|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Second Life and Open Source

LWN.net needs you!

Without subscribers, LWN would simply not exist. Please consider signing up for a subscription and helping to keep LWN publishing

December 15, 2006

This article was contributed by Glyn Moody

When Larry Lessig proclaimed that "code is law" he was talking metaphorically.  But for a virtual world, constructed entirely out of bits, it is literally true: the laws regarding what you can and cannot do there, both legally and even physically, are inscribed in the lines of code that implement it. In this space, then, open source has an added significance in that it not only lays bare the engines of creation, but it potentially allows them to be hacked.

What some of the consequences of this openness might be was shown recently in Second Life, when the open source project libsecondlife released a program called CopyBot. As its name suggests, this tool allowed copies to be made of in-world objects - including the "avatars" that are used to represent the residents of Second Life. This was deeply problematic, since one of the attractions of Second Life is that creators of digital content retain ownership, unlike in most other virtual worlds. Many now make a good living from this in-world activity selling virtual items, with some earning tens of thousands of dollars per year. However, CopyBot raised the spectre of people replicating content for free, rendering digital objects valueless, and undermining the entire Second Life economy.

The person leading the libsecondlife project is Jonathan Freedman. He took over recently after John Hurliman, the previous lead, and still the main contributor of code to the project, decided he didn't want to deal with the public relations issues that CopyBot threw up. Freeman recalls: "he said to me: 'I just want to code, I don't want to deal with this.'"

The libsecondlife project began six months ago, and was started by a group of coders who "were interested in seeing a little more flexibility in what they could do with Second Life," as Freedman explains. The idea was to create an open source library that third parties could employ to create new Second Life applications. To do that, the libsecondlife group started reverse-engineering the Second Life protocols.

One by-product of this work was that they turned up security issues - "and believe you me, they found quite a few," Freedman says - which they reported to Linden Lab, the company behind Second Life. Partly as a result, "the way the project had been run impressed Linden Lab, who were very happy with it," Freedman explains. "Back in the Second Life Community Convention in August, they gave their unofficial endorsement of the libsecondlife project."

And then along came the CopyBot incident.

"It was a debugging tool," Freedman says of CopyBot. "The developer was working on the part of the Second Life protocol that was responsible for drawing avatars. He needed a way to verify that the data was coming correctly: what better way to verify that than just mirroring it back" down the connection to the system and observing the result?

Freedman emphasizes that there were safeguards built into ensure that this "mirroring" - copying of virtual objects - was kept within the terms of service at the time. "You'd actually have to ask it before it would copy you, and it would then give you a lengthy disclaimer explaining what was going on so people could make sure that that was what they wanted. And generally people were agreeing with that, and they'd be there for five or ten minutes dancing with themselves."

There the story might have ended, were it not for the fact that CopyBot was free software. "Anybody could get a copy and make use of it, and that's what we saw happening: other people were modifying it to take out the disclaimer, and generally shout stuff like 'I'm stealing your textures'" - the surface elements of virtual objects.

As well as taunting victims in this way, a few of these "griefers" started selling the modified, no-holds-barred version of CopyBot within Second Life. Panic spread in some quarters of Second Life. Shop owners closed hundreds of virtual stores, afraid that their inventory would be copied endlessly and rendered worthless. But in practice, the damage was minor, and the economy of Second Life continues to grow - not least because CopyBot itself had important limitations that were consequences of the way Second Life operates.

Each "sim" or simulator of a portion of the virtual world in Second Life is created on a server running Debian GNU/Linux, Apache, Squid and MySQL; currently there are several thousand of these PC boxes. To allow for fast response times, the virtual world is sent not as pixels or even as a mesh, but as a series of 3D primitives - "prims". The Second Life client creates the world by converting the stream of information about prims and their position into a visual representation.

This means that the client has all the structural information about any object visible to it; CopyBot works by taking that information, and replicating it. However, in addition to the prims and the textures applied to them, more complex objects add scripting to provide interactive behaviour that endows Second Life with much of its richness. These scripts are run server-side, and are not passed to the client, so CopyBot is unable to intercept them.

Nonetheless, the residents of Second Life who made money from their virtual creations were understandably perturbed by the appearance of a piece of software with the provocative name of CopyBot - "in retrospect it probably could have been named something else," Freedman concedes.

At a November meeting held in-world, Second Life's creator and CEO, Philip Rosedale, explained that nothing could be done about CopyBot using technical means: Second Life's client-server architecture implied that CopyBot was not just possible but in some sense inevitable. But he did promise other measures, including more metadata, such as attribution and creation time-stamps, for virtual objects. Since these would be stored server-side, and hence immutable, they would provide clear proof of whether an object had been copied. To give this approach some teeth, Linden Lab made clear that anyone who used CopyBot or something similar in a malicious manner faced the prospect of expulsion from Second Life.

Some remain unhappy with Rosedale's response, and also see the CopyBot incident as part of a deeper malaise involving cynical hackers exploiting loopholes in the Second Life code to grief other residents. They accuse Linden Lab of a certain complicity because of its encouragement of the external libsecondlife project.

Perhaps that encouragement is not so surprising given Linden Lab's stated intention [PDF - look at final slides] to make elements of Second Life open source. "Without speaking to specific timing or plans - and we've thought and are thinking lots and lots where there might be exceptions to this - it seems like the best way to allow [Second Life] to become reliable and scalable and grow," Rosedale said recently on the subject of opening up the code. "We've got a lot of smart people here thinking about that." It's obviously useful to have smart people thinking about it on the outside too - provided things don't get out of hand.

