hide the scars and fade away that shake-up
Friend of mine sent me a link to this entry from his blog. And while I tend to agree with his overall conclusion, I did have to take exception to the main point:
I don't think you're wrong, in the layout of what's happening, what will be happening, with SL, save for one thing. And it's the same point I hit the wall with.
The Lindens have no responsibility, and even less moral and ethical compunction, to hand over a 'resident Bill of Rights'. Linden Labs is a business. Second Life is a game. Period. End of sentence. That's the bottom line.
There is no revolution, there is no outcry that can be made, nothing works, nothing will work--because, at the end of the day, what we make, what we do, in their world--well, it's still their world.
As much as I want things to change, and the Lindens to wake up and realizing they're crafting their own demise--I am not, and no one who is still protesting is, the voice of rebellion. There can be no rebellion, save for leaving the game.
When enough of us leave--led potentially by Anshe Chung, and definitely by Sarah Nerd--and the Labs finally realize the damage they've wrought--will they learn? Will they finally realize what they've done?
And ultimately, I think the answer to that is--no. No. The Lindens are not capable, for whatever reason, of reacting to their environment in any meaningful, understanding way. And that may be the true tragedy in this: that we think they've created something beautiful, something worthy of protection, and they think they've created a marketable game.
It's still true.
Tiny THRILLER! Apparently, you can still get the "Thriller" dance--tiny style!--at Miss Latrell's shop, Lilliput, in Raglan Shire.
See also the Fuzznutz lipsyncing--well, sort of--to the Ting Ting's "That's Not My Name".
Lastly, in the dizzying whirl that is the end of December on the grid, rife with giveaways, advent gifts, and scavenger hunts, we have a woman who apparently thinks CopyBot is better than shopping.
darla Bade has been seen blatantly stealing from those around her with the CopyBot script--or one very like in behavior--and seems to think there's nothing wrong in this, because she's not selling the items she makes.
Let me state this again, because it sounds vaguely important: darla Bade is stealing textures for clothing and fur--and likely more that we don't know about--and thinks it's fine because she doesn't have a store.
Maybe it's me, but I just cannot believe that, in a grid with freebies in every shop corner, practically, a grid where one can now get dressed better from the first step off Orientation Island than any of us were able to dress for pay two years ago--and from the skin and shape out I mean, not just clothing--why would anyone steal 'just because'? Does that make any sense?
Was she dropped on her head as a prim child?
I don't think you're wrong, in the layout of what's happening, what will be happening, with SL, save for one thing. And it's the same point I hit the wall with.
The Lindens have no responsibility, and even less moral and ethical compunction, to hand over a 'resident Bill of Rights'. Linden Labs is a business. Second Life is a game. Period. End of sentence. That's the bottom line.
There is no revolution, there is no outcry that can be made, nothing works, nothing will work--because, at the end of the day, what we make, what we do, in their world--well, it's still their world.
As much as I want things to change, and the Lindens to wake up and realizing they're crafting their own demise--I am not, and no one who is still protesting is, the voice of rebellion. There can be no rebellion, save for leaving the game.
When enough of us leave--led potentially by Anshe Chung, and definitely by Sarah Nerd--and the Labs finally realize the damage they've wrought--will they learn? Will they finally realize what they've done?
And ultimately, I think the answer to that is--no. No. The Lindens are not capable, for whatever reason, of reacting to their environment in any meaningful, understanding way. And that may be the true tragedy in this: that we think they've created something beautiful, something worthy of protection, and they think they've created a marketable game.
It's still true.
Tiny THRILLER! Apparently, you can still get the "Thriller" dance--tiny style!--at Miss Latrell's shop, Lilliput, in Raglan Shire.
See also the Fuzznutz lipsyncing--well, sort of--to the Ting Ting's "That's Not My Name".
Lastly, in the dizzying whirl that is the end of December on the grid, rife with giveaways, advent gifts, and scavenger hunts, we have a woman who apparently thinks CopyBot is better than shopping.
darla Bade has been seen blatantly stealing from those around her with the CopyBot script--or one very like in behavior--and seems to think there's nothing wrong in this, because she's not selling the items she makes.
Let me state this again, because it sounds vaguely important: darla Bade is stealing textures for clothing and fur--and likely more that we don't know about--and thinks it's fine because she doesn't have a store.
Maybe it's me, but I just cannot believe that, in a grid with freebies in every shop corner, practically, a grid where one can now get dressed better from the first step off Orientation Island than any of us were able to dress for pay two years ago--and from the skin and shape out I mean, not just clothing--why would anyone steal 'just because'? Does that make any sense?
Was she dropped on her head as a prim child?
Comments
At the risk of sounding cranky, there's something of a generational gap regarding digital IP. Some - and I emphasize only some - young 'uns have had it drummed into their heads that, if it's digital, it's there for the taking. Call them the Napster Generation. (And apologies to those to whom the generalization does not apply.) When these folks see, or hear, something they want, they take it, heedless of the fact that they're killing the entire process that generated the objects of desire.
As you pointed out, freebies abound. And the products that aren't free are generally absurdly cheap that it's appalling when people choose to steal rather than buy.
She may not have an in world shop but she does have on on OnRez now I am not saying any of it is copybotted as I didn't recognize any of it but I did see several business in a box items for sale for a few hundred lindens
I think a lot of it has to do with level of education, as elitist as that sounds--someone who's well-read, someone who's learned how to think, as well as how to read, how to write, how to behave--knows better, by and large.
It's a difficult line, though. When I create a texture, I have a choice as to how I do that. Can I find copyright-controlled images, and use them? Of course. But it's easier, both creatively and ethically, for me to track down royalty-free images, or simply create my own out of whole pixels, as it were.
I still can't believe that after all the press, after everything, people still think this is okay.
For the same reason that music stores that allow people to listen in-store to the music, make more sales than stores that do not, allowing people to hear what you do, as an artist (or see it for visual artists), gains you more fans than not. And yes, it all goes back to the libraries--of course there are folks who don't buy books, but a large number of people do. I checked out the Samaria books by Susan Shinn for a solid year before I decided I really needed to own them. And now I do.
And by and large, that's what happens.