Dwell On It – Piracy (Read it at: Dwell on it – Piracy is a real problem)

in connection with this, an older, quite famous piece about the musicians view on thie kind of piracy:

Albini – Music (Read it at: Steve Albini – The problem with music)

And finally, another blogpost about Second Life piracy:

Salome – Piracy (Read it at: Salome Says – Content Theft, Still…?)

Ja. Ja, ich weiß.

Rosedale schreibt einen Blogpost, und natürlich wird kurz danach die ganze SL blogosphäre in Flammen stehen. Die Fanjungs werden darüber abgehen, wie toll alles jetzt sein wird¹ , die Pseudoanalytiker werden darauf hinweisen (und sich unvermeidbar irren), wie dies und das zu diesem und jenem führt und die Kritiker werden darauf hinweisen, wie er die gleichen Sachen sagt, die er (und Kingdon, und andere) bisher wieder und wieder und wieder gesagt haben (“schneller, leichter und spaßiger”; “den Markt verbessern und wachsen lassen”; “Pläne offen diskutieren”) während sie wahrscheinlich genau das Gegenteil tun werden. Ich denke, nicht nur Linden Labs’ Postings sind vorhersehbar, sonder auch die Antworten der Gemeinschaft. Und ich hasse es, eine weitere Stimme im Chor zu sein, besonders da mein Fokus auf OpenSim liegt, aber es gibt etwas, das mir merkwürdig erscheint.

Es ist die Wortwahl. Als Kingdon Geschäftsführer war, habe ich einen enormen Anstieg an “Marktsprech” bemerkt, als jeder nur noch Vermarktungs-Schlagworte verwendete und so tat als würden sie was bedeuten, oder als ob man etwas besser macht, indem man es anders nennt. Und es ist nicht so, dass LL das nicht schon vorher getan hätte, aber ich bin sicher, dass ich vor Kingdon noch nie den Ausdruck “geteilte Erfahrung” gehört hatte. Außerdem hat die Verwendung des Wortes “Inhalt” alle anderen Synonyme für in-world-Kreationen verdrängt. Ich bin überrascht, dass Rosedale diese Sprache beibehalten hat; nicht, weil ich glaube das dies weit von seiner Denkweise entfernt ist, sondern weil ich dachte, dass es “Erfindungen” seines Nachfolgers, und nun Vorgängers waren, und ich zumindest hoffte, dass er seine “eigene” Stimme hätte.

Ich mache Sachen. Ich mache Animationen, Tragbares, Objekte, Terrains; ich schreibe Geschichten, Artikel, Gedichte und Lieder; ich spiele Musik. Ich hasse es, dafür das Wort “Kunst” zu verwenden, weil es zu oft von zu vielen Leuten verwendet wird, deren Schöpfungen nichts besonderes sind, und weil ich auch glaube, dass es keine “Kunst” ist, was ich mache (was “Kunst” auch immer sein mag). Es war einfacher als ich nur Musik gemacht habe; Ich konnte mich dann Musiker nennen und jeder wusste, was es bedeutet. Jetzt kämpfe ich damit, die richtige Bezeichnung zu finden, aber ein Wort wie “Inhalt” dafür zu verwenden erwischt mich auf dem falschen Fuß. “Inhalt” ist ein Wort, welches ausschließlich die Perspektive des “Verlegers” zeigt.² Für diese ist das, was wir machen, einfach Inhalt, der ihre Regale füllt, ob sie nun virtuell oder real sind. Sie schätzen es nicht für das, was es ist, sondern nur für das, was es für sie ist: Füllung ihrer ansonsten leeren Dienste; ein Goldesel zum Melken. Aber das ist nicht, wie ich mich selbst sehe, es ist auf keinen Fall, was ich sein möchte, und ich bin sehr überrascht, wie die Bezeichnung “Inhaltsschöpfer” Fuß gefasst hat und von den “Inhaltsschöpfern” selbst, für sie selbst, verwendet wird.

Ich bin nicht nur wegen der Bezeichnung überrascht, sonder auch aufgrund der Tatsache, dass viele Schöpfer nicht zu merken scheinen, dass bei einem Handel, in dem sie von einem Verleger für ihren “Inhalt” abhängig sind, immer den Kürzeren ziehen werden. Schöpfer, Schriftsteller, Künstler, Musiker, sogar Programmierer, sind immer von den Leuten, die ihre Schöpfungen und Fähigkeiten vermarktet haben, über den Tisch gezogen worden. Das ist nicht neu. Und es ist auch nicht so, dass wir noch von ihnen abhängig wären. Ich meine, diese Seite hier zu erstellen hat etwa 10 Minuten gedauert, in denen ich WordPress installiert habe, und kostet mich etwa 8 € pro Monat. Und ich versuche noch nichtmal, Geld zu verdienen.

