I think I pretty much nail Meadh on this reply to her lame reply to my original slam on Interop, which I post here because it won't fit on her blog without repeat posts:
Oh dear God, Meadhbh Hamrick you're simply disgraceful. People who play psychiatrist on the Internet and tell others to "get help" or "get anger management lessons" or tell them to "take their meds" are guilty of malpractice, as real physicians never diagnose or prescribe in this fashion online. Shame on you. And "vitriol" is what you technocommunists describe *anything* that challenges your worldview and attacks your sand castle of invalid arguments for how virtual worlds should be organized. "Vitriol" becomes *any criticism whatsoever* even if no obscenities are used; even if no incitement of hate is unleashed; even if no names are called. Just to call you what you are: the communists, really, of our time, makes you foam and froth and sling accusations of "vitriol"; except you are completely laughable, because you go to the lengths of telling me you're "socialist, not communist" yourself. Now seriously, Meadhbh Hamrick; do you REALLY expect me to believe that?
Your twin admissions in your astounding reply: 1) that you *are* socialists and 2) that we *did* have to expect more theft from VWRAP are the most astounding admissions of this entire bad-faith exercise!
Migraine Dinova's refusal to take accountability for her ferocious online sectarianism has gone well past the sell-by date. I don't care if people are online anonymously doing their thing; I sure as hell do care if they undermine my property and privacy in a mammoth assault project like this.
Which brings me to your silly screams of "libel" and "looniness" and all the rest.
You are so very dense, Meadhbh Hamrick. So very, very obtuse and literalist, you tekkie "geniuses". You "brilliant coders".
When you set about *making copyright an add-on" or "making it a regime or a plan secondary to inherency" YOU ARE INDEED UNDERMINING IF NOT DESTROYING COPYRIGHT. DUH! DUH MUCH! That's *exactly* what you are doing, and you know it, I know it, and loons like Migraine know it (and here I *will* start calling names to burn in the point: you opensource freaks undermine copyright deliberately and consciously at every turn; you browbeat and incite force-sharing and conceive of copyright merely as a lawyer's exercise; you deprive software and communities of users of software of embedded copyright as inherency -- and then you whine and cry when you are accused of being copyleftists.
One has only to read the JIRA for which I was expelled, with the "kind ministrations" of Soft Linden, to realize how diabolical you Lindens and post-Lindens are; how sinister and cunning you are about trying to remove inherency of copyright. An Electric Frontier Foundation operative slams *having any copyright inherent in the tools at all*; a user comes along with the obvious copyleftist OS agenda and calls for a new sort of default that the user can invoke forever and always as non-inherency; and you can't see this as undermining, and you blush and stammer and say this is a builder's boon. Shame on all of you. And then you ban me for pointing out that this is an obvious stealth copyleftism; that even if the default rez from the server is still permissions as an inherency, that an ideological sandbox collectivist who demands that he can flip a switch and make a new kind of *server side* (*server side dammit!*) inherency is in fact up to no good! He is gaslighting. He is moving the goalposts. He is encroaching on inherency.
Why do I mention inherency? Because the Berne Convention validated copyright as an inherency. You don't need a license for it; it is a not a status to be granted by a state authority. It is inherent in the work. It is also inherently coupled with commerce without extra powers or licenses.
*Second Life delivered the Berne inherency metaphor*. That's all. And it did it despite you hippie slackers. The prim rezzes with all the perms on, and you have to undo them if you want to go commie and liberate your prims. Good! Because in life, perms rez that way too. It's a trivial matter to undo them; if you need a bulk permissions, you can do that in inventory. The JIRA jihadists who insisted on ramming copyright inherency with a cunning trick requiring *server-side code changes* would have had it go further than that, making one flip by the author of the switch to ever more inworld change to a Lessig is Moore.
Sorry, but I saw what you did there.
Your clamour that I can't call what you're doing "communist" because "we included in the designs protections for IPR and a security model that would allow service deployers to choose whom they interoperate with" -- all BOGUS. Add-ons, not inherency. A TOS or a treaty betwee grids but *not inherency in the prim*. Not a status conferred by the servers, kept on the prim.
You wouldn't do this, because you said "it's technically impossible". You always do. That it persists inworld despite copybotting as a social injunction taking a perfectly viable and useable technological exigency form appears to be beyond your ken.
Your fluffery and distractions about I'm supposedly "going against my own values" by calling you communist "because you give choices" with whom one hooks up can't disguise the fact that giving choices AFTER you have withdrawn inherency; giving choices AFTER the horse has bolted, is not choice. Choice is undoing an inherency that remains as a default, not making inherent choicelessness and then trying to tack it back on with a sticky.
Open source goons are always telling us that they're really for capitalism. They're just going to strip it out now, but they promise it will go back in later as a "choice". ROFL.