Freedman has instituted one important change in the libsecondlife project to try to ensure that another CopyBot does not happen. "Previously, the way the libsecondlife source tree was done was basically anybody who wants an account can have one. That's the first thing I changed: just the core developers can have the accounts."

Freedman also has some clear-cut goals for the project, which will be releasing all its code under the BSD license. "Short-term, the aim is to have a workable third-party library that other people can make use of to interface with Second Life. I believe that by the middle to end of December we'll have a fairly decent third-party viewer that's comparable to the Second Life [client] application. Longer term, ideally we'd like to see a completely open implementation of Second Life, from the client, to the sims, to the assets - everything."

Freedman believes "the use of open standards, if not open source, will go a long way in the propagation of Second Life as an actual platform." This seems to explain Linden Lab's enthusiasm for libsecondlife and patience with things like CopyBot. At stake is the chance to help create the next online platform - the 3D Web, sometimes known as Web 3.D.

Opening up the platform will also take some of the strain off Linden Lab: currently, Second Life is growing at an unsustainable rate, with over a million new members joining in the last couple of months. If users could host their own virtual land, then Second Life could scale more gracefully. Beyond that, open protocols would allow distinct but interconnected virtual worlds to be created. The technical aspects of this are the easy part; more difficult are working out social and economic issues like making reputation and money portable between those worlds, and legal ones - as the CopyBot episode made all-too clear.

Glyn Moody writes about open source and virtual worlds at opendotdotdot.

Index entries for this article
GuestArticlesMoody, Glyn


(Log in to post comments)

Does the response fit the problem?

Posted Dec 15, 2006 17:52 UTC (Fri) by dark (guest, #8483) [Link]

This paragraph caught my eye:

Freedman has instituted one important change in the libsecondlife project to try to ensure that another CopyBot does not happen. "Previously, the way the libsecondlife source tree was done was basically anybody who wants an account can have one. That's the first thing I changed: just the core developers can have the accounts."

Yet, if we look back at how the first CopyBot happened, it does not seem like developers with accounts were the problem, or even had anything to do with it:

"Anybody could get a copy and make use of it, and that's what we saw happening: other people were modifying it to take out the disclaimer [...]"

So, I don't see the connection. Limiting who can get an account would not have prevented the first CopyBot from happening, so how could it prevent the second? As soon as you release the software, it becomes available for people to copy, whether they have a developer account or not. (Anonymous read-only svn access is also still available, so the public does not even have to wait for a release.)

This measure could also backfire. The more you restrict participation in a project, the greater the chance that someone will fork it, and then you have lost all control.

were it not for the fact that CopyBot was free software.

Posted Dec 15, 2006 19:26 UTC (Fri) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]

> There the story might have ended, were it not for the fact that CopyBot was free software.

This is non-sense. When people want to use a software for an illegal purpose they do not need it a license nor even the source. People have been patching closed binaries to change their behaviour since 30 years, and I am not mentioning reverse engineering what the piece of code do and rewrite it. This is just an attempt of security by lame obscurity.

were it not for the fact that CopyBot was free software.

Posted Dec 15, 2006 23:48 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

You will agree that being a text edit followed by a ./configure && make away from a modified binary is orders of magnitude easier than reverse-engineering a closed binary or cracking it to change its behavior. The audience for the first scenario increases accordingly.

were it not for the fact that CopyBot was free software.

Posted Dec 16, 2006 14:26 UTC (Sat) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

No, not realy.

Thousands of people can just as easily use the binaries he produced, either way it's just as simple for 99.995% of people that would end up using it.

It's why DMCA/DRM is pointless for protecting copyrighted data. Only one person needs to know how to break the data protections, then everybody else can have a copy of the data since it's possible to replicate digital data infinately.

were it not for the fact that CopyBot was free software.

Posted Dec 22, 2006 17:08 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

The article seems to be talking about the problem of people removing the disclaimer and putting in taunts. I'm not sure why that's a significant problem, but it is a problem that probably would not exist if not for the fact that CopyBot was free software (or maybe I should be more specific: usable-source-available software). To patch a binary to do that would be costly enough that it probably wouldn't have happened.

were it not for the fact that CopyBot was free software.

Posted Dec 21, 2006 17:58 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

You clearly chose to ignore the part of the article which describes how
the modified version of CopyBot was repackaged, redistributed and even
sold on Second Life itself. None of which would have even been legal with
closed-source software (and hence, could have been stomped on with a quick
C&D); with BSD-licensed software, it's not just legal, it's unstoppable.

Therefore, the original statement is not "non-sense" (incidentally, the
hyphen is superfluous) but quite accurate. It's the redistributive aspects
of open source licences that allowed the story to go on, not the use
aspects.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 15, 2006 20:49 UTC (Fri) by mikov (guest, #33179) [Link]

Ironically, the true solution to their copying problems is "trusted
computing". The protocol should be encrypted and only "authorized"
machines, OS and clients can connect. No copying. No hacking. End of
problem.