Ich mache Sachen für Leute; nicht nur für Konsumenten, sondern auch für Mitschaffende, die vielleicht eine Inspiration daraus gewinnen (so wie ich Inspirationen von sehr vielen anderen gewonnen habe) oder ihre eigenen Dinge darauf aufbauend erschaffen können. Ich mache Dinge für jeden, der sie mag, und Spaß daran hat, sie zu verwenden. Ich mache Dinge, um einen Beitrag zur freien Zukunft des 3D-Netzes zu leisten. Ich mache keine Dinge für Linden Labs, oder für jeden anderen, der damit Geld verdient,  sie zu verbreiten und sie als Anreiz für ihre ansonsten leeren Dienste vorzuhalten.

So sehr ich das Wort “Inhalt” meide, so sehr bin ich vorsichtig mit dem Wort “Erfahrung”. Ich bin mir noch nicht sicher, was Linden Labs meint, wenn sie es verwenden; ich bin mir nur sicher, dass sie nicht dasselbe meinen wie ich, wenn ich es verwende. Offenbar haben “geteilte Erfahrungen” nicht mit Teilen zu tun, oder damit, irgendwas zu erfahren. Es bedeutet wahrscheinlich nur, dass da andere Leute sind, und man mit ihnen in Kontakt treten kann. Man teilt nichts, in dem Sinn, dass man etwas, was man hat (oder einen Teil davon), jemand anderem gibt, und man teilt sicherlich nichts mit Linden Labs (außer Geld, aber das ist eher einseitig).³ Indem man das Wort “Erfahrung” für alles, was in Second Life passiert, verwendet, übertreibt man so sehr wie es untertrieben ist, Ihre Schöpfungen als “Inhalt” zu bezeichnen, und ich glaube, da gibt es einen Zusammenhang. Denn die “Erfahrung” hängt mit dem zusammen, was Linden Labs macht, sie ist ein Resultat ihrer Dienste. Doch einfach nur fähig zu sein, sich innerhalb einer 3D-Umgebung zu bewegen und anderer Leute Avatare zu sehen und mit ihnen zu chatten ist, so aufregend es auch sein mag, keine Erfahrung.

Erfahrungen haben einen Wert, und sie geben diesen Wert weiter. Einen großen Wert. Sie machen uns schließlich erfahrener. Eine neue Sprache zu lernen ist eine Erfahrung, oder ein gutes Buch zu lesen. Und auch wenn es möglich ist, Erfahrungen durch etwas, das in Second Life angeboten ist, zu gewinnen, so ist es doch ebenso übertrieben, den gesamten Dienst eine Erfahrung zu nennen, wie es übertrieben wäre, zu sagen, Leinwand und Pinsel seien Kunst.

Ich bin nicht wichtig in Second Life, und meine Worte haben sicherlich dort kein Gewicht, aber wenn ich Linden Labs, oder Rosedale wäre, würde ich von dem hohen Ross absteigen, auf dem ich sitze, bevor ich runterfalle. Denn es ist nicht der Anbieter, der mächtig und wertvoll ist. Wir sind es. Die Kunden, die Schöpfer, die Nutzer. Wir sind gehalten. Wir sind erfahren. Wir verleihen ihnen Wert.

Wir können das auch wieder wegnehmen. Seien Sie nett zu uns.

1. Ohje, sie machen’s ja schon. Ich sollte wirklich aufhören, Blogkommentare zu lesen.
2. Ich verwende Verleger in einem sehr weiten Sinn. Jeder, der Geld damit verdient, indem er die Schöpfungen von anderen zu den Konsumenten bringt, ist ein Verleger, was Musiklabels in den gleichen Topf wie Buchhändler, und auch Linden Labs wirft.
3. Wann war das letzte Mal, dass Sie tatsächlich mit einen Linden eine Erfahrung geteilt haben? Ja, genau…

Yes. Yes, I know.

Rosedale’s writing a blog post, and sure enough soon thereafter all the SL blogosphere will be ablaze. The fanbois will go on about how great everything will be now¹ , the pseudo-analytics will point out how this and that will influence thither and yonder (and will inevitably be wrong again) and the critics will point out how he is saying the same things he (and Kingdon, and others) have said over and over and over again (“faster, easier, and more fun”; “improve and grow (the) market”; “discuss plans in the open”) while they will probably do the exact opposite. I guess, not only Linden Lab’s postings are predictable, but the communities’ responses as well. And I hate becoming one more voice in that choir, especially as my focus is on OpenSim, but there’s something that struck me as curious.

