Content Management Roadmap

Cyn Linden seems to have rolled on from the ill-considered, ill-planned and ill-executed Adult Content changes to look at the question of content creation and rights protection.

Leaving aside Cyn’s somewhat patronising comment that we “deserve” to know LL’s thoughts on the matter (we don’t – with LL portraying SL as a platform of commerce and drawing-in users on this basis, we are entitled to know of any changes that could impact our ability to trade, and are entitled to have input to said changes in order to ensure they are fair to all) – that LL are looking at the matter is long overdue, but nonetheless potentially welcome.

Copybots and the like have been the scourge of LL commerce, to say nothing of the likes of texture rippers like GL Intercept. However, when it comes to policing content and protection of content creator’s intellectual property, one has to admit it really is an uphill battle – and while LL have been inexcusably slow in meeting the challenge, I for one don’t envy them the task of getting things sorted. It is just a shame that given the aforementioned “entrepreneurial” promotion of the platform by LL tool, IP and content protection were never properly considered from the start rather than being regarded as a bolt-on nice-to-have, as in many ways over the years it has been.

But that said, at least now LL are looking at matters and apparently doing so from all sides. As Cyn acknowledges, while there is a need to protect creator’s content fully and fairly, so to is there a need to recognised that copy tools actually do have legitimate uses – such as backing up ones own creations. But again, a meaningless line is already being drawn in the sand; leaving aside other issues around copy tools, Cyn indicates LL are concerned about content being created in SL and going “outside the grid”  – i.e. to opensim platforms or to something like OLG – although they are perfectly sanguine about content being copied to their own behind the firewall “solution” – something which in itself raises similar content protection concerns as copying content elsewhere.

Again, while safeguards should exist to stop the wholesale illegal copying of content for use elsewhere, LL should also be prepared to recognise the rights of the content creator to move and use content they have legally created and have rights to wherever they wish – whether it be in the open SL grid, on the behind the firewall “solution” – or indeed to another grid entirely.

As Cyn states, the matter is in the early throes of discussion and much will, frankly, depend upon LL beefing-up aspects of their own tools (such as ensuring copy tools cannot reassign names to the content creator field, etc., that metadata on ownership can be included in objects easily, and that such metadata actually allows for one object to contain prims / sub-objects from several creators without screwing everything up, etc.), as well as LL working with copy tool manufacturers to develop workable standards that can help prevent the illegal activist. But tools alone won’t solve the issue. Much needs to be discussed and anyone who is involved in content creation should get over to the “forum” and join the debates and make your concerns and idea heard.

This is a major subject, and LL should neither rush into “solutions” nor be allowed to push the content creation community down any biased path.

This is particularly true of the last section in Cyn’s post, and the one that initially causes me greatest concern – if only because it is perhaps the “easiest” change to implement on the part of LL – and that is the concept of a “Content Seller Program”. This is, as Cyn explains:

…a program that sellers may participate in if they meet certain eligibility standards intended to show a level of trustworthiness and quality of content.

Which sounds innocuous on the surface, but alarm bells quickly start ringing as one reads on:

For example, we currently offer the Gold Solution Provider Program for Solution Providers with a demonstrated track record of successful Second Life projects and client satisfaction.

Uh-oh.

And it gets worse as Cyn reveals:

We are starting the process of planning a content seller program, and we would like your input on possible program criteria. At a minimum, participation in the program will require that the selling Resident:

• have identity and payment information on file with Linden Lab;
• be in good standing and not have been suspended for any violation of the Second Life Terms of Service;
• meet a minimum threshold for content transactions; and
• affirm that all necessary intellectual property rights and licenses have been obtained for all content that the Resident has for sale.

Indeed, reading this entire section of her post, one can only assume that LL are at best looking to set-up another of Prok Neva’s infamous “Feted Inner Circles” (FICs)  – this one of content creators who enjoy a favoured nations status within SL based on somewhat subjective criteria, or at worse, looking to leverage fees out of a somewhat skewed programme of recognition.  Why?

Well, at its heart, the “gold solution provider program for solution provider” (a mouthful in itself) is – when one strips away the glitz and glamour – a fee-based enrollment system. Those selected (by Linden Lab) for inclusion in the program pay an annual “membership” fee ($500)  – and even if an organisation is turned down by LL, they sell have to stump up $125 non-refundable just to be considered. If LL are speculating along these lines (in addition to any other criteria listed by Cyn, of which more anon), then SL is immediately in danger of having its whole commercial attractiveness unfairly twisted in favour of those who generate sufficient revenues to afford the cost of enrollment in such a “program”.

