Content Theft and Second Life
By Jonathan Bailey • Mar 12th, 2008 • Category: Articles, DMCA, Legal Issues, News
If you play Second Life or remotely follow content theft issues on the Web, you are probably well aware that there has been a flood of talk regarding content theft issues in the virtual world.
Over the course of the past few months, there has been a lot of attention paid to the issue by residents of the virtual world and several attempts have been made to educate residents and get the attention of Linden Lab, the operator of the service.
Some of the attempts have included a virtual nude protest, an impassioned video from one of the best-known designers, the creation of protest skins, several shops closing and a flurry of blog posts.
However, the excitement has had little, if any, impact on the running of the service. All responses from Linden Lab encouraged users to follow the existing DMCA procedures, without any reference to the demands and requests of the community.
The controversy, which has remained very heated over the past month, does not seem to be dying down and could have a drastic impact, not just on Second Life, but the Web at large.
What is Going On
The controversy in the second life community is with a program known as CopyBot and an improved version of it.
What these programs do is allow users to copy models and designs from others of the Second Life universe. However, typically these creations are sold in virtual shops and are not designed to be copied. In fact, Second Life has a permissions system that, theoretically, is supposed to prevent such unauthorized copying.
However, these bots manage to exploit flaws or loopholes in the permissions system and allow their operators to copy any items, including those marked as not for copying or resell.
Worse still, the bots can strip out all permissions, eliminating any and all restrictions placed on the product by the creator. This makes it available for resell, often at a drastically reduced price, and furthers the propagation of the copying.
Linden Lab, for their part, has made it clear that using such programs are a violation of their terms of service and have, historically at least, banned users for running them. However, the pace of enforcement has been far outstripped by the growth in popularity of these bots and the dissemination of copied goods.
In recent weeks and months, the issue has come to a head as shops have begun to close and the issue of content theft has been high on the agenda for many residents of Second Life.
Unfortunately, it does not appear that this issue is going away any time soon and it could spell disaster for the virtual world.
A Noble Experiment
The content theft issues in Second Life are interesting because, fundamentally, Second Life is an entire universe made up solely of intellectual property. Everything in the universe, from the clothes to the furniture, are protected by copyright and not traditional property rights.
Linden Lab, for its part, has much of its business model centered around the sale of that intellectual property. They make their money off of exchanging real currency into Linden Dollars, the currency of Second Life.
With an entire economy and entire world based solely upon intellectual property, Second Life becomes something of a microcosm for the rest of the world. Any intellectual property issues will be felt more acutely and more quickly in Second Life than in the rest of the Web.
With that in mind, the results of widespread copying and lackluster enforcement has been drastic. Shops have closed, designers have stopped producing new works and fewer people are creating for the service. Some have even hypothesized that the rampant content theft is partly to blame for the decline in membership over recent months.
Second life is possibly in danger of becoming a ghost town, a house built by intellectual property, torn down by rampant copying.
What Can Linden Do
Linden Lab is in an unusual position. They are not merely administrators of servers, but they are practically Gods of a virtual world. They have enforcement opportunities and powers that copyright holders in the real world can only dream about.
However, Linden Lab has been hesitant to actually use those powers. Instead they’ve relied on more traditional laws, namely the DMCA to handle such matters.
This has frustrated the residents of Second Life by throwing up what they see as unnecessary roadblocks to resolution in the face of a growing crisis.
So what could Linden do? Here are my thoughts.
- Fix the Permissions: Linden Lab has said that it is impossible to stop the use of something like CopyBot. But while DRM fails in the real world due to the realities it faces, if the RIAA and MPAA could control the laws of physics, they could probably concoct and effective DRM. However, even if it only stopped the current bots, it would be seen as an improvement. Complete prevention is not the measure of success in these situations.
- Streamline Abuse Reporting: The DMCA process at Linden Lab works, but it is a headache. Much like Google, they require a mailed or faxed notice, which adds both extra hassle and extra time to the process. They could streamline the process overnight by accepting emailed notices and electronic signatures, as per the ESIGN Act, and in the long run could offer even more streamlining by providing an in-game method for reporting infringement.
- Better Detection and Banning: Users of the software need to be certain that they are going to be banned. Even if they can not close the loopholes, they can likely detect the misuse and notify the copyright holders. This would reduce the need for community enforcement of copyright matters and, when combined with more prompt banning, would discourage the misuse.
In short, Linden Lab has chosen not just to avoid wielding the power that they could have, but to throw up unnecessary roadblocks given the current laws. It is clear that enforcement of intellectual property within the system is not a high priority for them, even though it is a cornerstone of their business.
If Linden Lab were a traditional host and graded on my DMCA Seven system, they would receive a “D-” and would be easily one of the worst hosts I have ever studied or worked with.
The simple fact is that, while their infringement enforcement system might work well enough for “outside-in” infringements where real world copyrighted works are infringed in the virtual one, it is far too slow and unwieldily to deal with the explosion of in-world infringement.
Unfortunately, it seems to be designed exactly that way.
Lessons For the Real World
For those of us who primarily create and distribute content on the Internet at large and not in second life, there are still several important lessons we can clean from the events in Second Life.
- Reliance on DRM Fails: If DRM fails to protect works in a virtual world, it will fail at least as badly in the real one.
- Community Action is Limited: Though the Second Life community has been very united in this fight, they have not been able to push for drastic change. Since this problem has not likely yet impacted Linden Lab bottom line, the company has little motivation to act.
- Community Action Can Work: However other actions targeted at the sellers of copied merchandise have had stronger, if temporary results. The efforts, however, are unsustainable and have drawn a mixed reaction.
- An Underground Market Will Exist: An underground market that trades both in copied works and in the software to create them flourishes in Second Life, the same as in the real world. As long as there is money to be made, it will exist, somewhere. It is just a matter of how large and brazen it is.
- Companies Will Not Take Action: The approach of Linden Lab in this situation is the same as almost any large ISP. Though they throw up artificial roadblocks, much like Google, they are going to do what they think the law requires them to do and nothing else. Enforcement is expensive and does not pay for itself, even when the entire business model is threatened.
The bottom line is that the problems in Second Life have direct parallels to ones on the Internet at large. While we may not feel the difficulties and frustrations as acutely as creators in Second Life, the problems are largely the same.
Unfortunately, looking at what is going on in Second Life, the news does not bode well for content creators, no matter what world they work in.
Conclusions
Linden Lab is not likely to take any drastic action on this issue until the copying begins to noticeable affect their bottom line. Unfortunately, by the time that happens, it will likely be too late. A sharp slide in quality combined with competition from other virtual worlds could easily lead to a mass exodus of Second Life’s best users.
In fact, some say that has already started.
If you’re a designer in Second Life, it may be time to start thinking about diversifying or even leaving the service. Though all such worlds will have an issue with content theft once they reach a certain size, there are steps that companies can take to mitigate against and reduce the impact that copies have on the virtual economy.
These are steps that Linden ha failed to take or even seriously consider and that practically guarantees, regardless of community efforts, that the issues with copying will only grow.
If there is any broader lesson that can be learned from this situation, it is that cooperation between hosts, service providers and copyright holders is critical in bringing about change.
