Comments on: State of Play post 1

By: Peter Ludlow

Peter Ludlow — Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:48:05 +0000

Too late, Dan. The Gaming Open Market beat me too it. It sounds like they are considering the possibility of going long and short on game currencies too, though I can't imagine who would want to go long on any of these.

By: Dan Hunter

Dan Hunter — Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:50:57 +0000

“I would short There if I could.”

So when are you establishing a securities market in worlds? And can I buy a seat on the exchange when you do?

Dan.

By: Kale

Kale — Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:07:56 +0000

Thanks a lot for the post. Could we have here a company that actually responds (wake up EA…..still no word from them, and excuse the digression)? I’m loving that already.
I indeed have not played 2nd Life, but it’s really being hyped which is fabulous and must be an indication of something going down. My only concern is that the hype might be a little off track, but maybe checking out the TOS will give me a better idea on whether what we’re looking at here is *that* revolutionary. Thanks again, Cory. After I read the TOS (soon), a couple questions may pop up here for discussion…..

By: Peter Ludlow

Peter Ludlow — Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:01:46 +0000

Thanks Cory, this is helpful.

By: Cory Ondrejka

Cory Ondrejka — Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:50:28 +0000

Sorry that I didn’t see this earlier but let me point out a couple of things:
1) the new Second Life TOS allows you to retain the real world property rights that other MMOGs take away. Period. Want to upload something that you own the copyright to, you can and you retain it. Want to design a chair in Second Life then use the design in the real world and sell it to Design Within Reach? You can. Want to put on a play and then sell the novelization? You can. This is Second Life working with the players to give them rights that they wanted.
2) if you haven’t used Second Life, you might not realize that the creative power within Second Life is unlike anything that you have ever used before. You are not repurposing content that we built, not “crafting” in the “push button to make shirt” sense. If you choose to, you can make completely new creations, from clothing to vehicles to entire cities. The users are creating Second Life and it became clear that any company that claims it wants users to build the world but has a TOS that strips the players of their ownership of their creations is being shortsighted at best.

So, if you have questions, please take a look at the TOS (it’s available on out website at secondlife.com) and check out Second Life so that you can understant just how profound a change this is.

By: Candace

Candace — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:15:07 +0000

I have no objection to the company turning a profit. They would be idiots not to do so. We’re cool there. I guess I see it being billed as revolutionary and really benefitting the individual too, and I remain skeptical about that. If the most that happens is you’re benevolently allowed to sell “your” creations on-line without the company suing you, that may be a move forward (I’m not sure if that’s good or bad). However, it really seems like they are hyping up their marketing (again, bright on their part and more power to them), and I don’t see how individuals will benefit all that much. Although, I’m certainly not the type of little punk who calls *all* judges idiots, a number of them are unsympathetic to an individual going against a corporation and I believe that if this is a new realm, they may *well* be resistent to think individuals should have property interests protected for creations that were generated off of someone else’s patented software. That takes a leap, I think. Also, I have not seen the user agreement (I don’t know if it’s available for public perusal, yet?) but depending on a company’s kindness for the protection of your property rights seems unwise. I agree with Kale-uhhhuuuuummmmm (just clearing my throat).

By: urizenus

urizenus — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:04:44 +0000

Ooops, I just learned that for the “continute reading” link to work I have to assign a category to the article. Try now Candace.

About the 2nd Life announcement on property rights, *of course* 2nd Life will benefit from this. How could they not? But a gimmick? I don’t see this. Isn’t enough to know you won’t be sued by 2nd Life for selling your stuff on ebay (like EQ is currently forcing ebay to stop auctions for EQ objects — although as of this typing said auctions continue). It’s also true that 2nd Life won’t be in court with you if somone infringes on your ingame intellectual property. (actually, I’m not sure that’s right — they may well assist in such litigation as it is in their interest to do so). But I can’t see that this is any different from other cases of copyright infringement. People infringe, and if you want to fight them you go to court and try to show damages. In spite of what you see in presidential appointments, judges are not idiots and they will understand that people have viable property interests here.

By: Candace

Candace — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:25:16 +0000

Urizenus,
I could not follow the link to read the rest of the story; don’t know if that’s me or something wrong with the post.

Anyhow, you seem extremely excited about this, and I’m anxious to hear more. Call me cynical (I’ve been called worse), but I tend to see this as a gimmick (perhaps a very bright one) to promote the game. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with promotion (long-live capitalism) but my interest here is in the economic/legal implications. At first glance “to allow players to keep rights to the intellectual content” they create in the game sounds really cool. What that will amount to in terms of actual rights and economics (virtual or otherwise) is what I want to determine. Is it simply a promise that “we won’t sue you for selling items on e-bay” (note how that does not have the proper commercial ring to it)? If so, these people will sell there creations to others who will use it in game and it still benefits the company. I’m skeptical that were the content to be used in a way objectionable to the company, they would intervene and perhaps proceed to litigation (‘well, it’s “our” format and we bestow the “right” to the individual to retain it but only for purposes of game-play,’ something like that). Intellectual property rights are rather difficult cases to establish, especially in this medium, I would think. I’m fascinated, confused, weary and wary. I look forward to more on this exciting topic. Thanks for making it to the conference for all your readers.
Candace