Ishtara Rothschild Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Charolotte Caxton wrote: ... I believe that Ishtara's and Void's comments have eventually come to the same conclusion, that our avatars are alive and they do posses worth and are no less important or real than the characters who sit behind the screen operating them. The reason I believe they have come to this conclusion is because none of us would be here if it were not for our created virtual selves. While it is true that the cancellation or deletion of our accounts would not end our RL existence, such an ending of our virtual selves would I think, kill a part of us that in no way could ever be brought back to life again. So, like I said, Second Life is an evolutionary process, just like life, that cannot be unanimously agreed upon. While there will be many attempts at defining it, those definitions will be inadequate and incomplete, the arguing of those definitions give rise to more understanding and therefore discussions like this are of benefit. If I have misunderstood Ishtara or Void, I apologize to both of you, I must say that I am biased towards Void's explanations of life because they more closely mirror my own and I have to profess a slight discomfort in Ishtara's presence, but I am certain she must be used to this, but regardless, when she gets something right, she gets it right. I agree with that, but I think that the definition of SL is not all that important for the legal status of our avatars. I'd expect the same kind of legal protection for my WoW character if I was an avid WoW player. I remember reading about an Everquest player who committed suicide because he lost his entire equipment. Even if it's just a game, losing virtual property can be devastating and identity loss even more so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Void Singer Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Ishtara Rothschild wrote: If our definitions are too inclusive, they become pretty meaningless too. If water meets our definition for a living organism, the term "life" becomes pretty pointless imho. We'd have to come up with a new term for carbon-based, self-replicating protein structures. my point wasn't to argue that water should qualify as life, that was just a mental excise in poking holes in your original definition as stated... I agree that it can't be too broad, but it should be overarching in it's principles to be process neutral, characteristic moderate, and behavior specific. as for avatar as extension, I don't ever see that happening in our lifetime in the legal sense... as property it has good odds though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charolotte Caxton Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Well, in answer to you and Void's comments ahead of this one, wasn't there a person who copyrighted their avatar? She like claimed the right to her look, so in a sense sealed the right to her own virtual self, right? While this is not the same as saying, hey! My avatar is a person, it is saying, my avatar has worth, like I think Ishtara alluded to, Coke a Cola has worth as a name/product/entity and as Void said, as a property. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Void Singer Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 I hadn't heard about that (or forgot =X) but it's not at all surprising... to some extent it should be possible, although I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Ishtara is more aimed at automatic right, which largely don't exist at the moment (there's some limited copyright currently, and I'm sure it could be extended) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charolotte Caxton Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Automatic right is what? Because I think it, it's mine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Void Singer Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 what we have now is limited rights, with the limits set by LL. Automatic rights (redundant in the legal sense, all "rights" are automatic) would be more expansive and set by higher authorities (government, international agreement, or some such). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charolotte Caxton Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Hm, that's very interesting, and sad. I know I am made up of several content creator's creations, but I would like to think that because I breathe life into the combination of all my graphics, I could claim the end product as me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Void Singer Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 you can, it's just not an automatic thing... you would have to pursue a trademark to the combination for purposes of marketing/representation (much like several celebrities have done in the past).... copyright *might* be possible, but it's thorny for more than the obvious reasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charolotte Caxton Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Ah, thus the definition of automatic? And what might the obvious reasons be? I obviously don't know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Void Singer Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 well for starters it'd be hard to claim copyright if the majority of your "image" consists of other peoples copyrighted work... not impossible, but hard. the non obvious parts would start in the realm of how commonly available those copyrighted portions are, and whether a recognized copyright for you would adversely affect others using those works and to what degree. I had another in mind as well, but I'm on the edge of sleep and lost it =x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillon Levenque Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Keli Kyrie wrote: Some like it rough, some like it spaced-out and some don't like you to call it a game at all... So what do you think: Do you play SL or does it play you... Not sure. More the latter than the former, I think. Keli Kyrie wrote: or is it something all together different than anything else? Yes. While there are certainly games to be played in SL, I don't think of it as a game. For one thing, you can't win (I know, I know: the same could be said of dodgeball) but beyond that it has few of the attributes associated with what is traditionally thought of as a game, video or otherwise. There are no clear winners—although there are some pretty obvious losers (sorry, could NOT resist). There aren't any stated goals or levels of achievement. There are no recognized ranks, unlike the Forums. Sure, you can treat is as a game. Some people treat REAL life as a game, for that matter. You could try to acquire the most money, or the most land, or something like that. Be incredibly boring for me but then that's just me. Things like Bloodlines have very definite game attributes and I've heard there is fierce competition for souls or whatever it is they use to keep score. But even there I would be quite willing to bet a fair large number of Lindens that a lot of Bloodlines 'players' are involved just because they think vampires are sexy. The thing that really keeps me here are the connections, the personal connections. I am an immersionist. I treat the friendships I have here just as I would friendships in RL. I have no problem with those who consider this all just a pretty game to be played, or a way to expand upon their RL connections. I just feel they are missing something. Yes, it's true: when I log off, I'm not 'here' anymore. Doesn't mean I'm not thinking about here, or that people here aren't thinking about me. A couple of hundred years ago friendships, relationships, even marriages, might go months or years without any personal interaction between the partners other than handwritten letters. That did not make them any less real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charolotte Caxton Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Losers? Everything was the same, except he could fly, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillon Levenque Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Charo, I was TOLD—I don't have proof but I was told—that the SL scenes for that were shot in the same place I used for my 'Audience With M'! Check the credits :-). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charolotte Caxton Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 mmm, which credits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alazarin Mondrian Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Keli Kyrie wrote: Do you play SL or does it play you... ...In Soviet Russia Second Life plays you. :smileyhappy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DQ Darwin Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Well if you really are psychic then I don't have to say what I'm thinking about your post, yawn. Mayalily wrote: No, I'm psychic in many ways! I knew that response was coming. I was just waiting for it. *yawn* because I have psychic abilities. I really actually do. And I never actually said the photo was "cute"; it's just some people think their photo is cute; I'm not into being a soccer Mom. But cute guy photos, that would be a different story altogether. I'd look at the cute guy photos, but not necessarily reply to this topic. SL is what the individual makes it, nothing more, nothing less, and all this is is arguing whether SL is a game or not. I think Keli is looking for the mating game, or the vanity thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charolotte Caxton Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Omg, I just found this and thought it pertains and is hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keli Kyrie Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 lmao Charolotte. I saw part one a while ago I did not know there was a part 2. I guess the take home message from this video is "Second Life is not a game it is a online social experience." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charolotte Caxton Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Nah, the pertinence I thought was that there are different views on what it is, plus it was way funny Your mom is an online social experience! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keli Kyrie Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 You think that guy supports different views? He killed everyone with a different view. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charolotte Caxton Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 He only killed to survive. In a world gone mad, everyone is either prey or a predator. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Void Singer Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 the world can't go mad, it always has been.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillon Levenque Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Charolotte, where do you find this stuff? That is incredible! And incredibly funny. You forget sometimes how much brilliance and how much humor the people that inhabit this space have. Awesome. I did have a bit of a problem with one of the early scenes but I'm letting it ride;-). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now