Why DRM Alone Can Not Save Second Life

ReachWorks

A post yesterday on the Second Life blog Shopping Cart Disco pointed me to a new vendor system that hope to be able to stop a large part of the content theft and copyright infringement in its tracks.

The new system, entitled ReachWorks SecureVend, changes the way people buy goods in game and makes it more difficult to simply copy goods out of stores rather than purchasing them.

The idea is actually pretty ingenious and very simple. Rather than putting the objects in the stores, they are instead stored in a secure location with limited access. The store only contains a series of scripts to handle the transaction and delivery the goods. Without this physical access to the work, one can not copy it until after they purchase it, no matter how broken Second Life’s copy protection is.

A real world comparison would be what a lot of video game retailers do, putting displays out in the public but keeping the actual disks in the back. The only difference is that, rather than waiting for a human to deliver the merchandise, the process is automated, not requiring any human interaction at all.

But while it is a great idea that will help many shopkeepers out, especially considering that it is currently being offered for free to all legitimate sellers right now, it isn’t the end game but, as the post on Shopping Cart Disco said, a step in the right direction.

Before relying on DRM and technological means it is important to take a few lessons from the physical world and understand that, while technology can help with content theft issues, it is only part of the solution.

Technology is an Answer, Not the Answer

Though SecureVend is not DRM in the traditional sense, meaning it doesn’t restrict what people can do with content they own (though there are features built into SL that do that), its helpful to think of it as such because it has a very similar function, the prevention of unauthorized copying.

DRM systems in the physical world have been plagued with two problems.

  1. Restricting Legitimate Use of Content
  2. Being Easily Defeated and Only Punishing Legitimate Users

This is not to say that SecureVend has any of these issues, without having used it I can not say, but they are the issues that have dogged DRM on other digital goods until, in most cases, they’ve been dropped. The classic example being Apple’s move away from DRM-encoded files.

The problem is straightforward. DRM, usually, is easily cracked and broken, making it so that the only people that have to deal with the limitations of DRM are the legitimate customers. This causes an outcry from those who obey the law and does nothing to stop piracy, possibly even encouraging it.

Though some DRM systems have been accepted, such as Valve’s Steam, it’s because the DRM actually improves the customer’s experience by offering better prices, easier access to content, adding achievements, etc.

However, Steam has not stopped piracy of PC games nor slowed it down. People continue to illegally download games online and the numbers continue to rise. Even though it has been a boon for the industry, it hasn’t solved all of its problems.

Similarly, it is unsure what effect SecureVend will have on second life content theft, even if it is widely adopted.

Going Beyond DRM

There are two truths about SecureVend that must be realized.

  1. The System Will Be Hacked: Though it makes it more difficult to obtain free stuff, it is only a matter of time before the scripts are hacked somehow, someway. Even the best DRM schemes fall eventually and deteriorate into a game of cat and mouse. If there is enough motivation to break it, it will be broken.
  2. It Doesn’t Protect Outside the Shop: Perhaps more dangerous is that the service can not protect outside of the shop. Once someone has purchased an item, it can be copied easily in the outside world. Most games, CDs and other copyright goods aren’t shoplifted before being pirated, they are bought first by someone who then makes the work available to others. So, even if the system does work, it will likely only push the copying to a different location.

If the system works reliably and doesn’t inconvenience customers, meaning no one would prefer a store without this system to one that has it, then it likely should be used. If it encourages legitimate sales, it can be a good thing. However, it is not a magic bullet and it should not be undertaken lightly.

After all, the greatest way to encourage piracy is to put up roadblocks to legitimate customers, something the music and movie studios are just now figuring out. If this system frustrates legitimate customers, content creators in Second Life could find themselves in an even worse position than before.

Bottom Line

The goal of this isn’t to say that content creators shouldn’t celebrate or use this new system, but that it should be approached with caution and as part of a larger initiative. Business models will have to come out to fight piracy and encourage buyers as well as a greater push from Linden Lab on the front. Technology, law (in this case both real world law and Linden Lab) and business models need to be a part of the solution as none alone can solve the problem.