You commies get *so caught up in your lies* and so contorted in your duplicitious postures that you really have lost touch with the reality of virtuality. We saw what you did there. You took out perms. You (Andrew Linden, others) were perpared to knock out inherency and change the server side authentic metaphor of inherency with a new regime enabling it to be casually, ideologically undone by sandboxers -- and thereby undermining it for us all.
Everybody knows what happens when everybody makes freebies; it undermines the economy for us all.
Ever notice that there's no Creative Commons in Second Life? Nobody wants or needs it. Share Licenses are not that, no way. In SL, again, it's inherent. It's built into the product. Nobody has to view a license or check a license. The product has checkboxes the creator sets, and that remains inherent permanently. There isn't anything else like that on the Internet, Meadhbh Hamrick, and you know full well that's the case. It's the magic of Second Life that makes Mitch Kapor and you other technocommunists burn with rage because it undoes your beliefs about paid content. It undoes your beliefs about DRM. It makes you lose your religion.
To which I can only say, good! Better you lose your religion, than we lose our IP! And yes, it's DRM. Your sophistry and tekkie distractions are ridiculous here. DRM is a system of rights management that is on the product, like a CD you can't copy unless, of course, you "crack" it. That's all. It's not about "a regime outside the manufacturing environment" like "out in the wild" with a CD. Remember, in games and worlds, "the client is in the hands of the enemy". So the DRM is in the wild anyway, even if on the grid rezzed from the company's asset server. Thank God for that asset server! It knows what to do with collectivized deeded prims not on transfer when returned to its loving embrace: it kills them. It deletes them permanently. The asset server is the best communist of them all.
But for the non-copybotter, that is, MOST PEOPLE, in SL, the DRM holds. Amazingly it holds. I buy a creation and the creator doesn't put it on copy or mod, and guess what, I can't mod or copy it and I live with that. And so do hundreds of thousands of other people. And that's great, that's grand, *and you can't stand it, as it goes against your religion about the Internet*. To which I can only say: take your religion to your own cathedral, leave other people's sacred places alone.
As for Linden's business interest in interop -- maybe they are now roadkill on the Metaversal highway as Web GL and Silverlight and Unity 3D come in. But maybe not. Because none of those things have solved what *we* need: IP, DRM, commingling of creativity, content and commerce (cube 3'd three Cs!) all consciously wedded together in tech to make tech serve people and their livlihoods, and not your damn stupid religion that destroys value.
As for "we weren't trying to force anyway" -- baloney. You tried to internationalize the problem of being unable to get the mass population of SL to give up its rights to you in some orgy of CC sharing by taking it to the IETF. There it would be a fait accompli. Don't think I haven't seen how hypergrid works, dear. You don't fly around from grid to grid with an object you got in the first sim and get a question when you rez: "Rez with initial grid permissions?" You don't get a notice, "Now entering perm-free copying zone". You don't get a notice, "Your price-setting DRM perms on your prims set back at your home grid no longer hold". You get nothing. And when you rez the object, anyone can copy it. And that's deliberate, that's ideological and that's why no one is interested in it, truly, and why the competitors to SL springing up outside the Leninist Open Sim regime like Inworldz are putting a tremendous premium on copyright, DRM and paid content as a technological bundle.
A bundle you and Zha and the others are always decoupling and always patting us on the head about and saying you will put it back in...later...as a license...as a scheme...as a regime. Anything but a technological injunction in the code, eh? Commerce is something you fear *that badly*. You and Tim Berners Lee. As I tweeted the old geezer, time for us to declare independence from these original founders of our Internet.
No choice on those Leninist hypergrids stripping value as you fly along -- and P.S. no privacy either. Private property and copyright inherency are part and parcel of personal privacy -- that's something you commies simply don't get.
And really, it's almost a waste of time to try to persuade you about these obvious values and inherent qualities because most people get it. Most ordinary people, and even most geeks get it. It's really a relatively small sect that has so screwed around with these notions that you cannot sense and feel them anymore.
So yes, *criminality*. Criminal in undermining copyright by yanking it from its DRM and inherency context and flushing it to other worlds that have no DRM or pricing or economy or anything. Putting it off to grid managers to make a contract, rather than leaving it inside the prims and the software. Nothing stopped you from making the same set of technological injunctions or levers or hammers that obtain in the simple Second Life prim from being portable, and being portable only to worlds that inherently, as technology, as a feature of their inherent "physicality" had DRM, permissions, and linkage of content, creator name and commerce. Nothing at all. But you couldn't accept this, grasp this, or simply *do* this. You had to invoke fake "choice" -- choice that isn't choice in a stark landscape where the choices are all taken out and only put back in as an afterthought.
