SL hates entrepreneurs

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

When I see my ideas dissed it only reinforces my perception that corporations, a fascist government & an owned schooling & media industry, have done a REALLY good job of inculcating their propaganda into uncritical minds.

---

And here we've reached the crux of the matter... anyone who doesn't completely agree with Jeaneanne's view of the world is a puerile, brainless ignoramus.  I knew there had to be a simple answer that our dimwitted, little minds could comprehend.

...Dres

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Lindal Kidd wrote:

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

---

Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

I somehow think that JeanneAnne would like SL to give out land, for free, to whoever wants it. It may or may not occur to her that the infrastructure behind SL is not free, and that LLs employees do not work for free, either.

As virtual land fees bring in the bulk of LLs operating budget (and profit, if any), JeanneAnne's business model would bring SL crashing down.

But at least those greedy corporate pigs would have learned a lesson, huh.

---

The electricity to run the air conditioners on those vast metal server farms in Texas & S Cali ~alone!!~ costs a fortune. The servers hav2 be cooled, of course, & less expensive swamp coolers would make the humidity too high. All this hardware costs, along w/ all the other stuff necessary to keep the grid up. LL employees don't get paid nearly enough, while the parasites in management skim off way too much of what all of you who fall for their scam pay. Yeah... I understand all this all too well ..

Sooo.. LL gets the minority of SL players who've taken the bait .. who've bought in2 the toy economy .. to pay for everything while ppl like me play for free ..

Thanks! guyz .. i really DO appreciate it .. you guys ROCK !! You really do ..

Putting all your time & creativity in2 making SL wonderful for me while making LL parasites rich! How magnanimous of you !! Building & scripting & marketing all your virtual stuff for a pittance per hour ... Mother Teresa has NOTHING on you !!

Jeanne

---

Oh, that's just too much, Jeanne.  Belittling and scoffing at the very people who make SL the richly detailed and interesting playground YOU enjoy.  Please, if you think so little of SL, its creators and its "toy economy" (which by the way, handles millions of dollars...dollars, not $L...per month) take Peter's advice and go start your own virtual world.  Or join an existing one.  There are many out there.  You'll find that none are anywhere near as big and detailed as SL...because they don't have a "toy economy" of their own.

---

---

---

Oh, that's just too much, Jeanne.  Belittling and scoffing at the very people who make SL the richly detailed and interesting playground YOU enjoy.  Please, if you think so little of SL, its creators and its "toy economy" (which by the way, handles millions of dollars...dollars, not $L...per month) take Peter's advice and go start your own virtual world.  Or join an existing one.  There are many out there.  You'll find that none are anywhere near as big and detailed as SL...because they don't have a "toy economy" of their own.

---

JeanneAnne will never practice what she preaches and leave SL for the 'utopia' of the virtual worlds without economies because she knows they are far from the utopia she espouses.  She'd be long gone if they were.  Instead she is content to be a hypocrite and parasite, preserving her own money for herself while expecting everyone to hand her stuff.  Her fun is running her mouth on here criticizing and insulting the very people she sucks from while espousing the childish views of a two year old  and claiming that she is championing  people and offering a way to protect them from the LL boogie man.  She doesn't care if the people that provide her with her bulging inventory actually LIKE their SL, which provides the equally acceptable choices of creating content for fun only, to earn a bit or just to engage in just about what ever mindless activity they desire without every giving anything back. She doesn't care for the many disabled or unemployed people that earn a little bit of money here to supplement their almost poverty level RL income or who gain a feeling of self worth by contributing to the community which they can't do in RL.  She makes no effort to contribute to the community by creating things herself to give away for free giving all kinds of spurious excuses why.  She only cares about getting even more stuff for nothing and having her own fun. That is greed personified. Her real life philosophy is "Whoever dies with the most toys wins", providing they don't have to pay for them.  She's a *cough* 'winner' alright !

[Venus Petrov]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

When I see my ideas dissed it only reinforces my perception that corporations, a fascist government & an owned schooling & media industry, have done a REALLY good job of inculcating their propaganda into uncritical minds.

---

And here we've reached the crux of the matter... anyone who doesn't completely agree with Jeaneanne's view of the world is a puerile, brainless ignoramus.  I knew there had to be a simple answer that our dimwitted, little minds could comprehend.

