Content Creator Union

Chip,

The question is not merely the simplistic black and white one you are proposing here. It is not either they are acting in good faith or they are asleep at the wheel. When something happens once, even twice, you can accept good faith effort/mistakes as an explanation and be forgiving and patient. When there is a pattern of problems that persists for more than a year and continues to victimize people, that is not a good faith effort to resolve them. At best, it is misfocues priorities (preventing data loss and security flaws should be primary), and at worse it is imcompetence. The reality is somewhere in the middle I think - LL's development department is now just getting reined in FINALLY, with accountability for their releases and a clear process of improvement.

You raise an interesting point that I have wondered about, too. The telehub sims that were supposedly misrepresented were paid for in USD in auction, not L$. Linden Lab did not misrepresent land sales on the grid - they were not doing the selling directly. More curious to me though is why LL's legal department is letting an attorney involved in the settlement post freely in the forums without any response.

I really don't disagree with any of that, but... all of it's subjective. Some of the decisions are more obvious than others but without all the facts (which none of us ever have/will ever have) any analysis still boils down to subjective opinion about what LL should do in the future or should have done in the past. Given that, it comes down to a question of domain... who has the right to make the decisions? Where do we place the value of our own opinions within that process? I don't overestimate my value in that equation. I may have contribued a lot over the years and added some good content but the only truly tangible value I have to LL is $195/mo. I'm sure they value my contribution beyond that but it's not quantifiable beyond the money I pay... not in a realistic way. That's not cynicism or pessimism. It's not undervaluing myself or the content I produce. It's simply rational reality. If I take my ball and go home there's a hundred people in line behind me to fill whatever gap I'd leave.

If you remove emotion and the other more esoteric/unquantifiable aspects of any of our contributions to SL and how they factor into how desions are made, you're left with a reality that is rather black and white. I think it's valuable to keep that in mind and to not over-estimate or aggrandize myself beyond it. It doesn't mean we have no value, and it doesn't mean that LL doesn't value our opinions. It's just that LL is a business being run for profit and everything comes down to simple cost versus benefit. LL will always trust their own opinions over ours in determining that, both because they have more facts that we do, and because it's their business to run.

Some realities will never change. You either accept them or you don't. No amount of activism or organizing will turn customers into members of the board. We can voice our opinions and we are listened to, but if LL sees it a different way (and they obviously often do) we already know which way they're going to go. Given that, why would I want to expend much energy pretending otherwise when more often than not all I'd be doing is setting myself up to feel frustrated because I've decided to act as if reality were something different that what it realistically is?

I'll offer my opinions. LL will make their decisions. I'll accept them or not. My own cost/benefit analysis is always mine to make. At the end of the day the only real power I have (or for that matter, want) is to be able to stay involved or quit if I ever began to feel that I wasn't getting my money's worth.

I'm just a passenger on this bus and I have a lot of empathy for the driver. We all agree on the general destination but I'm not sure how helpful it is to have 90,000 backseat drivers.

If landowners have as much power as you say, then they have an unfair advantage over the rest of us. The Lindens need to do something about this. Every member of this Virtual world needs the same full access as the wealthy. If when this labour union is created and it shuts off more normal people from the Lindens, then it needs not happen.

Lindens... Level the playing field so that ALL have the same access with you.

I voted "other" because I also see problems in forming a Union, but most of those mentioned here are a bit spurious and "straw dogg-ish" to me except this one:

This is exactly my biggest beef with the idea.
What you proppose is really more in the nature of a Guild (a la Kendra Bancroft), and not a union.

A Union exists to give the lowly workers, say in a widget factory, the clout they normally would'nt have because of their lowly social position. Content creators (and here I take the generally accepted meaning of the artists, designers, and possibly scriptors of Second Life), are be definition an elite. They dont work for "the man," they don't slave away all day for crap wages because they have to. They are by and large individuals who control their own businesses and work at it because they like to. If all the players that worked in the sleazy clubs pole dancing or "escorting" for nickels and dimes got together to organise against their employers, *that* would consitute a union, but not this.

