<cont>
There are components ready to create a decentralized universe of virtual worlds: open source clients (Indra – the official SL client) and open source server software. OpenSim seems to be the current decentralised contender (which offers some SL interoperability) plus others including WoW server software. With the creation of Google’s _Lively_ we’re already seeing a lack of concern with interoperability through name collisions or name theft incidences.
Who stands to benefit from this kind of lack of interoperability? Obviously corporations with the goal of controlling the only available synthetic world would benefit enormously from halting interoperability. Users, then, need to demand interoperability or create systems that operate as such and make those that are not unusable. As users of virtual worlds and synthetic environments, we are responsible for the choices we make about what software we use. Users of Microsoft software are as much responsible for the Microsoft monopoly as is the company itself.
What stands in the way of creating interoperability? One major component of the web’s success is open standards. We need open standards in – and for – synthetic worlds. IBM and Linden Labs are currently working on developing such standards [see: Architecture Working Group].
Friends of mine who are daily Second Life users describe it as just another social networking site – just another place to chat with their friends, buy a cool outfit and have a nice house too. In this way, one can see that the real value of Second Life is in making synthetic worlds accessible. While the initial openness of the web allowed anyone to write html and make websites, one could argue that it was only with MySpace that a true explosion of web authoring took place. MySpace allowed every kid to suddenly have a web page because of the combination of simplicity (fill out this form, pick your song here, upload your photo here) and social value (express your vanity here, look good to your friends here, show how cool you are here). Second Life does something similar; playing to sociability and degrees of vanity through the use of an easy interface designed primarily for creating and buying 3D objects. Perhaps Google’s Lively will demonstrate whether ease of use and a lack of catering for creativity is the adoption benchmark for the next synthetic world interface.
<tbc>
August 9th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Intellectual property is the engine, people are the drivers. There’s so much that’s wrong with the concept that you’re espousing that without freedom of content to be, well, FREE that the metaverse will be hand cuffed and die on arrival.
Let’s take the example you give of Lively. First, Lively will allow user-generated content, probably along the lines of There.com where you can create stuff and it will be approved for posting. Regardless, you argue about it as is – but it’s closed, the content isn’t ‘free’ or copiable and you can’t move it out of Lively onto your own open source, free world of endlessly copiable content. The content was PAID for, by Google, and it’s secured by Google, and Google makes money off that paid content because they serve you up ads and track your avatar’s activities against your Google profile and serve you up MORE ads, better ads, more tailored ads as they use their information vacuum to target ‘behavioural ads’ your way.
OK – so mySpace. Same thing. Someone PAYS for this stuff. It doesn’t just appear. Sure, people make content and mySpace hosts it – but it’s not like there’s no profit motive.
Ever try to copy your content from mySpace and move it to another social networking site? Or just click a button and save a copy to your hard drive as a back-up? You can’t. It’s not free – it’s freely created, and mySpace gives you a place to host it because they want to make money off that generosity.
Social networking sites don’t make money. Web 2.0 sites barely make money. The ones that too are doing that whole “Long Tail” thing which needs a thorough debunking of its own.
So, you’re saying this: first, open source is somehow good. As if that’s a truism. A de facto standard gold plated fact.
It isn’t. Have you ever tried to install a Wordpress widget that someone hacked in their basement and then once you launched it found that it gummed up the site or the page layout?
Have you been to Croquet lately? It’s open source, it’s peer-to-peer, and it’s stalled because all this free open source coding needs motivated coders, and you lose some momentum or people wander off in another direction and suddenly your beautiful repository of open sourceness is stuck where it was.
Open source can work, sure. But I take issue with the idea that open source is somehow the only way to build things. See, there’s a role for someone to motivate people, pay them, test stuff, take it for a spin to see if people will use it and how and whether they’ll pay for it. Most technology that works is built by corporations, and over time this gives way to either open sourcing the code or going open source. I’m not saying this to belittle or deny the value of open source, I’m saying it to kick one leg out under the chair of your argument:
Open source needs to be coupled with open content.
So, part a) is not always correct.
Part b) is just plain wrong.
What is the “disturbing element” in what you call “lack of openness” of intellectual property? Excuse me????
The element you find disturbing isn’t the lack of openness, don’t equate it with that. What you find disturbing is, gasp, you actually have to PAY for content?