It’s the use of words. When Kingdon was CEO, I saw an enormous increase in “Corpspeak”, when everyone was just using marketing buzzwords and acted like they meant something or like wording something different would make it better. It’s not that LL had not done that before, but I’m certain I had not heard the term “shared experience” before Kingdon. Also, the use of the word “content” replaced all other synonyms for in-world creations. I am surprised at Rosedale continuing that speak; not because I would think it being far from his thinking, but because I had thought they were ‘inventions’ of his suc- and now predecessor, and at least would’ve hoped him to have his “own” voice.

I create things. I make animations, wearables, objects, terrains; I write stories, articles, poems and songs; I play music. I hate using the word “art” for all that, because it’s being used too much by too many people whose creations are really nothing special, and also because I don’t think it is “art” what I’m doing (whatever “art” is). It was easier when I was just making music; I could call myself a musician then and everyone would know what that means. Now, I’m struggling with finding the right word, but using a term like “content” for it, somehow gets me on the wrong foot. “Content” is a word which exclusively shows the perspective of the “publisher”.² To them, what we make is simply content to fill up their shelves, be they virtual or real. They do not appreciate it for what it is, just for what it is to them: Filling to their otherwise empty services; a cash-cow to milk. But that’s not how I see myself, it’s not what I want to be at all, and I’m very surprised at how the wording “content creator” caught on and is being used by the “content creators” themselves, for themselves.

I’m surprised, not only because of the wording, but because of the fact that many creators don’t seem to realize that they will always be on the short end in a bargain where they depend on a publisher for their “content”. Creators, writers, artists, musicians, even coders, have always been screwed over by the people who marketed their skills and creations. It’s nothing new. And also, it’s not like we would actually depend on them anymore. I mean, making this site took me about 10 minutes to install WordPress, and costs me about 10 $ per month. And I’m not even trying to make money.

I create things for people; not just for consumers, but for fellow creators who might get an inspiration from them (just as I got inspirations from a great many others myself) or make their own things based on what I did. I create things for anyone who likes what I make and has fun using it. I create things to contribute to the free future of the 3D web. I do not create things for Linden Labs, or anyone making money by simply publishing them, and keeping them as an incentive to their empty services.

As much as I loathe the word “content”, I am also wary of the word “experience”. I am not yet sure what Linden Labs means when they use it; I’m just certain they do not mean the same as I do when I use it. Clearly, “shared experience” has nothing to do with sharing, or experiencing anything. It probably just means there are other people and you can get in contact with them. You don’t share anything, in the way that you give something (or part of something) you have away to someone else, and you certainly don’t share anything with Linden Labs (other than your money, of course, but that’s rather one-sided).³ Using the word “experience” for everything happening to you in Second Life is as overrated as calling your creations “content” is an understatement, and I think there’s a correlation there. Because the “experience” is contributive to what Linden Labs made, it’s a result of their service. But simply being able to move around in a 3D-environment and see and chat with other people’s avatars, as exciting as it is, is no experience.

Experiences have value, and they transfer value. Great value. They make you, eventually, more experienced. Learning a new language is an experience, or reading a good book. While it is possible to gain experience through things offered in Second Life, calling the service itself an experience is as overrated as calling a brush and canvas art.

I’m not important to Second Life, and my words certainly don’t have any weight to them, but if I was Linden Labs, or Rosedale, I would get off that high horse I’m sitting on, before I fall off. Because it’s not the provider who’s powerful and valuable. It’s us. The customers, the creators, the users. We are content. We are experienced. We give you value.

We can take it away again. You better be nice.

1. Oh well, they already are. I really should stop reading blog comments.
2. I use publisher in a broad sense. Anyone who makes money from bringing the creations of others to consumers is a publisher, putting record labels into the same pot as booksellers and, also, Linden Labs.
3. When was the last time you actually shared an experience with a Linden? Yeah…  

Die meisten Leute werden jetzt denken, dass OSGrid, oder jeder andere Open-Simulator-betriebene Grid einfach eine quelloffene und billigere Version von Second Life ist, und oberflächlich betrachtet ist es auch schwer, Unterschiede zwischen den beiden festzustellen. Die Welten sehen gleich aus, werden ähnlich gerendert, man (kann) die gleichen Viewer verwenden und den Avatar auf die gleiche Weise steuern, die gleichen Werkzeuge verwenden und viele andere Merkmale sind ebenfalls so, wie man sie von Second Life gewöhnt ist.

