Month: October 2009

LL Announce Third Party Viewer Policy

Posted on by Inara Pey

Jack Linden isn’t the only one setting up new programmes within SL now the Adult Change fiasco is “sorted”. Cyn is back, with an announcement concerning third party viewers.

On the whole, this can only be seen as good news: while open source viewers are not the root of all evil as some would have us believe, it cannot be denied that there are several out there that exploit weaknesses in the SL environment in order to make activities like content ripping easier. As such, it is right and proper that LL work with the community as a whole to develop the means of keeping such unwanted elements – Neillife, Cyrolife, and their ilk – well out of SL for the good of all.

However, this does not mean that all third party viewers should be condemned. While the usual voices can be heard again screaming the house down over the Emerald viewer in particular and to the exclusion of all else – again, it cannot be denied that open source development on the Viewer has also been a power for good. It has allowed those who experience uneven results with the “official” Viewer to find a degree of stability with one or more alternatives that has dramatically enhanced their SL experience; it has allowed those so-minded (and who can remember back far enough) to enjoy the benefits of some of the “old” UI that were lost when LL forced us into acceptance of things like the catch-all “Communicate” window (which was a terror when it first came out). Third party viewers have eased the use of legitimate API functions, they have provided improved menus, improved access to building tools (Imprudence being one of the first in this regard), and so on. Perhaps most importantly, they’ve introduced genuine bug fixes and helped clean up code far quicker than would have been the case had the Viewer remained closed – and in doing so, have directly benefited the “official” Viewer itself, as these changes and fixes have been fed back into the code – something those all too keen on screaming “ban the open source!” seem to forget.

So in this regard, policing third party viewer development, such as through the use of a register that places real life accountability against viewer code, can only be a good thing if handled correctly. There can be little doubt that those “honest” third party viewer creators – the guys at Imprudence, the team behind Emerald, those working on the various flavours of Cool Viewer  – all will be the first to sign-up to a properly thought-out and implemented policy and registration / policing process.

To this end, and leaving aside the banshee wailing and biased finger-pointing that repeatedly singles out just one viewer for vehemence, there have been many very excellent ideas posted in the blogrum discussion following Cyn’s post. Anne O’Toole hits upon one important element, while others offer ideas for helping ensure the development process can be more properly integrated into SL – the worry that any policing could inevitably drain the patience of “legitimate” open source developers if it puts unreasonable hurdles between them and their goal of improving the SL experience for everyone. And while it may require a lot of technical input (and possible cost), Marine Kelley possibly hit upon one of the best solutions.

Right now, the real question is, will LL actually engage fully and openly with those most involved in the development of third party viewers? Macabe Maxstead from Imprudence raises a genuine concern with his question, and has every right to be worried when Blondin Linden announces that while there will be Brown Bag meetings  – they will be run more-or-less like those for the Adult Content changes – i.e. open only to a select few, with the criteria for selection known only to LL themselves.  That the latter were carried out as closed-door sessions gave people cause for much alarm at the time – alarm that was all too easily justified as it became clear just how little room there was for actual engagement with LL and discussion around their decisions relating to Adult Content.

It’s a cleft stick to be sure: no-one can justifiably stand against measures that control third party viewer use on the grid when the control is fairly aimed at reducing the ease with which those so minded can carry out malicious acts. But, by the same token, Linden Lab need to be prepared to engage fully with the open source development community to ensure that the actions they take both safeguard those of us who use Second Life and allow those passionate enough about SL to continue to work at their own expense to improve our in-world experience.

Signs and Portents….

Posted on by Inara Pey

Two recent events involving Linden Lab reps have caused yet more head-scratching.

The first is a posting from Amanda Linden on the subject of “work avatars“, espousing the view that if people are to do “professional” business in SL then they should consider having a “professional avatar” as distinct from their runabout everyday avatar.

I’ve found two things interesting with this – one of which is somewhat amusing, the other is more alarming. The amusing element is in the number of replies from people who have somewhat missed the context of the post. This isn’t about all of us engaged in SL commerce having to ditch our current look and come over all business-like. Nor is it about any form of “outing” real identities behind avatars on the part of LL.

