Dartagan Shepherd

Well, I've done the rah-rah thing but that gets old with a losing team. I suppose we may be the tea party of SL, but that's fine. Personally I think people label their own boxes very clearly and those who try to re-label them tend to get them wrong. One persons tea party is anothers consumer protection or IP rights, I suppose. None of which really has much to do with the fact that the ToS is indeed perceived as an overbearing agreement. So say most aware users, most lawyers and consumers of various companies and products that do try to pull this kind of thing on their users. Thankfully there are resources to help combat just this kind of thing. To what degree people participate or don't is really not the issue here. Thank you for playing.

And yet she has contributed some good thoughts on the subject in general, as well as giving us some historical tidbits on times past in SL. Have I missed your thoughts on the matter? I mean besides the ones directed at the people involved.

"it sucks and i wish they would change it back..." Amen to that. Muttering out loud and I've not had time or the inclination to check further, but something that has been eating at me. The lawyers stated at the presentation that the terms "sell" and "resell" in the ToS concerned patents and not copyright and thus LL may have been sloppy in their wording. I'm wondering if this couldn't have been more intentional than that. There have been many inventions in the form of scripted systems that are indeed able to be patented. In fact Amaretto vs. Ozimals was about game mechanics, a case in which patents could have been applied should they have decided to go that route. While I can chalk many things up to incompetence when it comes to LL, their ability to change the ToS at any time may indicate that this might be something to ask a lawyer. Are they chipping away at patent rights as well?

Wait, I'm confused ... are we doing the Wet Blanket Tango, or the Passive Aggressive Waltz? Because you can't dance to both at once. About that ToS ...

That's true, the issues reach much further than content creators, for many forms of property in many mediums. There is VIPO, which is more generic. I thought perhaps Citizens Against Legalized Pirates, or something similar but nothing quite gets the point across that the ToS is like a 10 pound suppository inserted with a croquet mallet.

Oh, I agree some of his comments were constructive, which I partially agreed to when I replied to him. Also why I said take the constructive, ignore the rest and move on. Personally I thought the hubris bit was condescending and that there was some misrepresentation of how lofty and unapproachable a small company CEO is. Other than that, I'm just not seeing the need for the semantic and cyclic bits in crafting a letter.

Perhaps the hubris is on the other side. Companies with a couple of hundred employees are a dime a dozen in pretty much any mid to large city at least here in the US. Most of them are in fact, approachable and willing to talk to their customers at that level. Being busy or gruff isn't an exclusive trait of the fabled CEO. People who think they are generally aren't very familiar with dealing with small to mid sized companies, or their experience in business has mostly been low level, or in sales and they tend to have more of a famiiarity with the old brush off. Rod already knows about the issue and customer reaction. The rest is whether he'll oblige a bit of time to smooth over relations with them. For a CEO that tried to convince us how human he was by wearing a toga and paddling a raft, it may not be such a stretch. Or one that took some digs in stride and said how he loves this community and gets less death threats here than he did while at EA. @Trinity: Don't worry about it. The majority of customers are at the very least are fine with seeing the ToS changed if at all possible. Take the constructive bits, throw out the rest and keep your chin up.

Nothing needs to be offered in return but to remain a customer. There's a difference between pitching something to a company and expressing dissatisfaction as a group of customers. Agree that it should be well thought out, but this is more a petition than pitch. It wouldn't be the first time that LL has responded to an open letter style approach. I think in this case, the more human the better. If it results in nothing, then you're right ... there's a lack of interest by management in their customers views on the topic. If there is not a willingness to communicate or reverse a decision largely disliked by many customers, then it needs to escalate into further action. And there is action available outside of the courts, should we need to go that route.

Always been a big believer in not doing at all or putting off something that needs time to perfect in a product. Tried to tell LL this many times. Sim crossings are a problem, therefore don't do sim crossings do variable size land masses. Being able to preview a neighbor doesn't depend on the mechanism of walking across a border. Variable size land masses that you teleport to, eliminate the overhead needed to maintain "sim crossings". If the load time to transport to a new area can be minimized, it matters not if you can walk across a border. In my mind this is an advantage of CP.