Though it is impossible to prevent or stop all copyright infringement, with an atmosphere of cooperation, it can be kept to a minimum.
Unfortunately, that does not seem to exist in Second Life, at least not at this time.
Notes: Linden Lab was not contacted for this article. Answers to the questions were located in other interviews with them as well as their official responses. Those items have been linked in this article. Also, I do not play Second Life and I apologize for any misunderstandings about the game itself. Once again, information was gleaned from the Second Life site and other players.
Photo Credits:
“Party Photo” is from Pathfinder Linden and is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
“Panel Photo” is from Pathfinder Linden and is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Photo of Ziggy Quirk is from her YouTube Video.
 |
Protect Your Work. Subscribe to Plagiarism Today via Email or RSS. |
Jonathan Bailey is The Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today, which he founded in 2005 as a way to help Webmasters going through content theft problems get accurate information and stay up to date on the rapidly-changing field. He is also a consultant to Webmasters and companies to help them devise practical content protection strategies and develop good copyright policies.
Email this author | All posts by Jonathan Bailey
I’m all for protecting intellectual property, but I do think there needs to be a line drawn between the real world and the virtual world. Games are games, life is life. If someone is trying to make a living in the real world from selling items in a virtual world, they need to get a life. Seriously. That isn’t being creative in how you market items, it is being pathetic. Just have fun, it’s a video game, not real life.
And as far as theft causing a decline in membership, I doubt that. I think the second life users are realizing how dumb it is to obsess over a video game and are moving on. It had a good run, but it’s time for it to go. The same thing will eventually happen with every other MMO.
I’m all for protecting intellectual property, but I do think there needs to be a line drawn between the real world and the virtual world. Games are games, life is life. If someone is trying to make a living in the real world from selling items in a virtual world, they need to get a life. Seriously. That isn’t being creative in how you market items, it is being pathetic. Just have fun, it’s a video game, not real life.
And as far as theft causing a decline in membership, I doubt that. I think the second life users are realizing how dumb it is to obsess over a video game and are moving on. It had a good run, but it’s time for it to go. The same thing will eventually happen with every other MMO.
Forget IP rights in virtual worlds or on the web for that matter. You will not have them because real world law can not keep up with the technology on the web. Your best bet is to create your item, sell it as long as you can, and then move on to the next newer project. Thats been my experience with real life products exposed to IP theft and the same is even more true in Metaspace.
Linden is not interested in your IP rights as much as they are in technology and its advancement. Linden labs is a experimental software company in its early stages much like Microsoft was in the early 80s. Dont be naive , your IP rights as outlined in Lindens TOS are little more than legal stepping stones that have to be dealt with on the way to bigger and better things. They will down play them if they can!
Forget IP rights in virtual worlds or on the web for that matter. You will not have them because real world law can not keep up with the technology on the web. Your best bet is to create your item, sell it as long as you can, and then move on to the next newer project. Thats been my experience with real life products exposed to IP theft and the same is even more true in Metaspace.
Linden is not interested in your IP rights as much as they are in technology and its advancement. Linden labs is a experimental software company in its early stages much like Microsoft was in the early 80s. Dont be naive , your IP rights as outlined in Lindens TOS are little more than legal stepping stones that have to be dealt with on the way to bigger and better things. They will down play them if they can!
Theft is theft, and whether someone takes my wallet, breaks into my store and steals my products, or comes to my website and steals my content, the result is the same: something is taken from me without permission and the result is a financial loss.
Google has every right to impose a severe duplicate content penalty in order to keep its search results clean. No one is going to argue with that, and on paper, it sounds like a good idea. But for them to have no real mechanism incorporated into their algorithm to identify and protect the originating source of content is just plain wrong. When they then impose put up all kinds of roadblocks for identifying and removing the thieves, it makes matters even worse.
What’s even more frustrating is to find that their duplicate content filter doesn’t even work right. Very big sites can duplicate as much as they want across multiple domains. Its the mid-size sites who are big enough to be noticed (and therefore be victims of theft) but are too small to have enough “links” to overcome the implications of the duplication that wind up paying the price. Yahoo and MSN have figured out how to handle this. Go figure, it’s the one thing that MSN seems to have done right. I can’t even fathom how Google can get away with ignoring this very basic concept.
It’s probably no coincidence at all that these same sites are the exact same ones that Google wants to see purchase advertising from its AdSense program. And it’s probably also not a coincidence that many of the thieves are hosting advertising for Google right alongside the content that was stolen from someplace else.
You would think that Google would have a vested interest in seeing these mid-size sites succeed. Most of them are probably barely making ends meet but as they grow, they probably would be likely purchase advertising. I’d guess that many of them shell out cash to Google anyway when their site disappears. But you can’t outlay the money you don’t have, and even if you do, this is akin to extortion. I also can’t imagine that as a long range strategy, they will be successful to continue this way. So, this may yet come around to hurt them. However, the number of businesses that will have been forced to close by that point is a travesty.
The same apparently is true in Second Life. You would think that Linden Labs would protect the people who are putting their creative energy towards making Second Life a better, more interesting place. The more people that get involved in doing that, the better the company itself will be. At least that’s the theory.
But my guess is that when these bots steal content and sell the content for less, Second Life makes more money because it becomes all about volume. The DMCA is actually protecting Linden Labs’ bottom line because they only have to act if someone goes through all the steps to report IP theft, and because it’s such a pain, few want to go through the hassle. Plus, for every thief that is eliminated, 5 more pop up in their place, so Second Life still comes out on top.
IP theft is a major issue online, but the internet is never ever going to really live up to its promise if something isn’t done to truly protect the things that people create. You can’t stop the theft completely. But these companies like Google and Second Life can minimize it by making it less financially viable for thieves by taking active steps towards protecting the rights of the intellectual property holder. The passive, reactive response that they currently are taking does nothing but discourage honest users from contributing and marketing their intellectual property. This is rather short-range way of thinking, which unfortunately is par for the course for public companies and Linden Labs probably is hoping to offer stock somewhere down the road.
Theft is theft, and whether someone takes my wallet, breaks into my store and steals my products, or comes to my website and steals my content, the result is the same: something is taken from me without permission and the result is a financial loss.
Google has every right to impose a severe duplicate content penalty in order to keep its search results clean. No one is going to argue with that, and on paper, it sounds like a good idea. But for them to have no real mechanism incorporated into their algorithm to identify and protect the originating source of content is just plain wrong. When they then impose put up all kinds of roadblocks for identifying and removing the thieves, it makes matters even worse.
What’s even more frustrating is to find that their duplicate content filter doesn’t even work right. Very big sites can duplicate as much as they want across multiple domains. Its the mid-size sites who are big enough to be noticed (and therefore be victims of theft) but are too small to have enough “links” to overcome the implications of the duplication that wind up paying the price. Yahoo and MSN have figured out how to handle this. Go figure, it’s the one thing that MSN seems to have done right. I can’t even fathom how Google can get away with ignoring this very basic concept.
It’s probably no coincidence at all that these same sites are the exact same ones that Google wants to see purchase advertising from its AdSense program. And it’s probably also not a coincidence that many of the thieves are hosting advertising for Google right alongside the content that was stolen from someplace else.
