3 Responses to “Intellectual Property in Virtual Reality”

1. macb Says:
   December 7th, 2003 at 10:19 pm

   Thanks for the link on that Aine. I was aware of the meeting and the policy changes at SL, although they have no effect on me one way or the other at the moment. Reading through all that reminded me of some other thoughts I’ve had but not expressed (maybe… old age allows me to experience old thoughts and actions as though they were new) on IP issues on the Internet in general….

   Here:

   http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north224.html

   is a very interesting piece on the origins of copyright law. I can’t speak to its validity, although I recognize at least parts of it as being true. Furthermore I have my doubts about the theory that copyright law is little more than a conspiracy to allow censorship by those to pull society’s strings.

   What I DO know is that there are valid points in the article. Will the RIAA succeed in intimidating people who download music and chase them all back to Tower Records? Somehow I think not. They can certainly make a dent in downloading by always knocking off the top providers of such content. That will work at least up until the point where none of the major providers are located within their reach. Then we are back to trying to make a deal with the Chinese: “We buy your clothes, if you close down those pirate internet music sites”.

   The problem with that is that America, and hence the RIAA, has ever decreasing leverage. As we become a part of the world market (both major political parties seem to favor this) we are the worlds top consumer in almost all categories, but the worlds top producer in only a few. Just how critical is the output of the RIAA (or Hollywood in general) to the operation of the world economy? The Chinese are just as likely to say “Buy our clothes. You can KEEP your culture. PLEASE!” and chop off our internet connection to them for their OWN benefit.

   Similarly, just how valuable are most of the things we continue to consider when we debate “IP issues”? The hardest thing to figure out is how would our system process the millions of court cases that would spring up if each of our uploaded blog entries, 3D artwork, or Web designs was potentially the subject of serious dispute?

   Music, like blogging, designing web pages, or crafting various two and three dimensional content are things that many people are doing in their spare time these days and for no pay whatsoever. It seems to me that the future must either hold an end to entities such as the RIAA, or the springing up of similar entities for these other activities. Could there for example spring up a Webmasters Industry Association or a Bloggers Industry Association who would seek out high profile examples of theft and prosecute them? Suppose you considered yourself a superstar in one of these activities. Would you mind getting paid lump sum amounts up front for your work and then letting someone else worry about whether it had been stolen or not? Thats what many musical artists do and for the most part they aren’t complaining.

   Like it or not, I somehow can’t see this scenario playing out. In most of the world people get paid for doing dreadful things, or at least things that nobody much enjoys doing. Only recently has it been possible for so many people (mostly Americans) to get paid for doing something they really enjoy. Maybe that period of time is coming to an end though. What percentage of the population will still be blogging in 10 years? Don’t many of us spend more time writing than reading as it is? Will online games lose their appeal after they become more and more like real life? When popular music is seen to be composed of bad lyrics put to programmed synthesizer sequences that just about anyone could assemble will we still think of these people as artists at all? Must we chose between a system that allows middlemen to keep so much and leaves so lttle to the actual producers (think of the relationship between farmers and grocery stores) or a system in which everyone just gives their product away because it’s too much trouble to collect for it?

   There is an alternative to these extremes. If we can computerize these disputes, or more accurately make it almost impossible to steal digital content then our problem would be solved wouldn’t it? Now, get a cup of your favorite beverage handy, sit back and prepare to be depressed:

   http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/

   Did you make it back?

   I was chatting with someone the other day about what would we do if DMCA and DRM turned our Internet experience into something resembling cable TV. Since I’ve done without cable for a couple of years now I didn’t have any trouble making up my mind. But we also both concluded that if the Internet were not free in America, then maybe it would be free somewhere else and maybe there would spring up new “lands of opportunity” for us to flock to. If on the other hand, some world government arises and locks down everything, I still have my short-wave radio.

   To be honest I don’t like any of the end-time steady state scenarios for the Internet. Maybe the best thing that can happen is that all of these issues go perpetually unresolved.

