Content Creator Union

Thats gonna be ironic.

What are the numbers? What is the difference between what LL will be paying out and what the bought back server space will be auctioned for? How much of LL operating budget did LL stand to lose in terms of loss of their major investors as a result of their reversal of position on P2P? I'm referring to the people who pay the monthly bills and keep the electricity flowing to the asset server. I don't know the details which led to this situation, do you? I'm waiting for more than indignation and pictures of ass before deciding if I, as one of the little guys who will be paying for this buyout package, stood more to lose if LL didn't follow its current course.

Great question! Robin said that the money for the buyback will come from "created" money. Creating money (thereby devaluing the dollar) is essentially equal to taking the money from EVERYBODYS pocket to pay the landowners. So if WE are paying for the buyback, who will get the profits when the Lindens sellback?

Another great question! I doubt these policies influence outside investors so we are really talking about are the few folks who have enormous landholdings (Anshe "Turn your back on Governor Linden" Chung, for example.)

"Power and influence over the Lindens" can be such a nebulous and unquantifiable thing. But in THIS case we may be able to put an actual DOLLAR value on some user's influence over the Lindens. For example, LL pisses off "MoneyBags Omega" they stand to lose, say, $10,000 dollars in revenue. Therefore Moneybags will likly have his way for any issue where up $10,000 are at stake"

Nope. And we SHOULD know!

It was just an excuse to show my ass. If none of this happened I would have just found another excuse.

if you are concerned about LL creating money, devaluing the L$, and YOU paying for it, you should really change your focus to stipends. that is the number abuse by LL of their mint. deliberate L$ mismanagement is the worst exploitation of content creators.

land buyback is a one time instance. stipends are weekly abuse. but if everyone has bought into the money sink scam, then we are ok: i'm sure LL will sink all these extra L$ over time to "fix the inflation"

I think this is an interesting point and bears underscoring. Linden is effectively trying to appear to take responsibility for the telehub land incident by reimbursing those who made purchases between August (presumably when the decision to reinstate p2p was made) and December (just prior to the p2p release), while not actually having to suffer any consequences for their actions.

I don't see any reason why they wouldn't do the same thing for content creators -- pay people out in newly-created L$ when a content bug hits. It's not like it will cost them anything.....

I agree with you about stipends. But what can *I* as an individual person do about it all by myself?


If only ... there was a way content creators could ... I don't know ... organize! Work together on issues like stipends ... as ONE.

Are stipends large enough to make a difference?

Totally agree. I just asked...

/invalid_link.html

And how much money are we talking about?

I know, I know, I already asked that. You don't know but you think we should know.

Well I'd wish you luck with this movement thing but I don't think it's really necessary. I have never underestimated the power of a pretty ass in lieu of facts.

*BLUSH*

Hey now, Aimee, let's not forget Cristiano. His butt is pretty, too. You aren't carrying the weight of the movement by yourself.

I don't think "getting rid of stipends" would be something we would expect "content creators" to stand up for as a whole.

I certainly wouldn't.

As for the cost to all of us in terms of devaluing the Linden by offering to buy back the telehub lands of that small group of people defined by the restrictions, of whom an even smaller group will take advantage of the offer, the effect on the Linden value will probably be scarcely if at all measurable in the overall scheme of things.

coco

Your post reminds me of this recent thread:
/invalid_link.html

His point is well taken, it would seem. The loss of 10L$ is very small, and therefore justifies his request to be the beneficiary. But this doesn't competely add up to me. While 10L$ isn't a lot of money, why should Chris be the beneficiary? Why not you? Or somebody else? Maybe everybody should get the money? But that wouldn't be sustainable.

When the Lindens take OUR money (even a small amount) and pass it to a small subsection of our population, I think it's fair to ask "Why?" "Why not us?" "How did they qualify, and why didn't WE qualify?"