...Dres

---

Thank you for the concise summary.   +1 Kudo

[Innula Zenovka]

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

Peggy & Innula .. I appreciate you both & have no quarrel w/ you & what you do .. I love SL .. i really do 3♥³

I largely post on here cuz I'm bored .. but also cuz I'd like to see SL improved ..

Seems like ppl who've been involved in SL for a long time & have become invested in the L$ economy resent me the most. That's kinduv exasperating cuz all I'm really doing is trying to defend your interests against LL's rapaciousness.

I'd like to see content creators be paid. A decent wage WITH benefits. Go ahead & hate me for it.

---

How's that going to work?   Content creators getting paid a wage, I mean.    I make stuff I choose to make because I want to, when I want to.   It would certainly be most agreeable if LL paid me a decent salary to do that, but I can't really see it happening -- presumably, at the very least,  they'd have to limit the number of people they paid to do that, and would also want some say in what I made.  

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Peggy Paperdoll wrote:

I don't see any passive aggressiveness with her.  What I see is someone who has mads choices in real life that turned out to be mistakes for them.  She refuses to accept the responsibility that the choice was made by her and it was wrong for her (as mentioned in one of her posts about leaving a family and home behind for a "career" she thought was hers).  That didn't work out (evidently) and now, instead of accepting her choice as a mistake, she places the blame on the company or corporation who she chose for her "career" move.  Now it's "just a job"......I wonder if she will blame the company if she finds herself standing in the unemployment line if the company ever finds out "it's just a job" for her.  Probably, and she will use that to further reject any personal responsibility in life.  There are lots of people like that in the world...most, eventually, learn with maturity what the real problem is.  But then some don't......and they go to the grave as unhappy and bitter people (another choice in life).  Life is not tailor made for anyone.......everyone has to make life, either pleasant or unpleasant, for themselves.  She claims she hates capitalism for the reasons she says are limiting her happiness in life.  But without someone to make it possible for her to choose anything at all, she has no choice about anything.......capitalism makes those choices possible. 

Socialism and Communism take away those choices. 

Reminds me of my 6 year old niece when she wants something yet has not done a thing to make that something available to her.  Such as eat the beets and she can go play.........it's the beats fault she can't go play (or her mother's fault because her wants her to eat the vegetable to make her healthy......who's choice is more correct?).  Leave it to the immature and the world gets crazy. 

---

thats about the impact i am feeling from it i guess hehehe..maybe i'm just too relaxed these days..*winks*

when someone starts the whole  media brain wash crap and everyone owned by the corps and yada yaday yada..i just yawn it off lol

 

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

My question is, why are you reselling something that you bought full perms, as is?

And was the "disgusting shreiking freak" the creator of that item?

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

<<If something is transferrable and has no user license, then it's not against any LL regulation or TOS to sell it>>

Unless you got it from someone else who repackaged the full perm item and did not include the original terms. It is up to each merchant to be sure what they are getting. I would personally be suspect to any full perm item sold without a TOS notecard.

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

Oh right. Content creators are only in it for the drama. LOL

[Rival Destiny]

Of course...but my comment was in the event that the reseller did their due diligence.

I find that many seem to think that an item having full permissions alone is reason that it cannot be resold as is.  Whereas, it all comes down to EULA.

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

I don't think a "nominal fee" would cover all the server space being used for SL, or come anywhere near it.

Without content creators and their paying customers, there would be a dramatic reduction in the number of sims, objects, and experiences that you enjoy for free. Don't get me wrong, it's awesome that some people can get by without spending money in SL, but you literally are riding on the backs of those who work very hard to make SL what it is and those who support them. 

 

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

You should check out the virtual world of Dreamscape. A great example of what happens when resident trading and creating are hindered!

(hint: it hasn't ventured out of 2D pixel art and last I knew, boasted a whopping 500 users online at any given time!)

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

<<get greedy & resentful & suspicious .. friends end up becoming enemies over L$>>

That is a character flaw of the people who you surround yourself with, not a symptom of the SL Economy.

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

<<Thanks! guyz .. i really DO appreciate it .. you guys ROCK !! You really do ..

Putting all your time & creativity in2 making SL wonderful for me while making LL parasites rich! How magnanimous of you !! Building & scripting & marketing all your virtual stuff for a pittance per hour ... Mother Teresa has NOTHING on you !!>>

Wow, and with this kind of attitude, you expect content creators and Linden Lab to give you everything you want for free??? How did you get so entitled?

