Re: [vwrap] [wvrap] Simulation consistency

[Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>]

the likelihood that linden will use any output from this group at this
point is about nil.

if they were, they would likely actually pay someone to participate.

but... i don't speak for linden anymore, so take that last statement
with a grain of salt.
--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]



On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Patnad Babii <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Let me put it simple, Linden Lab is not forced to use this protocol at ALL
> and I'm pretty sure as they are a pretty big company with brains, they are
> not going to allow something that’s going to reduce security or allow more
> thief to their grid anytime soon.
>
> This protocol is intended mostly for other Open virtual worlds.  If at a
> point Linden Labs find it an interest in the protocol they might implement
> it. Linden Labs is not working anymore on grid interop for some time now, so
> please stop being afraid by the big bad wolf, cause it is not here you are
> going to find it.
>
>
> From: [e-mail]
> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 10:12 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [vwrap] [wvrap] Simulation consistency
>
> Vaughn,
>
> A key reason the Metaverse construction cannot be left to coders and other
> technologists like yourself alone is this kind of coervice hypothesis,
> crowbarring a metaphor in service of a pre-existing agenda.
>
> First of all, I don't make content of any significant amount as an amateur,
> such as to be concerned only about "my dresses" and "little dressmaker
> genocide" as copyleftist cynics call it. But I express this concern on
> behalf of my rentals customers who do make content and who are worried --
> and rightly so -- about theft, and most of all, I express this as a *matter
> of principle*.
>
> Second, the notion that girls travelling to a party at "Vaugh's Immersive
> Fabulousness" from "Prokofy's Palm Cafe At the End of the Mind" need not
> fear nakedness of Vaughn simply bestirs himself, *in good faith* (always in
> short supply with metaversal engineers), to automatically supply a generic
> dress or Ruth appearance and outfit in the event that the server can't fetch
> the assets for any reason. So that's specious entirely.
>
> Third, if you think customers and their wants and inciting their hatred of
> platform providers who can't render their dresses in all their pretty glory
> are the way to hijack the metaverse for the copyleftist/open source cult
> agenda, think again. Dress shoppers can become fiercely loyal patrons of the
> copyright of their favourite designers. Fiercely.And they will mount the
> consumer boycott and press campaign to match their ferocity.
>
> Fourth, If you have a world in which copying the dresses off avatars is a
> function of the browser you let connect to your world, like the copybotting
> Thugs Lyfe, merely with a mouseclick or two, then you deserve to be
> ostracized. And in fact, you and all providers can have a policy about not
> letting such TPV viewers connect, as LL does -- and without any pretense
> that it can control every manifestation. BTW, the Red Zone statistics of 9
> million scans with only 78,000 rogue viewers captured lets us know that this
> problem is exaggerated -- and usually by engineers who claim there is no
> technical solution.
>
> Fifth, and most relevant, the metaverse does not have to be built entirely
> on automatic machines that only perform rote routines, which are, indeed,
> only the mechanistic concretization of human will and "nothing special".
>
> It can be also constructed of polices and agreements rooted in organic minds
> and organic institutions. And that's ok. And that would mean a basic
> charter, that could be as historical and epic as the Magna Charter or as
> mundane as the Bottle Bill of Rights hanging on the wall of your
> supermarket. And that charter would spell out that platforms that do not
> respect copyright *by including the engineered DRM on creations* and *by
> including a TPV policy* do not get the handshake, do not get the hookup. And
> that's it. It's not so hard, truly.
>
> These treaties can be forged at real-life in-person conventions, just like
> other technical agreements are, including IEEE standards, and they can be
> forged ultimately in a "scaling" fashion by having templates that a server
> seeking to make a connection with have or not have, not withstanding
> Morgaine's wild and hysterical notions that "nothing" can be trusted on the
> Internet and trust regimes are all a scam.
>
> It's not about Prokofy relinquishing control for the sake of his customers'
> eye candy. It's about two platforms shaking hands on an established
> pre-existing agreement that becomes the metaversal standard -- and a
> standard created not by a cabal of a few engineers in an obscure IEEF
> working group, but open conventions.
>
> And please don't pretend this can't scale. There's about 17 and a half
> virtual worlds out there at most that really have any viability and people
> on them with stuff that works for the user. So they can make a confederation
> of standards that does respect the *technical implementation* of copyright
> and intellectual property rights *simply because they can*. It's a matter of
> political will, and its absence now is one of blatant collectivist ideology
> at work.
>
> If you yourself opt to break your fabulous immersive world by not putting
> default dresses on people in decency, and more to the point, not abiding by
> a simple protocol to include DRM as a default with the "export to other
> grids" box and c/m/t boxes checked, and "TPV policy compliant" then you're
> the problem, not Prokofy's fear of crypto communists hiding under the
> servers.
>
> You seem to be like all followers of the California Business Model (let all
> uploads first, sell ads, then DMCA takedowns later) -- and you seem to be
> willing to wait for your customers complain.
>
> That's not necessary if you're an ethical provider -- you can make the
> agreements first. Forcing the issue by deploying the age-old "analog hole"
> argument and whining that you "must" serve up the view of an asset your
> customers "expect" to see or already "can" see doesn't let you off the hook.
> There is no reason to be literalist about it. You can weld c/m/t into
> operability from the get-go. You can refuse to allow viewers that copybot.
> Your resistance to this is purely ideological.
>
> And BTW, if you persist in calling people who rightfully and legitimately
> raise copyright concerns and rightly and legitimately point out the
> copyleftist ideological bias as "paranoid" and "conspiracy theorists" and
> "fearful of cryptocommunists" and "McCarthyites" than you're going to go on
> being called the Leninists that you in fact are.
>
> Prokofy
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Groupon™ Official Site
> 1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best!
> Groupon.com
>
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>