The answer from the Lindens right now is "it's easier to figure out losses in telehub land value than losses from compromised content. Therefore the landowners get compensated and the content creators get zero."

As of this posting, that answer is good enough for 41.12% of content creators, and may be lacking for 45.79% of content creators.

I see it more like Katykiwi's answer, rather than the answer from the Lindens about "easier to figure out," but that's probably true, too.

coco

I'm a C.C.

Woke up one day to an email saying so BUT... it'd be totally gruesome taking all our content and stuffing it into overflowing inventories. There's the rub. The visual alone kills me. AND, as for me, when the little buggers i TAUGHT to do waterfalls market their stuff during the 'strike'...aaah...the unkindest cut of all.

However. it would work. If no one has any other ideas....

Form the union.

we can form a new lobby group. there is also already one in place that could be enlisted - MJW! i would love to support this cause of ending the exploitation of content creators by selling L$ in the form of stipends.

I haven't read the thread, really, so this has prolly already been said, but I can't wait for the ensuing dramas to come to the forums. How long til complaints arise about a Feted Inner Core of the content creators union? "Well everyone backed so-and-so with action and got what they wanted but they're not prepared to back me and my problem! But then they would back her, wouldn't they? "

Because every member is going to think their cause is just as just (that makes sense, right?) as the next person, and I can almost guarantee the whole thing is going to devolve into petty squabbling, infighting and dramah. And calls for strikes every 10 seconds. Should be fun to watch, at any rate!

I bought my popcorn yesterday

It is an interesting idea but I would need to know more about how it would all work before I would consider joining. A group that pools resources, creative techniques, business and legal knowledge sounds great, but if its more about strikes, boycotts and lobbying politics you can count me out.

Same here. I like the idea of groups that can work constructively with change than opposing change (good or bad). Besides, I think LL has enough tools for me to use to get my point across on my "suggestions" (not demands). I don't need to join a union to do that. Now regardless whether or not they heed it (majority or not) matters little to me. If they do, then hurrah, if not, then well just adapt and move on.

In the end those who become successful or happy aren't really the ones who go around with a megaphone rallying in the streets or politicking but those who can adapt to change and benefit from it.

While the polls haven't closed on this issue, I feel comfortable drawing some conclusions from the results so far. If a WILD change in percentages occur, I will revise, but I don't think that's going to happen.

As of this posting the results are 51 to 49 in favor of a union among content creators. If a pluralistic victory were the objective, the idea of a Union would be enjoying a VERY narrow victory.

However, having the content creator community so evenly DIVIDED is exactly not what a UNION is intended to do. As such, it's my feeling that now is not the time to create such an organization.

There may be a variety of reasons why this idea hasn't caught on. Perhaps a certain feeling of cynicism infuses people with glee over the prospect of watching these types of efforts fail. Perhaps the words of Hank Ramos and Jauani Wu resonate with half the CC community. Or perhaps ultimately, Second Life's content creators may feel they are getting perfectly fair treatment.

The fact is, content creators have a long history of profound willingness to accomdate Linden Lab at every turn. We have absorbed, with little complaint, enormous losses in time and money at the hands of Linden actions or negligence, Examples:

-The clothing template change in 1.1 that resulted in existing clothing becoming "crotchless."
-The asset server privileges bug in 2004 that caused a tremendous number of sale box items to become public domain.
-The recent security vulnerability that caused scripts to become public domain.
-Numerous LSL engine updates that "broke" previously working versions of scripts.
-The implementation of P2P which put numerous taxi services and ROAM out of business.

And for that matter, we are about to absorb the cost of the telehub buyback when the Lindens "create" money to fund it.

Yet with every blow, we put our noses back to the grindstone. Why would Linden Lab operate this way? Simple ... It's just good business! While it was fun for Cristiano and I to make our "Turn your back on Governor Linden" posters, the reality is, Content Creators don't have a history of actually taking out these kinds of ads and it's doubtful we ever will. We have made it clear that while we may occasionally grumble effetely on an individual basis in the forums, as a community we will absorb just about anything Linden Lab dishes out to us.