You would think that Google would have a vested interest in seeing these mid-size sites succeed. Most of them are probably barely making ends meet but as they grow, they probably would be likely purchase advertising. I’d guess that many of them shell out cash to Google anyway when their site disappears. But you can’t outlay the money you don’t have, and even if you do, this is akin to extortion. I also can’t imagine that as a long range strategy, they will be successful to continue this way. So, this may yet come around to hurt them. However, the number of businesses that will have been forced to close by that point is a travesty.
The same apparently is true in Second Life. You would think that Linden Labs would protect the people who are putting their creative energy towards making Second Life a better, more interesting place. The more people that get involved in doing that, the better the company itself will be. At least that’s the theory.
But my guess is that when these bots steal content and sell the content for less, Second Life makes more money because it becomes all about volume. The DMCA is actually protecting Linden Labs’ bottom line because they only have to act if someone goes through all the steps to report IP theft, and because it’s such a pain, few want to go through the hassle. Plus, for every thief that is eliminated, 5 more pop up in their place, so Second Life still comes out on top.
IP theft is a major issue online, but the internet is never ever going to really live up to its promise if something isn’t done to truly protect the things that people create. You can’t stop the theft completely. But these companies like Google and Second Life can minimize it by making it less financially viable for thieves by taking active steps towards protecting the rights of the intellectual property holder. The passive, reactive response that they currently are taking does nothing but discourage honest users from contributing and marketing their intellectual property. This is rather short-range way of thinking, which unfortunately is par for the course for public companies and Linden Labs probably is hoping to offer stock somewhere down the road.
@Jeremy
This comes up so often I figure a direct cut-n-paste of a recent comment I made elsewhere is good enough:
-
The only problem with your position is… well… there’s lots of problems with your position on this issue. For starters, Wall Street is all about “virtual” things; stuff like speculative markets and commodity futures (there’s even a government agency for this – http://www.cftc.gov ). Guess that’s why Sun Microsystems claims to have been running the world’s biggest massively multiplayer game for years and years. Read for yourself: Next Generation article.
Then there’s the whole problem of our own “real” currency being, in fact, “virtual”. I mean, the difference between a 5-spot and a 100-dollar bill is only what it represents; they’re both just printed paper with essentially no intrinsic value. I figure lots of people are staring at their precious dollars now trying to figure out how it’s managing to lose value while tucked into their wallet.
Speaking of intrinsic value, ever stopped to think how much value resides in a “service-based” economy? Considering the U.S. has been heading that way for years (and we’ve even taken to calling burger-flipping at the fast-food joint a form of “manufacturing”; just for the bean-counters, of course) I’m hoping lots of people are wondering, especially with so much debt hanging over our heads.
And by the way, those virtual worlds and videogames aren’t any different than movies people go to see at the theater, the concerts they attend to hear their favorite band, or the sporting events they travel half way across the country to witness when they could see it on teevee. In each case people are exchanging their hard-earned dollars for nothing but an Experience. They walk away from the transaction with only… memories. Isn’t that crazy?
There is one significant difference though: I can take those virtual things you’re laughing about and manufacture a real, tangible, in-the-flesh object from the 3D data behind it (I showed how once, you can read the reaction it got on my blog from one person: Wired magazine’s Senior Editor Chris Anderson – Link). In fact, there are now businesses set up to do this sort of thing: grab the 3D “virtual” data and rapid manufacture a tangible object (not too much different than the CAD files I generate that get tooled and which are used to manufacture the products people buy at the local Big Box Retail store).
Also, while you might not take any of this seriously, you can be certain some big players are. For one, the Chinese are building out a huge industrial complex dedicated to the business potential of tying virtual objects to manufactured goods (because pwning manufacturing… and the bulk of U.S. credit slips… ain’t enough). In the meantime, IBM is busy programming PLM functionality into virtual worlds, Dassault (which makes highend manufacturing software used by Boeing, automotive manufacturers, aso) has just released an upgrade to their PLM CAD application which included virtual world functionality, and Siemens/UG has been increasingly involved in linking their product development applications with virtual worlds. That’s because 3D is 3D, and like I said, we use 3D to manufacture real stuff.
Now, I suppose we could all just bury our heads in the sand and consider all of this concern over a stupid “video game” a waste of time, but besides companies like IBM and countries like China, I suspect some other industries might take issue with the inference that a game… of any sort… isn’t worth our consideration. I mean, the sports industry is a good example of how “game” stuff matters, because the sports game industry affects the livelihoods of a great many people. Their work in the sporting goods industry (“game of catch”, “game of football”, “baseball game”, etc etc etc) puts real food on the table. Pays hospital bills. And puts clothes on their children’s backs. Just like the video game industry.
So the reason IP rights in something like Second Life matters isn’t so much about Second Life; it matters because Second Life is a sampling of what’s coming down the road. If it’s digital, it’s vulnerable. And the problems that have plagued the music and movie industries *are* coming to manufacturing. Not any day soon, but perhaps in our lifetime. And it’s starts with a business like ZapFab, where people can “share” 3D files.
@Jeremy
This comes up so often I figure a direct cut-n-paste of a recent comment I made elsewhere is good enough:
-
The only problem with your position is… well… there’s lots of problems with your position on this issue. For starters, Wall Street is all about “virtual” things; stuff like speculative markets and commodity futures (there’s even a government agency for this – http://www.cftc.gov ). Guess that’s why Sun Microsystems claims to have been running the world’s biggest massively multiplayer game for years and years. Read for yourself: Next Generation article.
Then there’s the whole problem of our own “real” currency being, in fact, “virtual”. I mean, the difference between a 5-spot and a 100-dollar bill is only what it represents; they’re both just printed paper with essentially no intrinsic value. I figure lots of people are staring at their precious dollars now trying to figure out how it’s managing to lose value while tucked into their wallet.
Speaking of intrinsic value, ever stopped to think how much value resides in a “service-based” economy? Considering the U.S. has been heading that way for years (and we’ve even taken to calling burger-flipping at the fast-food joint a form of “manufacturing”; just for the bean-counters, of course) I’m hoping lots of people are wondering, especially with so much debt hanging over our heads.
And by the way, those virtual worlds and videogames aren’t any different than movies people go to see at the theater, the concerts they attend to hear their favorite band, or the sporting events they travel half way across the country to witness when they could see it on teevee. In each case people are exchanging their hard-earned dollars for nothing but an Experience. They walk away from the transaction with only… memories. Isn’t that crazy?
There is one significant difference though: I can take those virtual things you’re laughing about and manufacture a real, tangible, in-the-flesh object from the 3D data behind it (I showed how once, you can read the reaction it got on my blog from one person: Wired magazine’s Senior Editor Chris Anderson – Link). In fact, there are now businesses set up to do this sort of thing: grab the 3D “virtual” data and rapid manufacture a tangible object (not too much different than the CAD files I generate that get tooled and which are used to manufacture the products people buy at the local Big Box Retail store).