Same solution works for multiplayer games. John Carmack has said: "The
problem is really only solvable by relying on the community to police
itself, because it is a fundamentally unwinnable technical battle to make
a completely cheat proof game of this type. Play with your
friends." (http://finger.planetquake.com/plan.asp?userid=johnc&i...).
Trusted computing solves this problem nicely ...

Linden Labs could even start selling hardware Second Life client boxes,
with a TPM. (Microsoft and Sony already are selling such "game client
boxes" with great success :-)

Note that I am not advocating this, just saying that it makes a lot of
sense from many points of view. We as a community must be extra careful to
prevent it.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 15, 2006 22:13 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Microsoft and Sony already are selling such "game client boxes" with great success :-)

Hmm... What "success" are you talking about ? Both PlayStation and Playstation 2 were cracked. Ditto for XBox and XBox 360. PlayStation 3 is not cracked yet (AFAIK, anyway) but it's only available for month so I presume it'll be cracked later...

To me it looks like miserable failure of TPM: legitimate fair use it severely crippled while "pirates" are not really punished...

Note that I am not advocating this, just saying that it makes a lot of sense from many points of view. We as a community must be extra careful to prevent it.

To me it looks like you are advocating this by misrepresenting facts. The facts are clear: TPM schemes (from Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, etc) successfully make life miserable for legitemate users but "pirates" (the real target) are affected barely at all. The only exception are online games - and only because the server can prevent cracking attempts. Server can do this with or without TPM...

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 15, 2006 23:54 UTC (Fri) by mikov (guest, #33179) [Link]

Hmm... What "success" are you talking about ? Both PlayStation and Playstation 2 were cracked. Ditto for XBox and XBox 360. PlayStation 3 is not cracked yet (AFAIK, anyway) but it's only available for month so I presume it'll be cracked later...

I obviously mean commercial success. Yes, PS and XBOX were cracked, however not a single one of the people I know (including me) uses a crack. In percentages, how many people are using a cracked console, you think ? (I am not sure but isn't cracking a violation of the DMCA ?)

To me it looks like miserable failure of TPM: legitimate fair use it severely crippled while "pirates" are not really punished...

Game consoles are not a commercial failure. Any other kinds of failure (like ethical) are unimportant for the businesses who rely on TPM.

Plus, to be honest TPM on a game console isn't limiting my freedoms in a significant way. I buy a game, I play it on many consoles - what's the big deal ? On top of that I can be reasonable sure that other online players with consoles are not cheating. Go explain to Joe Average that this is a bad thing.

To me it looks like you are advocating this by misrepresenting facts. The facts are clear: TPM schemes (from Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, etc) successfully make life miserable for legitemate users but "pirates" (the real target) are affected barely at all. The only exception are online games - and only because the server can prevent cracking attempts. Server can do this with or without TPM...

The fact is TPM is here and is most likely here to stay for the foreseeable future. Music, movies, games - it all fits perfectly. Just because you don't like what I am saying (even I don't like what I saying), doesn't mean I am misrepresenting facts, let alone advocating for trusted computing.

We don't have a chance of fighting this effectively if we close our eyes to reality and to the obstacles we face. Saying that it is unfair, hurts users, etc, doesn't matter as long as it is a huge commercial success. We don't like it -> we must change the laws.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 16, 2006 17:49 UTC (Sat) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

Any time you break any digital copyright protection sceme it is a violation of the DMCA.

Anyways. You attributing the success of PS1/PS2 and Xbox to some sort of copy protection sceme is misplaced.

People would of bought them either way.

ID software allows you to download the game itself off their ftp server. You just need the data files. It's not regulated, it's no charge. The 'cdkey' protection is laughably easy to circumvent. But they are still able to make a boatload worth of money.

Sure you didn't know anybody that used cracking to circumvent Xbox protection, but I bet you also didn't actually ask anybody did you?

My mom had a plumber try to sell her PS games for a dozen for 20 bucks when he found out that I liked playing video games. Yes, it was a bit weird.

I know people that have cracked Xbox scemes to install Linux.

I've cracked protection scemes in DVD devices to play non-US videos.

I knew a guy that cracked the protection scemes in his PS2 so he could play japanese games in it.

I would say that these devices succeed despite the protection scemes.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 16, 2006 18:49 UTC (Sat) by mikov (guest, #33179) [Link]

Sorry, but you misunderstand my point. I am not attributing the commercial
success of the consoles to the copy protection scheme. However:

- Consoles are a commercial success and they do have TPM.

- The vast majority of users will not crack their consoles. Because they
don't care, because they can't/don't want to open their consoles and break
them or lastly because its illegal.

- Trusted computing does make the platform more attractive for businesses.
Things like: DRM for media. Multiplayer games where one cannot cheat.
Better control of what the costumer can do. Etc.

Think about the last point. It is not about ethics or "freedom" - the
businesses and even the consumers don't really care about that. From a
business point TPM is very very advantageous. I don't like it, but it is
true.

I am not sure what the solution is or that there even is a solution. We
can't really fight business sense with ideology. We can't realistically
hope that most consumers will magically realize the harm of trusted
computing and stop buying consoles. Actually, I am feeling pretty
desperate about the situation - I think that trusted computing is upon us
and there is nothing we can do. I hope I am wrong.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 16, 2006 21:52 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

The vast majority of users will not crack their consoles.
It probably depends on the country. The argument can be made that the commercial success of a console in Europe is linked to its "crackability", and not the opposite.
Trusted computing does make the platform more attractive for businesses.
Short term maybe; long term, these artificial restrictions limit the usefulness of a device and its application.
We can't really fight business sense with ideology.
Business sense has its own ideology; very often businesses hurt themselves because of it. At other times businesses can see the truth and act wisely. IBM supports Linux because it is cheap and good, but also because it is open and free.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 17, 2006 13:08 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

The vast majority of users will not crack their consoles.

