Intergrid permissions, with Xan Linden

by Tateru Nino Jun 28th 2008 at 1:00AM

Filed under: News items, Second Life, Virtual worlds

Xan Linden will be standing in for Zero Linden at the usual Second Life office hours in Grasmere at 1PM SLT (US Pacific time) on Tuesday, 1 July (though we'd expect a potential change of venue, as this one is likely to be packed). The topic for the session will be issues pertaining to intergrid permissions.

The debate about intergrid permissions has been a hot topic since 2005, when Linden Lab announced it would be opening up server and viewer code. If you've been awake for any of that, you'll probably be aware that content permissions are only preserved with the active cooperation of the receiver. Retrofitting interoperable content systems into an existing non-interoperable grid opens up a whole slew of issues that just haven't been dealt with previously.

The rights of content creators fuels the Second Life economy, so this is no small item, nor will it everything be solved in a single session. Indeed, the Architecture Working Group has been debating the topic pretty much since their inception. If you're going to show, be early (and check the forum thread for any venue or time changes).

Tags: grasmere, second-life, virtual-worlds, xan-linden, zero-linden

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Jay said on 1:39AM 6-28-2008

I will ask the same question of the content creators I always do... Do you copy music from your CDs to your iPod?

If the answer is yes then your customers have the right to move their purchases to other grids, be that with copybot as I am doing or the proper way... through AWG sanctioned methods.

These calls for "SL Grid Only" permissions are madness.

Jacek Antonelli said on 2:21AM 6-28-2008

"These calls for "SL Grid Only" permissions are madness."

You put it so diplomatically! If only we could shout _even louder_ about how insane all the content creators are, I'm sure we could sway them to the One True Path and redeem their souls.

Oops, I left my sarcasm hat on.

Seriously. Both sides have legitimate concerns. Neither position is madness, or stupid, or evil. So let's stop polarizing the issue and fanning the flames, alright?

Damien said on 2:12AM 6-28-2008

I'm not worried about people taking avatars and other content to different grids, more worried about full permissions being granted when doing so.

Tateru Nino said on 6:28AM 6-28-2008

That is certainly one of the major concerns.

Prokofy Neva said on 5:42AM 6-28-2008

Tateru, you've cut and pasted Saijani Kuhn's press release (he's the head of AWG). There are several misrepresentations here:

1. "They've been debating this since 2005".

No. Nothing of the sort. If you believe that, please provide office hour or meeting transcripts. They only just began "debating," and only under pressure -- and for AWG it's not much of a debate, as they are overwhelming copyleftists who don't care about IP. If they discussed anything, it was, "Why can't I just copy my inventory off line so I can work on it.". The annoyance with, and even hatred of, content creators who might like to have a say in how their content is then able to be freely distributed -- and resold -- all over the Metaverse -- was barely a factor.

Only when a few moderates in SLDev began to mildly counter extremists, and after Zha Ewry teleported from SL to Open sim and I began to jump up and down and scream, as did others, that this began to be "debated" -- but in fact it's merely something that Zero Linden himself can only express irritation about.

2. The Lindens need to make a group that is as prestigious and resources as the open architecture group with Zero Linden, and meet with business people and designers and scripters who don't merely want to give everything away and live in a sandbox, and figure out the business requirements for SL. If they want to have people go on paying for land in their business model, they have to come clean on how they expect to protect intellectualy property and the overall integrity and viability of the economy.

3. I think ample evidence of my take on this is seen in the design documents themselves, which never had any contemplation about how permissions would be dealt with -- period. It is only now being tacked on. Something that is at the heart of SL -- and simply forgotten because it's not a priority.

4. The *default* needs to be "SL grid only* and only after that, through permission checkoffs on the user interface backed by TOS, to other grids. No, not all content makers wish to "free their content" just because a few copyleftists do and are loudly declaring that this is the norm. It's not. People get furious even when their freebies are resold, and they will get even more furious when they are resold all over the Metaverse where they can't even count on social condemnation and community reporting to control the use of their content in ways they didn't intend.

5. Truth in advertising here: open simulator and other open sim projects *have no inworld economy*. They *have no internal world system of permissions for content such as SL does with copy/mod/transfer -- none*. And that's by design. That doesn't mean that "modules" or whatever can be tacked on later by devs. But the default, as with the Lindens, is "hippie commune".

In that context, it's sheer folly to imply that if you have a "back-up copy" for use on other grids that any sort of IP will be respected.

Just because there's some "AWG sanctioned protocol" for this "private use" doesn't mean squate, as the *creators themselves* were not involved in these design decisions.

and that's what keeps happening -- under the guise of "technical issues," political, social, and economic features of the world are being decided. You are supposed to show up at these insanely inappropriate Linden office hours and battle various extremist copylefist freaks and arrogant coders for the right to retain your IP in this context.

No one should go to this meeting if they care about IP -- they should demand that the Lindens have a separate meeting in which people have a change to collaborate to frame their issues and get Linden responses without this constant harassment from copyleftists.