Darunter jedoch sind die beiden nur schwer vergleichbar. Ich rede hier nicht von dem Code – auch wenn es scheint, dass dieser ebenfalls komplett anders ist – sondern von einer komplett anderen Herangehensweise an Virtuelle Realität. Second Life und OpenSim haben beide ihre eigenen Vorteile, und Grenzen. Ein Vergleich, der mich überhaupt erst zum OSGrid gebracht hat, war Marcus Llewellyn’s Artikel ‘What is a Grid?‘. Grundsätzlich ermöglicht es Open Simulator jedem, den eigenen server (selbst wenn man hierzu nur den eigenen Heim-PC verwendet) mit einem bestehenden Grid zu verbinden, und somit kann jeder seine eigenen Regionen zu sehr geringen Kosten von zuhause aus betreiben, während in Second Life alles was man tut von Linden Labs gesteuert und festgehalten wird, und es fast keine (genehmigte) Möglichkeit gibt, die eigenen Werke zu speichern. (Das ist es, was überhaupt erst zu meinem Ban führte.)¹

Es gibt also mehrere Dinge, die man im Hinterkopf behalten sollte, wenn ein Second Life Bewohner nach OSGrid, oder einem anderen OpenSim Grid wechselt.² Viele davon wurden bereits von Zonja Capalini in ihrem Artikel “The Openspace fiasco: six months later” besprochen.

Zunächst: Ihr Inventar wird weg sein. Technisch ist es nicht möglich, Gegenstände von Ihrem Second Life Konto zu exportieren, außer den Dingen, die Sie selbst erstellt haben. Mehrere alternative Viewer bieten eine Exportfunktion für Werke, mit unterschiedlichen Graden dessen, was exportiert werden kann. Die meisten davon exportieren nur Gegenstände, deren einziger Schöpfer Sie selbst sind, und mehrere ‘copybot’ Viewer machen den Export von vielen anderen Dingen ebenfalls möglich. Diskussionen zur Legalität des Exports virtueller Güter sind häufig im OSGrid und ich habe darauf keine richtige Antwort. Persönlich habe ich für mich entschieden, dass es am sichersten ist, auf meine eigenen Kreationen zu vertrauen und ich versuche daher alles, was ich brauche, selbst herzustellen, was soweit ganz gut funktioniert.

Dies bringt uns zum nächsten Punkt: Sicherheit. Dinge im OSGrid (oder anderen Open Simulator Welten) zu erstellen ist nicht so ‘sicher’, was die Beschränkungen angeht, wie es in Second Life ist. Grundsätuzlich kann jeder, der eine OpenSim region betreibt, alle Beschränkungen jedes dort befindlichen Gegenstandes aufheben. Das ist jedoch einfach das gleiche Problem, welchem kreative Menschen auf dem ganzen Planeten gegenüberstehen, seit ihre Schöpfungen ‘digitalisiert’ werden können (und wenn diese Schöpfungen sowieso nur digital existieren, ist es ein Problem, dem man sich stellen muss); und ein restriktives System ist keine Lösung. Man muss wahrscheinlich eher die Tatsache akzeptieren, dass es unehrliche Leute gibt, die Ihre Werke kopieren werden, egal was ist. Und diese Leute sind keine Kunden, und werden auch nie welche werden. Sie werden Ihre Werke nicht monetär schätzen, aber eine Kopie ist noch immer das ehrlichste Kompliment.³ Und es gibt RL Gesetze um Urheberrechtsverletzungen zu begegnen. Es mag schwer verständlich sein, aber die “Sicherheit” in Second Life ist nicht einmal viel sicherer als gar keinen Kopierschutz zu haben. Man vertraut sein Inventar, sein Guthaben, seinen Serverplatz (Land) einem einzigen Unternehmen an, und dieses Unternehmen kann einen jederzeit verbannen, aus irgendeinem Grund, ohne eine Entschädigung.⁴

Schließlich ist die Community noch sehr klein im Vergleich zur großen Userbasis in Second Life, und die Software ist noch in Entwicklung und experimentell. Es liegt bei jedem selbst zu entscheiden, ob dies eine Herausforderung, oder ein Hindernis ist. Für mich ist es eine aufregenden Chance, die Grenzen der Virtuellen Welten zu erforschen und neue Wege zu schlagen.

(english version)

1. Ein Artikel auf rezzable vergleicht die Merkmale von OpenSim mit Second Life.
2. Ich verwende OSGrid als Beispiel eines Open Simulator betriebenen Grids. Mir ist klar, dass er bei weitem nicht der einzige ist. Jedoch ist er der größte und ‘offenste’ (was Beschränkungen und Regeln angeht) den ich kenne.
3. Um eine unbekannte asiatische Quelle zu zitieren.
4. Es ist verführerisch zu glauben, dass jemand mit so viel Macht und Verantwortung vorsichtig damit umgeht, ich musste allerdings eine andere Erfahrung machen.