Also, while you might not take any of this seriously, you can be certain some big players are. For one, the Chinese are building out a huge industrial complex dedicated to the business potential of tying virtual objects to manufactured goods (because pwning manufacturing… and the bulk of U.S. credit slips… ain’t enough). In the meantime, IBM is busy programming PLM functionality into virtual worlds, Dassault (which makes highend manufacturing software used by Boeing, automotive manufacturers, aso) has just released an upgrade to their PLM CAD application which included virtual world functionality, and Siemens/UG has been increasingly involved in linking their product development applications with virtual worlds. That’s because 3D is 3D, and like I said, we use 3D to manufacture real stuff.
Now, I suppose we could all just bury our heads in the sand and consider all of this concern over a stupid “video game” a waste of time, but besides companies like IBM and countries like China, I suspect some other industries might take issue with the inference that a game… of any sort… isn’t worth our consideration. I mean, the sports industry is a good example of how “game” stuff matters, because the sports game industry affects the livelihoods of a great many people. Their work in the sporting goods industry (“game of catch”, “game of football”, “baseball game”, etc etc etc) puts real food on the table. Pays hospital bills. And puts clothes on their children’s backs. Just like the video game industry.
So the reason IP rights in something like Second Life matters isn’t so much about Second Life; it matters because Second Life is a sampling of what’s coming down the road. If it’s digital, it’s vulnerable. And the problems that have plagued the music and movie industries *are* coming to manufacturing. Not any day soon, but perhaps in our lifetime. And it’s starts with a business like ZapFab, where people can “share” 3D files.
You are neglecting the fact that some number of people earn all of their livelihood by making and selling content in Second Life. Stealing content is the same as hacking into their bank account and emptying it.
You are neglecting the fact that some number of people earn all of their livelihood by making and selling content in Second Life. Stealing content is the same as hacking into their bank account and emptying it.
Yes, this is a very serious issue for many people who use the SL to make a living. It is perhaps childish to many like me, who visited SL and gave up, but there are others who are in dead earnest. This whole issue can snow ball into a big issue and as Jonathan hints at, it can possibly happen only when there is a mass exodus.
Yes, this is a very serious issue for many people who use the SL to make a living. It is perhaps childish to many like me, who visited SL and gave up, but there are others who are in dead earnest. This whole issue can snow ball into a big issue and as Jonathan hints at, it can possibly happen only when there is a mass exodus.
@ RIP:
YOU have hit the nail on the head.
First – it’s all virtual. It’s NOT theft (the creators are not DEPRIVED of their creation.) It IS plagiarism. And that runs rampant all over the web and even long before that (every copy a CD to a cassette tape for your friends back in the day?)
The other comments are good ones, too.
I am in Second Life. I won’t debate whether it’s a ‘game’ or not. I create virtual goods. But I also am not stupid enough to stake my living on whatever I can earn there. I make enough ‘money’ to have the service actually pay for itself, and for me, that’s huge success as far as my entertainment goes.
I actually do have a real life with a real day job.
The solution is really very simple: if your stuff is plagiarized, release it as a ‘freebie’ – GIVE IT AWAY. Then the ‘theives’ lose out because no one will buy from them if it’s available for free. Then, use the situation to move on, be creative and do something NEW.
The fact is because it’s all virtual – you work hard ONCE – then reap the benefits of sale after sale after sale. There is NO cost to reproduce and resell. So in this case – and in my mind – the copybot is a good thing. It forces the creators to keep working. Keep producing new stuff.
If they make their ‘living’ off this stuff, they are LAZY. They create something once, then keep making money on ‘new sales’ for three years. Pffft. As long as you have a good sales run (six-months or so) before the content is plagiarized – then good.
I’ve always heard in the Army “it’s a tough titty,” said the kitty, “but the milk tastes good.” So, suck it up and drive-on.
Oh and by the way, @ the author: there is no “Linden Labs” – it is “Linden Lab” – an excellent article and very good writing, but your research should have lead you to their corporate site, where you might have found even more pertinent information regarding the company and their position on things and WHY.
@ RIP:
YOU have hit the nail on the head.
First – it’s all virtual. It’s NOT theft (the creators are not DEPRIVED of their creation.) It IS plagiarism. And that runs rampant all over the web and even long before that (every copy a CD to a cassette tape for your friends back in the day?)
The other comments are good ones, too.
I am in Second Life. I won’t debate whether it’s a ‘game’ or not. I create virtual goods. But I also am not stupid enough to stake my living on whatever I can earn there. I make enough ‘money’ to have the service actually pay for itself, and for me, that’s huge success as far as my entertainment goes.
I actually do have a real life with a real day job.
The solution is really very simple: if your stuff is plagiarized, release it as a ‘freebie’ – GIVE IT AWAY. Then the ‘theives’ lose out because no one will buy from them if it’s available for free. Then, use the situation to move on, be creative and do something NEW.
The fact is because it’s all virtual – you work hard ONCE – then reap the benefits of sale after sale after sale. There is NO cost to reproduce and resell. So in this case – and in my mind – the copybot is a good thing. It forces the creators to keep working. Keep producing new stuff.
If they make their ‘living’ off this stuff, they are LAZY. They create something once, then keep making money on ‘new sales’ for three years. Pffft. As long as you have a good sales run (six-months or so) before the content is plagiarized – then good.
I’ve always heard in the Army “it’s a tough titty,” said the kitty, “but the milk tastes good.” So, suck it up and drive-on.
Oh and by the way, @ the author: there is no “Linden Labs” – it is “Linden Lab” – an excellent article and very good writing, but your research should have lead you to their corporate site, where you might have found even more pertinent information regarding the company and their position on things and WHY.
Jeremy: It is easy to dismiss Second Life as “just a game” but the more research I did into what goes into to creating some of these virtual works, I realized that they were less of items in a game and more of a 3D creation similar to something made in AutoCAD. Some of these spend hours on these works and, interestingly enough, there is a community of artists and art galleries in Second Life as well.
It may be a game, but people are using Second Life as a tool to create some pretty amazing stuff. Hasn’t motivated me to log in yet, but some of the photographs are interesting.
Rip: Very well, if it is virtual, we don’t enforce any IP rights. The law can’t keep up. The law also can’t keep up with esignatures and econtracts, therefore we also repeal the ESIGN act and all electronic commerce on the Web stops.
The problem with what you offer is three-fold. First, creating virtual works still take a great deal of time and energy to make virtual works. Many others work without producing physical goods and expect to get paid, artists have a right to expect at least the opportunity to reap the rewards for their efforts. They take a large gamble already in that people might not like it or might never pay for it and their time could be a waste, we don’t have to add the certainty that their IP will have no protection.
Second is that it ignores the realities of copyright on the Web. If you read this site, you’ll learn that the copying of virtual works is practically instantaneous. There is no delay with which one can move on to a second project, the scraping, spam blogging and plagiarism are almost instant events.
Finally, there are many projects where such a system is not practical. Blog posts, comments, Flickr images and things that only take an hour or two to make are one thing, but projects that can take years of ones life have a higher bar for recoupment. We should not punish artists who either work in a virtual medium or choose to use the Internet to gain exposure by their work by turning our back on them. There is plenty of room for copyright reform, and I have my picks on what I would do, but turning our backs on virtual artists and the time they dedicate to their craft not only degenerates their work, work you enjoy every day on the Web, but is unfair to their efforts.
