I know there has been some discussion of permissions for experiences, goods, and services on this forum, but I'd like to see if we can put together a wish list here, in hopes of giving LL a little more to chew on.
In brief, what would you like to see? Try to give a usage scenario for each point. And feel free to link to other longer posts you've made elsewhere with further details.
Royalties
In Open Meeting today, Jenn mentioned an idea I've pushed for, where someone who contributes a "component", like a tire, to creation of a car can get royalties from the sale of that car.
You would do this by setting a property on an item definition so that when someone else, whether in the MP or when giving or selling copies to someone else, will automatically pay the defined royalty rate to the rights owner. This would prevent the full-perms abuses we see in SL.
https://help.sansar.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/115009649406-Resale-permissions
Subscription fees
I think it would be worthwhile to have some sort of subscription fee system, too. This could be for ongoing use of some product (think licensing fees), membership in a group (if we get groups), ongoing access to an experience, etc.
The owner of that thing would specify a pay period (day, week, month, etc.) and a pay rate. Users would be able to see a list of all their current subscriptions and opt out at any time from account management. Users could be warned ahead of payments that they have a payment coming soon, like how banks typically offer this with bill-pay services.
I could see giving each object in Sansar multiple levels of permissions, with each "higher" level being able to limit the "lower" levels. For instance:
CREATOR permissions (Those set by the original maker of the object.)
VENDOR permissions (Permissions set by resellers, possibly constrained by the creator.)
OWNER permissions (Current owner of the object, constrained by vendor and/or creator)
USER permissions (Visitors interacting with an object owned by someone else, constrained by all higher levels.)
-----
I'd also like to see a variety of ways of monetizing permissions without having to re-buy the objects - for instance, the creator could build in a commission to get a fee each time the object is re-sold, or a vendor could allow an owner more permissions than they had at the original purchase by the owner paying a fee through interaction with that object after they owned the object for a while. For instance, a vehicle could be sold at a very low price which could only be used in one experience but it could be "unlocked" to be used in other experiences after purchase.
I like your ideas! : )
One of mine was to sell "full perm" only to users with proofed RL data on their account.
Your "consecutive royalty payments" is a great idea! Also the subscription fees. We already talked about that, I just wanted to mention again that I second your ideas! : )
edit:
I want to add: if LL could realize "consecutive royalty payments" I would of course license my MoCap animations. (Proofed RL data would be important for licensing to me as well). If not I would use them only for my own items as I am afraid that if I license them to unknown people 1. they release them for free, gift them away, resell them, etc and 2. the price could be too high for most people to use MoCap animations for their items/product. Consecutive royalty payments would lower the price significantly. It would bring MoCap animations to a lot of creators (fair and square, if they do not sell much they will not have to pay much) and so enhance the quality of Sansar.
@Joe: That's the idea behind my "royalties" proposal. I imagine buying a copiable item once for yourself and using it as many times as you want, but when you try to give a copy away or sell it, you pay a royalty back to the creator. This would propagate royalties every time someone receives it for the first time.
https://help.sansar.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/115009649406-Resale-permissions
@Joe: One downside to your proposal about different levels of permissions is that it's difficult to automatically determine what role a given user plays. SL tried to simplify this by focusing our attention on the permissions we have and the permissions we grant to the next owner, with the thought being that you could never grant more permissions than you already have to a thing. And even that confuses a lot of newcomers.
But here's a question. You sell something to someone. Are they a vendor, an owner, or a user? Someone who sells pizza might also eat pizza. The only practical way I can see these distinctions applying is if there are specific permissions that only have meaning to people acting in those roles. But then, that's the idea behind next-owner permissions in SL. Consider copy versus transfer, for instance.
@Prospero: I'm still struggling a little with the idea of only selling to someone with verified (with Sansar) RL identity. In SL, you can do this with your own vending machine because scripts can tell if someone has a verified identity. But that doesn't mean you know their RL identity; only LL does.
It sounds like you intend for this to be a speed bump to slow down content thieves. But I kinda doubt it will do that.
Is there something I'm misunderstanding?
Hi Galan,
well yes, it is meant as a hurdle to abuse full perm permissions.
