Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Malarwen Hall

Why did all large RL companies leave SL?

Recommended Posts


Miko Kuramoto wrote:

financial and..........

the sexual reputation that is tagged with SL.  As a gamer (wow, swtor, lol, tera, gw2 just to name a few), most other non-SL gamers that i know think this is an erotic rpg.  Big RL companies won't be associated with that. I miss them, they had fun sims.

I think SL's reputation for sex preceded the arrival of big RL companies. If they left because of sex, why did they arrive in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


Miko Kuramoto wrote:

financial and..........

the sexual reputation that is tagged with SL.  As a gamer (wow, swtor, lol, tera, gw2 just to name a few), most other non-SL gamers that i know think this is an erotic rpg.  Big RL companies won't be associated with that. I miss them, they had fun sims.

I think SL's reputation for sex preceded the arrival of big RL companies. If they left because of sex, why did they arrive in the first place?

This! Well put, Madeline.

SL begun as a virtual world for grown-ups, and stayed consistant with this initially. Adult content was a predictable use for SL, and one that pretty much everyone expected. It's well-known in the media industry that adult content is a precursor to profit and mainstream success (see also VHS tapes, the Internet) - it wouldn't have scared anyone away.

The only reason that this was eventually softened was because of the cost of operating the Teen Grid as a separate entity, and the gigantic marketshare that the <20y/o audience has in virtual spaces.

I would put forward that LL's inability to remain consistant with this starting objective (a virtual world for grown-ups) has damaged its standing with RL companies more than adult content ever has. Companies could never be sure that their existance would be tolerated in SL tomorrow (as happened with Gambling, Education, Charity), or whether SL would eat them or cut them out of the market (GOM, XStreet), whether they'd need intense re-training and widespread IT support to get their employees back online after viewer or server upgrades done without warning (Windlight, Viewer 2, other poor quality releases).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Bree Giffen wrote:

I really don't think it was the sex that caused them to leave. It was the fact that SL did not live up to the hype. The hype was that SL would be the next evolution of the internet. The internet had just started moving into web 2.0 which was having websites not powered by host generated content but powered by user generated content. We see that now like tumblr, youtube, facebook, etc. SL was thought to be the next thing after web 2.0 as a kind of virtual internet where instead of just browsing a website you would have an avatar that could visit 3d virtual sims. A company sim would be like a company website. I think there was a point when the ball was rolling and the bandwagon was being hopped on but people just didn't stay because SL was too hard to learn and the system requirements were too high.

 

Guess what improvements have been made to SL? Make it harder to learn and make the system requirements higher.

This response makes the most sense to me and I do recall all the talk about web 2.0 when I began SL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3D environment of SL is in many ways a remarkably flexible building toy. You can make a simulation of just about anything you can imagine and it's more accessible than "professional" tools. BUT - it also limits how good any particular simulation can BE. Ir also wasn't designed with the durability that real-world major commercial applications need.

Basically, it's LEGO, okay? And I'm not saying for a moment that LEGO isn't awesome, but it is what it is. If you read every article about the "failure" of Second Life and substitute LEGO for Second Life you wouldn't wonder why the platform failed, you'd wonder why major companies put not only eight-year olds but apparently rather SLOW eight-year olds in decision-making positions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I googled the OP's question and found this from here http://kryptonradio.com/2012/09/24/linden-lab-leaving-second-life-behind-with-pattern/ about LL:

"In recent weeks, third party observers have noted that Second Life, after peaking in 2010, has been slowly losing its edge.  Users of the popular open-ended shared-experience 3D social and creative environment have lamented what seemed like bizarre customer service decisions, including:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Clearly it is all but over. Time to hang up the pumps and call it a day, I guess. Or not.

