Subject: Re: [vwrap] [wvrap] Simulation consistency

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 14:25:38 GMT

>The problem however is that you are asking the impossible, namely that  one party (the region provider) should have policy control over another  (the asset service provider).  As David has said on many different  occasions and in various different ways, this attempt at policy export  just won't work in practice, because each party is "sovereign" over its  own service, so to speak.  At best you can only recommend or hope for  sensible behavior by all, and if there is a legal relationship between  the parties then presumably the pressure of law can help as well. Just because David Levine (if that's who is referenced) has said something is true a million times doesn't make it true. He may have a very well-informed opinion, but he knows as well as anyone that when early pioneers have achieved things in the Metaverse, like Linden Lab creating a version of Second Life to go behind the firewall, it was done by concluding an organic bilateral agreement with a company, IBM, not by fiddling with technical set-ups. When talks on interoperability began in San Jose in 2008 at the Virtual Worlds expo, it was in a closed meeting by invitation only to have an organic meeting about organic politics, not because some gaggle of geeks created some mechanical protocol for a cyberspace bridge. Of course one party can have policy control over another *when both are bound by a higher law*. These sorts of basic notion of the rule of law and the rule of international law are always missing from this discussion dominated by the coarse and tribal rule of code, which is merely the brutal manifestation of human will (and is therefore a weapon). In fact, the larger commercial providers and those earliest in the space like Linden Lab will get together and make the necessary "treaties" and eventually all these "millions" of little moms and pops (there are actually only 17 and a half) will be forced out of business if they refuse to respect copyright. And that will be a good thing, because copyleftism is coercive, and not about freedom for the economy or the creator or the consumer. Virtual worlds are not "the Internet" even if they are reached by "the Internet". They have features of real-time interactivity and user-generated content and human relationships that do no pertain on the static, read, non-interactive text and image page of the previous Internet iterations. Therefore the "rules" that the pioneers of web 1.0 and even 2.0 keep yammering about do not *have* to obtain; indeed, their coerceive collectivization has been a hobble to commerce and destructive of livlihoods. Facebook, Twitter, Quora, these all illustrate how the concept of "open" -- in the closed notion it has existed in the open source cult -- is not useful and not necessary -- even if technically some open source code is used in these enterprises. A person whose dress is not served will have every reason to stay on their home world. And stay home they will, until the other grid shapes up and abides by the right protocols to ensure that their favourite dressmaker's dress can be served and seen but not copybotted. Prokofy  
____________________________________________________________
Groupon.com Official Site
1 huge daily deal on the best stuff to do in your city. Try it today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4d97322fc28c04eac5cst03vuc