Thanks for clearing that up about Kitely and your stand on merchants and goods. I've never bought into that particular brand of hypocrisy that code or content should be free but that services shouldn't. The people that say this are always all about monetizing "something" their way, and if it's not their way it should be free. "Free as in speech, not as in beer" is like the Dr. Seuss version of business. By that reasoning, everything should be free that isn't a service or support, which they're happy to sell you. Content will always be king because it isn't made in a vaccuum, it comes with humans attached. And human creators that buy from other human creators. In fact, the first market in a new world are generally merchants selling to each other until the customer-only crowd appears, if management can market their way out of a paper bag. The right to decide to sell or provide something for free or at a cost is an individual choice, not an organizations.

Phil Deakins wrote: Dartagan Shepherd wrote: Well, that's a nice surprise. Thanks for requesting it. @Toy: True. Did you catch the one answer to the question of whether LL would do this if they were pondering X, Y or Z with the company. A short and sweet "yes". It's still subjective, and yet it still points to a purpose beyond protectionism. It doesn't mean that that's the reason for the ToS changes though. If you took of your slippers and put on a pair of shoes, someone could ask, "Would he do that if he is intending to go outdoors?" and the answer would be straight yes. But you may not have plans to go outdoors at all. You may be expecting visitors, for instance. So the short answer doesn't point to what you imagine it does. Also, the short answer wasn't given as an opinion as to what is behind the ToS changes. Thus the word "subjective".

I think the transcrpt will be available soon, but worth holding off replying on some of that until you've read it. The way we would boil it down in the forums isn't going to cover the broader less specific way it was presented. We tend to provide our own interjections. They did menion though, and I do believe that LL has pretty much thrown out the protection that safe harbor has previously provided them. They're obviously now a vested party in the content according to the TOS, so safe harbor is much less a defense.

Don't know much about InWorldz, but I do have some unease about OpenSim in general. First it's had a lot of time to mature and gain users and it hasn't yet. It duplicated some of SL's major design flaws. Part of it is that even if you did get an OpenSim world that gained traction it would just act as an upsell for SL. But the big one for me is that from the developers to owners of many grids, they're just not merchant friendly in concept. The development team is open source minded, which tends to focus on monetizing services, not goods. I've heard people running grids mention repeatedly how goods should be free, or open source, or under a Creative Commons license. Few of them really seem to want to groom merchants. And then there's an actual distaste for merchants and goods that seem to drip from articles like this: http://www.hypergridbusiness.com/2013/09/content-is-not-king/ Like others, I'd lean toward Cloud Party before Opensim.

Pamela Galli wrote: I took a look at what people in forums said they earn in 3D sites like Unity 3D, Renderosity, Turbosquid -- and found that, as I suspected, SL, for all its failings, is by comparison simply a gold mine. I too would put my money on Cloud Party if I had to bet against SL. Then there is Phillip's new world, forget what it is called. There is that. There are some people making some good incomes on some of these other sites or projects, but the skills needed and competition are steeper than that of SL. Agree that SL is still one of the best places to sell and compete. Probably should have mentioned that these are alternative paths or for people looking not to put all their eggs in one basket. Being a 3D artist is a career path that has always existed outside of SL and it "can" be lucrative, but SL is the easier and more profitable path depending. Wouldn't recommend giving up SL income to replace it easily with other income. Just that there are choices. On the other hand, I'd never recommend a 3D artist start creating for SL, because the TOS puts restrictions on their work that aren't in their best interests as a career path if they're pursuing game development or film careers.

Well, that's a nice surprise. Thanks for requesting it. @Toy: True. Did you catch the one answer to the question of whether LL would do this if they were pondering X, Y or Z with the company. A short and sweet "yes". It's still subjective, and yet it still points to a purpose beyond protectionism.