I love an article that says something about things "in recent weeks" and then leads with a link to something that happened four years earlier.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Sy Beck wrote:

I can tell you one main reason and I write with a little authority on the matter as an organisation that I once worked for sent me to SL in late 2006 to investigate marketing and exposure opportunities in SL.  We quickly concluded that SL had near zero marketing and exposure opportunities.  Apart from one off occasions of having LL flag up the news that your organisation had taken up a presence in SL to its residents or that RL media publicise that you have then that was the apex of any publicity and exposure you were going to get in SL.

In real life you can place commercials in newspapers, on TV, billboards or establish a shop, which you know will have at least a certain amount of traffic through them.  In SL there is no such captive traffic and even the busiest places will rarely have over 100 people passing through them. 

 

I think you hit the nail right on the head.

What I would like to add is that there were also compagnies, who did not sent their own employees to investigate the possibilities in SL,but they were talking into it by their marketing agency. Those came up with figures like 25M+ residents, growing by so and so many a month. Only thing they forgot to tell is that there is not way to reach the population all at the same time, and marketing only starts when you have build up your sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Madeliefste Oh wrote:


Sy Beck wrote:

I can tell you one main reason and I write with a little authority on the matter as an organisation that I once worked for sent me to SL in late 2006 to investigate marketing and exposure opportunities in SL.  We quickly concluded that SL had near zero marketing and exposure opportunities.  Apart from one off occasions of having LL flag up the news that your organisation had taken up a presence in SL to its residents or that RL media publicise that you have then that was the apex of any publicity and exposure you were going to get in SL.

In real life you can place commercials in newspapers, on TV, billboards or establish a shop, which you know will have at least a certain amount of traffic through them.  In SL there is no such captive traffic and even the busiest places will rarely have over 100 people passing through them. 

 

I think you hit the nail right on the head.

What I would like to add is that there were also compagnies, who did not sent their own employees to investigate the possibilities in SL,but they were talking into it by their marketing agency. Those came up with figures like 25M+ residents, growing by so and so many a month. Only thing they forgot to tell is that there is not way to reach the population all at the same time, and marketing only starts when you have build up your sim.

That's why I said at the end of my post that the only way to attract them back, as advertisers or a presence, is to monetise the chat function and/or the viewer because it's the one way that you can have the whole of the online SL population as a captive audience at once.  

If I was them [LL] I'd imagine they would start by placing pop up ads in the chat and viewers of free accounts.  Then I would move on to taking away the free stipend from premium members if they didn't want ads in their chat or viewer or paying a larger stipend if a premium member accepted the ad/product placement pop ups in chat or the viewer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to burst everyone's bubble but Real Life companies left SL in 2008 after Linden Lab changed their TOS policy concerning copyrights and ownership. At the time there were several legal questions being raised about copyright infringment and ownership of virtual property on Second Life servers. In response, Linden Lab ammended their TOS. What drove companies out almost immediately was this gem:

7.2 You grant certain Content licenses to Linden Lab by submitting your Content to the Service.

You agree that by uploading, publishing, or submitting any Content to or through the Servers, Websites, or other areas of the Service, you hereby automatically grant Linden Lab a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicenseable, and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the Service.

You understand that this license enables Linden Lab to display, distribute, promote, and improve the Service. You agree that the license includes the right to copy, analyze and use any of your Content as Linden Lab may deem necessary or desirable for purposes of debugging, testing, or providing support or development services in connection with the Service and future improvements to the Service. The license granted in this Section 7.2 is referred to as the "Service Content License."

Following sections also allowed Second Life users to use any content displayed in public areas as if they were licensed to do so. This completely killed the concept of Real Life advertising in-world. The sections were:

7.3 You grant certain Content licenses to users of Second Life by submitting your Content to publicly accessible areas of the Service.

7.4 You also grant Linden Lab and other users of Second Life a license to use in snapshots and machinima your Content that is displayed In-World in publicly accessible areas of the Service.

