data and makes a perfectly reasonable request that third-party developers take steps to ensure such data is kept secure when passing through their systems (and remember, if you use their Viewer, your login information, etc., goes through their servers). As such, it is in Imprudence’s best interests to ensure such data is protected at least to the same degree as on the Linden Lab servers. It is hard to see Linden Lab being so stupid as to issue requests for user data protection that exceed their own, and frankly – one would hope that Imprudence already have the necessary safeguards in place to ensure the data is as secure as possible.

Given that both these clauses relate to potentially sensitive data, I find it hard to accept that Imprudence, as responsible code developers would find a request to take reasonable steps to protect such data objectionable.

Indeed, in this, I find Imprudence’s own assertion that If and when Linden Lab makes any request of us, we will use our own judgement to decide how best to handle that particular request to be at least as presumptive and arrogant as anything in the TPV – even to the point of suggesting that if they see little need to protect user data, then that is their call, and nothing to do with either Linden Lab or the users of the Imprudence viewer.

Frankly, when all four of these clauses are viewed in their proper context, it is very hard to see how any professional software developer would find them in and of themselves reasons to reject the TPV Policy. That the Imprudence team opt to refer to the clauses somewhat out of context and apply highly subjective interpretations to them suggests that it is the thinking at Imprudence that is at fault, not the thinking behind the policy itself.

Clauses 7a and (d) have been the source of much wailing and gnashing of teeth across the Viewer development community, but again – as I’ve previously said – it is hard to understand why. While 7(a) is indeed poorly worded, and unnecessarily mixes Viewer use with Viewer development – there is absolutely no reason why the entirety of Section 7 of the TPV cannot be handled by a Viewer developer issuing their own EULA as a part of the distribution / installation package. A responsibly written EULA would clearly protect the developer for undue liability, and wouldn’t be in violation of GPL.

Certainly, it is what Kirstenlee Cinquetti has already done with her Viewer – and I’m pleased to see at least one voice of reason on the Imprudence website has raised the same point.

Which brings us finally to clause 2b. And here Imprudence have a point. As stated, the TPV Policy effectively restricts the export of content from SL to the creator. Period. If the user’s name is not on every prim, every animation, pose, script, contained in a linkset or whatever – then it isn’t going to be exportable.

This does – to be fair – read as overly restrictive. As if one is to remain fair, the clause seems to be less related to preventing content theft as it is about preventing “valuable” content being removed from Second Life per se – which LL have always looked less-than-favourably upon. Frankly, it is hard to fully justify LL’s stance on limiting content export so tightly: this automatically disallows the export of Group-created content for the purposes of back-up, and also disallows the export of content created by one person but sold under a license agreement to another. As such, I can see Imprudence’s concerns – just as I can see the issue LL face in trying to invoke the perception of protecting people’s creations when given the crudeness of the ownership / permissions system.

I doubt Imprudence will be the last of third-party developers to walk away from the Second Life sandbox. Each one that does will be a loss to the community to some degree, to be sure. How many do so on the basis of rational thinking as opposed to acting in a fit of pique, however, remains to be seen; and I have to say that having gone through the stated reasoning behind Imprudence’s move, I do feel it is a case of pique getting the better of them.

A brief history of content-ripping

Posted on by Inara Pey

This “little” post has come about as the result of a suggestion from regular reader, Peter Stindberg, which followed the concerns I raised about the “Bye Bye Copybot” prim being circulated by members of the Emerald team, and lauded by  some content creators and others, despite its potential as a ToS violator.

Before I get to the nitty-gritty, I will point out that while what follows is a genuine attempt to timeline events and interrelations of events as accurately as possible, the degree of paranoia and misinformation surrounding content ripping means that a) there is a possibility I may fail to mention some events ; b) some may view things differently (and may themselves not necessarily be correct); c) I’ve confused issues (although I’ve verified as much as I remember over the years with various sources elsewhere) – in which case polite corrections welcomed!

libsecondlife

Up until 2006, Second Life had largely been a closed universe: the code for both the server and client-side software was developed purely by Linden Lab. There had been issues around copying content – tools like GL Intercept, which enabled the likes of avatars to be copied, and basic tools and scripts that enabled textures to be pulled from the local cache. However, these tended to be somewhat obscure as far as the populace of SL at large were concerned, which somewhat mitigated their impact (but didn’t excuse their use).