Right. They just go to the internet shop and buy a cracked one (you do know why the console with long-obsoleted firmware 1.50 will cost $15 more then console with current firmware, right?).

Trusted computing does make the platform more attractive for businesses. Things like: DRM for media. Multiplayer games where one cannot cheat. Better control of what the costumer can do. Etc.

And since all this makes the platform less attractive to the customer in a lot of cases the real penetration only occurs when the TPM-scheme is hacked.

It is not about ethics or "freedom" - the businesses and even the consumers don't really care about that.

Consumers don't care about "freedom" - they care about price. Right now you can buy 10 movies for $3 in Russia on DVD (pirated, of course - but I've not seen noone who actually cares about this when I was there). Movies on HD-DVD or BlueRay discs will cost 50-100 times more at first. Do you really think customers will buy them ? They will wait for DRM to be broken - or the whole scheme will just go nowhere.

We can't realistically hope that most consumers will magically realize the harm of trusted computing and stop buying consoles.

In a lot of cases they just wait till the DRM-scheme-of-the-day is broken. May be not in U.S. - but in less affluent counttries it's the rule...

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 18, 2006 5:15 UTC (Mon) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link]

Many DRM schemes rely on no one being able to break them -- if a single person can break the protection, they can distribute the results to others.

In the case of CopyBot, it seems that only one person needed to run the program and it would let other users with unmodified clients copy things. And given that the

So even if there was some form of DRM on the SimpleLife client, you'd need to do better than "The vast majority of users will not crack their consoles".

Rich people in rich countries??

Posted Dec 18, 2006 11:06 UTC (Mon) by hummassa (guest, #307) [Link]

> Yes, PS and XBOX were cracked, however not a single one of the people I
> know (including me) uses a crack. In percentages, how many people are
> using a cracked console, you think ? (I am not sure but isn't cracking a
> violation of the DMCA ?)

Well, I know 30-40 owners of consoles and not a single one of them is not
cracked.
But mind you, in the "popular shopping malls" here in Brasil, you can buy
a console already cracked. :-)

Rich people in rich countries??

Posted Dec 18, 2006 12:39 UTC (Mon) by neilt (guest, #6800) [Link]

Same in Hong Kong - consoles sold ready cracked. Everyone I know with a console has a cracked one. Anti-copy systems cannot work other than to interfere with legitimate use. Of course all users end up paying for the hardware and software that stops us using stuff the way we want to.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 18, 2006 20:00 UTC (Mon) by jmorris42 (guest, #2203) [Link]

> Plus, to be honest TPM on a game console isn't limiting my freedoms
> in a significant way.

Because you are ignorant and don't see it doesn't mean you didn't hand over a big chunk of your freedom when you bought a Playstation/X-Box/Gamecube. I'm still amazed that Atari V Activision was tossed in the recycling bin without a whimper.

I'm sure most of the readers here don't remember the Atari 2600, but many do. Now imagine the 2600 without any of the Activision and Imagic, etc. games, only the 'official' Atari released titles. Now you know why console development is stagnating now, just more polygons on the same old sports, fps and gangster games. Because a small hungry shop can't release a new innovative game and turn the industry on its ear like Activision did all those years ago.

Because even though you see other names and logos on those boxes in Walmart, each and every title was created by a publishing house hand selected by the console vendor and who understands their right to release is subject to removal at the whim of the vendor without any right of appeal. Each selected house must aleady be a major player because the price of entry is huge.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 19, 2006 2:48 UTC (Tue) by piman (guest, #8957) [Link]

> Because a small hungry shop can't release a new innovative game...

Apparently you haven't seen what Microsoft, of all parties, is up to with Xbox Live Arcade and XNA, then. It's designed around letting small hungry shops release innovative games with as little overhead and as large a market as possible.

I think you're really overestimating how much "hand selection" goes on. Yes, if Sony or MS is your direct publisher they'll care. But in general, they want more games, not fewer, to be released for their console. In general, the game developers also have business contracts, making it not exactly "the whim of the vendor".

Really, the problem is the consolidation of publishers, not console makers.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 19, 2006 16:44 UTC (Tue) by JonoPrice (guest, #23155) [Link]

Apparently you haven't seen what Microsoft, of all parties, is up to with Xbox Live Arcade and XNA, then. It's designed around letting small hungry shops release innovative games with as little overhead and as large a market as possible.
It might look like it is designed around that, but it isn't really. In order to be able to play games developed under XNA, you need a PC and a subscription to Microsoft's service that allows XNA games to be played on an XBOX360. Then Microsoft selects the ones that it wants to publish more widely - how is this any more likely to produce innovation than the current situation.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 19, 2006 3:49 UTC (Tue) by zlynx (guest, #2285) [Link]

"Because you are ignorant and don't see it doesn't mean you didn't hand over a big chunk of your freedom when you bought a Playstation/X-Box/Gamecube."

What crap.