After reviewing my initial post, I feel that this thread succeeded admirably in its intended goal. We got a general idea about how content creators feel, and we broached the subject of unity among content creators. If now isn't the time, at least we always have this thread to bump if conditions change in the future.

Thanks to everybody who provided serious input to this thread. In my opinion, you guys really ARE the ones who make Second Life work!

OK, NOW GET BACK TO CREATING CONTENT!

Can't say I agree with your conclusions on ROAM and Taxi services (even having made one myself)

They were stopgaps to get around a muffed up telehub system - even if you ignore its a reimplimentation of an old feature - I'd rather have the P2P than a workaround for not having it.

If the threat of compensation hangs over the heads like a sword of damocles and gets in the way of implimenting features that are usefull - THAT would be something to get upset about.

I've already voiced that people who 'fill in the gaps' that second life currently overlooks should accept that those features may eventually be picked up as a risk - the same as people who play the money market should have accept fluctuations as a risk.

Personally, as a person who does make things of this nature, part of the imputus IS to show LL something that is possible - in a form of a prototype - I'd rather show then explain, and sales are the 'icing on the cake'

As for the rest - well - I've seen and participated in too many groups and seen what happens to be anything other than cynical.

I haven't had a chance to participate in this thread as much as I would have liked to, but I have some follow up thoughts to add to what Aimee has said. First of all, I want to thank her. Aimee is not afraid to speak out with how she feels - even when she is roundly criticized for doing so at times, and I respect that and try to do the same myself. Regardless of how you feel about this issue, content creators, telehub land owners, Aimee, me, whomever - ultimately this issue is about Linden Lab treating all of their customers with respect and consideration.

I know the word "union" turns off a lot of people, myself included. I'm not a fan of them at all. Underneath all the negatives that people associate with unions, however, is an important principle: providing protection from abuse through collective strength. Without the efforts of RL unions early on, many of the benefits and conditions we enjoy today even as non-unionized workers might not exist. So how does that fit into SL?

First and foremost we are customers of a company that we are paying for a service from. As such, you have certain baseline expectations of quality of service. Linden Lab's record overall has been good, but there are some glaring holes: substandard customer service response, severe data loss, and a platform that has become increasibly unstable in the past year after two disastrous (1.5 and 1.7) and one semi-disastrous (1.6) update. Linden Lab is working to address these issues, but in the meantime, we are paying for increasing worsening service - both techinical and customer.

Linden Lab has made great strides and efforts in some areas, and they deserve credit for doing so - though it is kind of a catch 22. When Linden Lab fixes the problems they have created, is that really something that warrants praise? It depends on perspective, I suppose. If version 1.8 is any indicator, then I would say that yes they do deserve credit for their efforts as they are not just covering their mistakes, they are improving the processes they use to prevent problems in the future. We still have a long way to go though.

What does any of that have to do with unions? Well, I think the overwhelmingly negative response in these forums regarding the state of SL since version 1.7 has had an effect on bringing about change. Our voices are not always effective, especially when divided on a topic - but I think the poor quality of version 1.7 was met with a pretty unified voice of annoyance.

Content creators - a vague term that encompasses many different aspects of SL, would be defined by me as anyone who is helping to create things in SL that would not exist without them. They are the people helping to create the world that we all inhabit and enjoy - the builds we look at and use, the products we buy, the dances we dance, the bling that we, um, bling I suppose. It's not an us vs them thing. Land selling is not specifically content creation, though terraforming is.

For purposes of protection, land sellers have some inherent protections content creators do not. If a server that you own land on goes down, you don't lose the land. Your land does not magically go public with no recourse of getting it back. Once you own land, if you keep paying your tier, it is yours, techinical problems or not. It doesn't disappear from your inventory, it doesn't have its permissions destroyed. These are tangible issues that content creators deal with that land sellers do not.