Chez Nabob said on 10:20AM 6-28-2008

What Prokofy said.

Jacek Antonelli said on 3:12PM 6-28-2008

It's so cute the way you put words into other peoples' mouths, and then try to refute them as if they had actually said any of it. It reminds me of a little boy at the beach, making a little tower of sand and then pummelling it back into the ground to show how strong he is. Absolutely adorable! ^_^

Prokofy Neva said on 3:26PM 6-28-2008

Perhaps you could cite an example of your claim, Jacek, but your views on this subject are well known, and you take the side of the AWG evidently. I just read the JIRA and go to the office hours occasionally and read the blogs. I don't have to make it up; it's all there in living colour.

Jacek Antonelli said on 5:35PM 6-28-2008

@8 The Honorable Mr. Neva: "Perhaps you could cite an example of your claim, Jacek, but your views on this subject are well known, and you take the side of the AWG evidently."

I'd be happy to! Just let me grab my fallacy-popping pin... okay, ready!

1. "Tateru, you've cut and pasted Saijani Kuhn's press release" -- Bzzt! No, she didn't. Maybe if you had actually read Tateru's post, you'd realize it's quite different from Saijaini's announcement.

2. "(he's the head of AWG)" -- Bzzt! No, he isn't. He is _an active participant_ in AWG, but he's not the head. Would you like me to explain the difference?

3. "There are several misrepresentations here" -- Bzzt! None of the points you "refute" were brought by Tateru's post, you're just arguing against the wall. Although, to be fair, I think you simply forgot what you were numbering things for, since after point #1 you just started to ramble about your views on the topic, instead of listing the alleged "misrepresentations". That's undestandable: you have so much to say, and so little time to check facts or even attempt to maintain a coherent thought.

4. "1. "They've been debating this since 2005". " -- Bzzt! That's not what she said. She said it has been a "hot topic" since 2005, i.e. it has inspired heated debate when brought up. Cleverly deceptive misquotation, though!

Oh dear, I've only gotten 3 sentences into your adorable rambling, and I've already come across 4 examples where you misquoted, distorted, or flat out lied about something. Need I go on?

Alright, if you insist. Here's one more, from your latest comment:

5. "your views on this subject are well known, and you take the side of the AWG evidently." -- Bzzt! Wrong again, old chum. My views on this subject are _not_ well known, for the simple reason that I have not expressed them publicly. And, for what it's worth, I take neither "side". Once sentence, two falsities! A noble attempt, but not quite up to your usual standards. I would have given you bonus points for the attempted ad hominem attack -- if only you hadn't missed so badly.

Here's a tarnished gold star for your efforts, though. Keep up the good work, tiger! We're all counting on you to erode our intellectual debates with your fallacious, venomous sludge. :-)

XOXO,
Jacek

P.S. Thanks for the spar, even if it was a bit one-sided. See you around, hot shot! Mwah! ;-*

Prokofy Neva said on 5:49PM 6-28-2008

>No, she didn't. Maybe if you had actually read Tateru's post, you'd realize it's quite different from Saijaini's announcement.

I did. And it was nearly verbatim from Saijanai's forums and JIRA statements, follow the links, and see for yourself.

2. "(he's the head of AWG)" -- Bzzt! No, he isn't. He is _an active participant_ in AWG, but he's not the head. Would you like me to explain the difference?

For all practical purposes, he is the front man, the leader at meetings, the go-getter, and is essentially the main guy there because Zha is either a) busy in RL or more important SL IBM things or b) cunning enough not to get involved with "thecommunity" so that he can just do what he wants to anyway

Should I explain the difference?

3. That's undestandable: you have so much to say, and so little time to check facts or even attempt to maintain a coherent thought.

Perhaps Tateru, or you, could show me links where the script-kiddies "debated this since 2005". I mean, one hilarious thing is that AWG wasn't even formed until 2007, so pretty hard for them to debate ROFL. And if you read the transcripts on the wiki or blogs, you will not find any "debate". There are only very rarely some moderates who step up against the virulent copyleftism coming in from the Lindens or the coders and kibbutzers on SL-DEV.

Please paste to me a passage from ANYWHERE that shows this was being debated before the last few weeks, and *from these people's office meetings* anything that shows they really care about this. I gave this a THOROUGH exegesis on my blog here, for example, and you can see every word they say is "Let's not really this, oh, we could, maybe, but oh, let's not and say we did."

BZZT here it is!
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2008/06/how-they-sign-y.html

Prokofy Neva said on 5:52PM 6-28-2008

Saijanai is the front man in AWGroupies, sorry -- but they are virtuall indistinguishable. Your point is that Saijanai is NOT the head of it because Zha is ostensibly the founder and head (he, who has a title now that says, in chan-speak, "Can I haz open Simz?" Ugh.)

But...I just explained how that works. And AWG, the Lindens' group, is headed by Zero, but again, it's really Zha running it lol.

You need to get your FIC 2.5 straight dude.