I do not mean that "I" want to know the RL informations. It is enough if LL does know them and I can be sure that I sell my Full Perm assets to someone who has validated RL data on his account. Soemone who has bought assets with his RL informations will not lightly abuse the FP permissions on which he has legally agreed - as his person can be tracked with his RL account data. It is a risk and so a hurdle.
On the other hand if I sell FP animations to someone who has an account with fake RL data the threshold for this user is much much lower to abuse the legal agreement (e.g. gifting the full perm animations away, releasing them for free (when leaving Sansar, per example), reselling them, etc.) as he thinks he is anonymus and can do what he wants.
p.s.:
I want to rephrase it to the simple principle:
Would you commit a "crime" under your RL name and RL address? Or wouldn`t you rather be anonymus if you are going to commit a "crime"? ; )
------------
However the permission system will turn out, I will sell my mocap animations in full perm only to people who have validated RL data on their account, or not at all - it is good as well being the only one having products with certain animations in mocap quality, maybe even better then reselling them ; )
@Galen: The specific permissions for roles was exactly what I had in mind.
In Second Life there's basically only CREATOR and OWNER permissions. In order for someone to make an item re-sellable by a vendor the creator has to give it full permissions, or at least copy/transfer. However, in doing this the creator has very little control over what the owner/vendor does with it - realistically, the owner will now have all the powers the creator has.
With true VENDOR permissions you could allow re-selling while still maintaining control. For instance, now full perm vendors rely on unenforceable licenses to keep people from re-selling things with the same full permissions. If there were "vendor" permissions settable by the creator you could allow re-selling but disallow FULL PERMISSION re-selling right within the object.
The typical Second Life-type retail creator/seller could simply lock out vendor permissions altogether.
USER permissions in Second Life only exist through scripts. At my granddaughter's Second Life home she has texture-change objects and is sometimes frustrated by people wandering through her land and changing the texture on an object because the script in that object when she bought it didn't include an option of who could access that script. Being able to set "user" permissions of objects you own would save needing to provide separate scripts for things like this.
@Prospero: LL has been reluctant to get involved with IP rights cases on behalf of SL residents claiming misuse of full-perms items. I don't see that changing with Sansar. And I don't entirely blame them. So there's not much disincentive for abuse, even with identity-verified users.
I am not talking about LL. I am just talking that you will not easily commit a crime if you yourself know that they know your RL name and your RL address.
Would you rob a bank knowing they know your RL name & address in the first place?
@Joe: I like your point about how SL residents have created their own IP rights management systems. Texture changing scripts are a great example. But you're right that they require scripts and other exotica to implement. It would be nice if there were something more intrinsic to IP protections. I'm convinced that was the key to SL's success and ongoing dominance right now.
I tend to think that the best way to automate protection of intellectual property is to add monetary value into the equation. I think that's why Sansar already has a wealth of beautiful experiences, despite having been in closed alpha all this time, whereas High Fidelity, which has been open a couple years and is technically ahead of Sansar in many ways, but which has no permissioning features or money system, is severely lacking in high quality content.
Direct sales of products is an obvious example of how money relates to IP rights, but consider a less obvious one in SL: live events. DJs and musicians rarely charge admissions, but they do put out tip jars. If they don't get many tips at one club, they usually move on to another. In doing so, they put a monetary premium on their creative output (shows) and put the onus on the club's owner to indirectly pay by getting tippers to show up for events.
This idea of mixing money into the IP rights picture is what's behind both my subscription model and royalties proposals.
@Prospero: I get your point, but let's go with your analogy for a moment. If you thought it was unlikely that the police would pursue you or seek prosecution for bank robbery, even if they knew who you were, then what? I think we'd see a rash of bank robberies in that case.
Consider your earlier example of the person who gives all their full-perms items away as freebies when they leave SL or Sansar. Seriously; what incentive does that person have to care? At best, SL/Sansar would disable your account, but you're already out the door, right?
From the earliest public days in SL, people have been practically begging LL to get involved in IP rights disputes. I don't disagree that this could solve a lot of problems. However, LL has almost universally refused to. And the reason should be obvious: you don't pay taxes to them for legal services and the amounts of money in dispute are often measured in pennies.
LL followed the obvious alternative from the early days: self-service automation. It's best to propose solutions in terms of technologies that enable you to manage your own IP rights.