And we’re not talking corporately-driven content like Lively which you espouse, we’re talking user-generated content. In your world, that user-generated content would be more ‘open’ is that right? But you really mean free am I correct? Don’t call it “open” call it theft, free, copiable.
I fail to see a compelling argument why content creators should necessarily subscribe to a model where what they create, often with great care and at great pains spending a great deal of their time, should just be transportable.
The engine that is Second Life is unique. Rather than saying “come on in, make free stuff and give it away because we’re not going to give you the means to make money off all your free labor” Linden Lab said “why should corporations be the only ones to make money off of creative effort, we’ll let individuals who make content be able to sell it, and we’ll protect those objects through permissions”.
As for your friends and their description of Second Life, they’re right. People are the drivers of the engine that is Second Life. And while accessibility and interoperability are important to the growth of the metaverse and sociality in that context, and while interoperability also opens the door to alternate models of content creation and protection, I see absolutely no connection between opening up virtual worlds through interoperability and the need at the same time to throw out what you call that “abusive” idea of ownership.
More here:
http://dusanwriter.com/?p=748
August 12th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Hi Dusan, thanks for commenting. From looking at the link you posted, I think that we’re probably never going to agree, since you seem openly hostile to user rights. I’m arguing that user rights are not just an ethical imperative, they’re central to the possibility for synthetic worlds to grow beyond the relatively small audience they currently have. I’ll try to clarify my arguments, since I’m covering a lot of different issues here.
My main point is that right now, Synthetic Worlds have gained some popularity, but are at a growth plateau and I offer some suggestions for what is needed for more growth, including: open standard for interoperability, new business models not based on copy restriction and more decentralization through more people hosting virtual worlds.
Does open source work? Well, looking at the web as a metaphor, apache is the most widely used web server software in the world [http://www.builderau.com.au/news/soa/Microsoft-targets-Apache-Web-server/0,339028227,339192260,00.htm?feed=pt_web], linux is used for most (over 90%) of dns hosting [http://www.builderau.com.au/news/soa/50-percent-of-DNS-servers-vulnerable/0,339028227,339283946,00.htm] and firefox is hugely popular (especially since CERT issued statements that noone should use IE since it can format your hard drive). But more importantly, I argue here that there is an ethical imperative for users to support free software, for more info on this see [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html] and [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html].
“Most technology that works is built by corporations, and over time this gives way to either open sourcing the code or going open source.” Ahh, no its not. Neither the telephone nor the printing press nor paper were built by corporations. Linux wasn’t built by corporations and BSD, the basis of MacOSX wasn’t build by corporations. And there’s no reason to think that free software comes from corporations benevolently giving away their code, it is often the other way around, corporations building products on free software, such as the web.
I’m also not saying that people should never pay for content. I’m saying that business models built on copy restriction are harmful to users and harmful to content creators, as copy restriction technologies ultimately fail. I’m saying, and many others agree [http://freeculture.org/manifesto/] that we should be free to copy copiable content and people should develop other business models not built on copy restriction. Take a look at [http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/] if you’re concerned with making a buck. Another model that works is what dell does, selling laptops with linux preconfigured. It seems that “virtual world servers” with software like WoW and opensim preconfigured, is an untapped market, go for it. And clearly lots of people are making money selling books about second life as well.
No, the misnomer “intellectual property” is not the engine that drives second life, and isn’t even what drives content creators, as lots of studies show [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html].
You bring up a good point with myspace, yes, it also lacks interoperability, and users have no control over their data and where and how it is stored, that’s a huge problem that people have said a lot about [http://www.boingboing.net/2006/07/27/billy-bragg-gets-mys.html] and which the Franklin Street Statement and autonom.us is starting to do something about! [http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement/]
August 16th, 2008 at 11:38 am
[...] Part 2 went up last week and there was a really provocative comment from Dusan Writer about open source and the economics of SL. Apparently, she disagrees with my claim that we should find new models for making money in SL besides copy restriction. I responded, but I hope I didn’t inadvertently kill the conversation. Its curious to me that there were a lot more comments to part 1. [...]
September 6th, 2008 at 2:33 am
[...] be done. Azdel Slade has written some worthwhile and interesting posts about the problem here, here, and here- worth a read! luis | Trackback URL Leave your own comments about this post: You must [...]