Jump to content

Linden Lab is building a NEW virtual world


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1813 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


Suspiria Finucane wrote:


Qie Niangao wrote:

Other than invalidating all existing content for which no such agreement could be practically obtained (
creators gone missing
, etc.), this all seems an utter waste of time. It may be the cost of doing business globally, but that doesn't make it less silly.

Interesting point and you should include avatars gone missing. How could anyone expect LL to bring in all the inventories of every sign up in SL history to the new platform? I know people who have left SL for years and returned. How will inventories be deemed "worthy" of adding to the new platform? Will there be a request form of some sorts?

 

I know you can't answer these but you sparked the sine wave.

Several things here. First, I wasn't particularly advocating that all that ever existed in SL Classic should be imported to BetterWorld, and that goes for accounts, too. Someday, however, SL will be shut down, and if there's still some functioning virtual world, I'd like to think some folks whose RL passed might still have their SL identity persist in some form. (Some form of persistence, that is, more veridical than early archives of these forums have been.) Maybe that's maudlin, or history-obsessed.

As it happens, even the default access to legacy content is, uh, contentious, and I'm of two minds about it:

On the one hand, I can see the point of current creators wanting to update their back catalog of content to fit the technologies of the new platform before it appears there, rather than suffer a (possibly lossy) automated migration.

On the other hand, from a more legalistic perspective, those creators shouldn't necessarily have any say in the matter. Indeed, the line of commentary to which I was responding was about how Europeans can screw the rest of us by sprinkling TOS-disabling fairy dust. (Seems borderline fraudulent to agree to a ToS that's personally unenforceable, then exploit that special exemption to swindle everybody by selling content one can later just pull away: Ha-ha, suckers!)

Finally, I'd just point out that as technology consumers we're quick to accept the idea that systems should be swapped out, rebuilt from the ground up. I think it was Mies van der Rohe who said that it is not necessary to invent a new architecture every Monday morning. Earlier I speculated about some reasons to start from scratch besides basic engineering failure, but someday it will seem unimaginably primitive (and immoral?) to introduce a whole new virtual word rather than augment what already exists. It's only that we have not yet evolved an aversion to capital punishment of our virtual worlds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys.. the problem is not what the CREATORS can do with their own creations, they can do a lot, and they also have those creations on their HD or can bring hem there.. self created items are not a problem.

The problem is what the BUILDERS can do with FULL PERMISSION items they bought from creators in order to combine them , re-texture them , script them , etc and create this way new products of which they are the creator but for parts of that product they are not the creator..

Such items can not be saved on HD , neither via Second Inventory nor via Singularity's functions. Should the transfer of these items to the new world require the downlod of these items on HD and re-upload from there, this will not be possibe.. Only LL can do that in a more or less automated way..

Link to post
Share on other sites

SI would actually save the mesh to disk, but in reality it only saved the textures and some other information.

It restored it as a sphere of type prim in opensim with texture and color applied. 

So it did not work, as expected for mesh.  

Link to post
Share on other sites


Qie Niangao wrote:

Seems borderline fraudulent to agree to a ToS that's personally unenforceable, then exploit that special exemption to swindle everybody by selling content one can later just pull away: Ha-ha, suckers!

What is borderline fraudulent is to sneak in new provisions in the TOS where you effectively waiver all your control of how your creations are used, distributed and sold by the service provider ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites


Gavin Hird wrote:


Qie Niangao wrote:

Seems borderline fraudulent to agree to a ToS that's personally unenforceable, then exploit that special exemption to swindle everybody by selling content one can later just pull away: Ha-ha, suckers!

What is borderline fraudulent is to sneak in new provisions in the TOS where you effectively waiver all your control of how your creations are used, distributed and sold by the service provider ;-)

Oh, the new ToS is a fustercluck, no doubt about it. But there's been a license grant in the ToS since the beginning of SL, and  all this time creators have been merrily agreeing to that ToS so that LL can provide a service that includes content licensed from those creators -- but now there's hint of a possible software upgrade, and some of those creators have found a geographically convenient excuse that might invalidate those licenses.If they exercise that loophole, those creators would have been selling under false pretenses, bordering on fraud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gavin this is not a direct reply to you, its general since you were the last one to post!