In short, no company was willing to give up their property rights to Linden Lab and its users just to have a virtual world presence.  At the same time there were also the lawsuits brought against Linden Lab by Stroker Serpentine (the infamous SexGen cases) which started in 2007 and concluded in 2009. In short, Linden Lab was scrambling not to be the target of mass legal actions and consequently distanced themselves as much as possible from offering any binding property rights to SL residents.

This happened before the economy tanked and users under 18 years old were allowed on the main grid. As logical as it seems that companies like Coca-Cola and H&R Block left SL because they could not afford it and were afraid of naked avatars on their sim, those issues had nothing to do with their decision to abandon SL. Sorry!

As a side note, Linden Lab's aversion to legal battles was not limited to the copyright cases. Before that they eliminated in-world gambling because of congressional and legal inquiries, and more recently they changed their policy about third-party linden exchanges to avoid running afoul of federal regulations. No matter how innovative Linden Lab is, they are a company focused on making money rather than being a crusader for virtual reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nuhai Ling wrote:

I hate to burst everyone's bubble but Real Life companies left SL in 2008 after Linden Lab changed their TOS policy concerning copyrights and ownership. At the time there were several legal questions being raised about copyright infringment and ownership of virtual property on Second Life servers. In response, Linden Lab ammended their TOS. What drove companies out almost immediately was this gem:

7.2 You grant certain Content licenses to Linden Lab by submitting your Content to the Service.

You agree that by uploading, publishing, or submitting any Content to or through the Servers, Websites, or other areas of the Service, you hereby automatically grant Linden Lab a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicenseable, and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the Service.

You understand that this license enables Linden Lab to display, distribute, promote, and improve the Service. You agree that the license includes the right to copy, analyze and use any of your Content as Linden Lab may deem necessary or desirable for purposes of debugging, testing, or providing support or development services in connection with the Service and future improvements to the Service. The license granted in this Section 7.2 is referred to as the "Service Content License."

Following sections also allowed Second Life users to use any content displayed in public areas as if they were licensed to do so. This completely killed the concept of Real Life advertising in-world. The sections were:

7.3 You grant certain Content licenses to users of Second Life by submitting your Content to publicly accessible areas of the Service.

7.4 You also grant Linden Lab and other users of Second Life a license to use in snapshots and machinima your Content that is displayed In-World in publicly accessible areas of the Service.

In short, no company was willing to give up their property rights to Linden Lab and its users just to have a virtual world presence.  At the same time there were also the lawsuits brought against Linden Lab by Stroker Serpentine (the infamous SexGen cases) which started in 2007 and concluded in 2009. In short, Linden Lab was scrambling not to be the target of mass legal actions and consequently distanced themselves as much as possible from offering any binding property rights to SL residents.

This happened before the economy tanked and users under 18 years old were allowed on the main grid. As logical as it seems that companies like Coca-Cola and H&R Block left SL because they could not afford it and were afraid of naked avatars on their sim, those issues had nothing to do with their decision to abandon SL. Sorry!

As a side note, Linden Lab's aversion to legal battles was not limited to the copyright cases. Before that they eliminated in-world gambling because of congressional and legal inquiries, and more recently they changed their policy about third-party linden exchanges to avoid running afoul of federal regulations. No matter how innovative Linden Lab is, they are a company focused on making money rather than being a crusader for virtual reality.

The perceived idea was that the new TOS was giving an open license to anyone in SL to copy and use in any manner they wanted any content in SL.

I believe it was also (at least part of) the reason Rezzable pulled Greenie's out of SL although his stated reason was "we are tired of paying money to LL" when they moved to Open Sim.  It was very sad to see Greenie's go.

Was Stroker's settlement with LL ever published?  I'm unable to find it right now and can't remember ever seeing it.

We could debate forever how involved LL should be in policing the Grid for copyright infringement, whether or not they should be acting on Content when no DCMA has been filed. 

Regardless. LL needs to act swiftly and decisively on accounts that infringe on Copyright (ETA) that have DCMA's filed against them.

