The Metaverse

Open protocols before open source

File this one under "Not really surprising". According to Virtual Worlds News, Joe Miller, VP of Platform Technology and Development at Linden Lab, told Linux.com that the company is more focussed on opening its protocols than open sourcing its server code:

"'What we are focused on is documenting a set of protocols that will provide interoperability. So we don't think it makes sense to open the back-end code to the Second Life Grid without establishing protocols for interoperability,' answered Miller.
'Our focus right now is on documenting open protocols that we will then create working examples around and publish as Open Source projects,' Miller continued. 'We have running today a working example of Second Life servers running behind IBM's firewall in a way that allows them to participate with the main Second Life Grid.'"

The process of open sourcing the server code for Second Life was always going to be a difficult one. Not only does the company have a lot of potentially-competing interests to balance, it has to ensure that the corporate customers who will form the backbone of sim buyers in the future will be happy.

Why Microsoft's preference for mirror worlds signals it doesn't get it

Back in October, Daniel Schiappa of Microsoft noted that Microsoft's virtual world play would come within a year - or it wouldn't come at all. And, at last month's Gartner Symposium IPXPO, the company's chief research and strategy officer Craig Mundie gave a strong indication that the latter is true. However, that doesn't mean that Microsoft is out of the virtual space at all. As Virtual World News reports, the company is very interested in one particular aspect of virtual worlds: Mirror worlds. Mirror worlds are an attempt to recreate the real world in virtual space. Imagine the next-generation of Google Maps, which might allow you to wander through a photorealistic virtual London. By contrast, virtual worlds like Second Life take the opposite approach: the only attempts to model reality are created by users themselves. The level of user interaction with a mirror world is, of necessity, also more limited. While Second Life might allow me to recreate London with the face of Big Ben changed to a bright yellow smiley, a mirror world could only every allow this kind of change as a temporary event. The point of them is that they reflect reality, permanently. Mundie describes his companies interest in mirror worlds this way:

"Today there's the physical world we all live in, and then there's people experimenting with virtual reality type things like Second Life and other stuff. I personally don't think that that kind of things is going to get huge traction. What I do think is the combination of sophisticated displays and direct manipulation and the ability to have the real world presented in a 3D environment as a navigation metaphor, such a you can move freely between things that you would do if you were in the physical world and doing some of the same things, whether it's going shopping, meeting friends, or whatever. You're doing it within a 3D virtual world, but that world is just a model of the actual world. That's going to be quite interesting. We've looked at moving in this direction. Some of the photosynth technology [a tool that allows users to turn photos into immersive environments] that we've released over the last year and a half, I think is a precursor to allowing everybody to participate in the process of sifting up a representation of different levels of the physical world and then using them as part of the computing paradigm."

Ultimately, mirror worlds are the equivalent of the walled gardens which service providers attempted to foist on "their" customers during the early years of the Internet. Mirror worlds attempt to make the virtual experience familiar, which is to try to control the user's experience. Instead of allowing the imagination its full play, mirror worlds force users to use their imaginations in other ways, seeking what amount to virtual temporary autonomous zones within the world. As in reality, anyone wanting an alternative has to learn to live in the cracks between places, rather than within the mainstream. Can user-created virtual worlds and mirror worlds coexist? To a certain degree, yes. However, one thing that the development of the public Internet has taught us is that, given the choice, users will gravitate towards sites which give them the opportunity for deep involvement, rather than a more linear, tied approach. Microsoft missed the boat over user-generated content. Now, it seems, it is likely to miss the boat over virtual worlds, too.

Dear old Prokofy is at it again

After calling someone a "fucking idiot" on Twitter and being called for it, Prokofy says:

"Prokofy Neva Prokofy @revtriste Ad hominem and profanity are the lifeblood of democracy."

And then, when I mention to Scoble that arguing with her is like arguing with a hairdryer, she complains:

"Mr. Social Media Hall Monitor [Robert Scoble] disappeared conveniently when it was time to attack the other side for their ad hominem, calling me a "hairdryer" -- which I view as far more nasty than "cybersalonista," given the source -- the odious and stalky Ian Betteridge."

So, in deference to Prok's preferences, I'll retract my previous statement. Arguing with her isn't like arguing with a hairdryer: it's like arguing with a fucking idiot. Happy now, Prok?

(Disclosure: I am on Prokofy's ludicrous enemies list for the crime of calling her by her given name. Really, it's like backing back in primary school.)

Missing in action: Avatar puppeteering

Tateru Nino has been doing some fantastic posts on Massively lately, and has dug up a real gem in "Peering Inside: Whither avatar puppeteering?". Digging into the avatar puppeteering project which has been more or less missing in action since 2006, she finds that Jeffrey Ventrella, the main man behind the project, left the Lab in August last year - and the project has been "on hold" (which usually means "dead") since then.

Good digging from Tateru, who's posts on the whole trademark debacle have also been essential reading.