I can't see many content creators even bothering to do updates of content and give it to old customers, i also own a Christmas store in sl that's only open for about 3 months a year and i never noted how many customers i had last year but in previous years I have had about 8000 individual customers a year the logistics alone would keep me busy for a year to sort that mess out! let alone the customers of my main business

I can see all creators reselling content if it can be converted for use in sl2 even the full perm stuff

I for one have no plans on moving I may set up something in sl2 maybe, but it takes a lot to impress me^^

One good thing is a lot migrate then maybe it wont be so laggy in SL come Friday and the weekend,  group chat may work^^

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you mean it is fraud to exercise our legal rights?  Linden Lab's attorney should have made sure those clauses never were there. The fact they are, is the fraud if any ;-)

... and to bail out  LL they can fix it with proper developer agreements. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


LaskyaClaren wrote:

 

Thanks for these responses! (And sorry for posting the questions again -- I managed to miss this reply somehow.)


Probably because he hid his responses - I note you avoid terming them "answers" - in an extremely badly formatted post.

Perhaps you should offer him some tuition in Forums101.

"ain't it hard"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is by way of a reply to the whole sub-thread about the ToS and EU law, rather than a direct reply to Gavin.

As I understand it, EU law on virtual intellectual property is horrendously complex, and probably only properly understood by a few hundred, very highly-paid, specialist practitioners in in the whole of the EU, and that's before what happens when it conflicts with IP law in a different jurisdiction.  Quite seriously,  if I were to seek competent advice in London on the topic, I'd be speaking to someone whose hourly rate is probably more than what most of us cash out in a month.   Few of these practicioners, I suggest, are volunteering their opinions here, pro bono.

I certainly don't have either the time or the resources to seek a declaration from the European Court of Justice that LL's ToS are unlawful, and I'm not sure what remedies would be available to me even if I obtained such a declaration.    

I can't see this discussion getting anywhere past the theoretical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are absolutely right that the general picture of intellectual property right is very complex across Europe, but that is not the discussion here. The discussion is consumer legislation where such TOS are covered. Consumer legislation is reasonably unified across the EU due to directives from the union.

 

The law says that clauses in such TOS are null and void if they don't meet the minimum requirements of the law. Actually you cannot legally accept such TOS even if you did, simply because they are null and void and therefore does not exist from the law's standpoint in this event.

 

Again the sensible thing for LL to do is to remove the clauses in contention from the TOS, and move them into a developer agreement that also covers distribution if the creator wants to have the creations distributed on the marketplace and to other services rendered by LL.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Gavin Hird wrote:

The law says that clauses in such TOS are null and void if they don't meet the minimum requirements of the law. Actually you cannot legally accept such TOS even if you did, simply because they are null and void and therefore does not exist from the law's standpoint in this event.

And yet creators have been collecting money for content they've licensed since 2003 under terms that are identical in this regard. If they'll now renege on  those terms because they're all null and void and stuff, they must first repay every dime they collected from their unwitting customers -- or accept the fact they're just ordinary swindlers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but my point is that it may well be the case that the law says what you say it does, but that's of no use until someone obtains a judicial declaration that the SL ToS contravene EU law.   I don't have the resources to seek such a declaration,  particularly if LL decided to contest the case, and I'm not sure what I'd do with it once I obtained it.   

What would I be asking the court to order LL to do (or not to so) and what would I be asking the court to do if LL refused to comply?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you understand this, do you? :-)

I can't tell if the TOS has been illegal all of the time SL has existed. Possibly not since there has been development in the legislation during the 11 year period. OK?

Secondliy, up till very recently the provisions about IP were largely there for LL to be able to render the creations in their current service to other users, to let other users use the creations and to trade the creation on the existing service. In addition it covered storage on their storage systems, backups, tnasmission over networks and such things for the service to be able to work at all.

What happened then was new provisions where you essentially gave away your creations for LL to be able to use them - also for fiancial gains in new services without even telling the creator, let alone compensate the creator. THAT is where it starts to get hairy, and where the developer and distribution agreement should kick in. 