Then something happened: libesecondlife was created.

libsecondlife commenced, with Linden Lab’s blessing, as group of Second Life residents attempting to back-engineer an open-source version of the Viewer (client-side software).  Today, to avoid copyright issues in relation to the Second Life name the group is now called lib.openmetaverse.org.

CopyBot

As a part of this work, an automated tool was developed – CopyBot that could be used to replicate avatars – bots, and be used as a debugging tool. The original CopyBot required that that target user actively give permission to be copied, and issued a disclaimer (in the form of a drop-down) prior to the copying taking place, specifying the fact that ownership / permissions pertaining to anything worn by the avatar would be lost in the copying process.

The software itself (written in C#) worked by intercepting the communications between the Viewer and server and replicating the information relating to objects (prims, textures). In doing so, and due the the way in which Viewer / server communications had been coded by LL, the copy process would lose the metadata relating to the original creator of the object and all permissions set against it – there was simply no way of including this information in the raw copy process as written in C#.

The original version of CopyBot was published as a part of the libsecondlife library of tools, where it became relatively easy for someone to remove the code asking for the target’s permission to be copied and the disclaimer drop-down, and thus use the code to copy virtually anything in Second Life – with the exception of scripts, gestures and animation (although later iterations of CopyBot could apparently grab animations and gestures from avatars) – completely surreptitiously, giving birth to CopyBot as we know it today.

What made CopyBot different to earlier attempts to rip content was its relative ease-of-use, it’s availability and – inevitably – the notoriety it quickly gained as a result of being made “public”.

From the start, the libsecondlife group were fairly unconcerned by the risk CopyBot presented to content creators, demonstrating a “so what?” attitude, supported and repeated by other techies posing as “journalists” as the news broke. Indeed, in one such interview, libsecondlife’s Admin, Babba Yamamoto intimated the issue of metadata loss could have been overcome if the CopyBot code had been re-written in XML (this is in fact how tools such as Second Inventory and Viewers such as Meerkat and Emerald “legally” export content)  – but no-one saw the point in doing so, since the “flaw” that lost the metadata lay with the way LL had originally coded Viewer / server communications, so those in the libsecondlife group felt justified in deflecting anger directed at them by pointing the finger at LL.

libsecondlife did eventually pull the CopyBot branch from their open source library as the wave of outrage reached the level of a tsunami – but again (and to mix metaphors) their action was that of not only shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted – but having ensured the horse had an open-ended ticket to any destination of its own choosing as it left the stable.

Protests and Response

The “revised” CopyBot code quickly started showing up as being for sale both in-world and on SL Exchange and immediately generated uproar as a result. Protests were held, the forums were flooded and people were angry: stores were closed; sims locked down, and calls were made to boycott Second Life.

While the libsecondlife group’s reaction remained pretty much, “so what?”, Linden Lab’s initial response to the protests could best be described as lukewarm, with Robin Linden repeating the assertion that content copying is “not necessarily” theft – a meme initially rolled out by Cory Linden – himself an active supporter of libsecondlife. While the meme is technically true (it should be pointed out that Second Inventory, for example, effectively uses CopyBot-style coding with ownership and permission checking in place, to export objects from Second Life, for example), it was also was somewhat disingenuous to raise it in the context of content ripping.

Many were angered by this reaction from Linden Lab, which gave rise to a further round of protests. Some of these made headline news in the likes of Business Week and  News.com – prompting Linden Lab to take something of a more affirmative stance, revising their policy to make it clear the use of CopyBot and similar tools would not be tolerated. While the move was in some ways welcomed, it was also felt that it was the risk of poor publicity, rather than a desire to help reduce the risk of Copybotting that prompted LL into “action”.

