Re: [mmox] mmox Digest, Vol 1, Issue 111

Jesrad <jesrad@gmail.com> Mon, 23 February 2009 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <jesrad@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC6628C198 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:01:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id didTDSJ6kAMT for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:01:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bw0-f161.google.com (mail-bw0-f161.google.com [209.85.218.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 667C428C150 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:01:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bwz5 with SMTP id 5so5254260bwz.13 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:01:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=DAeYGX1UF4aPJXd45qinJvesDCRo0BfFcJ6E0Q9r88Y=; b=FSTzFfpZxwcFrb4NUejvxxwJetTlk9DhEDSbBySdu9qM2xtQCYNIUDNlA2T372ZuPm 9VnFhpB5nn2KVsXLlsIp8GyeW9nTcLKNtYewkkdDItvyl5u2mRSD00pWJkhc11onS3D0 F834KmE3FhoD6t9MRSD9bVLznQNennldaH0ow=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=CS5gfViKNP8HFoyd+AT4YXDjRW29KMYSQ4Cbmz8vK87JMKU4gh4f9LjHxSbjucPzMP Udv4tZAhxhk3R6KJsGZwqJDmpq9XnYPeyRc3TG/EuGJZw095aaP3NJF7kAt1FPPbBes1 /AxS22zf6E+oyzzdzWm5+eO5Xz/1RH1CA7Pkc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.181.240.10 with SMTP id s10mr1678881bkr.12.1235426492881; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:01:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20090223.114423.5499.2@webmail09.vgs.untd.com>
References: <20090223.114423.5499.2@webmail09.vgs.untd.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:01:32 +0100
Message-ID: <53cd6c2e0902231401s404f2812qda58cb0e8143eada@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jesrad <jesrad@gmail.com>
To: "dyerbrookme@juno.com" <dyerbrookme@juno.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: mmox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mmox] mmox Digest, Vol 1, Issue 111
X-BeenThere: mmox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Massively Multi-participant Online Games and Applications <mmox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox>
List-Post: <mailto:mmox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:01:16 -0000

I already do check c+m+t on my objects, but that does not prevent in
any way the next owner from unchecking them. That is what I mean by
"opting out" of the permission system. Just as a copyright-business
does not want people to be able to check the missing permissions, I do
not want them to be able to uncheck them, because it reduces the value
of what I sell and constitutes a violation of either my copyright (in
the copyright model) or a violation the further buyers' property
rights and fraud (in my model).

I do not know what the "8 generatives" refer to. All I know is that
I'm making money, that the permission system in SL makes my business
model wide open to a little but annoying amount of ripping off that
harms its value, and that I'd rather not have that situation extended
to all other VWs.

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 5:44 PM, dyerbrookme@juno.com
<dyerbrookme@juno.com> wrote:
>>My model can coexist with copyright-based models, provided I can
> opt my content out of any DRM system.
>
> With a DRM system like c/m/t being conveyed, you check off c/m/t if you want full perms to be distributed *shrugs*. That's all. Transporting the metadata of c/m/t -- or no c/m/t and demanding a regime to implement it does not preclude you from "opting out" by...checking off c/m/t. Why would you think that the act of having to check off c/m/t to get full perms, so that others who *do not* want to check them off and wish to make a living not through consulting but by object sales would somehow preclude your full-perms distribution? Makes no sense, again, except as an ideological demand.
>
> There has been no scientific, peer-reviewed study of whether the 8 generatives really made a living for anyone already funded; it's one of those anecdotal things that a few people spread the memes, and it becomes an urban legend.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Compete with the big boys.  Click here to find products to benefit your business.
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTI97xtbbXRD0zhtu22xsaZ29LA7F4pgNLlXYLb3XqYFhO0bPSqtfa/
>