Tom: Google and Linden Lab are both constantly acting in their self interest. There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself as that is what a business is supposed to do, my criticism is that they are not taking action to help support the people who make their business possible. Be it Google with original, fresh Web sites and Linden with creators in Second Life, these people make it possible for them to turn a profit and they do nothing to help them as their works are being lifted.
It goes beyond self interest and into the world of biting the hand that feeds you.
That is just my feeling on the topic…
Csven: Thank you for that interesting information, I’m going to have to look into it more deeply. I’m not sure how directly it applies to this story, something I’ll have to find out, but it is a fascinating topic.
David: Not neglecting intentionally, just thought it would be understood that if there are items for sale some might make their livelihood from it. Some indeed do though I think those numbers are significantly less than those that merely use it, like Ziggy Quirk, to pay their bills for using the service.
RS: Thanks for the support!
Ari: I’ve corrected the article. I actually did visit their site and I did spend a great deal of time there trying to find information. In fact, there are at least a few links to official pages in the article itself, including their positions on Copybot and on the DMCA policy.
It was an honest mistake fueled by the fact that A) The plural of the domain goes to their site the same as the singular. B) That it is referred in the plural on several other sites as well. C) It is awkward from a grammar standpoint to say “Linden Lab” when one knows that, almost certainly, there are more than one lab there.
I appreciate the correction but there is no need to make accusations that are untrue based upon an easy mistake made elsewhere on the Web many times over.
I find the position that copyright holders are “lazy” to be somewhat offensive. I know you limited the statement to SL, but it could easily be applied to the rest of copyright holders as well. Is a novelist who spends a year writing a work and then recoups the cost little by little over the next few years lazy? What about the film maker who spend five years of his life and millions of dollars to make a movie?
There are many, many copyrighted works where the time and energy cost to create them can not be recouped by one or even a dozen sold copies. I don’t consider that lazy. Not having created in SL I can not tell you how long it takes to make something in there, but many of the works clearly take quite a long time.
Personally, if you know a person who would pay $25,000 for one copy of my novel, I’ll happily make the sale and release it as a freebie. But, in lieu of that, I have to recoup the costs along and along.
That’s not laziness, that’s just reality.
Jeremy: It is easy to dismiss Second Life as “just a game” but the more research I did into what goes into to creating some of these virtual works, I realized that they were less of items in a game and more of a 3D creation similar to something made in AutoCAD. Some of these spend hours on these works and, interestingly enough, there is a community of artists and art galleries in Second Life as well.
It may be a game, but people are using Second Life as a tool to create some pretty amazing stuff. Hasn’t motivated me to log in yet, but some of the photographs are interesting.
Rip: Very well, if it is virtual, we don’t enforce any IP rights. The law can’t keep up. The law also can’t keep up with esignatures and econtracts, therefore we also repeal the ESIGN act and all electronic commerce on the Web stops.
The problem with what you offer is three-fold. First, creating virtual works still take a great deal of time and energy to make virtual works. Many others work without producing physical goods and expect to get paid, artists have a right to expect at least the opportunity to reap the rewards for their efforts. They take a large gamble already in that people might not like it or might never pay for it and their time could be a waste, we don’t have to add the certainty that their IP will have no protection.
Second is that it ignores the realities of copyright on the Web. If you read this site, you’ll learn that the copying of virtual works is practically instantaneous. There is no delay with which one can move on to a second project, the scraping, spam blogging and plagiarism are almost instant events.
Finally, there are many projects where such a system is not practical. Blog posts, comments, Flickr images and things that only take an hour or two to make are one thing, but projects that can take years of ones life have a higher bar for recoupment. We should not punish artists who either work in a virtual medium or choose to use the Internet to gain exposure by their work by turning our back on them. There is plenty of room for copyright reform, and I have my picks on what I would do, but turning our backs on virtual artists and the time they dedicate to their craft not only degenerates their work, work you enjoy every day on the Web, but is unfair to their efforts.
Tom: Google and Linden Lab are both constantly acting in their self interest. There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself as that is what a business is supposed to do, my criticism is that they are not taking action to help support the people who make their business possible. Be it Google with original, fresh Web sites and Linden with creators in Second Life, these people make it possible for them to turn a profit and they do nothing to help them as their works are being lifted.
It goes beyond self interest and into the world of biting the hand that feeds you.
That is just my feeling on the topic…
Csven: Thank you for that interesting information, I’m going to have to look into it more deeply. I’m not sure how directly it applies to this story, something I’ll have to find out, but it is a fascinating topic.
David: Not neglecting intentionally, just thought it would be understood that if there are items for sale some might make their livelihood from it. Some indeed do though I think those numbers are significantly less than those that merely use it, like Ziggy Quirk, to pay their bills for using the service.
RS: Thanks for the support!
Ari: I’ve corrected the article. I actually did visit their site and I did spend a great deal of time there trying to find information. In fact, there are at least a few links to official pages in the article itself, including their positions on Copybot and on the DMCA policy.
It was an honest mistake fueled by the fact that A) The plural of the domain goes to their site the same as the singular. B) That it is referred in the plural on several other sites as well. C) It is awkward from a grammar standpoint to say “Linden Lab” when one knows that, almost certainly, there are more than one lab there.
I appreciate the correction but there is no need to make accusations that are untrue based upon an easy mistake made elsewhere on the Web many times over.
I find the position that copyright holders are “lazy” to be somewhat offensive. I know you limited the statement to SL, but it could easily be applied to the rest of copyright holders as well. Is a novelist who spends a year writing a work and then recoups the cost little by little over the next few years lazy? What about the film maker who spend five years of his life and millions of dollars to make a movie?
There are many, many copyrighted works where the time and energy cost to create them can not be recouped by one or even a dozen sold copies. I don’t consider that lazy. Not having created in SL I can not tell you how long it takes to make something in there, but many of the works clearly take quite a long time.
Personally, if you know a person who would pay $25,000 for one copy of my novel, I’ll happily make the sale and release it as a freebie. But, in lieu of that, I have to recoup the costs along and along.
That’s not laziness, that’s just reality.
Touché guys, Touché
Touché guys, Touché
Interesting look at it, from first-world point view perspective. Thank you for this!
Interesting look at it, from first-world point view perspective. Thank you for this!
“The controversy in the second life community is with a program known as CopyBot and an improved version of it.”
I’m not sure “improved” is accurate in regards to capabilities. For reference:
There is nothing at all new about any of this. The idea that with the initial outcry relating to “copybot?, the functions responsible and the use thereof went away, is simply nonsense. The prohibition was a socially-based one, making the possession or use of a copybot illegal, but the technology never disappeared. In fact, as far as I can see, this “copybot 2″ is just a simple modification of the “testclient? that is freely available. Anyone with any interest could make a similar product, we are not talking about Programming Genii here. – The “Copybot” Word
-
“Csven: Thank you for that interesting information, I’m going to have to look into it more deeply. I’m not sure how directly it applies to this story, something I’ll have to find out, but it is a fascinating topic.”