Before buying my GameCube, did I have the freedom to play Zelda? Nope. Did I have the freedom to write my own 3D game with a cute character? Yes. Did I? No, it's too much hard work.

After buying the GameCube, can I play Zelda? Yes. Did I *still* have the freedom to write my own game? Sure I did. I could even stick a PowerPC CPU and an ATI GPU together in a small box for myself. What did I lose by buying the GameCube? Absolutely nothing except about $200. $200 in job hours is *infinitely cheap* compared to theoretical hours spent writing my own Zelda.

All of those hours I would have lost writing a "free" game are now mine to waste as I like. Freedom!

If you're talking about the freedom of small independent developers who can't afford to push games onto the consoles, well, it isn't like they have nowhere to go but consoles. PCs are still going strong and they are still open.

It's like complaining that the cover charge in the good clubs is limiting your freedom when you can go drink somewhere else and dance in the park. Or it's like you're a band complaining none of the good clubs will let you in. Whichever. Maybe dancing in the park is not as good, but the goodness is what the cover charge / house percentage is paying for.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 20, 2006 5:33 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

After buying the GameCube, can I play Zelda?

No. You need modchip, CG Linux and snes9x. Oh, the mean some other Zelda ? Also don't work if it's Japanese Zelda and I have U.S. GameCube (you need FreeLoader for that.

I fail to see why I need to pay for another console just to play games I legitimately own...

It's like complaining that the cover charge in the good clubs is limiting your freedom when you can go drink somewhere else and dance in the park.

Nope. It's like complaining that "the good club" forbids you to drink "bad stuff" in your own home. I've bought the damn console - why the Microsoft, Nintendo or SONY should decide what I can do with it ?

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 20, 2006 18:57 UTC (Wed) by zlynx (guest, #2285) [Link]

I really don't have any sympathy for people who buy game consoles and expect to use them for anything but playing games. It's a cool hack if you can get into the system, but you bought it eyes open.

You bought the console and it does what the manufacturer built it to do. Expecting anything else is like buying a Kia for off-road driving. You might be able to rebuild the Kia for off-road but complaining it doesn't do it from the factory is stupid, and Kia doesn't owe you anything to make off-road custom Kia's easier to build.

If what you really wanted was an open system with a PowerPC and a ATI card, you can build that. You just can't have it for the price of a GameCube. Tough.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 22, 2006 9:08 UTC (Fri) by JohnNilsson (guest, #41242) [Link]

I find it ironic that you speak about freedom to use a particular console, when the console it self is non-free.

Before buying your GameCube, did you have the freedom to play Zelda? Nope. Did you have the freedom to buy anything else but a Nintendo GameCube to enable you to do so? Nope...

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 22, 2006 18:14 UTC (Fri) by zlynx (guest, #2285) [Link]

You obviously use different definitions of freedom than I do. And at any rate, I was arguing about how buying a console affects *my* freedom not if the console itself is "free" in an open general purpose system sense.

I'm free to do anything I like with my Gamecube. It is physically in my possession. All its atoms belong to me and I can examine and rearrange them as I like.

Just like Open Source software, the people who actually build a thing get to decide what it does. You didn't build the Gamecube, you don't get to decide.

You can rebuild that Gamecube to do *anything* physically possible to fit in there. It's *incredibly difficult* but it isn't illegal. Or at least, most things you can do with it aren't illegal.

And if you're careful with the law, you can reverse engineer, build and sell a GameCube clone that plays GC games. It's the copyrighted ROMs that kill emulators, not the emulation itself. If they put in the effort to clean-room the ROMs, they'd be in the clear. Again, it is *difficult*, not *illegal*.

So you see, I *am* free to play Zelda without a GameCube. Eventually. After way more work than it'd be worth doing.

In order to me, myself, to be "not free" in a computing sense, my government would have to pass laws preventing me from building and programming general purpose computing machines. Neither Intel nor Microsoft nor Nintendo can take away my freedom by not providing what I want. They cannot prevent me from having an open computer system. Given a textbook and a big enough breadboard I can build a 4004 or 6502 clone. With a FPGA I can do a lot better.

The only thing that truly takes away freedom is coercive violence, which is a thing governments jealously reserve for themselves.

I will note that I do believe laws governing real property rights and copyrights *do* limit freedom. However, I believe we all benefit from reasonable limits on freedom. My freedom ends where your nose begins, as the saying goes. Or your dog, or your car, or your lawn, or your computer program.

That said, show me the violence inherent in the Gamecube system and maybe I'll agree with you that it somehow limits my freedom. :)

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 21, 2006 11:51 UTC (Thu) by ab (subscriber, #788) [Link]

Playstation 3 is different from PS/PS2/XBOXes in that Sony is officially encouraging to install "other operating system" on the box: http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 21, 2006 17:48 UTC (Thu) by mikov (guest, #33179) [Link]

Isn't the OS run inside a hypervisor, making it a subject of restrictions
- e.g. can't access the accelerated graphics, etc ?

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 21, 2006 11:58 UTC (Thu) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474) [Link]

'Ironically, the true solution to their copying problems is "trusted computing"'.

No it's not. The true solution is not to have a business model which depends on computers not to copy stuff. The basic machine command is "MOV" which copys a word of data from one place to another, and I can't think of a machine code instruction which doesn't copy something.

