The shady side of Second Life
The shady side of Second Life talks about how the shit hits the fan at furnation. Looks like the furnation owner accepted money from dubious source (allthough the dubiosity wasn’t directly visible to him) and got pulled that money by Lindenlab. The things that make me angry is how LL handled the affair – without any good information for the FurNation owner and without giving at least enough information out to allow him a legal recourse against the frauder. But as sad as it is – and the possible outcome of FurNation stopping to exist is a sad outcome in my book! – it highlights something that I keep in my head since my dad told me: whenever someone proposes something to you that sounds too good to be true, it isn’t true. Sorry, but someone offering millions of L$ might sound tempting – but I wouldn’t take that money without really deep knowledge of that other person.
Interesting in the open letter is the analysis of the ToS for SL. Everbody should read that part at least and think about what it means to their content and their activity. It’s targeting the same direction as the Bragg vs. Lindenlab lawsuite – the rather funny way the ToS defines your own rights away out of the picture. I think LL should really start and address those concerns in the ToS, because a system built on user-content should give those content creators and content owners a few rights, too. Especially under the platform aspect that is nowadays hailed by Phillip – I never heard any web service provider claiming ownership of the data on the machines. I never heard them to be able to define the ownership of the original creator as void.
And really, the silly “L$ has no real value” has to go one day, because if you set up a micropayment system and propose it’s usefulness for real busines, you can’t just define it without real value – people tend to do businesses for real values and not for monopoly money.
What this all shows to me is that even if LL is reaching the platform status on the technical level, it is far from the platform status on social and legal value. There is a lot of work to be done there, too, I think. The current state of the ToS isn’t addressing the platform – it’s addressing the game. So if Phillip stops talking game and starts talking platform, it is only logical for residents to ask him to stop acting game and start acting platform, too.