Glad it was of interest. Now try this: http://www.doublehappinessjeans.com ; what they’re doing is actually quite similar to what I was describing in a post on the future of marketing, manufacturing, and virtual world technology – Smiley Face Savvy). This is an Eyebeam project, however it may also involve IBM… who are already working on a fashion industry PLM (something else I’ve written about). So the issues you’re getting at in this story don’t just affect “virtual” goods, but potentially the tangible things which are made from the same or convertible data.
Remember, pretty much everything you see on your desk – the keyboard, the monitor, the stand, the printer, aso – started off as virtual models in someone’s computer CAD application.
-
“The bottom line is that the problems in Second Life have direct parallels to ones on the Internet at large. While we may not feel the difficulties and frustrations as acutely as creators in Second Life, the problems are largely the same.”
And as the Internet becomes increasingly integrated into fabrication processes…
“The controversy in the second life community is with a program known as CopyBot and an improved version of it.“
I’m not sure “improved” is accurate in regards to capabilities. For reference:
There is nothing at all new about any of this. The idea that with the initial outcry relating to âcopybotâ?, the functions responsible and the use thereof went away, is simply nonsense. The prohibition was a socially-based one, making the possession or use of a copybot illegal, but the technology never disappeared. In fact, as far as I can see, this âcopybot 2â³ is just a simple modification of the âtestclientâ? that is freely available. Anyone with any interest could make a similar product, we are not talking about Programming Genii here. – The “Copybot” Word
-
“Csven: Thank you for that interesting information, I’m going to have to look into it more deeply. I’m not sure how directly it applies to this story, something I’ll have to find out, but it is a fascinating topic.“
Glad it was of interest. Now try this: http://www.doublehappinessjeans.com ; what they’re doing is actually quite similar to what I was describing in a post on the future of marketing, manufacturing, and virtual world technology – Smiley Face Savvy). This is an Eyebeam project, however it may also involve IBM… who are already working on a fashion industry PLM (something else I’ve written about). So the issues you’re getting at in this story don’t just affect “virtual” goods, but potentially the tangible things which are made from the same or convertible data.
Remember, pretty much everything you see on your desk – the keyboard, the monitor, the stand, the printer, aso – started off as virtual models in someone’s computer CAD application.
-
“The bottom line is that the problems in Second Life have direct parallels to ones on the Internet at large. While we may not feel the difficulties and frustrations as acutely as creators in Second Life, the problems are largely the same.“
And as the Internet becomes increasingly integrated into fabrication processes…
Hi csven! NIce comments.I visited your links.Thanks for that.
Hi csven! NIce comments.I visited your links.Thanks for that.
Jeremy: If it is any consolation, I didn’t “get it” either at first. It was only after reading dozens of posts that I really understood what was going on. I don’t think I did a very good job explaining it here either, largely due to the fact I only had a thousand words…
Vint: Glad that you liked it, I apologize in advance for any and all ignorance on my part about SL.
Csven: I realize that there isn’t much new about Copybot, well, nothing new technically. I found articles as old as 2003 on the topic. However, there is little doubt that, in the past sixty days, the amount of attention paid to this has been through the roof. My RSS read.
The issue of manufacturing virtual goods is an interesting one to me. In a previous life, I made my living selling AutoCAD. I know very well how everything physical starts out as something virtual and routinely do CAD work (though in other programs) to map out my haunted house (perhaps proving I need intense therapy) and other projects.
The problem is that this is an area where copyrights and patents touch. By drawing something, even in a CAD drawing, I own the copyright to it but not the patent. Producing a real-world good based upon a virtual one may or may not be copyright infringement. Depends on your country of origin and the nature of the work.
These areas of overlap are dangerous but are the new frontier in IP law so, clearly, I’m going to take an interest in it, thank you for sharing the information!
Jar: Agreed! Thanks Csven!
Jeremy: If it is any consolation, I didn’t “get it” either at first. It was only after reading dozens of posts that I really understood what was going on. I don’t think I did a very good job explaining it here either, largely due to the fact I only had a thousand words…
Vint: Glad that you liked it, I apologize in advance for any and all ignorance on my part about SL.
Csven: I realize that there isn’t much new about Copybot, well, nothing new technically. I found articles as old as 2003 on the topic. However, there is little doubt that, in the past sixty days, the amount of attention paid to this has been through the roof. My RSS read.
The issue of manufacturing virtual goods is an interesting one to me. In a previous life, I made my living selling AutoCAD. I know very well how everything physical starts out as something virtual and routinely do CAD work (though in other programs) to map out my haunted house (perhaps proving I need intense therapy) and other projects.
The problem is that this is an area where copyrights and patents touch. By drawing something, even in a CAD drawing, I own the copyright to it but not the patent. Producing a real-world good based upon a virtual one may or may not be copyright infringement. Depends on your country of origin and the nature of the work.
These areas of overlap are dangerous but are the new frontier in IP law so, clearly, I’m going to take an interest in it, thank you for sharing the information!
Jar: Agreed! Thanks Csven!
Another factor fueling the rash of copying within Second Life is the fact that the cost of production for virtual goods is, for all practical purposes, zero. Once an item is created or copied it can be duplicated and freely distributed or sold an unlimited number of times with no additional fees.
This fuels a ‘race to the bottom’ mentality where creators and copiers alike are locked into a continual price war, competing with ever growing catalog of items that have been discounted to free or near free status.
However, though there is very weak content protection on ‘physical’ items, the internal programming of ‘active’ items is fairly well protected. Since the programming (’scripts’ in Second Life lingo) is executed on the servers with the client only seeing the result of the code scripting can remain very well protected.
There have been flaws in the server code that allowed unauthorized users to view the programming within active objects but that has occurred on rare occasion and not the rule.
Another factor fueling the rash of copying within Second Life is the fact that the cost of production for virtual goods is, for all practical purposes, zero. Once an item is created or copied it can be duplicated and freely distributed or sold an unlimited number of times with no additional fees.
This fuels a ‘race to the bottom’ mentality where creators and copiers alike are locked into a continual price war, competing with ever growing catalog of items that have been discounted to free or near free status.
However, though there is very weak content protection on ‘physical’ items, the internal programming of ‘active’ items is fairly well protected. Since the programming (’scripts’ in Second Life lingo) is executed on the servers with the client only seeing the result of the code scripting can remain very well protected.
There have been flaws in the server code that allowed unauthorized users to view the programming within active objects but that has occurred on rare occasion and not the rule.
Ric; I am trying to make sure I understand what you are saying (once again, be reminded I do not play SL so much of this is foreign to me). You’re saying that copying on “physical” items such as, say, clothing, skins, lamps, tables, etc. are at high risk but objects which are “active”, such as cars, robots, etc. are better protected by the way they are displayed in-world.
If so, that is very interesting and it would seem to encourage designers to create more active products than static ones. That isn’t practical for many types of products, such as clothing, but it is interesting nonetheless.
Am I getting this right?
Ric; I am trying to make sure I understand what you are saying (once again, be reminded I do not play SL so much of this is foreign to me). You’re saying that copying on “physical” items such as, say, clothing, skins, lamps, tables, etc. are at high risk but objects which are “active”, such as cars, robots, etc. are better protected by the way they are displayed in-world.