Linden Lab announces risk API, opening up the Linden dollar market

Well that puts the kibosh on the idea that the whole trademark issue was all about seizing total control of the Linden dollar market. The company has announced a new Risk API, which effectively "plugs in" other exchanges:

"Through our Risk API program, we have already established relationships with some of the biggest 3rd party Linden Dollar exchanges to keep transactions secure and protect our residents. We are pleased that these Linden Dollar resellers have chosen to work with us and we are now making their services even more accessible to our residents."

The aim is to make it easier for those outside the US to buy Linden dollars in their own currancy. Those taking part so far including Dreamland, Eldex, and the Dutch Exchange.

The deeper issue behind the Second Life trademark mess - community engagement

I don't think that Linden Lab meant to create quite such a blogstorm with its announcement of the inSL logo programme, but there's no doubt that this is exactly what it's done. With some bloggers talking about three day strikes, and many others echoing the message that Linden Lab has overstepped the mark, it's pretty clear that this is a mess - and one which the Lab will have to deal with.

As I've pointed out, the reality of the situation is actually pretty uncontroversial. The licensing programme itself is just about ensuring that companies can advertise their presence in SL without having to use Linden Lab's trademarks, which is the kind of thing that gives the average business lawyer hives.

However, the way it's been expressed has lead many people to believe that they will have to adopt onerous conditions whenever they even mention Second Life. Again, as I've pointed out, this is largely not true: unless your business name or web site name uses one of the Linden trademarks in it, you'll probably have to do precisely nothing different. Publications with "Second Life" in the title will probably need to adopt appropriate disclaimers. No one will be able to attempt to use Linden trademarks to suggest they're associated with the Lab. As Ciaran Laval has pointed out, this is exactly the same rules as any other trademark.

Clearly, Linden Lab communicated this badly. But that's not enough to explain how bad this is looking for them. Why are so many people willing to believe that Linden Lab actually wants to kick the hundreds of bloggers, writers, and content creators who contribute to Second Life's success in the teeth?

The answer lies in the complete dearth of proper community relations management and an utter failure to have any kind of real blogger engagement programme. This is something that's been building for months - and to anyone who's been following the progress of the Lab, it's no surprise.

For a company based on building communities, Linden Lab is surprisingly opaque. Partly, this is down to a failure to develop its sense of what its community is since the days when Philip Rosedale could hold "town halls" with the reasonable expectation that everyone in-world could attend without the servers falling over. The original way that Linden Lab communicated with its customers was in-world - but that only works for a few people at a time, and utterly fails with an active community in the hundreds of thousands.

(As an aside, I suspect that this is why Linden Lab spends such a lot of its time working with small groups in-world, such as the Second Life Architecture Working Group. Small groups work in-world. The problem is, of course, that it's all too easy to see such groups as "feted inner cores" and assume the Lab doesn't care about anyone else.)

Nothing has replaced in-world meetings as the core part of Linden Lab's communications programme. While the company has a blog, it is mostly formulaic corporate comms with a dash of hints and tips. It has grown well beyond the point where a single blog is enough - every senior executive should have a blog, and communicate things which impact their area directly. With the Linden blog, you never feel like you're talking to a person - which is the point of blogging.

Worse still is the apparent lack of a real community/blogger engagement programme. For a company like Linden Lab, blogger engagement is probably the most important kind of PR. And while individual Lindens often appear happy to talk about their specific area, no one appears to be doing this job for Linden Lab as a whole. This is shown by the fact that, 48 hours after this issue started brewing, there is no clarification or response from Linden Lab over the issue.

Good blogger relations - heck, just good old fashioned PR work - could have nipped this one in bud. That hasn't happened, and it's now getting to the point when a minor clarification may no longer be enough to stop the damage.

So where does Linden Lab go next? The first thing it needs to sort out is this mess, which it can do by officially clarifying things. If its lawyers can't agree on a form of words which express the simple fact that you don't need to follow every instance of "Second Life" on your blog with "TM" then it should fire its lawyers. Other companies' legal teams manage this daily.

Second, it needs to start a serious blogger outreach programme, to ensure that it gets feedback from some of the most vocal members of its community - people who's work influences thousands of opinions. And blogger engagement means listening as much as talking - something that should never be forgotten.

Finally, it needs to start being a more marketing-focussed company. So far in its short life, it has mostly been a technology development team: marketing was really a "pig in lipstick" role. The techies delivered the product: the marketers worked out how to market it. Now, it needs to learn the real lesson of marketing - put customers first, including in your development process. And that means learning a lot more about the community, who are, after all, its customers.

The huge kerfuffle over Second Life trademarks

When the world of fandom and amateur publishing collides with the world of intellectual property law, there are usually sparks. The decision by Linden Lab to start being professional about its trademarks is a classic example of this, as can be seen by this (typical) post on MindBlizzard. To summarise: Linden Lab has created a special logo aimed at companies wanting to advertise their presence in Second Life. It can't simply let them use its Second Life logo or the Second Life trademark, because of the potential for consumer confusion - the prime reason that trademarks exist. However, as is standard with legalese, lots of people are reading this as an attach on the vast community which surrounds Second Life and talks about it incessantly. Before we go any further, I'd suggest people go read the excellent PubLaw article on trademarks, and specifically this bit:

"It is important to remember that the only type of use by an author that may suffice as a "fair use" of another's trademark is the use of the mark in a non-trademark sense. It is also possible that the "overuse" of another's trademark, even in a descriptive sense, may not be considered fair use. This is because the repeated usage by the author could lead to a likelihood of consumer confusion based upon a presumed connection or sponsorship with the trademark owner.