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

Sweetie, no one minds that you are having a great time and getting along just fine without spending money. I think that is wonderful for you.

The problem comes in when you decide that you are entitled to everything, everywhere for free. It just doesn't work that way.

[JeanneAnne]

---

Rosemaery Lorefield wrote:

I don't think a "nominal fee" would cover all the server space being used for SL, or come anywhere near it.

Without content creators and their paying customers, there would be a dramatic reduction in the number of sims, objects, and experiences that you enjoy for free. Don't get me wrong, it's awesome that some people can get by without spending money in SL, but you literally are riding on the backs of those who work very hard to make SL what it is and those who support them. 

 

---

In another thread we estimated that SL could be sustained if everyone paid about $15 per month user fee, which was less than I had assumed. Of course, it's hard to know for sure because we don't know exactly what LL's operating expenses are. Would ppl leave SL if they had to pay to play? Prolly so .. but how many would leave is an empirical question. No one knows w/out trying it. If SL was run as a members-owned cooperative there'd be no inflated executive salaries to pay & no investor dividends, which would reduce costs. So what if sims disappeared? How many does any 1 person actually visit, anyway? SL is grossly overbuilt. If many of the deserted redundant sims disappeared it would lower expenses & be a good thing! If a user fee was instituted along w/ the elimination of the $L & private "ownership" of property ~which is merely a euphemism for renting server space~ then there'd be no more ppl playing for free "riding on the backs" of content creators who are nowadays the sole supporters of SL. What's funny is how these hyper-exploited content creators & tier payers are the most vocal supporters of the corporation that unfairly exploits them. That's what's called the "Stockholm Syndrome" aka "cohesion unto the oppressor."

Jeanne

[JeanneAnne]

---

Rosemaery Lorefield wrote:

Sweetie, no one minds that you are having a great time and getting along just fine without spending money. I think that is wonderful for you.

The problem comes in when you decide that you are

entitled to everything, everywhere for free

. It just doesn't work that way.

---

So if ppl who play for free "ride on the backs" of those who pay, that's just fine so long as they stay quiet about the unfairness of the situation? The hyperexploitation of the few for the benefit of the many is acceptable so long as no one points out how unfair & bizarre the way LL operates their business is? Seems to me like someone ought to be speaking up on behalf of the creative ppl who shoulder the entire burden of supporting SL financially ~& of making parasitic corporate execs & investors rich? How do you figure that staying mum about a bad situation makes it any better?

Jeanne

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

I don't know where you are running into all this resentment from, but I am not sure it is what it appears to be.

Are avies just accosting you on the SLstreets because you aren't buying things from them, or are they getting irritated when you demand that they give you things for free? 

Trust me, no one here cares if you get by for free. Not at all. But you have really come off with a crappy attitude and focused it on the people who make SL what it is. If you love SL so much, and you enjoy it completely for free, then why on earth are you complaining?

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

Ahh the actual topic of the thread returns

I think that the way LL deals with DMCA is the most efficient. Taking down the supposedly offending content appeases the complainant immediately. The merchant has the option of proving there was no violation. Those merchants who really are commiting violations obviously will not counter-file, or they will be unsuccessful, and be filtered out of the system.

Unfortunately those merchants who are legit will need to jump through some hoops to prove they are innocent. But I do not see how LL could possibly have the resources to investigate every AR before removing the content.

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

Exactly. Some people really do think that if their "thing" came with no restrictions that everything is fair game, and they can't, or should not be penalized for unfairly using someone else's creation. Which, I think is what probably went on with the OP.

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

Look, you have already given up the goat, so to say. You have decided that you hate capitalism because you made bad choices. This nonsense utopian SL of yours is just an excuse for you to demand that I, and every other creator, give you whatever you want for free. 

If you want a world that charges a "nominal" monthly fee, and "pays" creators for their works, then check out The Dreamscape or Vzones. Tell me what you think

I'm really not going to bother continuing this argument with you though, because I think you have participated in a little bit of projection here. you accused creators of only wanting drama, which is exactly what you have created. 

I don't feel like feeding into your need for strife any further than I already have. Enjoy your SL!

[JeanneAnne]

---

Rosemaery Lorefield wrote:

...or are they getting irritated when you demand that they give you things for free? 

 If you love SL so much, and you enjoy it completely for free, then why on earth are you complaining?