If so, that is very interesting and it would seem to encourage designers to create more active products than static ones. That isn’t practical for many types of products, such as clothing, but it is interesting nonetheless.
Am I getting this right?
@Jar – glad those links were of interest.
@Jonathan – and we can expect more discussion of Copybot in the months to come. On first release, there wasn’t very much someone could do with the content, other than bring it back into Second Life. But with OpenSim making serious progress, and independent sims launching (some of them intended for the same activities that Linden Lab has banned: unregulated “banking”, gambling, “age play”, aso), I suspect many of them will be outfitted with content ripped from Second Life. It’s going to get… interesting.
I wasn’t aware of your AutoCAD experience. However, you obviously understand just how tricky this potentially gets. I assume you are already aware that companies like Autodesk, Siemens/Unigraphics, and others are already inside SL trying to make sense of this. There are currently some tools available for bringing ACAD files into SL (the architecture types are using it now, afaik). There are also tools for Maya available, and I expect one CAD vendor will have a plug-in allowing data interchange. All fairly limited, of course, as SL’s toolset is fairly primitive.
wrt your question regarding “active” content, what Ric is saying is that while the “physical” objects themselves can be lifted using Copybot (there have been other means for duplicating virtual goods; less sophisticated but able to grab everything), the code inside them resides entirely on Linden Lab’s servers; never gets sent to the client. Thus, a car with scripted functionality, will not retain that functionality. It’ll be a hollow shell, essentially (but a good basis upon which a programmer could work).
The problem with encouraging “designers to create more active products than static ones” is that most of them can’t program. The Linden Scripting Language – a kind of mishmash of C, Java, aso – isn’t difficult for many people, but I’d venture a small percentage of people are *good* at it. In addition, just like any program, someone selling a (virtual) product which includes programming needs to be sufficiently proficient to deal with: bugs, broken code on SL updates, unexpected uses that break the code/object, and deliberate hacking by other residents (the reason a very well-known SL avatar abandoned a much-loved virtual product and left Second Life). Vending systems are especially popular targets for hackers. And as you say, it’s not even relevant for clothing… the biggest (by far) virtual industry in SL.
@Jar – glad those links were of interest.
@Jonathan – and we can expect more discussion of Copybot in the months to come. On first release, there wasn’t very much someone could do with the content, other than bring it back into Second Life. But with OpenSim making serious progress, and independent sims launching (some of them intended for the same activities that Linden Lab has banned: unregulated “banking”, gambling, “age play”, aso), I suspect many of them will be outfitted with content ripped from Second Life. It’s going to get… interesting.
I wasn’t aware of your AutoCAD experience. However, you obviously understand just how tricky this potentially gets. I assume you are already aware that companies like Autodesk, Siemens/Unigraphics, and others are already inside SL trying to make sense of this. There are currently some tools available for bringing ACAD files into SL (the architecture types are using it now, afaik). There are also tools for Maya available, and I expect one CAD vendor will have a plug-in allowing data interchange. All fairly limited, of course, as SL’s toolset is fairly primitive.
wrt your question regarding “active” content, what Ric is saying is that while the “physical” objects themselves can be lifted using Copybot (there have been other means for duplicating virtual goods; less sophisticated but able to grab everything), the code inside them resides entirely on Linden Lab’s servers; never gets sent to the client. Thus, a car with scripted functionality, will not retain that functionality. It’ll be a hollow shell, essentially (but a good basis upon which a programmer could work).
The problem with encouraging “designers to create more active products than static ones” is that most of them can’t program. The Linden Scripting Language – a kind of mishmash of C, Java, aso – isn’t difficult for many people, but I’d venture a small percentage of people are *good* at it. In addition, just like any program, someone selling a (virtual) product which includes programming needs to be sufficiently proficient to deal with: bugs, broken code on SL updates, unexpected uses that break the code/object, and deliberate hacking by other residents (the reason a very well-known SL avatar abandoned a much-loved virtual product and left Second Life). Vending systems are especially popular targets for hackers. And as you say, it’s not even relevant for clothing… the biggest (by far) virtual industry in SL.
Csven: I was not familiar with the OpenSim angle on all of this. That is very interesting as you put it. It is going to be fascinating to see if and how LL will respond.
However, it does appear to confirm the fear that virtual worlds are going to be used almost exclusively to do things that would be objectionable in the real one. A pity considering there is a lot of potential to be found in them.
Like I said, my time with AutoCAD was in a past life and I haven’t had contact with Autodesk in probably four years or more. But it doesn’t shock me, they were always forward-thinking people. It’s too bad my company wasn’t as smart as they are.
Regarding the active content issue, I realize that it wasn’t exactly an elegant solution to the problem or even a practical one. Most designers I’ve talked with are just that, designers, not programmers. From the sound of things, the programming language in SL, though limited, is above and beyond what I would be comfortable with too.
This isn’t to say that there might not be something there. Clearly, those who program are better guarded against these content theft issues than those who do not. Still, that does greatly restrict the number of people who can participate in the marketplace.
As usual, there are no easy answers.
Csven: I was not familiar with the OpenSim angle on all of this. That is very interesting as you put it. It is going to be fascinating to see if and how LL will respond.
However, it does appear to confirm the fear that virtual worlds are going to be used almost exclusively to do things that would be objectionable in the real one. A pity considering there is a lot of potential to be found in them.
Like I said, my time with AutoCAD was in a past life and I haven’t had contact with Autodesk in probably four years or more. But it doesn’t shock me, they were always forward-thinking people. It’s too bad my company wasn’t as smart as they are.
Regarding the active content issue, I realize that it wasn’t exactly an elegant solution to the problem or even a practical one. Most designers I’ve talked with are just that, designers, not programmers. From the sound of things, the programming language in SL, though limited, is above and beyond what I would be comfortable with too.
This isn’t to say that there might not be something there. Clearly, those who program are better guarded against these content theft issues than those who do not. Still, that does greatly restrict the number of people who can participate in the marketplace.
As usual, there are no easy answers.
“However, it does appear to confirm the fear that virtual worlds are going to be used almost exclusively to do things that would be objectionable in the real one.”
I wouldn’t jump too quickly to that conclusion. Many people said the same of the WWW at first, and now the whole pron industry is falling apart at the “sharing”/UGC seams. In addition, some early research in SL indicated that there was *much* less cyber-sexual activity than the media hounds would have people believe. New World Notes did a piece on it, if you’re interested in finding the numbers.
In addition, the “virtual world” issue is deeper than it might currently seem. We may wind up with an open-source Second Life v1.0 sitting next to a private, premium and more controlled Second Life v2.0 (with data portability between them and any others that opt into the fold; after all LL would probably administer or heavily influence the open source code base). But both of these may sit atop another layer… perhaps Croquet or perhaps whatever was developed in Australia and was intended for Outback (and may now be incorporated into VastPark).
People working on things like Croquet aren’t thinking of 3D as something that sits on top of our 2D desktop. The often speak of it as something to replace what we currently use.