It should be at the sole discretion of the creator to decice if they want their creations used and/or traded in an new service.  From the ring of it SLv2 is a new service. 

LL's potential problem is that the TOS are for a number of reasons not in compliance with EU legislation and therefor we have legally never accepted them. To bring the TOS up to the standard so they become legal is their responsibility alone. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't understand this, which is why I'm asking.

You say the ToS are unlawful under EU law.  Possibly you are correct, but the only way we'll know for sure is if a competent court in the EU issues a ruling to that effect.

OK.  I've been to court and now I've got my ruling, at not inconsiderable expense.  

What happens next, particularly if LL say, "we don't have a legal presence in the EU in the way Microsoft and Google do, and we only pay attention to US and California law"?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:

No, I don't understand this, which is why I'm asking.

You say the ToS are unlawful under EU law.  Possibly you are correct, but the only way we'll know for sure is if a competent court in the EU issues a ruling to that effect.

OK.  I've been to court and now I've got my ruling, at not inconsiderable expense.  

What happens next, particularly if LL say, "we don't have a legal presence in the EU in the way Microsoft and Google do, and we only pay attention to US and California law"?

 

Actually they can't say that as they collect VAT in accordance with EU legilsation. You can't pick and choose which part of the law you want to adhere to?

Link to post
Share on other sites


Ebbe Linden wrote:

It will take a long time. So SL will continue to be there and we'll continue to improve it. And we'll do the absolute best we can to help you all get going on the new product when it's ready. How exactly and when exactly and how long etc. we will find out with time. But we have to make this invesment in the future to make what we all enjoy much much better. 

Ebbe-

All things must move forward, that is a simple way of advancemnet in life itself. I think you may not be understanding the frustration that all of us Residents who have been told things over the years that made us lose faith in LL for very good reason. YOU have just came on board so even if information you receive from your fellow workers there at LL I am sure and can guarantee the truth and validation is way off.

SL is not just content creators, every resident plays an integral part of this community. You can create until your hearts content, but without buyers like myself and many, many others, you have created content that isn't moving. Many of us have spent a lot of money, granted it should be entertainment money and not something we could not afford to lose, BUT it is not like LL is shutting the doors to the entire company, LL is stating they are making a new improved BETTER world so there is that importance you need to understand on what we as residents value oursleves here and what made us sink our money into Second life. If LL doors were closing I could see anyone making a comment about their inventory, business products, etc..MOOT. But that is not the case. Listen to your user base and not just a select few LL seems to give privy information to, I can say that the people that have been allowed first hand information on this new plan are not in the vast majority of what built Second Life all these years, seriously. We have been treated like fools for years but still the magic that we felt all as residents of this community kept this place alive...not LL.

I hope you take into consideration what was really built here and not just keep saying "better." We are pretty intelligent as a community.

Finally, I can see why you had gone to SLU instead of this forum. Many replies and bashing speak for itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a ton of people on lots of different sides of the bringing content over thing. So here is my thought process on the topic so far.

I completely understand that people spent a fortune on full perm kits. Heck I bought a few myself back in the day. Those kits were purchased and sold with the intention of use in SL1. After all SL2 was not even a gleam on the horizon. I am not really sure a merchant has any obligation at all to port the stuff over and provide a free upgrade path. The stuff after all is still useable in SL1 which it was intended for.

-Caveate here being that I think it would be wise for merchants who plan to bring over old content to provide that upgrade path and it could for that matter be a good selling point for new creations that are put on the market between now and SL2 launch.

I am currently not planning to bring any of my old stuff over. None zip zero nada. Even SL1 has evolved since the days when I was a serious creator. I would prefer to start fresh and provide quality for the new world. I would be pretty pissed though if LL let anyone bring my old stuff over without my CHOOSING to allow it. I probably would allow it,. This is about the principal of the creator not being asked not the actual bringing over. After all it is my name on it and me who would be expected to provide support for it.