The fair use defense if it is to be successful must meet the following requirements: (1) the author's use of the mark must accurately describe the trademark owner's product or service; (2) the author must use the mark in a non-trademark manner and not as a source identifier of the author's work; and (3) the author's use must be in good faith."

In other words, if you are using a trademark in a way which makes it clear that you have no association with Linden Lab, that you're not part of them or sponsored by them or that your work is approved by them, you're fine. Specifically, you can always use a trademark nominatively - that is, to refer to the product, service or company that it's a mark of. You don't need the permission of the trademark holder, and you don't have to follow the terms of any licence they want to impose As long as you do this, you're OK. There is no legal requirement to include a trademark symbol, or a written acknowledgment of trademark, as long as there is no potential for confusion and it is clear that you are referring to the specific thing. Yes, this means you don't have to follow Linden Lab's guidelines over use of "Second Life" to the letter, although if you're a corporation I'd suggest you do anyway to cover your ass. As long as you're not using their trademarks in a generic way or suggesting that Linden Lab approves of what you're doing you should be fine. What if your blog is called "The Second Life Foo"? Here, the clear thing you need to do is ensure that there's no suggestion that it's created, sponsored, or related to Linden Lab.  Just stick the disclaimer that Linden Lab has provided somewhere on your blog. What if you've called your business "Second Life Building Inc"? Here, you're likely to be on much stickier ground. Consider this: Would you call your company "Coca Cola Building" and expect that to be OK? Best option is to just change your name. You can, however, use the trademark descriptively in your material - ie "We create buildings in Linden Lab's Second Life virtual world". So is all this a storm in a teacup? Yes and no. Linden Lab isn't doing anything that it ultimately doesn't need to do, legally. It has to protect its trademarks, not just for itself but also to ensure that there's no potential for consumers to be confused about its involvement in third parties. In creating the "inSL" logo programme, it's made it a LOT easier for businesses to advertise their presence in Second Life without infringing trademarks, something that's always a major concern to business lawyers. But, as is often the case with Linden, it's not communicated this well. There's been no explanation of WHY it's doing it, or how it affects existing businesses.  For a company that's founded on community, it does community outreach extraordinarily badly. And given that the community is what makes Second Life so compelling, both on a personal and business level, that's a worry.

Forget creating SEO bots in SL

A good piece of digging by Wildefire Walcott is summarized on Massively - it appears that avatars without payment info on file are not being included in the new Linden Lab search system.

What this means is that you can't create hordes of bots which include your business in their "picks" simply to add to your ranking in the in-world search system. Of course, you could create avatars and then add payment info on file by making a small purchase, but over a large number of avatars that would start to be an expensive.

I regard this as a good thing. The more holes in the system which allow people to game it, the harder it is to have a search system which actually works for consumers.

When is ageplay not ageplay? When it's mainstream media

Compare....

And contrast...

One of these things sparked an "in-depth" investigation by a British national television station, filled with outrage. The other was a nationally released film widely regarded by the media as "just a bit of fun".

Can you guess which one caused the outrage? Yes, of course - it was the one without real people pictured in it.

Of course, the big difference is that, in Second Life and other online scenarios, the people doing the typing (and that is all it amounts to) are adults, talking to other adults, some of whom pretend to be under age.

In the film, you have adults, pretending to be young people who look underage but - it's made quite clear - are just far enough over the age of consent to stop you feeling like a paedophile. The fact that they look like they're underage - but aren't - is what "excuses" you, what makes it OK to lust after them.

The fact they look young enough to be attractive to exactly the same sexual predators as supposedly inhabit Second Life isn't an issue for the mainstream media, which happily accepts the advertising money for the film and reviews it as "a bit of fun". The fact that these are sexualised images of teenagers doesn't bother the media. What matters is that this form of sexualisation is traditional (and therefore OK).

Broader View: New Media Consortium and Sun Microsystems to launch the Open Virtual Worlds Project | KnowProSE.com

Broader View: New Media Consortium and Sun Microsystems to launch the Open Virtual Worlds Project | KnowProSE.com:

"One of the weaknesses of worlds such as Second Life is their inability to handle collaborative works with data. OpenSim, the community open source project that is beginning to rival Second Life, has HTML on a prim - but is HTML enough? We're really talking about a difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, as much as I hate those terms. I can haz AJAX?"

I never have really understood the obsession with HTML on a prim within virtual worlds, let alone AJAX. Until you have totally immersive VR, the virtual world experience is always going to be like any other application - in a window, on a screen with other windows along side it. And in those other windows, you can run other applications.

Of course, it's neat to be able to collaborate with other avatars in a virtual space. But does that offer a better user experience than simply using document collaboration tools like, say, Google Docs? Or shared workspaces? I think the answer is "no" - and until we have immersive VR, I think that's going to stay the case.