It may not be $500 a year. It may only be $75 a year, but it makes no difference. $75 a year could represent months of turnover for smaller content creators and wipe out any hope they have at making a profit, or even recouping costs – and just because they are small, doesn’t mean they are either any less dedicated to producing quality goods or any less trustworthy as those who can stump-up the fee for the Linden Lab thumbs-up. And making the program “voluntary” doesn’t excuse this, given that those joining the program will get favoured nations status with LL, which will likely include open promotion from Linden Lab  (tailored MOTD on the login, for example?), further driving up their ability to make sales and wipe out the smaller competition.

Then there are the criteria specified by Cyn – and it is interesting to note the tone of her post suggests these criteria have already been decided on and are thus tablets of stone):

• have identity and payment information on file with Linden Lab – of them all, this is the only criteria that comes close to making sense, although some would argue that there are some content creators who don’t have payment info on file. However, given there is no cost involved in registering a payment method, and that doing so is little different from, say registering payment info with PayPal (with whom many NPIOF residents are registered with), i don’t see any reason why people can’t simply register to avoid this issue

• be in good standing and not have been suspended for any violation of the Second Life Terms of Service – while this sounds reasonable on the surface, it is actually a pretty dangerous criteria. LL are already linking forum suspensions with account suspensions – so speak out-of-turn in the forums, and you are locked out of SL for 3 or more days for your felony. The suspension (and AR) mechanism is already biased against the accused – all too often LL’s reaction is to ban first and then consider asking why after; and even when you lodge an appeal, it is nowadays seemingly heard by the individual imposing the ban – again, as Prok Neva and others have found out – who is hardly likely to be sympathetic to your appeal. Thus, linking the content seller program to suspensions, when the latter are at times so arbitrary, is hardly balanced. People are people – and a wrong word said in the forums is hardly indicative of a lack of morals or trustworthiness in in-world business. This criteria at best, therefore, needs clear-cut and unambiguous qualification.

• meet a minimum threshold for content transactions – and here we hit the first of the big two of the questionable criteria. Just what is this threshold? Turnover? Hardly fair. Just because merchant X achieves monthly sales of $$$ while merchant Y only makes $ does not mean Y’s products are of a lesser standard to X’s, or that Y is any less trustworthy. Many content creators (I openly count myself among them) are not making content to generate massive turnover. We’re not into SL to make money or run a business. We make content for two reasons: a) it forms a creative outlet for us and b) it helps offset the cost of being in SL in the first place. And what about those who make perfectly good content – clothes, scripts, etc., and give the same away for free, massively helping newbies to SL? Use turnover as a criteria and a large portion of the merchants in SL are excluded from the run. Turnover works the other way as well: X may charge $$$ as an average price for wares; whereas Y only charges $ – so Y’s sales must be an order of magnitude over X’s to achieve the same level of turnover. And these arguments apply to a threshold based on volume: just because X outsells Y by a ratio of 3 or 4 to 1 does not mean X’s products are any better than Y’s, or that X is the more trustworthy.

• affirm that all necessary intellectual property rights and licenses have been obtained for all content that the Resident has for sale – again sounds fine on the surface, but is a minefield of risk underneath. Just look at the number of full permission textures available in Second Life as a single example. Are all of these genuinely royalty-free items? Are those that make them available their genuine creators? Are the creators still active within Second Life available to contact and confirm the status? What quantifies a licence? Are, say, builders (the subject closest to my heart for content creation) going to be expected to include an explicit statement that every texture they have used in their build is duly “licensed”. Who is to say it isn’t? How will allegedly violations be policed?

However one looks at such a programme, it is hard to see how it fits with the rest of Cyn’s proposals. Content protection and IP right protection are issues that need addressing. So to does protection against illegal copying and the illegal use of valid copying tools. However, the tack-on of a “content seller program” to the rest of Cyn’s post seems somewhat uneven: it’s not a vital requirement that will in any way make the other issues she raises any more manageable. Rather it opens the door to the potential for the entire SL marketplace to be openly gamed and manipulated far more than it is right now. It’s really hard to see how anything other than merchants with favoured nations status among themselves can emerge from such a move.

Let’s protect again IP infringements and content rip-off. Let’s hit those who persist in such activities as hard as we can – but please, in doing so, let’s not tilt the commerce playing field to the point where the smaller players slide off the edge into oblivion through no fault of their own. And let’s certainly not start creating yet another two tier system within SL.