Nor was the revised policy that successful. By referring to the use of such tools as CopyBot, the policy implied that the sale of such tools in-world was still OK – and so people kept right on selling it at up to L$1500 a pop, quite prepared to face the wrath of residents while the Lab again kept quietly to the sidelines.

At the same time as calls for tougher action against CopyBot and it users continued, so to did the counter-argument “that nothing can be done” to stop the matter (an argument still heard today) gained strength among techies. People pointed to the code behind web pages being viewable and therefore copyable; people pointed to the existence of tools such as GLIntercept that could copy avatars, people raised the issue of ripping MP3s over the Internet as reasons why CopyBot was not only “inevitable”, but should be more-or-less accepted.

While such statements are broadly true, they in no way justify the theft of Second Life content – or any theft for that matter. Rather, they deflect discussion from the core issue that Second Life is promoted as a platform of commerce, and as such those encouraged to take up business opportunities on the platform should be offered a degree of protection that appeared to be somewhat lacking on LL’s part.

Promises and Tools

Another reason people perceived Linden Lab as having little concern over the matter was the time taken to develop practical tools that could help in the identification of potentially ripped goods. Conversations around such tools commenced in November 2006, with Robin Linden’s above-mentioned post. However, it was not until April 2008 that the first really useful tool –  the Object Inspector – finally made its debut;  18 months after the initial furore.

Now, there could be perfectly legitimate reasons as to why such a tool took so long to develop and deploy. However, during the 18 months it was in development, Linden Lab was largely silent on the matter of content ripping, giving rise to the perception that they “weren’t interested” in dealing with the issue. Right or wrong, this perception was further reinforced by the fact it was not until August 2009 – nigh on three years after the original protests – that the Lab saw fit to outline updates to their IP Complaints Process, as outlined in their Content Management Roadmap. Even then, insult appeared to be added to injury in that elements of the Roadmap appeared less concerned with the worries of current residents as they did in providing the perception of content protection for “upcoming” users of the Second Life Enterprise product.

In the meantime, CopyBot development continued among known hacker groups – such as the Patriotic Nigaras – who worked to make the tool more “user-friendly” and added further capabilities to it. While the sale of the tool was banned from both in-world and on the likes SL Exchange / XStreetSL, CopyBot does continue to be available through various torrent sites – although I understand (but have absolutely no proof) that many of the advertised CopyBot downloads are, in an ironic twist, themselves riddled with viruses / Trojans.

Viewer Threats

Throughout 2007 and 2008, CopyBot remained an issue. Exactly how widespread its use was was difficult to assess: paranoia meant that many reports of copying came via “friends of friends of friends” rather than first-hand exposure, and the storm was further whipped up by merchants selling “anti-Copybot protection” tools that were little more than scripted placebos. While such tools did little or nothing to stop Copybotting, their widespread proliferation  in stores across the grid reinforced the perception that Copybotting was epedemic in proportions.

Then the landscape started to change. In 2007, the first fully-functional third-party Viewers began to appear. Over a period of several months, a crop of Viewers showed up that offered people a genuine alternative to the “official” Viewer, which was regarded as poorly-written and crash-prone. What was more, these Viewers not only offered improved stability, they also tended to offer features that users has been requesting from Linden Lab without any success. As the popularity of these Viewers increased, so did the likelihood that the Viewer code would be maliciously hacked.

This likelihood became a reality in 2009, when the first of the “CopyBot Viewers” appeared in-world. This did raise content theft to a new level: now it was possible for anyone to grab content (with the exception of scripts) simply by using a modified Viewer – no other tools or add-ins required.

As with CopyBot itself, Linden Lab were initially slow to respond, despite the renewed outcry the appearance of these “hacked” Viewers caused. It was not until February 2010 that their Third Party Viewer (TPV) Policy first appeared.

BuilderBot

In mid-2009 the matter almost took another very nasty turn when Jim Himoff of Rezzable suggested an in-house tool created by his company would be made available to the open source community. This tool was Builderbot. Based on the CopyBot code, Builderbot enabled entire sims to be “backed up”: land, buildings, content, textures – all in a single pass.