I totally understand many of us have HUGE investements in our inventories. We bought them with the intention of using them one way or another in SL. We have done that and will continue to do that until SL is shut down. It has ALWAYS been that way, nothing has changed in the premise under which we bought what we bought. We all knew SL and out inventories would poof one day. That stuff however was not sold to us with any knowledge of a SL2 or intention of use in SL2. After all it didn't exist.

I am not so sure it is right to expect creators for SL to port stuff to SL2 just because people spent money on it in SL1.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:


Vinten wrote:

Ok let's cut to the chase and here is the bottom line, I hope LL reads this because this is and will remain unanswered:

 

Nobody is really opposed to a better platform that will make the user experience better.

What people are opposed to is the investment everyone has made into their assets / inventory from

a financial perspective. If we ( the sl users ) did not by stuff and make an economy for LL to profit, LL could

not afford the new platform. So now LL could press the delete button eventually on our assets to build a more

expensive delete button for the future.

 

To Linden Labs: How are you going to compensate us for this if we cannot transfer our assets?

 Simple enough question, simple understandable answer required . 

Quite frankly, that is such a sefl-centred attitude. Haven't you had pleasure from the things you bought in SL? Did you genuinely imagine that the things you bought would last forever once you'd paid a pittance for each one? You've had plenty of pleasure from each item and you should be very pleased to have had all those pleasures for such a very small cost. So, if some, most, or even all of your stuff can't be moved to SL2, just be very pleased that you've had all that enjoyment for such a small cost.

Phil-

Not all of us just poured in a small pittance as you say to enjoy Second Life. Not one of us in this community can put judgement on what a small pittance is or a large sum of money for enjoyment. Don't argue for the sake of argueing, if you want to start shelling out monetary numbers, let's start a thread about that and that alone on how we can judge others for their spending in Second Life.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Medhue Simoni wrote:


Deej Kasshiki wrote:

I keep hearing about how this new platform will focus on content creators as king. I want to know is how us poor schmucks (like me who have shelled out real money for almost 8 years now as a Premium member) who aren't merchants will figure into the equation? The fact that the CEO spoke first with the "opinion leaders and VIPs" over at SLU speaks volumes, IMO.

Yeah I know that without content there's no VW but, I also know that without people to create for there's likewise no VW.  Sorry but, I don't want to be seen as just another "consumer"; an ignorant open maw that takes whatever gets shovelled down its throat, important only because it has a wallet attached to it.

All I know for sure is that whatever LL is working on had better be
damned compelling
for me to give up potentially 8 years plus worth of accumulated knowledge (and inventory) and they'd better start making that case as soon as possible. Otherwise as news of this gets more widely distributed people will panic and will start making plans to leave what will be seen as a sinking ship.

When the content creators are king, that really means the consumers are king. Content creators have to cater to the consumers.
The reality is that creators are slaves to the consumer's will.

My bolding is indicitave of the way you worded this. I for one appreciate content creators but they are in no way a slave to me. Is my wllet a slave to them? No.  There are a few people I have a high level of respect for that allow me to have more things to enjoy SL. Those are also the creators that I would spend a lot more than what they charge to purchase an item. I am not one of the free for all mindset. If you had no consumers, you would just be playing with your toys alone and the consumers would either learn to make their things or go without and be very basic in the use.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Atma Constantine wrote:


Finally, I can see why you had gone to SLU instead of this forum. Many replies and bashing speak for itself.

I have spent a great deal of time in both forums and previously in the SLX/Xstreet forum. All of them have had some ugly stuff in them at times.* To screen it out would mean some pretty strict enforcement of some pretty restrictive rules, which few seem to want.  

That said, I quail at the rude things that have been said in this thread. (On SLX they would have been removed.) One thing many would hope for going forward is a well-moderated official SL forum.

* Actually the merchant forum here, tho not without some occasional heated discussions, has been moderated very well, IMO. It has been kept mostly on topic, and insults and personal attacks not tolerated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK.  Now we're getting somewhere.   If LL refuse to comply with the court order, I can ask the court to delare them in contempt of court, and to fine them (by attaching their funds in the EU before they leave the jurisdition).

So what is it that I'm asking the Court to order then to do, or not to do?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1813 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...