What compromises would you make to reduce Second Life copyright infringement?

thigns are already way too messed up the way it is, even outside of SL, any additional restriction, compromise etc, would already be bad for content creators and content consumers

if anything, there are already too many compromises in place

I would favour the idea of moving the economy to a new business model. If content itself was free, there would be little point to stealing it (right now content creators are just relying on hoping nobody steals from them). The question then becomes what to replace it with before such a change can take place, although individual creators may want to try the different models to see what works for them.

For example, having a value-added system somehow. One way this could be implemented is having the *server* add a third piece of data floating above each user's head ... how much you had contributed to the economy. You could then do various things with that info: use it as the basis of land bans, restrict features for accounts less than a certain number, and so on.

imp_ulse: Did you even read my post or just hit reply?

I was talking about changing the current paradigm of object directly to money to something else. Value-added-services is one approach, so the actual object is worthless by itself.

I don't believe that the SL grid should be restricted further in a misguided effort to technologically prevent IP theft. If I am a clothes designer or a furniture designer in RL, I live with the knowledge that people can and will copy my designs. The problem in SL is that the cost of production is zero. But this is to the advantage too of anyone with a great idea.

Many talented SL content creators have made very good versions of RL furniture, for example. Eames chairs and Arne Jacobsen rip offs abound across the grid, not to mention Converse All Stars etc etc.... how many people who cry about IP theft own a virtual pair of these? In my view the metaverse lags behind RL in that finally there is a growing movement in RL against existing copyright laws, seeing them as unfit for the digital age.

DRM has failed in the spheres of music and movies in a spectacular way. Since the widespread advent of filesharing, have people stopped creating music? Movies? Quite the opposite. As a creator you have something that no one can take from you. The record labels don't have this, the movie studios don't have it, nor do they lawyers.... yet they all got fat for so long on copyright laws that benefit creators to a far lesser extent than these middlemen.

I don't advocate ripping. But I believe ever increasing restriction in what always amounts to an "arms race" in the end is a far worse outcome than the copying that will inevitably continue.

To me there is a clear moral obligation not to rip other peoples' stuff and pass it off as your own, or sell it. But to set this up as pirates vs. creators is a false dichotomy. The pirates and the middlemen are essentially same thing, both profiting from others' work... one does it with consent, the other without.

Content creators are in a different position entirely and while I understand that many would like to make a living from their creative work (as I do in RL) there are many easier ways to make money and we ultimately have a choice.

imp_ulse says there is little point in creating something if it does not have a monetary value. That's a harsh point of view and if everyone felt that way then I daresay neither art nor music would have ever existed.