SecureVend appears to be a great tool but great tools only achieve great things when paired with strong ideas and hard work. Now is not simply a time to celebrate, but a time to plan and build.

If Second Life is going to thrive as a market for content creators, the content creators have to be ready to take risks, experiment and serve customers well while also trying to tackle piracy in productive ways.

SecureVent can be another step, but just that, a single step.

7 Responses to Why DRM Alone Can Not Save Second Life

  1. Cyclic Gearz says:

    Thank you for the link-back! I think that more options for content creators that do not punish other customers are needed, and this is one of two that have cropped up recently to deter, not stop thieves. I personally don't think content thieves will stop, unless faced with a legal battle, and the way the DMCA filing is with LL currently – it costs more to file one than the losses made from an item being stolen, so it really doesn't leave content creators in Second Life much choice in regards to protecting their assets, aside from closing up shop and giving up – which isn't an option for most of the people who pay their rent, or feed their children from their stores in SL.Even though the only thing stopping a copybotter with ReachVend is if they actually buy your item – it means at least you're recouping something from it – they didn't get it for free, and once you/if you find out that your items have been copied (because lets face it, if they bought it from you, they didn't steal it – they would just be copying it) – then you will be able to give LL much more information when filing a DMCA or something.I'm not of the opinion that ReachVend itself will be hacked, I think it's more complicated that in sounds, as someone who dabbles in LSL – I can tell you that the way the script calls in HTML then the only way I can feasibly see them having issue is say if they site was hacked instead – which is fairly hard nowadays on professional sites unless you're a professional hacker – which these copybotting scumbags are not – it seems they're usually teenagers with nothing better to do.I also don't think this is a "roadblock for legitimate customers" as the only dampener would be store owners who do not correctly label their advertisements with the contents or state contents somewhere in the store. In that regard the only enemy would really be the store owner themselves.

  2. First off, I am very sorry for the time it has taken me to write back. As you may know, I run a haunted house every October and that has pulled me away from my email for much of the month. I'm struggling to get caught back up now but am very sorry for the delay!On that note though, I just want to re-emphasize that, even if SecureVend works perfectly, it is only part of the solution. New business models, cooperation with LL and legal avenues are all part of the solution. I'm just trying to discourage everyone from looking for a single silvery bullet. I know it is so tempting to see something like this and see it as a savior. But it's only part of the answer, though potentially a big part…Hope this helps!

  3. Anna says:

    How is this different from a system like HippoVend?

  4. Cyclic Gearz says:

    SecureVend prevents you from having to put anything inside the vendor itself, which you have to do with HippoVend. Copybotters can get inside prims and steal content from there, so just having it in any old vendor doesn't protect it from that potential method of theft. Also SecureVend is currently free via application to ReachWorks.

  5. Cyclic Gearz says:

    I agree that SecureVend is a part of the solution, it's not a direct cure – unfortunately some of the avenue's you've suggested aren't viable in the near future,it seems the majority of legal teams laugh at most ideas of virtual item copyright, and Linden Labs are the kind of company that would rather cut of a leg to stop an ingrown toenail – which means any positive reinforcement from them to help prevent theft in Second Life is hard to come by. DMCA's get ignored, as do Abuse Reports of stolen content – and yet DMCA's being filed as a tool for abuse against innocent store owners get looked at. It's baffling.There are a few other options out there that would go hand in hand with SecureVend, like I think I read about a global banning tool somewhat like the old BanList which would work well with SecureVend.

  6. Chaz Longstaff says:

    Jonathan, you write as though server-based vending is something new??? JEVN has been around forever, and then hippo which came out later. I've been keeping all my JEVN servers in a secure location for 4 years now — so the concept isn't new at all.

  7. [...] infringers have been consistently successful at discovering means around these barriers, and are likely to continue to do so in the [...]

Leave a Reply

STAY CONNECTED