These are some markets I've sold to or worked with in the game sector. Note that these aren't like SL where you can just build/upload/sell. But if you're looking to expand career wise, they're useful. Unity3D -- Has a marketplace (not as open as the SL marketplace), although my personal favorite (and sometimes risk venture) is that you can get involved with the community and make your own deals. You can find either paying gigs for modelling, etc, or you can take a chance, join a team and possibly share a piece of the profits on a new game. Check the forums and see what's going on. Either way, you control negotiations over the rights you give. UDK game engine. Same deal as above. The Hero Engine -- Another game engine and one I've got sentimental attachments to. The company started out in the AOL days as the creators of Gemstone, the mother of all commercial MUDs, and arguably one of the first commercial worlds with user generated content. They developed a game engine which was eventually acquired by the current company. One of the strengths to the Hero Engine is that you can develop a game for a monthly fee, supports a team of workers, the hosting for your game and even microtransactions when your game is released. There are usually teams looking for modelling and such if you get more involved. Same as with other game engines, some may be pay, some might be profit sharing ventures. Not looking to overly hype Hero Engine here, it's not a huge community. Basically get out there and network in these communities that are looking to put together teams It's also a good idea to put together a portfolio on your own website of your work, so that you can quickly show your ability to anyone that might be interested. Slightly off topic but a helpful resource for training/school if you're able to afford the commercial 3D software and a monthly fee is Digital Tutors. It's the biggest bang for the buck education wise for those of us who aren't going to go to school for 3D, but still want some good high end training with the commercial apps.

Thanks back at you and to the UCCSL and the panel. I see they've buried the thread in events forum after the event is over, to which I say "heh".

Stream is still working fine here. Once in a while it needs pausing and un-pausing. Will be going over the transcript later with a fine tooth comb. You're right, some great information there. Suprised it's going on for so long. Short version: The TOS is one of the worst around, users would probably win in court, except for the arbitration clause LL relies on to keep it out of court. Anything that does go to court gets settled to avoid setting a negative precedent.

Good deal. Can't be there in-world but listening to the broadcast as we speak. Thanks much.

Jeez. LL doesn't have and isn't going to have an official resource as a "bar association". The current use is within the guidelines as the group and in-world name. The actual entity name is Virtual Intellectual Property Organization. The group was started before the trademark rules, which have never been enforced to date.

Trinity Yazimoto wrote: Oh wow ! and Wagner just deleted my comment where i paste the link for Qarl blog ! amazing ! Probably wants to break the story himself or something. Or put it in his next book on game secrets.

I'm not sure if that started out as a real dream or a pitch. Qarl and employees at the time got the same pitch we did about a world where the users have a say in shaping it, the company was doing it for us, our content our world, blah. Employees got their own version of the pitch ... everyone works on what they want, the love machine to give bonuses to each other by putting bonuses into a pool instead of management doling it out, etc. On the other hand, you had board members that were already into monetizing others work (open source) and then the fated Mitch Kapor SLBB speech where they basically threw all existing users under the bus and said that the early adopters were just fringe fanatics and that SL was grooming for a better grade of "residents". Either way, once the bubble on their little schtik was popped, it became clear that they were all about increasingly taking more and more. It's too bad, Qarl hung on for years after getting canned, believing in the dream. It's fine, we're older and wiser and someone can still build what we thought we were buying into. In the meantime, this one can be held accountable, certainly.

Yes, it did allude that they weren't attorneys. Here's a reference via an interview from someone who was a well known attorney in SL. http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/10/23/interview-tamiko-franklin/ Besides this, verification was always only a phone call away. Are we done yet?

Oh, give it a rest.

Well, like Darrius I've halted a large project. Ironically it depended on the objects remaining unique and exclusive, so the TOS is a showstopper for me personally. Orignally I'd slowed down because of some nonsense with LL support and funds, and dumped our region. Upon waiting for the marketplace to handle unique items and get rid of some bugs and waiting out land impact calculations to become more realistic starting a couple of years ago I decided to take some of my SL time and apply it to something else. Now 2 years later I've become passable on guitar and keyboards which is something I've always wanted to do. I can't say it's been a loss because it's opened up a world of music for me. On the other hand, I'm still waiting for the marketplace to support no copy items with direct delivery, land impact to be more reasonable and now the TOS to change. There's no sign that any of these will actually happen, so it's hurry up and wait, the day jobs and practice, practice, practice.