Re: [mmox] mmox Digest, Vol 1, Issue 113

[Dan Olivares <[e-mail]>]

"Then maybe there's no reason for interoperability? It's ok to debate
whether there is isn't a case for operability on the way to discussing
the standards. I have yet to hear a cogent "mission statement" that
explains what the value-add is for interoperability, what the platform
providers gain collectively and individually from this theoretical,
arduous, likely costly, and likely non-productive exercise."
You are correct, and are more then welcome to debate the case for
interoperability.

"Um, I didn't argue "against" the centralized clearing-model. I
pointed out merely that it was a solution to IP theft which many would
find too controlling and rigid, especially after being autonomous
actors in a free economy in Second Life, and that it would not solve
the problems of c/m/t. Like firewalls, it's an internal company
solution but it doesn't grapple with the collective problem of
interoperability and IP, and the problem of how c/m/t is lost through
interoperability unless it is welded in to start with."

okay, I must have misunderstood you then when you said,

"I'm not complaining about the current permissions system, I'm
celebrating it as a good thing and urging that it be used as the
standard. It's not about privileging one company over another, as I
think the c/m/t regime is a pretty workable and remarkably successful
regime that works far better than other solutions that companies have
come up with (no UGC allowed, all UGC cleared through a central
committee, corporate firewalls on private grids, etc.)"

and

"In the There.com/Forterra context, customer content is cleared
through a centralized clearing house and must be approved by the
company before it can be uploaded; customers are in a subordinate
role. In Second Life, content-makers and scripters and animators
appear as equals to the platform provider when it comes to content
generation, and in fact have produced the lion's share of the world's
content, unlike other worlds where the platform providers make all the
content. Therefore this isn't just some "customer specifics" that has
to be routed through the company, as you prefer."


"Generally, when someone has to start invoking Nizkorisms and begins
Fisking and Haskelling and all the rest, they don't have persuasive
arguments and facts, and are left to browbeating over "process".  It's
usually a reliable marker."

Logic is not process.  Please examine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic  I think you'll find that logic is
a requirement of any discussion.

I've made my position on this issue extremely clear.   I'm arguing for
the use of 'MAY' in the standard and not "MUST" with regards to
protecting User IP rights and let the companies that require it based
on their business models to require contracts with punishments to be
signed before they allow one organization to 'connect'

Thanks

Daniel Olivares


On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 3:52 PM, [e-mail]
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>>Business models that require user content IP protection can limit
> interoperability based on acceptance of a contract to respect
> intellectual property rights with punishments for non-compliance.
>
> Then maybe there's no reason for interoperability? It's ok to debate whether there is isn't a case for operability on the way to discussing the standards. I have yet to hear a cogent "mission statement" that explains what the value-add is for interoperability, what the platform providers gain collectively and individually from this theoretical, arduous, likely costly, and likely non-productive exercise.
>
>>Also, while I agree with you on the I-Phone analogy does demonstrate
> one business model, I wanted to make a point that the i-phone uses the
> centralized clearing house you argued against with jw (Jon Watte)
> regarding There.com
>
> Um, I didn't argue "against" the centralized clearing-model. I pointed out merely that it was a solution to IP theft which many would find too controlling and rigid, especially after being autonomous actors in a free economy in Second Life, and that it would not solve the problems of c/m/t. Like firewalls, it's an internal company solution but it doesn't grapple with the collective problem of interoperability and IP, and the problem of how c/m/t is lost through interoperability unless it is welded in to start with.
>
> Generally, when someone has to start invoking Nizkorisms and begins Fisking and Haskelling and all the rest, they don't have persuasive arguments and facts, and are left to browbeating over "process".  It's usually a reliable marker.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Let great B to B marketing solutions propel your brand to new heights! Click now!
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTMPaBugve2YtZ258gY9lHWA9TGr5fwUS8JjrPQ3oSa3t4xHhJzci8/
>