Yesterday, Winch Gate Property Limited released their MMORPG Ryzom as open source, and they really mean it. In contrast to SL, all the code is released under AGPL 3.0, whereas the textures and 3d models are released under CC-BY-SA 3.0, making this, according to the Free Software Foundation, “probably the single-biggest contribution to free software games yet”. Especially the textures might be of interest for SL creators, as they can be easily used in SL builds and / or with a bit of tweaking in clothes and skins.

Also, today, the good people at Imprudence released the 3rd beta of Imprudence 1.3.0, their best release yet, introducing viewer side AO, advanced build options, IM autoresponse and, as one of the very few viewers, optimized Opensim support, allowing for some Opensim features (100 groups and megaprims, to name a few), which, in addition to the already existing features makes this the best viewer for both worlds.

But Emerald ruined my day. To be fair, it’s not the whole Emerald team, but the ‘Onyx’ Project which several of their developers are working on and which is housed under a common ‘roof’ (the Emerald website) and thus I can’t see any clear distinction between the two. Obviously, they (the Onyx people) make use of bots, scanning all avatars for ‘stolen’ content by inspecting avatar attachments, checking them on a centralized database and, when having found a ‘stolen’ attachment – i.e. an attachment that matches one created by someone else, but listed with the owner as the creator – will send a report to the original creator.

No, I don’t want that. I don’t want to be randomly scanned for ‘stolen’ content. Not only, because copyright laws vary from country to country, not only because ‘stolen’ doesn’t have to be stolen, not only because this puts every single user under the suspicion of being a potential ‘thief’, not only because it is also not clear under whose authority these bots do these scans in the first place (I certainly don’t log into SL to get scanned), but also because the road here is all too clear.

Take two developers of copybot/griefer clients – Fractured Crystal (alias Jcool410 Wildcat), who developed vLife, and Phox ModularSystems (a.k.a. Lonely Bluebird, alias PattehPh0x) developer of PhoxSL, both are listed in the viewer reference on the Onyx page itself. Combine them with Skills Hak (alias Skills Hax), who develops the Gemini Cybernetics CDS system, which allegedly can detect copybot users and automatically ban them, making this a hot asset for paranoid virtual store owners to have. Now add to this that all of the three people have been banned on previous accounts from SL, due to copyright infringement, and you’ve got the most bigoted and untrustworthy group of third party developers in SL. And these people run a surveillance program on everyone? Why?

All that got me thinking, even prior to reading Massively, Nicholaz’ post or Prok’s usual rant. I am living in a country that states in its own constitution that “ownership commits. Its use should at the same time serve the common good.”¹ Also, our copyright law allows explicitly for copies of any work for private, non-commercial use. And I think what upset me is that all these rights are being counterfeited by ‘terms of service’ that got pressed upon the users without any prior communications or discussion.

Therefor, I had, somewhat in a haste and without taking time to voice my concerns properly, written an email to Mitch Kapor, both one of the presidents of Linden Labs and co-founder of the Electronics Frontier Foundation (whose member I am). The email is quoted here in its entirety.

Dear Mr. Kapor,

I write as a resident of Second Life, which I have been for more than 3 years now. During that time, and especially during the last few months I have witnessed several changes which have been conflicting with my beliefs in digital rights, and as I understand you’re both a director of Linden Labs, and a co-founder of the ECC, I’d like to hear your opinion on them, if possible.

From its onset, Second Life had several technical restrictions in place that made it difficult to share content in-world, and served as strong copyright tools for creators. Also, it lacked the ability to backup anything that was stored under each Second Life account. Now it is my personal impression, that this stance has become worse with time.

It seems to me that Linden Labs has been, and is increasingly catering to inworld businesses, whose interests are – just as any other person or organization profiting from selling copyrighted material – to restrict the use and distribution of that material as much as they can. For example, it is not possible to have several accounts in Second Life and share assets between them, as these are either non-transferable, or non-copyable. Or, it is not possible to make a backup or export of creations released under a Creative Commons license, such as the famous art exhibit ‘The Far Away’ by resident AM Radio.

While this issue has been around for long and was certainly discussed more thoroughly before, I am worried that with the recently updated Terms Of Service, things might go even further into the direction of a strictly copyright controlled environment. The way I understand the updated TOS, all we ‘own’ in Second Life are licenses. Either licenses granted to exchange services in return for others (like the inworld ‘currency’) or licenses to use certain content created by others, or even ourselves. We, the residents, no longer ‘own’ the world, and maybe we never did. But then, Linden Labs has been misleading us in the past by claiming that the world was not only created, but also ‘owned’ by us.

