Re: [mmox] mmox Digest, Vol 1, Issue 45

[Jesrad <[e-mail]>]

Just a few remarks:

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 7:47 AM, [e-mail]
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> At one point, some AWG members introduced a JIRA (feature proposal wiki) motion to have a check-off box on SL-made objects offering consent or non-consent for an object to travel to other grids. There was a heated discussion about this and the author withdrew the proposal, regrettably:
> http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/MISC-1272

I expect that interoperability/conversion of content from one grid to
the other will be limited by technical constraints so it won't apply
broadly and suddenly, but the point remains that some way to prevent
that conversion on behalf of the owner of it should exist. Though here
we disagree philosophically on exactly who this owner is and how,
that's something I can fully get behind. I certainly wouldn't like it
if my newest model of airship was disclosed with full-permissions and
copied over to a third-party sim simply because someone from the
OpenGrid TPed to my sim and had a look (that includes looking through
a sim border) while I was working on it.

> You're also suggesting that users who "care about interoperability" should "choose not to purchase that content" -- i.e. you're essentially demanding that creators share their content into grids that do not protect their IP, or face boycotts if they don't go along with this forced march. What's that all about?

I think this was more a statement of fact than one of ideological
position, really. The resident chooses what client software runs on
his/her machine and how, it cannot be trusted to respect
legal/contractual bounds by technique, and that's got nothing to do
with how the server software works - and the point here I think is
that the same applies to server operation with regards to
interoperability protocol. This is akin to international agreements
between sovereign states: neither side has the authority to reasonably
enforce them over the other. And merely stating that they should
ideally limit themselves to bounds they are eager to respect is not
the same as saying that all international agreements are to be
considered void from the get-go.

That said, yes, welcoming visitors from third-party grids and selling
them things, that should be and remain the resident's ultimate choice.
But that's an implementation detail for LL to build into their code,
so it's probably out of the scope of this discussion list.

> (Creative Commons follows much the same logic, making it possible to opt for a license to offer your creations to be copied for credit, but not opt for a license to copy for cash, and urging everyone to give away content for free, and not making a mechanism to get paid for content, i.e. integrating micropayments with content distribution as SL does).

I'm not sure what you mean here by "mechanism to get paid for
content". For months already I've been getting paid as an independant
content provider in SL for creating full-perm works. I have the exact
opposite claim to yours: my CC-like license cannot be enforced
correctly due to the permissions system in SL, and that's disrupting
my trade to a fortunately small extent, whenever someone buys stuff
from me then slaps restrictions on it that are illegitimate. To me the
permissions system is hampering the rights-model that I'm becoming
reliant on for earning a living (fortunately the model is robust
enough to severly limit this hampering), and I wish I could "opt-out"
my works from the permissions system to fix that.