No, the article is aimed squarely at the question of “professional” (read “corporate”) employees being in-world as representatives of their organisation, and the need for these individuals to keep their “professional” identity both divorced from any “social” identity they may have and use outside of working hours, and in line with the professional / corporate image they are trying to promote.

While many have mistaken the posting, as mentioned above, giving rise to a range of misguided (…?) responses, those that have realised the intent of the post have, in fairness given interesting feedback on the matter relating to the “validity” of “business” (or “professional”) avatars, the question of naming rights / abilities, etc. However, with one or two exceptions, no-one has really addressed the question of why is Amanda even raising this issue in the public forum?

Second Life was never designed to be an engine of business. Period. It was designed – if such a term can be used – as a fun-based social networking platform (and I never thought I’d hear myself say that!). Yet, in the drive to make it sustainable, Linden Lab have been increasingly forced to look at the corporate environment as a means of generating sustainable revenues and growth (again, this drive is to me one of the clearest indications that all is not well with the SL economy as an “engine of commerce”, despite the rosy pictures painted every quarter by those juggling with the finance figures). To this end we’ve had much focus from LL on their “behind the firewall” product which (I gather) is designed to be the nirvana for all corporate communications needs.

And, in its own way, this is fair enough. Second Life does offer some unique opportunities for internal management to corporations. Whether they can compete with established tools and technology (video streaming, desktop-enabling video conferencing, secure collaborative work tools and information sharing, etc.), is obviously debatable – but one cannot simply discount SL on the basis of existing technology, or for LL for trying to leverage what they believe is a potential market.

Where this becomes an issue, however, is in the way it impacts how Linden Lab view the grid as a whole. Until recently, the grid was a place of open interaction, creativity and development, where many different lifestyles and communities could converge and mix and share (largely) without rancour or fuss. Sure, groups were/are prone to their own bouts of drama; yes, Linden Lab did and does sometimes show an insidious favouritism here and there – BUT on the whole, for those in SL it really was a case of “our world, our imagination”.

That is no longer the case. The “big business is everything” mantra is one that is spreading across the whole of Linden Lab, resulting in a grid that is slowly but surely being sanitised, and individuality squirreled away on private sims and small holdings. “Adult” content has been largely removed to its own continent or private sims; any that remain on Mainland are (theoretically) unable to advertise or gain much visibility unless people stumble upon them – and where they do advertise, users are encouraged to AR them so they can be taken down.

We’re now seeing discussions emerging between Linden Lab and a favoured few relating to “zoning” areas of Mainland for “community building” – words that again subliminally suggest “homogenising” the Mainland into a nice, clean, “safe” environment where Corporate Daddy will feel safe letting his children (employees) “play”.

In this, Amanda’s enthusiastic posting is but the latest demonstration that there are those within LL who view Second Life as being “all about business” – and very little else, despite the lip service they may pay to the rest of us. The only reason the idea of having a “professional” avatar is being promoted is because Amanda and others in LL want to see the grid as a confluence – not of communities and lifestyles and interests – but of corporate marketing and exposure. A place where all those behind-the-firewall grids can safely connect and where their minions and roam outside the hallowed portals of their corporation and “do business” with others “safely” (and by “safely” I don’t necessarily mean “securely”, I mean simply without the “risk” of running into any one of two dozen exotic avatar styles we all take for granted in SL).

And this is the worrying aspect of Amanda’s post; not that we’ll all have to somehow be “outed” (as some on the blog comments are decrying), but that here again we see Second Life – a place never designed to support Big Business – being slowly but surely forced into a business suit, shirt and tie….

Nor, in passing, do I find this kind of commentary being followed by Philip Rosedale’s recent bombshell unconnected. Other the last several months we’ve seen several departures from Linden Lab that have raised questions concerning the company’s intended future direction. Until now, the hardest of these was perhaps Robin Linden’s departure.