---

I've never asked for, expected or demanded that anyone ever give me anything for free in SL. They just do. Fact is, I usually don't even want the stuff I'm given. I have stuff in my inv that I've been given that I've never even rezzed. I would be happy to give stuff away but I usually can't cuz 'share' is greyed out on it.

I'm complaining cuz it burns my butt that LL runs SL in a totally authoritarian manner. Cuz executive & investor parasites get rich off the labor of others. Cuz the creative ppl who actually make things in SL shoulder the entire burden for supporting SL & enriching the parasites. I love & enjoy SL but detest LL management & the business model they impose. I want to see SL become a user-owned cooperative rather than a mediocre corporate cash cow. I want to see decisions made by actual SL players & residents rather than be handed down godlike by greedy Lindens. I want SL to be egalitarian & fair.

Jeanne

[Peggy Paperdoll]

"

In another thread we estimated that SL could be sustained if everyone paid about $15 per month user fee, which was less than I had assumed. Of course, it's hard to know for sure because we don't know exactly what LL's operating expenses are. Would ppl leave SL if they had to pay to play? Prolly so .. but how many would leave is an empirical question. No one knows w/out trying it. If SL was run as a members-owned cooperative there'd be no inflated executive salaries to pay & no investor dividends, which would reduce costs. So what if sims disappeared? How many does any 1 person actually visit, anyway? SL is grossly overbuilt. If many of the deserted redundant sims disappeared it would lower expenses & be a good thing! If a user fee was instituted along w/ the elimination of the $L & private "ownership" of property ~which is merely a euphemism for renting server space~ then there'd be no more ppl playing for free "riding on the backs" of content creators who are nowadays the sole supporters of SL. What's funny is how these hyper-exploited content creators & tier payers are the most vocal supporters of the corporation that unfairly exploits them. That's what's called the "Stockholm Syndrome" aka "cohesion unto the oppressor."

Jeanne"

---------------------------------------------

And all that was written by a person who stated earlier that she hated capitalism.  How can you intelligently hate anything if you don't understand or know what it is that you hate?  It's quite obvious she does not understand capitalisim........as her ignorant fingers just demonstrated.  Not a single thought espoused in that post that gave even a tiny clue that she knew what she was talking about.

Now I understand a little better why she became so unhappy with her company when she made her "career" move.  She doesn't know what she's doing.  I guess that would cause anyone to be unhappy in a work evironment.  Most people who get in over their heads do one of two things:  Get educated to get their head above the water.  Or move to another job that is better suited for them.  A very poor choice is to just stick it out with the attitude "it's just a job".

[Innula Zenovka]

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

In another thread we estimated that SL could be sustained if everyone paid about $15 per month user fee, which was less than I had assumed. Of course, it's hard to know for sure because we don't know exactly what LL's operating expenses are. Would ppl leave SL if they had to pay to play? Prolly so .. but how many would leave is an empirical question. No one knows w/out trying it. If SL was run as a members-owned cooperative there'd be no inflated executive salaries to pay & no investor dividends, which would reduce costs.

---

So, in other words, this estimate was based on pretty nebulous figures, since you don't know what the overheads -- operating expenses -- or paying membership would be.

And I'm still trying to get my head round "if SL was run as a members-owned cooperative...".   As you may or may not realise, an investment in a company is sort of loan, but in lieu of interest you get a dividend if the company is paying one. A necessary prequisite to running SL as "a members-owned cooperative" would be for the members to buy out the existing investors, which would necessitate giving them their investment back.   Where did you get the valuation for the company from and how did you plan on raising the funds (cos if you were going to borrow them, that would mean paying interest to a bank, which might rather remove some of the apparent advantages of not having to pay dividends)?

 

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

I'll reply because you are actually being thoughtful and not snarky here-

<<I'm complaining cuz it burns my butt that LL runs SL in a totally authoritarian manner>>

I don't really see it that way. I actually find the Lindens to be very hands off, if to a fault. They created a world for users to do as they like with. Some people have skills that others find useful, whether they be building, dancing, scripting, DJ, etc. All those clubs you enjoy getting freebies fom would not exist without all of the above. Those people should be compensated for their work. I do not believe there would be anywhere near the diversity of products, places or experiences that you enjoy if we had to rely on LL to employ creators themselves. In fact, I know there wouln't be.