Like CopyBot, Builderbot was initially developed with a genuine function in mind: Rezzable had invested heavily in Second Life in terms of sim development and commissioning custom builds they have not only paid for, but have purchased the rights to as well. When they opted to make a move from Second Life to their own OS Grid, they obviously wanted to take their investment with them: hence Builderbot.

However, Himoff’s announcement of issuing Builderbot to the open source community as an unrestrained tool was alarming, and his very public claims that it presented “nothing new” as it was based on “CopyBot” and the “CopyBot was already out there” was an utterly disingenuous excuse. Given the history of CopyBot, any release of an unrestrained version of Builderbot would have been worse than mischief making – it would have been as malicious as pulling the pin of a hand grenade and tossing it into a crowded room.

Fortunately, such was the outcry over the announcement that Rezzable quickly backpedalled away from their stated intent (assuming said intent wasn’t a stunt aimed at raising Rezzable’s visibility and that of their new OS Grid offering), opting instead to develop a version of Builderbot that would include ownership and permissions protection. So far as I’m aware, no version of Builderbot has to date been released.

The Present

Most recently, Linden Lab again caused some consternation with the release of Viewer 2.0 – which had the invaluable Object Inspector completely removed. Why this was done is anyone’s guess, but it lead to some consternation on the part of residents using it – so much so that a JIRA was raised and LL reintroduced it with the first Viewer 2.0 update –  although one has to ask why it was removed in the first place.

We’re still awaiting further updates around the Content Management Roadmap – again nothing has been heard of on this subject since the August 2009 blog post, giving the (potentially wrong) impression that it has fallen of LL’s radar in the rush to get Viewer 2.0 and all things “Enterprise”-related out the door.

Currently, the subject of content ripping remains contentious. Not because it isn’t happening – it is – witness the recent XSL sale of ripped dances and Ishy Wingtips’ highly-literate and thought-provoking flog posting on the subject as it affects the Teen Grid –  but rather because the accepted perception is that copy ripping has reached pandemic levels in Second Life. This perception has resulted in a lot of misinformation to enter circulation – some of it through simple misunderstandings, some of it to deliberately derail attempts to halt the further spread of the problem.

The waters have also been muddied by the subject of “copybotting” being used to promote other agendas. Towards the end of 2009, for example, a number of high-profile content creators used the subject of copybotting to float the idea that only a selected “elite” (my term) of content creators should be allowed to operate in Second Life. Among other things, they suggested the criteria by which such creators should be selected should be related to in-world turnover – an idea that found its way into the Content Management Roadmap thus: We are starting the process of planning a content seller program, and we would like your input on possible program criteria. At a minimum, participation in the program will require that the selling Resident…..3. meet a minimum threshold for content transactions.

Quite how limiting the number of content creators to a “selected few” would stop content ripping (given their own content would clearly become the target) has never been fully explained – but the fact that their views, issued under the guise of concern about content ripping, found their way into the draft CM Roadmap is disturbing.

Beyond this, and in part due to the apparent lack of concern from Linden Lab on the matter, in-world tools to “combat” Copybotting have appeared over the years. How effective any one of these tools is, I cannot honestly say. Some appear utterly useless and smack of cynical attempts to cash-in on people’s fears. More recent tools have appeared that seem to offer a degree of protection against the use of “hacked” Viewers, but even these are subject to considerable controversy, inasmuch as a) they have been developed by former content rippers (allowing their potential effectiveness to be undermined using the question of trust), and b) the creators have been so secretive around the tools, entire rumour mills have been created around them- and not always positively.

And so we come bang up-to-date with things, and the post that initiated Peter’s suggestion that I try to summarise (!) things relating to Copybot, etc.

I think I’ve covered all the bases and key events. If I’ve missed anything significant, I apologise, and will attempt to correct any omissions / inaccuracies that are pointed out to me.

Further information on CopyBot and the furore around content ripping can be read at:

Note: Revised Mar 26, 2010 01:45 BST to better reflect the situation prior to the advent of CopyBot. With thanks to Tateru Nino for both prodding me in the right direction and for giving further information.