Besides, "trusted" computing is just as likely to fall to some sort of class break as any previous attempt to do the same (eg. Xbox and numerous other game consoles, printer port dongles, strangely formatted floppy disks, etc. etc.)

Why not have a business model like Red Hat's where copying is a Good Thing?

Rich.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 21, 2006 17:59 UTC (Thu) by mikov (guest, #33179) [Link]

No it's not. The true solution is not to have a business model which depends on computers not to copy stuff. [...] Why not have a business model like Red Hat's where copying is a Good Thing?

I don't see the connection. Second Life is a game. People want to pretend they are in the real world there. In the real world you can't arbitrarily copy physical objects.

Secondly, it is not clear at all how such a business model can be applied to a game and whether it would be profitable. AFAIK, RedHat makes most of its money from support for corporate customers. Again - nothing to do with Second Life's customers.

Besides, "trusted" computing is just as likely to fall to some sort of class break as any previous attempt to do the same (eg. Xbox and numerous other game consoles, printer port dongles, strangely formatted floppy disks, etc. etc.)

Don't get me wrong. I want this to happen. I hate trusted computing. However, XBox was only Microsoft's first attempt in trusted computing. They are bound to get better at it and it will become progressively harder to break their next attempts. For example if everything is on a single chip, it is practically unbreakable.

Even now most people wouldn't/couldn't do the required hardware modifications themselves and in some countries it is illegal to sell already cracked consoles. On top of that in the US it is probably illegal to crack your own console ...

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 21, 2006 18:32 UTC (Thu) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474) [Link]

I don't see the connection. Second Life is a game. People want to pretend they are in the real world there. In the real world you can't arbitrarily copy physical objects.

Sure, in this game. But as I understand it we're talking about vendors in the game selling digital objects and then (*gasp*) complaining because they can be copied.

Don't get me wrong. I want this to happen. I hate trusted computing. However, XBox was only Microsoft's first attempt in trusted computing. They are bound to get better at it and it will become progressively harder to break their next attempts. For example if everything is on a single chip, it is practically unbreakable.

I really doubt that even a single chip / combined processor + TPM will be unbreakable. This assumes for a start that MS are capable of writing software without any type of buffer overflow or other exploitable bug. Not just that they fix their bugs, but that they never ever (not even once) write one in the first place, because as soon as trusted software is out there which contains such a bug (even if it has been fixed in a later release) the platform is vulnerable. That's before we even start on hardware attacks.

Rich.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 22, 2006 9:14 UTC (Fri) by JohnNilsson (guest, #41242) [Link]

The basic fear is that without copy restrictions there will be no value in producing new stuff, everyone will copy, hence no one will have the incentive to create new designs to copy.

To me that seems like a completely irrational fear. One of the most cited problems of the Open Source market (where everything can be copied) is that there is too much choice.

For some strange reason people doesn't seem to be content with just copying, most people wish to add their own personal touch. To fear that the possibility to build upon others creations would kill creativity and the need to express one-self is just stupid.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 22, 2006 19:27 UTC (Fri) by mikov (guest, #33179) [Link]

I don't think the parallel with Open Source is completely valid. Lets
leave the designers aside - they are a minority compared to the number of
users.

People use software in order to do work. It is not for pleasure. So, if
the software is free, even better for them. More work, cheaper!

On the other hand, the "trinkets" in Second Life are purely and only for
pleasure. Where is the pleasure in owning something if everybody else has
the same thing ? Here I am not talking about exceptional pieces of art,
but clothes, etc. There is a sense of achievement in purchasing something
unique, that is likely to remain unique, at least for some time, because
it is expensive.

I think that you and other posters in this thread are mistakenly
transferring the values of developing and using free software to other
areas. It is not completely baseless, it is even attractive, but it is not
very realistic.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Jan 4, 2007 10:19 UTC (Thu) by Kamilion (subscriber, #42576) [Link]

Okay, I'm a long time SL resident... (Kamilion Schnook)

There's a lot of stuff missing from this article.

First off, objects copied with CopyBot don't usually persist longer than 24 hours, because they're not copying at all -- but giving itself the property of an object already located in the simulator's local squid cache. When the cache is emptied, the 'copied' object goes with it. Now, it's BEEN possible to extract textures with GLIntercept for a long time now.

I'm a contributor to the libsecondlife project, and the funny thing is, the same code that people were so freaked out about is STILL available in testclient. Nobody seems to care now. Nevermind that it never actually worked for theivery since once the cache entry was gone, it's references are freed as well.

Basically, what happens in order to 'copy' an avatar...

A person's SL client connects to the grid, wearing their clothing and attached objects. In order for other people to SEE them, and their objects, their description has to be sent to every client in visual range of them on the server.

libsecondlife is a C# based library that provides an alternative client than the default graphical 3D Linden Labs client.

Since, to the server, a libsecondlife client is the same as a Linden Labs viewer client, the same data is sent. As of a few weeks ago, and after the whole stupid CopyBot incendent, the data can be exported now, as an XML file. An object's size, primitives, texture keys (Everything in SL is referenced by 128-bit UUIDs, commonly called keys inworld.), and other associated data like particle settings and 'hovertext' can be expressed out to a file containing an object or series of objects.

Later, this XML file can be imported, expressing the same values back to new objects on the server. This means the textures are still 'owned' by the original creator, since new assets were never uploaded, their unique key was just reused on another object.