Yes, IP theft; yes gouging of privacy, yes criminality. Just like the rest of your pack who first destroyed the music business; then the newspaper and book business; then finally government itself with WikiLeaks, all through the raging fire open source software's technocommunist rapaciousness. Everybody gets it. A writer on humanitarian affairs in the New Republic named David Rieff writing about these issues gets it in a heart beat. He won't use the words I use of "technocommunism" or "rapaciousness" but he explains the process: out of your California business model of copying and undermining copyright came ultimlately destruction even of the secret cables of diplomacy -- and of course, a ruination of the music, book and news business before that with the same unwillingness to put in the technological regime required *even if not 100 percent effective and even if not foolproof against hacking and copying* *as a signal of inherency* the breach of which creates an electronic trail for prosecution. That's all. Like Second Life? Like Second Life!
Second Life which so threatens you!
Sorry, but I won't be labelling my accusations of your undermining of the inherency of people's intellectual property in a virtual world, through your wilful destruction of that inherency and those technological levers to enforce it in DRM as *anything* but a crime. Not as ANYTHING but a CRIME Meadhbh Hamrick!
As for your claim that CC licenses "provide for commercial activity" you couldn't be more obtuse. The ability to use commercially *what somebody else has to yield up for free and cede all their rights to for commercial gain* isn't what we mean by keeping the link between commerce and comment, Meadh. Honestly, it's simply APPALLING what contortions you people go to with your communist lies (and I can't call them anything but "communist lies: when they get this bad).
Go read the CC licenses as I have read them many times. Any commercial use is for the person who copied. It's NOT for the person licensing. NOT NOT NOT. There is no license that says "take a copy, but pay me money automatically through an interface" LIKE SECOND LIFE. LIKE SECOND LIFE!!!!
That's why all of you hate it so much; Second Life stands as a profound indictment of all your religious doctrines; profound. Lessig refused to put in a license that linked content and copyright inherently in an item because CC was never *about* copyright, but about *undermining* copyright.
Most people who want to sell things online ignore CC. CC is useless for them. Most people aren't those few cases cited by the gurus like Doctorow who imagine that everybody is going to give away thousands of CDS, and everybody is going to get that one rich movie production company to buy a jingle. It's disgusting, how all of you rely on the persistence of companies still willing to couple commerce and content in licenses as a means of subsidizing your collective farm. Truly disgusting.
And no good saying "well, if that's what you want, write your own, or go somewhere else". People do. That's not the point. The point is that Lessig's content liberation conspiracy was designed to liberate people from wishing to possess their copies and only release them for money. It was *meant* to hammer a wedge between content and commerce and it indeed succeeded.
And that's why we have no music, newspaper, book, movie etc. business, and why we have a shaken government. Let's hope it doesn't spread further. Likely it will before we are through. There is an antidote. It is the walled garden. It is the defeating of the interops plot and a construction of system of bridged walled gardens respecting inherency of copyright.
A loon to judge CC because they DELIBERATELY left out and "forgot" a license that says "pay me money then take a copy?" Not on your life. This was deliberate; the cunning little nerd Cory Doctorow and Comrade Lessig know this better than you. Ask them. Ask Mitch. Mitch's writings in 2005 confirmed his beliefs. Hell, ask Gramps, your old aging hippie John Perry Barlow. At least he's honest. At least he doesn't lie. At least he doesn't hide behind "socialist" or "licenses". He says we don't need intellectual property at all. There, your cat's out of the bag. Watch his youtube. He says that content is like a doctor's prescription. Doctor's don't copyright prescriptions. They get paid for services. So they should just give the paper up.
What a schmuck. Coders get paid for services and he thinks we can all live in the world like coders and doctors with scripts and scrip. Wrong. We need a livlihood too. That means DRM and it means copyright inherency and it means a resounding NO to collectivism.
Your fake aquiesence to my point about walled gardens is hardly convincing. You don't believe in them. You think they're pretty and then knock out their walls. And here comes the showstopper! Call the JIRA! You admit that I could have sustained dmage from theft enabled by VWRAP. Extraordinary. Just....extraordinary.
You didn't maintain any protections because you wouldn't leave c/m/t and demand that only other countries/grids with c/m/t got to interop. It was so simple; yet you couldn't do it for ideological, not technological reasons.
Your fake invocation of those "Facebook people" that were going to come flocking into SL due to your VWRAP -- how many times will my eyes roll in their sockets! The FB group has 100,000 people. The same people in SL. Not new ones. Case closed.
I can't dignify your lame answer on IBM with a reply.
I'll repeat what I said before about all of you: you hate each other even more than you hate us, and that's why you're not to be trusted.
I don't care if you go on falsely misrepresenting my penetrating and apt critique of your collectivism as "vitriol" or "looniness" or try to groom me online by trying to flatter me about when you think I ask "helpful" questions like at SLCC and when I "surround my writings with crap".
History has left you behind on the dust heap on interoperability -- for now. Good!