Right now there are still a lot of people who don't understand what infringement is.  See this current thread (pops) for an example.

Right now any one wanting to import Mesh into SL has to pass a test on IP rights.  Would it be too onerous to require it for everyone before they can upload an image or create a prim In World?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Regardless. LL needs to act swiftly and decisively on accounts that
infringe on Copyright
(ETA) that have DCMA's filed against them.

 

OK so let's say I create something in InWorldz.  Unbeknownst to me it is copybotted there and the copybotter then imports it into SL and starts selling it.  A few weeks later I join SL and import my model and start selling it.  Within days the copybotter files a DCMA against me.  According to LL's records the copybotter was indeed the first to import it into SL.  Should LL then take swift and decisive action against my account, the original creator of the object?

This is why LL cannot act and be the arbiter of a DCMA case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Sy Beck wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:


Regardless. LL needs to act swiftly and decisively on accounts that
infringe on Copyright
(ETA) that have DCMA's filed against them.

 

OK so let's say I create something in InWorldz.  Unbeknownst to me it is copybotted there and the copybotter then imports it into SL and starts selling it.  A few weeks later I join SL and import my model and start selling it.  Within days the copybotter files a DCMA against me.  According to LL's records the copybotter was indeed the first to import it into SL.  Should LL then take swift and decisive action against my account, the original creator of the object?

This is why LL cannot act and be the arbiter of a DCMA case.

I understand your reasoning there. 

One point that would weigh heavily in this though is the Real World ramifications to filing a False DCMA.

That applies to both filing a DCMA and Counter Claims.

How many thieves would risk this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My answer would be, as many that had the chutzpah to do it.  

Using my example, the copybotter copies the model in IW takes it into a 3D program and moves a few vertices and edges around and adds maybe a few personal identifiers to it.  How does, me the creator, and my crack team of lawyers prove that the copybotter and I didn't come up with the same design at roughly the same time and it wasn't to all intents and purposes a race to market?  I got to IW first where he doesn't sell his copied product and he got to SL first where he defends his so called creation by filing a DMCA.

I'm sure with tenacity and with a police force that was intent on discovering the truth about a dollar product and quite a few bucks dedicated to my legal bill then a point could be reached where one could reach the conclusion that in all probable likelihood my creation was copied.  That would though have to involve seizure of both parties computers, tracking back on their internet histories and avatar creations, getting information from ISPs and analysing their 3D creation software; not a routine or priority task for any police force investigating a low value crime I would suggest.

So, until some creator follows through with a DMCA and an examplary punishment is given by a judge then I see no end to copybotters.  As I see it at the moment the rewards outweigh the risks.  The only risk being that somebody might file a DMCA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Sy Beck wrote:

My answer would be, as many that had the chutzpah to do it.  

Using my example, the copybotter copies the model in IW takes it into a 3D program and moves a few vertices and edges around and adds maybe a few personal identifiers to it.  How does I, the creator, and my crack team of lawyers prove that the copybotter and I didn't come up with the same design at roughly the same time and it wasn't to all intents and purposes a race to market?  I got to IW first where he doesn't sell his copied product and he got to SL first where he defends his so called creation by filing a DMCA.

I'm sure with tenacity and with a police force that was intent on discovering the truth about a dollar product and quite a few bucks dedicated to my legal bill then a point could be reached where one could reach the conclusion that in all probable likelihood my creation was copied.  That would though have to involve seizure of both parties computers, tracking back on their internet histories and avatar creations, getting information from ISPs and analysing their 3D creation software; not a routine or priority task for a police force investigating a low value crime I would suggest.

So, until some creator follows through with a DMCA and examplary punishment is given by a judge then I see no end to copybotters.  As I see it at the moment the rewards outweigh the risks.  The only risk being that somebody
might
file a DMCA.

Your right, there are some people out there with a lot of chutzpah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...