Phrynne

Lindal, please contact Wordsmith. People are worried about you not being inworld for more than a month.

I have been riding podcars for about 8 years now -- they are one of the reasons I bought land in Jeogeot, because I liked the look of it from the road. I think they are a great benefit to the Mainland; they allow people to see a lot of places they ordinarily might not be able to find. I continue to ride them several times a week, because I enjoy it. Isn't that what Second Life is supposed to be for, enjoyment? What is gained by those who dislike them so much? Who benefits from this dislike? Calling a simple and neutral design "ugly" or "creepy" says so much more about the speaker than it does about the design. As for the number of people riding them -- I often see at least one other person on a podcar when I am out and about, and no, I do not always ride the same one. I am trying to increase my knowledge of Second Life's various locales, and this is an easy way to do it. No, it's not rush-hour traffic -- but 'rush hour' happens at different times in different time zones, and SL is extremely international. Why does it have to be rush hour to please anyone? Can't leisurely touring be acceptable? It has certainly felt like rush hour sometimes when there were other vehicles on the road that aren't podcars, such as the red panel truck that barely dodged around me several times and the flying unmanned green hovercar that tumbled directly over my head. The roads in Mainland aren't nearly as empty as some may think. Yes, it would be wonderful if it were possible to keep open the routes that intersected, so that one vehicle could connect with another. I wish that would happen. But at least they are still there at the stations, and the possibility of rezzing cars. In the absence of podcars on the roads, I will continue to ride what is possible.

My opinion has not changed in regard to the TOS. It is one thing to say that LL is trying to help us market our creations to its other projects (if and when that is possible), but it is quite another thing for LL to claim ownership and right to exploit our creations without our consent or knowledge. This needs to be cleared up, and it needs to be done as soon as possible, as it affects *everyone who creates anything in SL*, whether that person is creating an elaborate full-sim fantasy or putting two prims together for the first time. I want to see a clearer, plain-language TOS that explicitly restores full rights and ownership of work to creators, while making it possible for creators to market their work wherever creators wish to do so. I would like to know the reactions to the TOS that came from the many corporations and universities in Second Life to the TOS's explicit asserting of SL's supposed ownership of their own copyrighted and trademarked logos and other content. When the TOS was made public I was in the process of opening a shop, and was involved in building both hats for the shop and building replicas of Victorian houses that have been in my family since the 1840s. I have continued with the hats at the shop, but have ceased work on the houses altogether. I would like to make these authentic houses available, but I want complete control of how they are to be made available, and since I have done the work on them I want the profit. I have not put any of my work on Marketplace because of the TOS in its current form. This means that I have less income from my work -- and SL makes no profit from it at all -- and this reduced income restricts the amount of money that I have to spend in SL. But it also means that I have control over my work, sold only inworld and with my knowledge and consent. I am uncomfortable with the direction that UCCSL is taking. I do not like the efforts to control discussion of the TOS on UCCSL chat, or the impatience with reasonable questions concerning the status of the TOS. Not everyone was inworld during the entire time when notices were posted during the holiday season; it would be a good idea to create an accessible archive of all notecards and notices concerning the TOS, so that they could be read at any time and would not need to be reposted. I am distressed that intelligent, creative people appear to be leaving or forced out of active participation in UCCSL because of differences of opinion with those who are in charge in various areas. Surely, in an organization that came together to I also see no need for a guild seal, pledge or other emblem of exclusivity. The UCCSL came together to deal with the TOS issue; it was not intended to be an exclusive private club. It was supposed to represent creators from as many areas as possible who were concerned about retaining full legal rights to their own work. It does not matter if the member is making something simple or elaborate, or in what medium this is being done, or the size of the work, or anything else. What matters is that it is an act of creation and is subject to the TOS. This is not a medieval guild, with secret symbols and authorities policing shops to make sure things are done in the guild's approved way. It is a coalition of creators who came together to deal with a threat to their ownership of and rights over their work. That's all.