Those who do make "content" for SL have had a rocky history at times dealing with problems brought about by flaws in Linden Lab's systems. Aimee has outlined many of the problems, as have I - and that is ony a small part of the list. The list keeps growing too, and it is clear that it is time to step up our efforts to bring about change. If we don't do so now, how will we be able to have a voice when there are a million members and the same things are occuring, or worse?

Creating a "union" for content creators was really about trying to find a way to collectively pool our voices and resources to say to Linden Lab "enough!" in a way that finally gets their attention. We might never know if it was only lobbying or the threat of legal action that brought about the telehub land buyback offer (the explicit terms of the offer spell legal settlement to me), but something did get Linden Lab's attention and cause them to settle a situation.

This is not about getting money from Linden Lab - that is actually a minor part of this (though I still think a stupid precedent for them to set, but they may not have had much choice). It is often difficult to quantify damages done financially because of flaws/exploits. If a product suddenly becomes copyable, how do you compensate for it? Is it one month of lost sales? One year? How long? What about all the scripts published to the web? How would you begin to establish an exact value to settle on? That is why reparations have never been the focus, and shouldn't be, and why this telehub buyback just clouded things and brought about a lot of resentment.

If our efforts bring about protections so that no one ever loses their inventory again, that items don't magically become copyable, and that no one has their hard work stolen through an insecure system ever again, then it will be worth the efforts and many of the losses we have gone through. We can't undo the past. It doesn't mean we have to roll over and play dead.

So for those opposed to a union, are you also opposed to bringing about change to stop these problems? Are you willing to use your individual voice to help bring about change? What would you do to help, because these problems are only worsening not improving. There is not only one right approach to this - so what would you do?

Those of us who participate in Second Life do so of free will. For many, we do so out of a genuine love for what SL is and could be, and an admiration for what Linden Lab has created. However, Linden Lab should never, ever trade on that loyalty and think that there are not things they could do that would drive away even the most loyal residents. Here is hoping that 2006 brings about exciting changes and improvements to SL, and that we continue to move forward, not two steps backward.

Happy New Year.

While I understand that you were not privy to the communications concerning the legal issues existing in this situation, I did explain the reasons for this settlement and how it was distinguished from other circumstances. Perhaps you will take a few minutes to review my commentary and see that the questions you raise again were already addressed.

As an attorney who was involved with the resolution and settlement of this matter, I would also point out that this is a very limited buy back settlement offer made to a limited group of people who were entitled under the law to some compensation. The time frame for eligibility is limited because the wrongdoing addressed by this settlement occurred during this limited time.

There seems to be a lot of confusion and emotional reaction to this settlement, some of which is misdirected. In any corportate setting where the officers cause the corporation to incur liability, the corporation bears the burden of the damages owed. This may upset stockholders in the corporation, and some of the cost of reparation may be passed along to consumers, but that is part of the risk for doing business.

Concluding that no one should receive a settlement because others did not get something they think was due them is not a solution. We cant deny justice to some because others did not pursue their own entitlement where and IF a legitimate legal claim existed.

In this situation I can state with confidence that the matter that caused the settlement offer was clear fodder for a class action law suit. The settlement made by LL to the class of people affected is by far one that makes much greater financial sense for Ll and the membership.

Although there have been members who have consulted with me concerning individual issues of concern, at no time prior to this situation had any member approached me during the past two years to discuss financial loss as a result of a bug, database or asset server failure or any other similar situation. It is pure misrepresentation to state that LL on its own decided to hand out LInden dollars to some special members with this buy back offer and to suggest that it was whining that caused the settlement is either a lack of comprehension of the facts or deliberate misrepresentaion of the situation. It is also incorrect to suggest that only the wealthiest of members can pursue legal recourse. I provided my services pro bono and Jake and I have made it clear that we are willing to meet with any member to discuss issues that may concern them, something we have done together and individually...pro bono....for those who dont know that term it means no fee.

