Should Free Accounts Go

It might have had some effect in the past, but the "look for infringement" thing just sounds hopeless to me for any but the most well-known stores, who are probably in the least need of help with finding the stolen content. I just think shopping around the grid (and, presumably XstreetSL) cannot be the most effective way to detect illicit copying.

Rather, I think LL should be able to run anti-fraud algorithms on their asset store and present registered creators with a list of suspicious products.

If that means that these mythical "registered creators" need to pay for Premium membership (or some share of sales, or something), then that works for me. I'm all for concerned content creators/distributors bearing the burden of enforcement. I just don't think banding together to police content can find even a tiny percentage of the widespread copying that's going on now.

You make good points here, but I think Kitty's idea of a content-creators' organization has merit, too. Yes, any initiative that involves residents going around inspecting goods does seem unlikely to succeed.

However, a central clearinghouse (presumably a website that's not Linden-owned), on which reports of 'problem' items could be found, could help prevent duplication of effort (of people trying to track down illicit use of their content). Such a site would have to be set up so as to minimize false reports (made in order to undercut a competitor)--there could be no anonymity. But if it were done well, it could provide genuinely helpful information.

As for the idea of LL running anti-fraud algorithms and sharing the information with creators---well, it would be wonderful.

But as our recently-registered Cowled Crusader* has been writing, LL is unlikely to be willing to lay out that cash.

I know that the recent conventional wisdom is that the recent class-action lawsuit will force LL to lay out SOME cash to protect itself from further lawsuits.

But I'm skeptical. My guess is that LL will have noted that there are VERY few SL businesses that have the standing that Stroker and Munchflower have to bring suit---few that have the dollar volume of business and few that have a shot at proving harm resulting from content (or trademark) theft.

They may be weighing the costs of...well, doing something...against the potential costs from potential lawsuits. And coming down on the side of doing, basically, nothing.

(We shall see, I guess.)



*Yes, when it comes to an avatar that's 4 days old (registered the day after the lawsuit was filed!) and clearly not a newbie, and who consistently voices positions (lawsuits against LL...BAD, higher personnel costs for LL...BAD, all $ transactions to go through LL-owned XStreet...GOOD) that could come straight from the LL boardroom...

Yeah, I suspect that person of being a Linden in mufti.

Of course it's been so long since a Linden posted here that I'm sure we'd all be grateful, should that turn out to be the case.

I don't think they could possibly play dumb that well.

[on second thoughts, stands well back from Argent in case of flying flesh-and-fur]

I reckon they would be pretty crappy money launderers if LL could keep track of them, just because no ones been caught doesn't mean it's not happening

Which is exactly what you did when you put words in my mouth and said this:Which was a rather insulting thing to say, since you're calling me an idiot, and yet you also denied insulting me.
Oh no? What about .. words which I'm sure you wrote, attributing thoughts to me, which I surely didn't say or imply.

You obviously don't understand the ad hominem fallacy either, which simply put, is attacking the speaker rather than the speaker's arguments. Your assertion that some may argue against you with ulterior motives is irrelevant. Their arguments are either worthy of consideration, prima facie, or they're not.

BTW, syllogism is Aristotle's form of logic, which as Bertrand Russel clearly explained, is flawed: you can use it to prove untruths; it can't handle propositions concerning existence because it lacks predicates. It has nothing to do with this discussion. But you get two points for knowing a term that has to do with the history of logic.

I won't waste any more of my time on this. Here's a $L, buy yourself a clue. That's an insult; I won't deny it.

Clearly you still don't understand what the Straw Man Fallacy is. On the off chance that this may be helpful to you at some point:

First, "Straw Man" is committed when the Committer makes statements such as "your position is" or "you believe" or "you stated" or "you said" (and what follows is something the target did NOT say). Contrast those constructions with constructions such as:

***"it appears that you misunderstand"
***"as you seem to believe"
***"you seem to believe"

The second essential for "Straw Man" is that the Committer then takes the "You believe/Your position is/You stated" statements and refutes them.

For example, I would have committed Straw Man had I typed anything like: "You believe that all accounts in SL should be free, and the reasons why this is a horrible idea are [gives reasons A, B, and C]."

The essence of Straw Man is that the Committer attributes a position or argument to the target that is not only one that the target did NOT make, but is a blatantly foolish position or argument, easily 'knocked down'. (Hence "Straw Man", an object that is easily knocked down.)