2. Aine Says:
   December 8th, 2003 at 3:06 pm

   Thanks for those links, they were both very important and very educating. I urge anyone who’s looking at these comments to go and read those pages.

   Yeah, it looks as though Trusted Computing is resembling 1984 as Orwell predicted, and it’s pretty much too late to do anything about it unless amd, intel, ibm, and other manufacturers decide to reverse course and work together to screw with DRM and other restrictive plans.

   Unfortunately, I don’t have a short-wave radio, but I *have* thought of the inevitable rise of pirate radio stations (over-the-air)… even then, that equipment costs money and unless you build it yourself from parts you’re sure don’t include DRM schemes, even that may not work. (On the other hand, some of us do still own CB radios and those may be dusted off and modified for more power and put to good use. I did, at one time, also hold a CB license and can still remember my call letters : KANB2942) I can already see a market developing for surplus old technology, and a future demand for knowledgeable electronics buffs to assemble the desired/required components. Neal Stephenson’s vision of the cyber black market in Snow Crash may or may not materialize, I think a lot depends on whether people recognize what is really going on beneath the surface of Trusted Computing schemes (in both software and hardware), or whether they remain “asleep” and placated, having taken the Blue Pill (I love the Matrix philosophy to explain things like this). I don’t think I’m alone in having a preference for the Red Pill and wanting to know what is Real.

   Perhaps these kinds of topics would be worthwhile exploring using the space on my new (currently empty) domain… the domain is demesnes.net, kind of ironically appropriate to the discussion of these kinds of topics, too. *grins*

3. Aine Says:
   December 8th, 2003 at 6:54 pm

   Via Email, Mac Balkcom wrote:

   > The second article was a good (long) survey of the issues.
   >
   > I’m not sure I agree with your statement (Aine): “where There and SecondLife were both subject to a rather scathing review”, in fact I think he was complimentary to both systems for the most part, keeping in mind that the blog entry was composed of quotes, unquoted references to other people’s views and his own “glue” to hold it all together.
   >

   Aine : Well, I say “scathing” because I don’t think he quite understands the difference between what’s done in SL or There and, say, what’s done in EverQuest… and the difference is significant from a creator’s point-of-view, but probably not from the average user’s point-of-view, especially if they aren’t aware of the possibility of creating in that space. I think that comparing a VR World to a Game World is a bit like apples to oranges… at the moment, at least… and expectations that have arisen with users of games aren’t yet fulfilled by VR worlds, so a gamer’s disappointment at many of the core features of VR is inevitable. I do, however, envision a time somewhere in the future where the lines will be very much blurred. Whether we will call it the metaverse or something else, I don’t know, but there will come a day when people will realize that games and VR can be combined, creating a third kind of thing… creators of VR content will work inside of Game worlds, creating levels (and other aspects of the Game) on-the-fly with the associated triggers and consequences for user-initiated actions, affecting their standing in the Game World, and possibly in the Real World, as well.

   >Mac : This and the entries length cause me to take a while to make sense of parts of it. I still don’t see how the term “dystopic” comes into play. There seems to be some variance between dictionaries about what the word actually means, but the best translation I could come up with is “out of place”. I don’t see how the SL decision is “out of place”.
   >

   Aine : I don’t either, but then I’ve come to think of VR content creation as not much different (other than complexity and the software tools required) than any other kind of content creation (documents, art, music, computer programs, etc.).