So, just in the ability to see the avatar allows it's duplication.

Fortunately, the different layers of clothing in SL are all 'baked' into a single texture, so attempting to freely duplicate clothing is an arduous task. Duplicating someone's entire outfit, on the other hand, is easy. But it captures the whole, not the parts.

So, in the end, no amount of encryption is going to help -- it would be the same as encrypting lwn.net and not giving the keys out. Sure, they have plenty of content, but no one can see it!

However, since they're commited to open source at Linden Labs, they're moving over to open protocols -- textures will very soon be transferred under the new 'SIM-CAPS' system, dropping a propritary protocol for common SSL/TLS HTTP interactions.

We're currently working on the beginnings of an open client for SL.
Linden Labs' closed source SL client also runs on OSX and Linux already!

For people who havn't really looked into SL, it's kinda like IRC meets 3D First/Third-Person-Shooter-Realtime-Level-Editor. Sort of a 3D chatroom, with scriptable objects (soon to be using mono!) with over 2 million registered names and ~20,000 concurrent users. The entire world is resident created, by people purchasing virtual 'plots of land', much like a ~user directory on a website, where they place their collection of objects created by themselves or others.
Houses, malls, casinos, brothels, strip clubs, even virtual drugs.

Drop on by, and help out with the effort! Who knows, you might make a few new friends ;)

http://www.libsecondlife.org/

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 16, 2006 14:43 UTC (Sat) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

Second life is not a Virtual world at all. At least not in a real sense.

All it is online game created to place artifical restrictions on what is and what is not allowed to happen in order to make as much money for it's creators as possible.

A true virtual world is like the WWW. It is created and governed based on natural laws of that virtual world.

Natural laws of a virtual world would be like:
It costs the same to make one digital item as it does to create 10,000 copies of that digital item.

The limitations on the world are not of one of natural resources or land mass.. the limitations are based on things like amount of RAM the servers have and the efficiency of the rendering method.

Art and creation is valuable not because art and creation is rare.. it is valuable because creative humans with good talent are relatively rare. If Picaso was a modern artist and worked with digital data then every man, woman, and child on earth could have a "Picaso" painting.

To have a long term, successfull, and even profitable, digital virtual world you have to create something that operates within these limitations, within the natural laws of the internet and human interactions with computers.

Imposing artificial limitations, like Second life does, is not something that is paticularly healthy, or usefull, or even that interesting. If it becomes very popular it will retard progress.

Imagine of the WWW had it built into the protocols that only Microsoft was allowed to host websites and that people charged you money based on how many Gif images you choose to download.

Remember this sort of stuff back in the beginnings of the popularized internet were people tried to create 'online services'. All Second life is is a modern 3d version of 'Microsoft Network', 'Proginy', 'Genie', 'AOL', 'AppleLink'/'E-world'.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 16, 2006 19:39 UTC (Sat) by droundy (subscriber, #4559) [Link]

I think you've failed to notice the "virtual" part of "virtual world". It isn't real. Thus it isn't governed by "real" laws, but rather by "virtual" laws which define the reality of that virtual world.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 17, 2006 1:21 UTC (Sun) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

Laws are based on real realities.

In a free sociaty laws are based on realities of the world we live in. The 'natural laws' so to say. These are based on how the world functions and such. You just don't make it up as you go along unless your a despot.

For instance in the real world you stab somebody, they get hurt. So it's illegal to stab people, you goto jail so you can't stab people anymore.

But in a virtual world you can make it so that people can stab others. They can stab people all day and all night and there is nothing bad that can happen. So why make it a crime to stab people? Its pointless. (it's not the matrix)

In the real world the cost of production is very real. It costs stuff to make a shirt, for instance. You have to build a plant, hire and train people, obtain materials, etc etc. The cost of production is very real and people need to be compinsated for it.

The cost of production is nill. As soon as one virtual shirt is made, you can make infinate amounts of shirts. A person makes a program were you can make a mathmatical model of a shirt for a game or whatnot and then regular people can make new shirts all day long.

Unjust laws are based on pointless crap people make up for themselves.. Like segregation laws based on skin color.

In the virtual world there are real limitations also. You have limitations on how well people can interact with the computer. You have limitations on the amount of computing power you have and the amount of bandwidth you have. A DDOS attack has real consiquences, for instance.Hacking into somebody's computer can cause real personal loss.

Now a _game_ is different.

A game is something that has a rigidly set of defined rules that you can operate in. This is for pure entertainment and thus it realy shouldn't be taken very seriously.

Second life is not a virtual world. It bills itself as this new way for people to interact and deal with each other. A 'second life' in a virtual world.

In fact it's not even the first of it's type. It's basicly a interactive version of 'The Sims'. Instead of trying to your character keep a job and buy fancy furniture or whatever it's that you make the fancy furniture and buy and sell it to other players.

It's the same thing as World of Warcraft, Star Wars Galaxy, City of Heroes or any other dozens of other online video games. Then in a more limited way you had the BBS's and online MUDS that pre-date that.

A true virtual world, one that will create a new way for humanity to interact in a virtual world, will have rules and laws based on the limitations and problems faced by the very nature of having a virtual world. This sort of thing will be built into the protocols that made it.

Not abritary limitations the makers of Second life have placed on it's users.