And while this direction does not only contradict Linden Labs original claims, it must certainly contradict what the EFF stands for. The way Second Life is managed now, it
1. only caters to the interests of copyright holders, not users
2. strips residents of any ownership rights, replacing them with ‘licenses’ which are revocable at any time
3. prohibits them from backing up any of the content they have acquired legally, or even made themselves.

Dear Mr. Kapor, I highly respect your work and dedication to digital rights, and therefor would be most happy if you could give the matter some consideration and maybe tell me about your take on this situation.

With kind regards,
V

I believe this, most of all, sums my personal frustration with Linden Labs and the Second Life TOS up: They are way too restrictive in regards to a fair use of copyrighted material, and cater way too much to the constant demands of ‘creators’, especially those who thrive on in-world businesses. The technical restrictions of Second Life do never allow you to make legal copies of works for yourself, unless you are the creator of these works. This especially conflicts with works that the creators themselves have set free. Many of my own creations are published under Creative Commons, and I am not the only one; the popular exhibition ‘the far away’ by AM Radio, for example, is published under Creative Commons, too. Consequently, this means that the work itself, including all parts of it, may be copied by anyone and used, at least privately, for anything. I personally distribute a notecard along with my creations, stating the allowance of these uses explicitly. Still, the copying, and more importantly, the saving and exporting of someone elses work requires the use of a copybot client, which can very well result in a ban from the Second Life service.

Now, we’ve got a Snapshot and Machinima Policy, which was hailed by the EFF, but all in all unneccessary from my (but not only my) very personal point of view, as it regulates things that fall under a fair use doctrine anyway. It would be ridiculous to ask each and every creator of anything visible on a snapshot for their permission, just as ridiculous as it would be to ask every creator of everything appearing on a photograph in RL (starting with clothes, hair dresses, buildings, furniture, you name it).

I repeat: I believe, in adherence to the constitution of this country I am living in, that ownership commits. It is not only a right, but also a duty to further the common good along with it. So far, there’s been a lot of talk about rights. I wonder when we will start talking about our duties.

1. Translation by myself.

And while the very core of it, which looked incredibly promising in their Flickr stream, was down, I wandered the perimeters of it, taking some of the wonderful builds I could find and copy with me, and eventually stumble upon their botanic garden. To be honest, I can’t write any long-winded wordful praises. But I have been in SL for more than two and a half years. I have travelled it. Travelled it a lot, in fact. And I have nowhere seen anything just remotely like this. It is so much like I had wanted my own place in SL to be like. And I’m happy it exists.

This post will start a new category ‘the missing image’, displaying great places in virtual worlds to visit. I couldn’t help it. I had to write about it.

I need to rephrase some things I said earlier. Not because they’re not true anymore, just because I had come to realize, that even though they’re true, they aren’t important to me.

Yesterday was the opening party of my OSGrid region Ever 01. I made a set of outfits (male/female) as a gift for that very event, and those were actually my very first attempt at making clothing at all. And just to see people wearing them, enjoying them, having a good time with the music I played, enjoying the place I created and saying thanks was more of a gratification than money could ever give. Yes, it’s that simple, and I probably should’ve known it all along, given the comments on the “gift to the public” article.

So, I am not in it to make business. I’m not in it to make any money at all. And so, what’s the point in trying then? What I want, what I really want, is to see people enjoy something I have made. That doesn’t make me a freebie advocate; anyone wanting to make business with their creations is very welcome to do so. However, I also have to object Rock Vacirca’s points on leaving OpenSim. As true as all his points are, they aren’t as relevant as they sound. Graphics, engine and tools are one thing, but they aren’t guaranteed to draw people to the latest fashion all the time. And also, while I agree that economy is important, it’s not the only point by far which will bring people to make good things.

In fact, what best summarizes my opinion is the brilliant article “Better Than Free” (which I paradoxically found after I came to these conclusions myself. Thank you, fate, but at times you need to speed up a bit.) At its core, there’s still the conclusion I drew a while ago: Creators want the public to enjoy what they’re doing, and the public wants the creators to make things for them to enjoy. We are actually all on the same level, and I believe that people are a lot nicer and less criminal than they are treated like with drm-tools and permission restrictions in place.

In fact, I don’t think the lack of DRM keeps people from making business, nor does its presence and enforcement help people making businesses. (“Better Than Free” does not bother about DRM at all and just assumes that all digital creations are distributed for free and can – and will – be copied as much as people would like to.) I rather believe that when we pay for something, we (mostly) do not pay for the actual item, but for intangible things, such as (like stated in the article) authenticity, patronage and immediability. I believe a lot of people really think about the person behind the creation and want to give that person a token of appreciation.