   > From Richard Bartle:
   >
   > I don’t mind people treating virtual worlds as things other than games, because in general they are things other than games. What I object to is treating them as things other than virtual worlds.
   >

   Aine : Yeah, I think that was part of my point. The lessons learned (hopefully we learn by our mistakes) in online gaming may or may not apply to VR worlds (and vice versa), and attempts to compare the two to each other as they presently exist… well, it just isn’t fair to either one. I think eventually, however, the two will blend… hopefully taking the best elements of each to create a different third thing (successfully)… and when that happens, there likely will be outcomes that none of us can currently foresee. I also think that the metaverse as described in Snow Crash is one distinct possibility, but certainly not the only one. What Bartle seems to fail to take into account is that Real World concerns *will* inject themselves into Virtual Worlds (whether VR or Games), whether we want that to happen or not. Commercial and Marketing possibilities will inject themselves into these spaces because that is precisely where to reach the consumers’ pocketbooks, especially as 2-D Web marketing schemes fail one by one (banners, popups, spam, iTunes and other music distribution schemes, etc.). In fact, I can foresee a time when VR content creators (and companies such as SL) will negotiate deals with advertisers to include their content in-world (and yes, it’s already happening, as it did in AW, only this will be on a much larger scale and probably much more successfully accomplished in the future).

   >Bartle : For some of their players they’re games, but for others they are not games (at least in the same sense of the word). However, for all players they operate under the same “game conceit”: that special rules of play are in force that make things which happen within them distinctly different from what happens in the non-game world.
   >

   Aine : Except when part of your content is real people behind those avatars, living and working in-world, acting and reacting unpredictably (but with purpose) to create a better sense of true immersion and interactivity. For example, I can certainly see myself working in-world somewhere in the future, perhaps playing the part of an “Evil Queen” complete with costuming and props, obtaining information (the ultimate commodity) which I could then broker for profit elsewhere in-world and also out-world. The future possibilities are almost limitless in that respect. I know that I would certainly enjoy playing such a role… who wouldn’t want to be part of the Matrix (on one side or the other)? *grins* I would jump at the chance in a heartbeat.

   >Bartle : If the designers want to bring down this conceit, this “veil” as I described it at the conference, then that’s OK too - so long as it doesn’t pull down every other designer’s veil with it. The designers should be able (as you put it) to invite reality in. I’m happy for Second Life if they want to commodify their virtual world; I’m not happy if the players of other virtual worlds get to commodify those worlds whether the designers want them commodified or not.
   >

   Aine : That’s a very good point, but the point may become moot… it depends on the companies that create the software that run these worlds and games. They may choose to hardcode to allow all, some, or no commodifying… and creators may or may not have a choice. Hopefully, the creators will migrate to those places where their needs are listened to and being met… but they have to first be aware that there *are* other choices and other worlds to move to. And believe me, I am doing my best to make others aware of those choices, even if it is out-world on a blog and in various Web indexing services. I miss VR a lot, but at the same time, I recognize the relative importance of what I’m doing, too. My audience may currently be miniscule, but that could change any day. I don’t underestimate the power of word-of-mouth and incoming links either. RSS syndication and it’s growth could also become a huge factor in the near future.

   > Mac : In the blog entry as well as Bartles response above there is the constant implication that we are approaching some finality in the way VR works. I constantly reminded all the AW addicts that this was far from being the case. In an in-world interview with Philipe Rosedale that I attended he was asked about his feelings regarding competition from “There” and he basically said that he didn’t view them as competition at all. He knew some of the people at There and liked them and wished them the best of luck. Furthermore he thought that There being successful would help Second Life succeed and visa versa. I think this synergistic point of view is right on target and shared (I hope) by most of the people running todays 3D-VR content providers.
   >

   Aine : I don’t share your optimism there. I think there are many VR companies whose sole motive is profit, not technological innovation nor customer (creator/user) satisfaction. That’s just it, they see their creator/user as a customer and nothing more, ignoring the fact that without the creators of in-world content, there would be no customers for whatever products they hope to sell in-world (for either in-world or out-world consumption). SL doesn’t appear to be going down that road, which is unique, not the norm. Atmosphere appeared to be heading in the same direction as SL, but they’ve (up to now) ignored creator/user needs for a simpler, more user-friendly interface (and I don’t mean just the Builder, even the Viewer is not all that user-friendly).