While Robin caused a mixed range of reactions from those around her, she did, in many ways, having the “community” of Second Life at heart. Not all of us agreed with some of her actions all of the time, but she was committed to the idea of Second Life being an open community. As, I think it fair to say, was Philip. And now he, too – despite all the comforting words – is off. Why, exactly, is unclear. Lots of promises and pleasing words – but one cannot help but feel that in sharing the same workspace as Mark Kingdon, Rosedale finally realised the yawning gulf between his dreams and ideas and Kingdon’s (Kapor’s?) vision for the future of SL, and the fact that the two can no longer comfortably co-exist.

So what of SL and the rest of us? I have no idea. But, like many others, I’m concerned about further developments coming out of Jack Linden’s office, as reported by Ciaran Laval and variously-reported elsewhere.

First off, the issue here – and Ciaran states – is not that LL have discounted a bulk sim sale to the likes of Dreamland (who are a huge customer well aware of their potential buying-power – thus discounts are hardly surprising). What is worrying about the deal is – again – the degree of obfuscation apparent in Jack’s responses to valid questions pitched during his Office Hours, and as reported by Ciaran. So much so, that Jack himself had to admit he was coming over as evasive – before hiding under the excuse that this is some kind of “beta program” – a laughable response at best.

Discounts are discounts. End of story. They are a legitimate part of business practices and require little in the way of hiding from others – so they fact that Jack (again) feels the need to obfuscate (just as he did over OpenSpace / Homesteads, and with the Adult Changes, and with the Blake Sea situation….), suggests that either favouritism is involved here, and a programme to edge-out the smaller land owner and private sim owners is in the process of being developed, or – frankly – Jack is (again) demonstrating a degree of incompetence in his ability to deal openly with his clients.

Personally, given the push for a bigger Big Business presence in SL, the erosion of the voices and dreams of those who made SL possible, and moves such as this latest “beta programs” from Jack, I’m beginning to get pessimistic about the future of SL.

These moves simply do not bode well for the smaller, independent player or player groups within Second Life. Again, leave us not forget that, after the special “beta testing” Jack developed with USS over Blake’s Sea, we’ve now got the much-touted Community Partnership Programme, which is utterly biased against small independents – right from the opening words: “a new initiative focused on expanding Linden Lab’s relationship with large, inworld communities“.

Indeed, taken together, one cannot help but view the CPP and this latest behind-closed-doors deal between LL and Dreamland as part and parcel of moves to sanitise Second Life ready for the Second Coming of Big Business, as heralded by Amanda….

Score One….

Posted on by Inara Pey

OK…I bash LL quiet a lot. So, in a pleasant change, I’m going to blow them (or some of them – notably Soft Linden) kisses.

Anyone reading this blog knows that content theft is a genuine issue within SL and that, as a content creator myself, I’d like to see LL become more proactive in dealing with it.

Well, now they have, as reported by Tateru Nino over at Massively – no fewer than 50 rippers have been summarily banned from SL for blatantly stealing assets from the Linden servers.

The culprits in question had been using a Viewer called Neillife (unfortunately built on the Emerald codebase) that utilises an purpose-built exploit that fooled the Linden asset servers into providing them with items to which they had no rights to own.

This is very much a step beyond “simple” copybotting or Viewer copying as evidenced with the likes of Cyrolife. It borders on outright computer crime that can far more easily be acted upon with legal measures than protracted DMCA actions, as the violations in question were directly against Linden Lab.

And it was becasue the Viewer behaved this way that Soft and co were able to get the hackers – by identifying the object the hackers were going for, they simply substituted the original item with one that effective “phoned home” with the user’s account information each time it was illegally copied….making it a cinch for LL to round up the culprits and ban them – including the Viewer’s creator….

It’s not clear how this kind of action by LL can be broadened, but the fact that they have quietly taken such a step is very welcome; and while it would be very easy to say “well, they only took this action as a result of the class action against them”, I’d beg to differ and simply say that kudos falls where kudos is due – and that LL are to be unreservedly congratulated in the action they have taken.

My one real worry is that this success will leads to greater cries from the ill-informed (or those carrying certain grudges) for other “safe” Viewers such as Emerald, Meekat and Cool Viewer to be  “banned” as third party viewers are “evil”…..