“Putting words in [someone’s] mouth” is NOT saying “it appears that you misunderstand…”

“Putting words in [someone’s] mouth” IS saying “you said” or “you believe” or “your position is”.

Do you see that these things are different?




“Straw Man” has NOTHING TO DO WITH attempting to make sense of why a person made out-of the-blue accusations that are unfounded---as is the case here. Look at the history of this interaction:

1) Post 113: Lewis Luminos outlines a plan to deal with stolen content

2) Post 123: You disagreed with him (by using the "newbie making freebie" argument)

3) Post 126: I disagreed with the "if a newbie wants to make a freebie" rationale for discarding the "licensing" plan Lewis had outlined (and this post specifically said "I'm quoting you [Lear Cale] only because you stated the position succinctly"--making it clear that my comments were NOT targeting you but were a reply to the position argued by several people in this thread.

4) Post 131: You stated that my post 126 constituted "Poisoning the Well", which was a false accusation (as you later conceded, in post 153)

5) Post 134: I point out that my post 126 did NOT in any way fit the definition of "Poisoning the Well", which, as mentioned, you later conceded.

....and on and on. The point is that the introduction of insults occurred in post 131, and those insults were based on a misunderstanding of the meaning and application of a term related to argumentation (in this case "Poisoning the Well".

And in fact each further escalation of unpleasantness was engendered by a further misunderstanding of the meaning and application of a term related to argumentation ("Straw Man Fallacy" and "Ad Hominem", in posts 153 and 275).

I'm not playing 'you started it'. I'm suggesting that you are creating problems for yourself by failing to understand the terminology you use, and that you could spare yourself future pain and loss of face by doing more reading on these topics than, apparently, you have heretofore.

I attempted to spare you this humiliation by replying to your earlier false accusations in a post that obscured your identity. Yet you seem to embrace such humiliation by making self-embarrassingly irrelevant comments on the value of syllogistic logic--though the value of syllogistic logic was never asserted by me or anyone else in this thread. Your discussion of Ad Hominem is similarly inapplicable (I'll deal with that in a separate post as this one is long enough as it is.)

Why not save yourself from further exposure by charting a different course for yourself?

Do you really think that I thought what you said? Please. I hope you recognize that what you wrote was terribly rude.

I apologize for my own rudeness, which was inexcusable in any case.

Okay. Let's move on.

(I do enjoy non-personal discussions of the principles of argumentation, but the personal ones are no fun. I regret and apologize for referring to humiliation, which was an element of the situtation that would have best been left unmentioned.)

Actually, I don't think humiliation was a factor at all. People being assholes, yes.

I couldn't agree more.

Again: shall we move on?

We could, but no one remembers where we were up to anymore

ALL FREE ACCOUNTS MUST GO!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


















(j/k...^_^)

I'm kinda torn on this.
On the one hand, I have a premium acct only after trying out SL for a bit (probably about a month). When the only real difference between my premium acct and and a basic acct is live chat support, and 300L a week and the ability to own land...Not really worth it sometimes. Now I own two private sims but only b/c my sl love and partner is in Europe and with 25% VAT, the tiers would kill us. The sims are his but in my name in other words. fyi: I'm on a very tight budget and 23.00 every 3 months doesn't break my bank...I spend enough time online enjoying a world that LL created for us to build and create in that to me, it's more than worth it most of the time.

On the other hand, free accts should not go to the wayside but yes, I do think they should not get the same privilages that someone who pays a membership fee gets. I still pay for every pic/texture I upload, every sound, every ani. And boy do I shop! Maybe the answer lies in the buisness model that WoW uses. I don't know. Something has to be done tho. Maybe with more resources coming in, LL can then afford to get things running more smoothly. And I have looked at WoW's membership base as my son wanted to join.

On a final note....we as Americans are very spoiled. We expect everything for nothing. You use it, you pay for it in some way or another.