An example of an automated IP rights mechanism would be a revocation mechanism, where the creator of an item can essentially remove something from some user's inventory and disallow them from ever getting it back. Then it would be possible to punish users for misuse. On the other hand, it should only take a second for you to realize how this could be abused by, for example, extorting more money from a user after they have already made use of your creation in their own products. Or taking vengeance on spurned lovers.
So whatever automated IP rights solutions we propose have to come with some sense of fairness and minimize the opportunities for abuse.
Of course they don't want to get involved in that part, neither does google, but they are virtually obligated to if a DMCA has been filed, just like google is with youtube. Google had to deal with millions of filings, so they automated a lot of it to preemptively watch for it.
If it's hosted on their servers that implies the obligation.
This puts the responsibility on the IP rights holder to pony up the legal fees.
If Google or Sansar doesn't react to the DMCA they too can be found negligible.
@ Galan
I don`t think your assumption that people "do know they wont be prosecuted" is right. The avarage user does not know that, can not be sure of that. The risk is much higher with RL data on file. The inhibition threshold is much much higher.
Then, from this point on let that be my problem. I want to sell full perm only to people who do not wear a mask from the beginning / have their verified RL data on their account. If they should abuse the ToS of the Full Perm items they bought from me then let this be my problem. I still think it is better/more secure to sell to people who have RL data on their account instead wearing a mask from the beginning.
Serious Creators will have their RL data on their account anyway so it is no big deal. Verified through the payment method, per expample. But it must be possible to sell such FP items only to them.
And about the prosecution, if you fill a proper DMCA LL does take actions. If the damage is high you can also hire a laywer, prosecute and get compensation from this person - if you know the RL name.
Being able to sell FP assets only to users with their veriefied RL data on account makes things more secure for FP vendors, lowers the risk - even if it still can be that some people will take the risk and commit the crime nevertheless.
Btw. @ Galan
if LL should realize your idea with the "consecutive royalty payments" validated real life data would be obsolte as for every copy that would be given out I would receive directly my predefined share. And that without havig to fear that the user does not have the money to pay the royalty or if he should leave Sansar. For every copy that get shared again the royality I have defined would get paid directly to me. That is an interesting elimination of misuse of FP items.
(or do I see that wrong: what is if someone gives these items out but has no money on his account..? Like selling them for 1SD while my royalty is 10SD - and if the seller gets blocked because his SansarDollar account balance goes into the minus: what image damage could happen for the fp asset creator? People may don´t remember the "broken shop" but the look or feature of the item and that would devaluate it for all who use these assets + for the creator as well..)
I would still like to define if I give out items with a "consecutive royalty payment" or sell them once for a higher price - in which case RL data on account would be good.
A problem that I see with "consecutive royalty payments" is that it may inflates the value of items. Per example: if I produce HQ assets for HQ Creators/Brands they may want a certain exclusivity of these items. At least so that not every noob can have and use them as well. If every noob would create "ugly" items with these assets this would lower the value of these assets and my brand. HQ exclusivity would get lost.
If I would sell my HQ assets to HQ Creators/Brands for a high price that only successful Brands would pay (or Brands/Creators that are convinced their investment will pay out because they will produce AAA items) I would retain the exclusivity and the value of these assets for my label and the brands of those creators. So I am a bit ambivalent with your suggestion as well.
@Prospero: You got it right. You would not be able to give it out if you did not have the funds to pay the royalty in this scheme.
It helps to picture the royalties concept as being like a supply chain in the real world. If you are building a real car, you cannot simply take a copy of the design for the engine and make a trillion copies for free. Someone still has to build the engine and you have to buy it from them to install in your car. They are going to sell it for at least as much as it cost them to build it. And then you will sell your car for at least as much as it cost you to build it, including the cost of the engine.
This just takes one step toward to free-copies model by making you only pay once for rights to use as many copies for yourself as you want. And to distribute it, provided you pay royalties for each copy you distribute.
By the way, you could also make the recipient pay, but it would be less intuitive. It makes more sense, IMO, for the sticker price of the item (e.g., virtual car) to reflect all the costs that went into it, instead of you finding out that you owe more money for royalties after you buy the car for cheap.