-
“Most designers I’ve talked with are just that, designers, not programmers. From the sound of things, the programming language in SL, though limited, is above and beyond what I would be comfortable with too.”
You know, there are housekeepers and auto mechanics who virtually attend classes inside Second Life which teach people how to program. Sometimes I go just to be amazed at how education is evolving right beneath our (virtual) feet.
As to the safe harbor currently enjoyed by programmers, that too will erode and in the end their advantage may hurt them.
Chinese software companies have been essentially wiped out by their own country’s lack of concern for IP rights. But I suspect that will prime them for the SaaS business models now emerging and help them in their efforts to manage their own virtual worlds (e.g. HiPiHi and Novoking). We’ll see.
“However, it does appear to confirm the fear that virtual worlds are going to be used almost exclusively to do things that would be objectionable in the real one.“
I wouldn’t jump too quickly to that conclusion. Many people said the same of the WWW at first, and now the whole pron industry is falling apart at the “sharing”/UGC seams. In addition, some early research in SL indicated that there was *much* less cyber-sexual activity than the media hounds would have people believe. New World Notes did a piece on it, if you’re interested in finding the numbers.
In addition, the “virtual world” issue is deeper than it might currently seem. We may wind up with an open-source Second Life v1.0 sitting next to a private, premium and more controlled Second Life v2.0 (with data portability between them and any others that opt into the fold; after all LL would probably administer or heavily influence the open source code base). But both of these may sit atop another layer… perhaps Croquet or perhaps whatever was developed in Australia and was intended for Outback (and may now be incorporated into VastPark).
People working on things like Croquet aren’t thinking of 3D as something that sits on top of our 2D desktop. The often speak of it as something to replace what we currently use.
-
“Most designers I’ve talked with are just that, designers, not programmers. From the sound of things, the programming language in SL, though limited, is above and beyond what I would be comfortable with too.“
You know, there are housekeepers and auto mechanics who virtually attend classes inside Second Life which teach people how to program. Sometimes I go just to be amazed at how education is evolving right beneath our (virtual) feet.
As to the safe harbor currently enjoyed by programmers, that too will erode and in the end their advantage may hurt them.
Chinese software companies have been essentially wiped out by their own country’s lack of concern for IP rights. But I suspect that will prime them for the SaaS business models now emerging and help them in their efforts to manage their own virtual worlds (e.g. HiPiHi and Novoking). We’ll see.
csven: Ok, you got me there, I was far too quick to judge. That was my error. That was both poorly worded and not well thought out.
However, it was a combination of broader use and better enforcement that made the Web a more balanced force. For virtual words to do the same, it’s going to take both greater uptake and better enforcement of laws. Though many of the Web’s laws apply to virtual world, I doubt others do and enforcement seems to be lacking in every sense.
You are right though, the Web started out the same way and hopefully virtual worlds will evolve too. There will always be an underbelly, it just won’t always be so prominent, we hope.
On the programming note, I agree again. There is so much going on both on the Web and in virtual worlds that people are able to learn new skills that they never would have had the chance to otherwise. That exists in nearly every field though from journalism to art. People are learning new skills online and that previously would have required a life-altering shift.
I think that’s great.
As far as SAAS goes, I think we’re going to see a lot of hybrid business models over the year that will shift the focus of how IP is enforced. It’s going to be an exciting time.
csven: Ok, you got me there, I was far too quick to judge. That was my error. That was both poorly worded and not well thought out.
However, it was a combination of broader use and better enforcement that made the Web a more balanced force. For virtual words to do the same, it’s going to take both greater uptake and better enforcement of laws. Though many of the Web’s laws apply to virtual world, I doubt others do and enforcement seems to be lacking in every sense.
You are right though, the Web started out the same way and hopefully virtual worlds will evolve too. There will always be an underbelly, it just won’t always be so prominent, we hope.
On the programming note, I agree again. There is so much going on both on the Web and in virtual worlds that people are able to learn new skills that they never would have had the chance to otherwise. That exists in nearly every field though from journalism to art. People are learning new skills online and that previously would have required a life-altering shift.
I think that’s great.
As far as SAAS goes, I think we’re going to see a lot of hybrid business models over the year that will shift the focus of how IP is enforced. It’s going to be an exciting time.
Who gives a crap about copying in Second Life. Charging so much for an item to be used to have
sexual intercorse is so dumb. Stupid fake sexual organs and dumb chats with little kids, who keep asking ya …Do you wanna F……. lady….. Get a real job, a real life, get out of you F……. computer and exercise your fat ass, so you dont die of heart decease……..
The End Of Linden is Near…….. Game over…… as gas prices go UP…..no more 10 dollars here and there to buy your linden goods……
LL
Who gives a crap about copying in Second Life. Charging so much for an item to be used to have
sexual intercorse is so dumb. Stupid fake sexual organs and dumb chats with little kids, who keep asking ya …Do you wanna F……. lady….. Get a real job, a real life, get out of you F……. computer and exercise your fat ass, so you dont die of heart decease……..
The End Of Linden is Near…….. Game over…… as gas prices go UP…..no more 10 dollars here and there to buy your linden goods……
LL
I’m sure everyone is sorry you’ve had a bad cybersex experience, Lisa; however, to answer your question:
“Who gives a crap about copying in Second Life.”
I’ll tell you who: people interested in the coming 2D/3D internet and the potential problems which come with it. Those, like you, who apparently don’t have the imagination to get beyond “sexual intercorse is so dumb” are probably not overly concerned.
For anyone interested, here’s something about which we should all be concerned: “The Kirkyan Weapon” – http://blog.rebang.com/?p=998
I’m sure everyone is sorry you’ve had a bad cybersex experience, Lisa; however, to answer your question:
“Who gives a crap about copying in Second Life.”
I’ll tell you who: people interested in the coming 2D/3D internet and the potential problems which come with it. Those, like you, who apparently don’t have the imagination to get beyond “sexual intercorse is so dumb” are probably not overly concerned.
For anyone interested, here’s something about which we should all be concerned: “The Kirkyan Weapon” – http://blog.rebang.com/?p=998
Lisa & csven: Normally, Lisa’s comment is the kind that I delete. It is disrespectful and uses, or at least implies, foul language. It is one thing to believe that content theft in SL doesn’t matter, but another to say it in the way that it was expressed.
However, I was at a conference when it was posted, or rather, on the road, so I didn’t get to. However, after csven’s comment, I’m going to bend my own rules and leave the original up just because I think that it is valid.
So, I want to make it clear that I will not tolerate such language on the site, I am sorry that Lisa had the experience she did, but I do not think it is fair to take it out on the good people in SL.
Lisa & csven: Normally, Lisa’s comment is the kind that I delete. It is disrespectful and uses, or at least implies, foul language. It is one thing to believe that content theft in SL doesn’t matter, but another to say it in the way that it was expressed.
However, I was at a conference when it was posted, or rather, on the road, so I didn’t get to. However, after csven’s comment, I’m going to bend my own rules and leave the original up just because I think that it is valid.
So, I want to make it clear that I will not tolerate such language on the site, I am sorry that Lisa had the experience she did, but I do not think it is fair to take it out on the good people in SL.