Repeating the accusations about special treatment for wealthy members who own a lot of sims, and that those participating in the buy back just whined until they got the offer is just plain incorrect, and repeating these misprepresentations over and over doesnt make it so, and serves no good purpose.

I doubt very few people here would actually take the position that they would decline pursuit of legal matter merely because someone else slept on their rights, nor could I imagine many here declining an offer of settlement to a legitimate legal claim merely because another did not receive such an offer at some time in history.

This settlement takes nothing away from other members. I repeat what I posted previously that, if anything, this offer is proof of Linden Lab's willingness to make good on losses caused by its conduct where there exists a genuine matter of legal dispute against it.

I repeat....make good where there exists a genuine matter of legal dispute.

This buy back does not affect all telehub land owners, nor does it affect all telehub land. This buy back does not affect just wealthy members who own hub land. This buy back is limited in scope because it is directly related to specific legal issues that are limited in scope; issues that were capable of identification and measurement of damages. There was no speculation or special treatment involved. It was not elicited because of whining and influnce. The law was on the side of these issues. The buy back sets no precedent other than what the law already provides in circumstances such as what existed.

The law is there for everyone, even those crying now about others receiving a settlement offer for damages. Blaming the victims of one action who receive a settlement because others slept on their rights, or did not have a case, is intellectually dishonest and improper. This sour grapes tactic can only lead to a closed society where no justice or recourse for wrongdoing exists.

I doubt anyone is opposed to bringing about change to stop problems. I think the question is more one of perception... do you believe LL acts in good faith to try to prevent problems like inventory loss or permissions bugs because they want a stable platform as much as we do? Or do you believe they only tear themselves away from the employee lounge when people raise their collective voices loudly enough? I personally believe the former, not the latter.

I accept that my own concerns are myopic in nature no matter how much I might think my opinions are about the greater good. I can make assumptions and predictions but I'll never be in a position to see the bigger picture in the way that LL can, and I feel that it's arrogant when I or anyone else thinks that we know best what should be done. We know what would be best for us, usually, but the world is about more than any subset of its populace. It's about more than just SL's inhabitants (there are techical issues we don't know about, investor demands, LL's goals that may be seperate from our own, and so on).

SL is still a frontier, and as such it carries inevitabe risks. We all have to weigh those risks against our own personal tolerances as we decide how deeply we invest our time and energy, or in determining the complexity of the projects we try to bring to fruition. I have no doubt that LL knows that a stable platform and robust tools are key to enabling the type of large scale development they'd like to see happening on the grid. I might get frustrated by choices, or feel that things aren't developing as fast as I wish, or occassionally feel inclined to throw a tantrum because a promised feature seems to be taking forever and a day to get implemented and so it's forever on the horizon making it difficult to make intelligent decisions about how to invest my time and what direction to take my business... all of that drives me mad to a degree... But I also know that I do what I do because I enjoy it simply for the sake of doing it. If and when I no longer feel that way there's likely nothing LL could or should have done that would have prevented it.

Anyway, to answer your questions... what am I willing to do? I'll speak my mind as I've always done. I'll offer my perspective and opinions and how they're shaped by my experiences here. I'll continue to weigh the benefits against the frustrations and use the result to determine my level of participation. That's ultimately a personal decision, for each of us.

I agree with most of what you said. The one thing that still nags at me is the fact that LL really isn't bearing *any* burden at all in this reparation settlement. They're paying class-eligible users out in funny money that they themselves print, that they claim has no value, and that they will actually receive additional revenue from when settlement payouts are cashed out through their service. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when a corporation incurs liability, it's generally for something we don't want them to do again. Allowing them to pay the settlement in new L$ (rather than buying from the market) in no way disincents them from doing something similar in the future -- why would they stop to think about a decision when making and reversing a bad one does not affect then in the least?