So to make this short: I don’t need to, and I don’t want to make a business. I want to create, and let people enjoy what I create. I’m very happy if someone credits me for that, or says thank you nicely. But I don’t want to feel like I’m doing a business and need to treat people as customers, trying to get them to make a purchase. I would like to treat people like friends, and would like them to feel easy and care free with having my creations.

And thus, I set them free.

I am a Second Life expatriot. From what I have seen and heard so far, most people active on the OSGrid have been previous Second Life Users (I joined SL in March 2007) and became fed up with one of their policies or their approach on virtual reality, be it the most recent changes that were made during last years final quarter, the pricing changes on the turn of 2008/2009, any other policy or term of service or simply because they got banned from Second Life for one reason or another. In my case, it was all of the above.

Now most people might think, the OSGrid, or any other open-simulator-driven Grid is just an open source and cheaper version of Second Life, and on the surface, it’s hard to see any difference between the two. The worlds look the same, the rendering is the same, you (can) use the same viewers and operate your avatar the same way, use the same creation tools and many other features work just like you were used to from Second Life.

However, beneath the surface, the two are very hard to compare. I’m not talking about code here – even though it seems that’s completely different, too – but about a completely different approach at virtual reality. Both Second Life and OpenSim have their own merits, and also their own limitations. A comparison, which got me into the OSGrid in the first place, was Marcus Llewellyn’s post ‘What is a Grid?‘. Basically, open simulator enables anyone to connect their own servers (even if they use their home PC for that) to connect to an existing grid and thus, anyone can run their own regions at home, at a very low cost, whereas on Second Life, everything you do is being managed and held on Linden Lab’s servers and there is almost no (approved) method of backing up your own creations. (This is the point that got me banned in the first place.)¹

So there are several things to keep in mind for a Second Life resident moving to OSGrid, or any other OpenSim-grid.² Many of these were already covered by Zonja Capalini in her blogpost “The Openspace fiasco: six months later“.

First is: Your inventory will be gone. Technically, you’re not able to export any assets from your second life account, except things you made yourself, using second inventory. Several alternative viewers offer an export function for creations, with varying degrees of what can be exported. Most of them only export assets of which you are the sole creator, Emerald exports, as of the time if this writing, objects you have full permissions on (copy / mod / transfer), and several ‘copybot’ clients make it possible for you to export many more things. Discussions about the legality of exporting virtual assets are common on the OSGrid, and I don’t have a real answer to that. For myself, I have decided that it’s safest to rely on my own creations, and am trying to make everything I need for myself, which is going good so far.

Which brings us to the second topic: Safety. Creating things on OSGrid (or other open simulator driven worlds) isn’t as ‘safe’ on the permission system, as it is on Second Life. Basically, anyone running an opensimulator region, can gain full permission on any object rezzed there. This is, however, just the same problem creative people have faced all over the planet ever since their creations became ‘digitalized’ (and of course, when your creations are digital in the first place, it’s the thing you have to deal with) and a restrictive system is not a solution. You’d rather have to accept the fact that there are dishonest people who will copy your creations, no matter what. And that these people are not, and never will be, customers. They won’t appreciate your creations the in a monetary way, but a copy is still the most honest kind of compliment.³ And there are RL laws to deal with copyright infringement. It may be hard to understand, but the ‘safety’ of Second Life is not even much safer than having no copy protection in place. You trust your inventory, your funds, and your server space (land) to one and the same single company, and that one company can ban you any time, for any reason it wants to, without any refunds whatsoever.⁴

Finally, the community is still very small in comparison to the vast user base of Second Life, and the software is still worked on and experimental. It is up to anyone to decide if this is a challenge, or a handicap. For me, it is an exciting chance to take part in exploring the frontiers of virtual worlds, as well as paving new ways.

(Deutsche Version)

1. A rezzable article compares the features of OpenSim with SL.
2. I’m using OSGrid as an example of an open simulator driven grid here. I am aware that it’s not the only one by far. However, it is as of yet the largest and most ‘open’ (in terms of restrictions and/or policies) that I have heard of.
3. To quote an unknown asian source.
4. It is compelling to believe that someone with that much power and responsibility would act carefully, however I had to learn otherwise.

I had gone through the OSGrid forums on the topics that were of interest to me. Luckily, OSGrid is still a small and early project, and so it IS possible to get an overview of all existing topics and the main opinions and characters. I like being able to do that, because I enjoy to have a view of the full picture of what is happening with something I dedicated myself to.

As OSGrids was ‘bleeding edge’, ‘early alpha’ and a ‘testgrid’ for Open Simulator (all statements I had read repeatedly) it is of no surprise that most people active at it are developers, programmers and it-pros of some sort. I, on the other hand, consider myself a ‘content creator’ (to use a Lindenspeak term), and what I’m wrestling with is not code (except if it’s a door script or such), but rather prims, permissions and prices.