Gee I don't think "we as Americans are very spoiled". I can't think of one other developed country--for example--where a university student graduates highly in debt. Not only that, but in other countries they actually give the student a living stipend so that they can concentrate on their studies and don't have to work. Here, after tuition and books are paid, I have only about $2000 left FOR THREE MONTHS. Now when rent alone is $645 a month, you can see that there is no way to budget $2000 so that I can both put a roof over my head AND eat AND pay for my medications (which are not fully covered under my student health insurance). Not only that, but I have NO dental, which means that if I need my two remaining wisdom teeth pulled, I have to pay for that OUT OF POCKET. Ergo, unless it is a question of life or death, I cannot fund having them yanked. It cost me $130 out of pocket just to have them examined. Other countries have socialized medicine, where they pay through the tax system--everyone paying a comparatively equal amount--so that when you need to go to a doctor or dentist, or get surgery, you don't have to debate whether you can afford it. Currently, I am being hounded by creditors for a visit I made to a specialist LAST SUMMER. A specialist, I might add, who did nothing but examine me and tell me there was nothing she could do. So in other words, I am being hounded for services I didn't fully get. I came away from that appointment in no better shape than I went in with. At this point, I would settle for something for SOMETHING. I am one of the thousands (maybe millions) of "spoiled" Americans who falls into that gray area who are barely getting by, but don't qualify for any type of aid. And you chastise us because we won't shell out $10 a month for an online virtual thingy? I love SL, but frankly, hun, it's VERY low on my priority list of things to pay for, if not at the VERY bottom. It's a luxury, to be sure, not a necessity.
Rant Over.

Umm in Australia most of uni students graduate with a debt. I'd love to go to uni, but I earn over the threshold for the cheap Gov loan and have a mortgage to pay off that rquires my 5 days a week job and so I would have to borrow another $20k from a bank to enrol at uni for 10 years to get a degree, giving me my first degree at 52yo

I sit corrected. I'm sorry to hear that, Tegg. It really is dificult--being an older student especially. Or striving to be one. My real point, though, is that every time I hear something about "we Americans being spoiled" I have to wonder WHICH Americans. EVERY American *I* know is struggling to keep his or her head above water. I'd say the likelihood of the majority of people in these forums who are Americans who "play" SL being "spoiled" and "wanting something for nothing" is a very rare creature indeed.

We're all spoiled in relation to most second world countries, I guess

Hrm....I'm not sure what a second world country is. I know what a third world country is...

I never would have tried SL if I hadn't been able to sign up/play for free. Sever crashes in my first 90 days actually led to me bailing on SL for a short time because there were too many problems. I did return; however, and could not be happier with what I have found. I'm enjoying it far more than I did in the beginning. I'm making purchases in world and stimulating the economy. I still do not have a premium membership, but that's not for lack of seriously considering it.

Personally, at this stage of the game, I would not frown upon paying some premium for membership...but if LL wants money, I do believe they need to set a very nominal, one time annual membership fee, such a $4.95 US for basic after some type of free promotional period. For example, newbies could try it free for 30, 60 or 90 days and if they are still interested in playing, would have to pay $4.95 (one time) for the remaining year of membership. There are a lot of people who do not have access to or desire to establish revolving payment accounts. Some don't have credit cards or checking accounts to set up soemthing with PayPal particularly in other countries.

I think if LL wants to set up any form of basic membership plan, they will need to establish a one time basic membership annual fee (that must be minimal) and by doing so, perhaps the in-world tier fees and premium membership costs could be discounted somewhat to becoming that much more enticing.

Again, just my 2 cents.

They don't need anything that complex.

Just do things the way they were before June 2006.

You had to provide a valid credit card or Paypal account to play.

Free, but verified.

To answer the question: no.
To answer it more: if you think premium account is to expensive now then stop buying premium? I barely see any different between the two accounts.

Well the good thing about geting people to go payment info on file after some sort of trial period is they are more likely to spend money inworld. I would have never joined up if it hadn't been free either but after about 3 days I could see all the cools tuff and broughht some Lindens. a month later I started working out the building tools, so went premium and brought land.
A lot of NPIOF aren't content creators or service providers, they are forced to camp or beg for money to spend inworld, hence do no put money in the piggy bank, they only shuffle it around inside.

2nd World Countries are the middle countries between the 1st world countries(top 20%) and 3rd world countries (bottom 20%).

I think the terminology comes from the cold war, actually.

First world was NATO and allies. Second world was the Communist Bloc, and Third World was everyone else. The "Third World" term was coined first, and first and second kind of retconned.

Yes, really, world powers retcon stuff all the time. It's not just Trekkies.