   >Mac : VR is still in its infancy compared to “the Web” and yet is there a single company that is associated with the internet as a whole?
   >

   Aine : Many people would say Microsoft with it’s Internet Explorer… and I’d say Bill Gates hopes to become the controller of the “contained” Web and what content people are allowed to access. He hopes to steer things so that only “licensed” content is viewable on his “trusted” network, and of course the providers of such content will race to purchase those licenses or face being shut out of the viewable Web… on Windows desktops. It’s not surprising that certain elements within Microsoft are now opening up dialogues with the opensource community for the development of Longhorn… they hope to convince them to join this “trusted” network, and will make it as attractive as they possibly can. And unless and until Linux becomes as ubiquitous on the desktop as Windows currently is, Microsoft may even succeed with this plan. Linux is no where near as user-friendly as Windows, but that needs to change if they hope to gain substantial desktop use… currently, it generally only attracts the Geeks because it is too complicated for the average user to install and configure for their own use (think of the average skill level of AOL users, whether they are actual AOL customers or not, the model is the same). I know people who have just now figured out how to do email or are online from home for the first time this year… none of them use an alternative to Windows (and neither do I). That needs to change, but until it does, yes, I’d say Microsoft is the big power on the Web (by virtue of the desktop) right now, and I do see them as a major threat to our privacy and our freedom.

   >Mac : When the first online VR programs (such as Worlds Away and ActiveWorlds) first came out had a rare opportunity to at least set a standard for how 3D/VR would work, but they had no appetite for doing so. They didn’t attend meetings such as this, they didn’t debate such issues with their users or even among themselves apparently. Specifically, between the two AW owners, one only interested in art, the other only interested in (in what? business maybe?) there was a lot of thinking that just went undone and as a result of that both the art and the business suffered.
   >

   Aine : In that case, the other interest was in profit. And profit won, to the detriment of art. Innovation didn’t even occur to them. Innovation departed when Protagonist was forced out of the company. That’s how I see it anyway.

   >Mac : I don’t think thats true of these new companies though.

   Aine : I think for “There” it’s profit-minded, not so much creator/innovator-minded. This is why users of There tell me it’s boring, and they don’t stay in There for long. (BTW, I love that the name can be used like that.)

   >Mac : Whether we like the solutions they come up with or not it won’t be as a result of lack of effort on their part. It’s clear that the people that run these companies are 200 percent engaged in what they are doing. They attend meetings like this, and respond to blogs about it out of pure interest, not duty to companies or stockholders. Thats a healthy sign for the future of VR.
   >

   Aine : True, but it’s the exception in VR, not yet the norm. AW only agreed to start listening to users after most of the truly innovative/creative types left the system, and they saw their profits take a huge nose-dive. Trying to make a deal with the porno/spam ring didn’t help either (and am I ever glad I exposed *that* deal - LOL). Even now, I doubt they’re listening to much of anything.

   >Mac : The other healthy sign, only barely mentioned in the blog is that VR has to be thought of (eventually) as more than just a “game”. I think a signpost worth looking for in the future will be when both new entries and old in this space drop the term “game” from their nomenclature. That does not mean that there will not be game elements in 3D-VR, in fact we all know that there are game elements in everyday life. The difference is that in everyday life the game elements are viewed with skepticism and usually something to be avoided rather than an attraction. We escape into 3D-VR for the moment as a place where there is “nothing to lose” but ones time spent online. As we approach something worthy of being called a metaverse that will have to change. The metaverse will come more and more to resemble the real world with all the risks and rewards of that real world more or less in place and perhaps for escape value there will have to be “games” within the metaverse.
   >

   Aine : There will be games there. There will be commerce there. There will be spying and information brokeraging. There will be all kinds of things that we can barely even imagine today, especially if nanotechnology brings us implants and other things that today live only in our imaginations. I know, I sound very confident about it all, and I am… it may take 100 years for all of this to happen, but I believe it will.