<<Cuz the creative ppl who actually make things in SL shoulder the entire burden for supporting SL>>

You are not a content creator, so this problem exists only in your perception. The creators in this thread have expressed their apporval of how commerce works as it is, and their dislike of the idea of LL employed creation only. Your other posts in this thread have painted you as a person who is bittered by real life corporate culture, bad personal decisions and a feeling of entitlement. Now you are trying to say that really all along you have only been concerned for the poor, put upon creatiors- who consequently do not have a problem.It just doesn't wash, no offense.

I don't want to rehash this all again please. The bolded sentence is what I would really like you to consider. At $15 a month per subscription, LL would only be able to employ a limited number of content creators in each field. This would severely reduce the amount of "things" available to you, and everyone else. Also, I do not believe your estimate addresses the issue of land usage/server load. If LL were the sole land holders in SL, you wouldn't have so many places to go.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

If SL was run as a members-owned cooperative there'd be no inflated executive salaries to pay & no investor dividends, which would reduce costs. So what if sims disappeared? How many does any 1 person actually visit, anyway? SL is grossly overbuilt. If many of the deserted redundant sims disappeared it would lower expenses & be a good thing!

---

JeanneAnne, you should go and visit Open Sim grids.  I have, and have friends out there...who are waiting for more people to arrive.  Now, they have been waiting for years, faithfully hoping that more people would want to ditch SL and it's economy.  A lot of the OS grids and sims are non-profit, and run by people who just want to experience the creative potential, that the SL building platform allows.  There are amazing and beautiful builds in OS grids.  I belong to an OS Sci-Fi grid...it rivals anything you'd see in SL.  All built by people who love what they do.   BUT, there are very few people there.

SL, is a business.  It's run for-profit, that is it's nature, if you do not like that model, then you may want to seek other 3D virtual world opportunities for exploring.  I will tell you though, that you will not find the expansive, populated grid that is here in SL...in a non-profit venue.  

 

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

If a user fee was instituted along w/ the elimination of the $L & private "ownership" of property ~which is merely a euphemism for renting server space~ then there'd be no more ppl playing for free "riding on the backs" of content creators who are nowadays the sole supporters of SL.

---

I think a user fee might be a good idea, as it would eliminate a lot of the greifer and throw-away accounts.  Also, would give LL a venue stream, and bring SL into the realm of pay-for-play virtual worlds.   All good outcomes.  

But, there would be issues, as there are people in various part of the world who currently are in SL, and they do not have a good way to verify payment information.  So, requiring payment information on a monthly basis would hit many people in countries outside the US...and maybe reduce the international presence.  That would not be good outcome.

So, LL has to weigh the two outcomes, it's a balancing act.  Right now, if the Lab can grow SL, without the monthly user fee, then they will have pulled off an amazing feat. 

Oh, and content creators are not the "sole" supporters of SL.   They are one-side of a symbiotic relationship.  The other side is the consumers.  Some consumers are also content creators...but many more are just consumers.  These are people who come to SL and buy/rent land, buy clothing, hair, skins, houses, and furniture.  They spend money/Lindens at clubs, art galleries, shows, and keep the money flow going.   These consumers import money into SL for the purpose of spending...and it is their form of entertainment.  Both content creators and consumers are needed for the symbiosis to work.

 

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

What's funny is how these hyper-exploited content creators & tier payers are the most vocal supporters of the corporation that unfairly exploits them. That's what's called the "Stockholm Syndrome" aka "cohesion unto the oppressor."

---

As much as I appreciate, your attempt to use colorful emotional analogies, "Stockholm Syndrome" is incorrect.  You are assuming, and wrongly so, that content creators and tier payers are victims.  The reason you think that, is that you believe those who pay money to others, are somehow being torqued into the arrangement. Yet that is not how free enterprise works.  It is a voluntary arrangement with mutual benefit to both parties.

No one is being oppressed.  What are you seeing is the free exercise of personal choice.  That is what the arrangement represents.  There are choices that can be made. One can go to Open Sim, one can start their own mini grid for family and friends, and run it with a Sim-on-a Stick.  These things can be done free or almost free..   But, if someone chooses to be in SL, and spend money inworld, it is not because they are being forced to do so. No more than anyone is forced to play WOW or Eve Online.  One can instead read a book, watch a movie, or go to the park and feed the real life ducks. 

People are in SL because they enjoy it!  People spend money in SL because it adds enjoyment to their lives.  SL is amazing, and I have not found anything to compare.  I love SL, and of my own free will, spend money inworld.