We already have virtual world models. World Wide Web is going to be the biggest example. Something based on hypertext that has grown into this large thing that is a part of the lives of millions of people around world.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 17, 2006 21:00 UTC (Sun) by joey (guest, #328) [Link]

I like how you think -- this is why I've stopped trying to develop MOO engines for now. I tried to imagine the most amazing, empowering, decrentralised, integrated with the real world MOO I could, and I ended up with something not unlike the web (and rather scarily close to microsoft's land of virii).

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 22, 2006 20:30 UTC (Fri) by petetron (guest, #8495) [Link]

I'd be interested in talking to you about your experience and designs with MOOs -- it sounds like you've given this some real thought, and I'm curious how it might relate to my own work on VOS (http://interreality.org) (see also my comment above).

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 21, 2006 17:47 UTC (Thu) by mikov (guest, #33179) [Link]

I think you may be missing something here. A "true" virtual world, like
the one you describe, would be no fun at all - people wouldn't want to
spend any time there. No matter what we do, we are bound too strongly to
the physical reality - the notion of "moving beyond reality" is just
something that you see in SF novels. So, in a virtual world people want to
pretend they are in the "real world". You are right that it is a game of
sorts, but so is life.


Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 22, 2006 9:23 UTC (Fri) by JohnNilsson (guest, #41242) [Link]

If you truly believe that a world limited only by what people create will be "no fun at all" you obviously never experienced what the rest of us would refer to as "imagination".

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 22, 2006 19:01 UTC (Fri) by mikov (guest, #33179) [Link]

Big words. Obviously you think that people can enjoy themselves in a
virtual environment which is not based on the real world; to exist as pure
thought without form or boundary, sail freely limited only by imagination,
exchange untethered ideas, etc, etc (bla, bla, bla). What a beautiful
idea, sadly without much substance.

People like to eat, to have sex, to dance, to play sports, to own a nice
car, or at least to pretend to. It all boils to basic, primitive things.
In a virtual world they want to experience things they can't really do in
the real world - it is a form of escapism.

I predict that the next step for virtual worlds will be to make them
resemble the real world even more - wearing 3D goggles, special gloves,
etc. Let's not kid ourselves - the ultimate goal of course is to make
cybersex seem real.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 22, 2006 18:15 UTC (Fri) by petetron (guest, #8495) [Link]

Yes! You've hit the nail on the head. The Second Life system is designed to support their business model, rather than being a open, interesting architechture that will promote progress in the model of the web. I've also been telling people that online 3D is still in the "Compuserve and Prodigy" phase of development for a while now. A real open source system, and a real open architechture that in flexible and encourages innovation is what we're looking for.

In that vein, I've actually been working on just such a project for about seven years now as a hobby open source effort, and have built several end-to-end prototypes of such 3D systems, learning a lot each time about how to do it right and scale up to the real size of the problem. I think there's a real zeitgeist that "we need an open source Second Life" triggered by, ironically, the massive hype train put out by Linden Labs.

We call it the Interreality Project, and the software is the Virtual Object System (VOS): http://interreality.org

I'm in the early phases of looking into possible funding to develop this as a full time open source effort, if anyone knows anything about this I'd love to hear from you!

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Jan 5, 2007 0:32 UTC (Fri) by obi (guest, #5784) [Link]

Hey, that's interesting. I've been playing with the idea of distributed data structures for 3D environments for a while now, and hadn't yet seen your project.

I also think what's needed is a distributed (p2p if you will) version of all this stuff, and in addition I'm thinking about using certs and trust networks to counter or at least minimize the damage of "cancer" nodes. As long as we only have a system dependent on a company setting up hundreds of servers to put our stuff on, we don't really have an "open" network.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 16, 2006 15:34 UTC (Sat) by dps (guest, #5725) [Link]

It should not be rocket science to make objects copy-edivent, for example by attaching a serial number and digital signature. Changing the serial number means the signature is invalid and tesing for re-use of the same serial number should be too difficult. Of course those with the private version of an authorised signature could charge people for using of it.

High fixed costs and much lower per unit costs and not new. Cars, books, films, screws, bricks and almost anything else that is manufcatcured have costs structured this way to a some extent. Extremely high cretaion to reproduction ratio non technical items would include bank notes.

The creatation to reproduction cost ratio for information, and especially digital infomration, is obviosuly much higher than that for items like pencil sharpners.

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 16, 2006 17:23 UTC (Sat) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

How much do you suppose they could charge for a car were the per unit cost was $0.000001?

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Jan 4, 2007 23:44 UTC (Thu) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]

Seems to me a lot of these things could be dealt with in the realm of Trademarks.

You can copy my design all you want, but if you use my trademark or logo, you are breaking the law.

Problems?

all the best,

drew

Second Life and Open Source

Posted Dec 21, 2006 11:50 UTC (Thu) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474) [Link]

Would this be an appropriate time to quote Bruce Schneier on copying:

"trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet"

Rich.

Stealing with CopyBot

Posted Dec 22, 2006 17:15 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

Panic spread in some quarters of Second Life. Shop owners closed hundreds of virtual stores, afraid that their inventory would be copied endlessly and rendered worthless.

What I'd like to know is how were these shop owners so naive as to open the shop in the first place? They expected secure property rights in a world where all property is, in the real world, intellectual property? Have they never heard of copyright violations?


Copyright © 2006, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds