User
5
Apr
I’m unnerved. I can’t even explain why. All I know is that it’s related to the changes made to the Terms Of Service (and the third party policy along with it). However, it seems I am not the only one. As Tateru Nino wrote in yesterday’s Virtual Whirl: “… the new Second Life TOS has to be the single most demoralizing block of text that has crossed my desk in my life.” Even she is unable to articulate what exactly would be demoralizing about it. Same goes for Nicholaz Beresford, who was upset enough to leave SL altogether, even though he couldn’t point a finger at what exactly upset him.
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.
- Translation by myself. [↩]
Is Second Life an alternative to There
As I wrote earlier, There.com will close on March 9th. I also wrote that many of their users might probably go to Second Life afterwards, as their approach at virtual reality is similar. But is Second Life really an alternative for There?
I have been at this point several times in the past, only approaching it from the opposite direction, and asked myself for alternatives to Second Life. It is the purpose of this article to compare my view on other virtual worlds than There and Second Life, and perhaps serve as a guidance for refugees from both worlds.
I am limiting my comparison to the ‘Second Life’ model of virtual worlds. This model shares the following traits:
- There is no overall ‘theme’ or ‘goal’ to the virtual world, and it is not a ‘game’, but rather can serve as a platform for such.
- The virtual world does (or can) have an in-world economic model
- The virtual world enables its users to create content themselves
Thus, I did not include many of the most popular MMORPG’s like World of Warcraft, EVE Online, or even Entropia Universe (which is sometimes traded as the hottest alternative to Second Life, but which has been left out here because of the gaming aspect and the fact that there is no way to step out of the ‘theme’).
Another point to note is that most virtual worlds do not display their user statistics, so there is no telling how easily and how many people can be met when signing up to that world, unless you become an active part in it. I did not try all these worlds myself, but merely collect them here as a reference and comparison guideline.
Active Worlds is unique (or near-unique) as it allows access not only through a client software, but also through a browser plugin. Personally, I believe this is overrated, even though there seems to be a consensus that ‘people don’t want separate clients for different aspects of the internet’ and prefer to have everything inside their browsers. This view leaves aside the fact that web browsers aren’t eternal themselves, and are subject to change as the technology changes. (Who knows, maybe Viewers will be the next browsers?)
Other than the browser plugin feature, Active Worlds looks really ugly from the outside, and the avatars aren’t nowhere near as good as in Second Life (even though they are a far cry from the avatars in There). Also, their community guidelines prohibit “material containing nudity, pornography, or sexual material of a lewd, lecherous or obscene nature and intent”, which is a showstopper to me, as these contents are all part of the human life (and a most enjoyable part actually) and something I enjoy virtually as well. So all in all, it’s not a place I’d like to be.
On the other hand, the chinese online world HiPiHi seems to come closest to Second Life in terms of graphics and content creation. Actually, it is so similar that it’s hard not to think of a Second Life Copycat, even though HiPiHi creator Hui Xu states otherwise that “it is absolutely a misunderstanding of the virtual world if people think HiPiHi is a copycat of SecondLife”. Due to the nature of HiPiHi, most of its users are chinese, so the real issue with it will probably be language barriers. And then, why switch to a virtual world that is just like SL anyway?
IMVU is another virtual world whose user base seems to be quite large (the website talks about ‘millions of users’ and shows around 100.000 users ‘online right now’). Their avatars, again, look worse than Second Life (and childish, in a way). Actually, ALL competitors seem to share this common drawback, even though SL avatars are believed to be ugly already (probably in comparison to MMORPGs which feature expertly created avatars and great graphics, but nowhere near the creative options of virtual worlds).
Kaneva is another world with ugly avatars and terrible graphics, and even the website doesn’t feature much (or ANYTHING at all) about why I would want to join it in the first place. Actually, it is getting tedious of seeing this trait over and over, as virtual worlds all offer the same ‘meet friends, chat, create, have fun’ scheme without offering something unique that would give people reason about why to join THIS world in the first place.
Maybe it’s just me, but the avatars of Onverse look so freakish to me that I actually am afraid to join it. They are probably meant to be comical, but for some reason give me the creeps. Also, this ‘funny’ approach prevents users from creating a really beautiful virtual persona, which is a huge incentive that shouldn’t be overlooked. Other than that, more of the same.
Then, of course, there is Blue Mars, which, from its onset, offers much better graphics, more professional building tools, allegedly better performance and (by now, at least) cheaper prices than Second Life. A massive drawback right now might be the small user base, and the demanding system requirements.
And finally, there’s the Red Light Center, which is an exception in this list as there doesn’t seem to be a way to create content yourself. I just included it here as a curiousity, because it is exclusively aimed at the ‘adult’ side of virtual worlds and gives its residents plenty of opportunities to dance and have intimate encounters. The point here is again: Why settle for ‘just this’ when you can have the same things at the same graphics quality in Second Life as well, and so much more?
While there are some promising alternatives (Blue Mars, HiPiHi), Second Life remains the standard in today’s virtual worlds, and will provide its users with the largest possible creative freedom and customization as well as sporting a gigantic user base. However, SL has its drawbacks, too. As There.com shows, virtual worlds are dependent on commercial success, without which they will cease existing. This is true for all of the above, and thus sets them at the same risk as There, which already backed Adam Frisby’s first prediction for 2010.
To sidestep this risk, there is the very narrow path of taking part in an open sourced project at creating standardized virtual world software, called Open Simulator. Is is a non-commercial project (and thus independent of commercial success) and aims at openness and intercompatibility. Currently, it is fully compatible with the Second Life viewer software, thus enabling anyone who is familiar with Second Life to access one of the many OpenSim Grids and enjoy the same graphics and features as SL itself (plus a few extra, such as megaregions and megaprims).
The biggest of these Grids is OSGrid, which is also the most ‘open’ as it enables anyone to connect their own servers to their grid, and test and play with the software in any way they like, without being restricted by terms of service. The one thing to keep in mind is, however, that the user base of OSGrid is very very small in comparison to Second Life (around 100 users online at all times in OSGrid, when over 60.000 are online in SL). Thus, OSGrid and OpenSim are certainly not for everyone, but rather a viable alternative for those who feel SL is too restrictive, expensive or not innovative enough to be exciting.
28
Jan
Why OSGrid?
Apple introduced the iPad yesterday. To be honest, I’m not too impressed with the device. But it shows one thing: The internet is pervasive. It creeps into every corner, into every home, into every part of our lives. Mobile devices are the new black, because they allow us to take the internet anywhere we go on our daily chores. It also shows another thing, that is less obvious, but also true: Our lives move into the internet. Things that were firmly rooted in the physical world, are moving to the digital. Music. Newspapers. Books. Imagine: How many more things could be digitalized? How many more things are actually better when digitalized? How many things can be done more efficiently, economically and ecologically sensible and human-friendly on the internet? Selling? Counselling? Teaching? Creative work? Management? Accounting? Production?
Why OSGrid?
Apple launched a new store along with the iPad, called iBooks. It’ll change the way we buy books just as iTunes changed the way we buy music. There’s no need to go to a music mall anymore. There isn’t even need for CDs. But is it the same? Physical shops have functions that go beyond the simple sale, even though the sale is the final ‘product’. Salespersons are advisors, counsellors, friends and co-fans, they are people that ‘understand’ you in that specific field you’re interested in. They should be. They’re pros. If you go to an electronics store, you might need advice, and you expect the staff to be competent at what they tell you. Shopping on the internet lacks this advice. That’s why there are so many sites dedicated to testing things, explaining things, giving advice. Many more than anyone could possibly comprehend. They’re often contradictive, and confusing to people not very well adept at the subject. Advice is based on trust. You trust the shop assistant because he’s an employee at the shop. It’s his job to be an expert. How do you know whom to trust on the internet?
Why OSGrid?
Second Life is about social interaction. That’s its base concept, which makes it so incredibly popular. Leave the content, but take away all modes of interaction with other avatars, it will become empty within the day. It didn’t do something other programs didn’t allow their users to do before. It just allowed them to share it. To do it together. That’s the single key to its success. What are people doing on Second Life? Just what the name implies: Live. Make a home. Go out. Talk. Shop. Explore. Play. Listen to music. Have a life. The same concepts that apply to their first lives, apply to their second ones as well. If anything, Second Life is cheaper, easier, and more free than first life. It is easy to get beautiful things for your avatar. It is cheap to access all the content. And it is so free to allow you to create things just as you imagine them.
Why OSGrid?
Combine. It is cheaper, easier, more free to live in the digital. The internet is pervasive. You could do a lot of things over it. Where does this lead to? Imagine walking into a virtual bookstore. It is staffed with professional book sellers. They are experts, they provide advice, you can chat with them about your favourite authors. And you can buy books. Imagine going to a virtual representation of your town hall. You can fill out forms there, get advice from the employees about them, have virtual appointments. Dream harder. Imagine the books will be delivered to your home. Imagine the books will be instantly available on your iPad. Imagine, the books will be instantly available in your virtual world software client, to read in-world, or take them offline anywhere. Dream harder. Imagine to upload a full body mesh of yourself as an avatar. Imagine going to a virtual clothing store and have clothes customized, designed and tailored to your measurements in any way you want. Not for your avatar. For you. Delivered within a week. Dream harder.
Why OSGrid?
The internet is based on open protocols. Anyone can know how it works. Anyone can connect to it in any way. Anyone can go anywhere. People will want to have control over their content. They will want to have control over where they can go to, what they can take with them, what they can do on their servers. People will want to have control over themselves. Virtual worlds are facing two great challenges: Infrastructure and assets. Infrastructure means the technology to provide a virtual environment, that can be accessed by anyone. The technology to have a 3d ‘homepage’. One that uses a standardized protocol, to be accessible by any browser. People will not want to have to use one client for this part of the web, and another client for another part. Creating different platforms for virtual worlds is like having to use Firefox to access Amazon and the Internet Explorer to access Youtube. Assets means that people will want to retain their identity throughout the virtual worlds they visit. They will want to keep their appearance, their inventories, their content, their wallets. Nobody will want to have to remake themselves from scratch every time they enter a different part of the web.
Who will offer this technology? Who will want to offer it? Who will be able to make all this code, all these protocols, all this technology open and free for anyone to use? No business venture can do that. It would mean instant death to their business model. No national agency will be able to do that. It would conflict with their own ambitions and goals. Only a free, open, and non-profit community will be able to do this. And they do.
Why OSGrid?
William Gibson said in ‘no maps for these territories‘: “We’re using technology to extend the human neural system (…) The internet is a kind of global prosthetic extension of human consciousness. It wasn’t consciously intended as one, but it amounts to one. (…) It’s become the place where we do everything, it’s become the place where we look for everything. We’re doing something new here; it resembles something that we’ve done before, but it’s different. I think it’s probably as big a deal as the creation of cities.” We are building cities. The population of a medium sized town is online in Second Life at any minute, people from all over the world, speaking all kinds of languages, with all kinds of knowledge and professions. We are building cities. People are meeting not by physical proximity, but by common interests. People who are able to choose their peers from all over the world, who are free to indulge in the things that really interest them without constraints. We are building cities. We are working on letting people get access to things they really want faster, cheaper, more efficient and more personal than anything ever before.
The new cities will be the cities of the mind. Their foundation will be open, and free. Dream harder.
17
Jan
I got this link to a youtube video today, and actually, it’s not worth making lots of words about it. It’s got about as much to do with the movie Avatar as it understands what virtual reality is about. What really fascinates me is that not only there are people in this day and age repeating the same old complaints about ‘degeneration’, ‘catering to lesser instincts’ (even complaining about the very same ‘entertainment’ catering our ‘base drives’ which brought the movie Avatar along in the first place), but that it is obviously assumed to be ‘better’ to cater to our ‘inner animal’ in Real Life than to live out these instincts in a safe virtual environment.
To put it simple: Yes, virtual worlds are addictive. Just as driving a car is addictive, or going out to meet people is addictive, or having fun playing music is addictive. To me, they are addictive in a good way, because they allow me to create things, to meet people from all over the world, to share thoughts and ideas, to learn new things and different points of view. They are as addictive, as life is addictive. If they cater to my base instincts, to my inner animal, then it’s because these instincts exist, and need to be looked after. We can’t simply rationalize them away, and I truly believe it is healthy to be aware of our animal side, and it’s safer to let this side roam free in a virtual world, than to keep it caged until it breaks out in the real world.