There are three questions I could pin my thoughts down to:

1. What is it we’re creating?
2. Who owns it and what can they do with it?
3. How valuable is it?

There is a great fear among creators of content that their creations get ‘stolen’, i.e. stripped of permission settings and copied and distributed around for free, or even sold by someone else. In order to prevent this, LL is getting more and more rigorous in battling content theft. There seems to be the basic understanding that content, which isn’t ‘controlled’ will damage the economy harshly. For this reason, SL is, and will most probably remain, a ‘walled garden’, where content and assets are forever linked to the one SL account which acquired them (unless they are transferable). This system was no problem as long as SL was the only SL-based grid around. It no longer is, though.

What we are creating is data, mostly in form of textures and linksets. Data can get transferred and copied infinitely through a computer network, and once it’s standardized, be transferred to other computer networks. Music industry is fighting (and losing) the same war since music became recorded, and especially since it began to be transformed into data distributable through computers. As of yet, no system of protection has been invented which would prevent copying data. Most probably, because people do not want it to be secured.

So who owns our creations? This is a legal question, as well as a philosophical one. Legally, the point is (supposedly) clear: The creator owns it. Copyright simply can’t be transferred. The creation itself can be transferred (for example when an oil painting gets sold), but the copyright remains with the person who created it. So what are we selling, when we are selling copies of our creations? We are selling a ‘right’ to use them in a certain way. In the case of Second Life creations, this right – if it isn’t stated in an attached notecard – is usually made clear by the permissions system: copy, modify, trans. It is clear, what these terms mean technically – what you can do with them inside the SL environment. It is, however, unclear what they mean legally. Does copy mean, you can make as many copies of the same creation for yourself as you want? Then you should be able to use the creation for alternate avatars of yourself, and on other grids, as well. Or does it mean, you may only make copies for the one avatar you got it for?

The matter gets really complicated once someone takes the creation of someone else and modifies it, because depending on how fundamental the modification is, it is no longer possible to tell who is the ‘creator’ of the final product. Let’s say, someone made a long sleeve white shirt. Someone else took the texture of the white shirt and altered it – in cases dramatically – to a short sleeve hawaii shirt. We all use tools to make our creations. We use computer programs, we use textures, we use templates, we use brushes, and scripts, and other resources to produce what we make. Some or all of these elements were made by others – do they have a right in our creation as well?

From a philosophical point of view, creations aren’t always viewed as something that can be ‘owned’ at all, as the artists who create them are seen as tools of some higher power which speaks through them. Therefor, artwork is usually attributed to higher powers, and cannot be owned by a single human. It is a gift for all, and the artist is the messenger of the gift.

So, depending on what view we lean towards, is it possible, and is it neccessary, to make a business about creations? To many, this is an either yes or no question. Either they view themselves as the rightful owners of their creations, and therefor as the only ones who are in charge of their distribution and usage, the answer is a clear yes. If, however, creations are being viewn as a benefit to the public, and not ownable by single humans, the answer would be no. Both of these views seem unfair, though, because both public and creator do have certain interests in the creation.

The public is right to claim that a creation needs to benefit all, and needs to be distributable freely, yet it is only fair to give the creator some compensation for the work he put into bringing the thing he made to life. These interests aren’t even conflicting at all. The public wants the creators to be motivated in making some more creations, and the creators want the public to be interested in their creations. All that is neccessary is to find a common ground on which both can comfortably meet. This common ground isn’t installed by permission systems, digital rights management or any other technical installation, nor is it made by legal means. It is a free agreement between the creators, and the public who wants to use the creations. And it is neccessary for us to find that common ground.

In order to do so, however, creators need to step back from viewing the public as mere ‘customers’ ready to ‘steal’ their creations at any given opportunity, and the public needs to realize that it’s in their own interest to give the creators some sort of compensation for what they do. This is a large scale problem, and none that can be solved in as small an environment as OSGrid. However, as the permission system in OSGrid doesn’t work reliably to protect creations from getting ‘stolen’, creators are forced to overthink their strategies and business models. Therefor, I am selling my creations with as many permissions as I’m comfortable giving out. Basically, all of them are copy / mod / no transfer, because I want people to use them for themselves as much and in any way they want, but don’t want them to distribute them to others, for free or for sale. This is my fast and easy way to make this policy clear. I might include a larger statement of what I like my creations to be along with them, to clear these questions of content theft / legal distribution for my customers, at least. But I also ask for a small fee as compensation for the work I put into making these things. I think this is indeed a fair trade.