Basically I am in favour organising, but please don't call it a union. It's really an insult to hundreds of years of union history and all the thousands of peole who died for that idea. There are people in my family that died for that idea and even though the unions day has probably come and gone, I think it's disprespectfull.

The necessary discussion of the structure of the thing and how it's organised is key in whether anyone should or would support it. A loosely structured Guild with some kind of democratic or quasi-democratic voting structure is an excellent idea that I would support and even pay dues for. Even a business owners association of some kind would be good, but please dont call it a Union.

Oh yes...Linden Labs was taught a lesson in this one! Compensate in Linden Dollars....which they will collect a percentage in USD over when said injured parties try to sell it on LindeX to get some of their USD back...AND...the actual USD will come from OTHER SL members.

Yes, LL's highly paid and trained corporate legal staff took this one in the shorts. /sarcasm

So...is this "union" going to push for reparations to the linden dollar consummer that will be the ones actually paying for this buy back?

Yes,with settlements like this... I bet they continue to encourage such legal member based representation.

sounds nifty

LOL. Thanks Barnes.

There were some very long posts near my final conclusion, and I know long posts promote skimming (and sometimes skipping.) So in case anybody missed it, please note:

I HAVE DECIDED THAT NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO ORGANIZE AND UNITE CONTENT CREATORS

/108/28/80027/6.html#post825957

However, the discussion is still a good one, and my exit from this thread should not discourage other people if they feel the efforts should continue. Thanks again

Does this mean I'm not going to get my spanking?

Oh you will be getting that spanking mister... and THEN SOME

Have I told you recently how wonderful you are?

<3

I knew you skimmed my post!

Thats the way it usually goes in class action matters at this level. Most actions I have seen involve settlement with the group by issuing money off coupons to class members. I was involved with some airline class action litigation at one time which in which the judge approved a settlement for the group consisting of money off coupons for class members to use toward the purchase of future flights.

Some class actions, such as those we have seen brought against the tobacco industry, do result in higher cash settlements, but most often its the attorneys who benefit most financially, especially when the action includes an award for attorneys fees and costs payable by the defendants. The greater benefit to the class and to society is change within a corporate structure that stops the wrongful conduct that was the subject of litigation. But, your point is well taken that there is no guarantee that change will result.

The prophylactic effect of any settlement is always unclear. Corporations often balance the remedial costs of change against the cost of litigation and make a choice. For every warning label we see on a product, including cups of hot coffee purchased from fast food restaurants, there existed a lawsuit judgment and/or settlement of a lawsuit. McDonalds dint stop selling hot coffee after the suit brought against it and tobacco is still sold. The benefit that resulted from from these cases was the education of the public about the danger.

The telehub matter did not rise to the level of damage to society that we see in tobacco, aesbestos, or airline litigarion, however we did have a relatively large class of people who suffered measurable damages as a result of intentional conduct.

One thing to remember is that no member has to participate in the buy back even if eligible. I know several who are not participating for various reasons. In most cases the 10L/sq m offered in the buy back does not cover the cost of the land when it was purchased on the resale market. The member who accepts a buy back at that price receives the average auciton price per sq m and any speculative premium paid above that amount resale is lost.

Yes, P2P caused a land devaluation of telehub land even with the buy back offer. During the time frame eligible for the buy back telehub land sold for 2X to 3X more on resale that what was paid by the original purchaser at auction. Any additional premium paid by members for this land on resale is a lost speculative investment. LL is not making good the speculative loss.

The question whether a content union would serve the SL community well by addressing the types of issues raised by the telehub buy back situation is an interesting one to discuss, however, the fact that LL made this offer voluntarily to mitigate the damages is proof that where a genuine issue of legal concern exists LL will do the right thing without pressure from a union.

Katy,

A couple of questions for you:

1) As an attorney involved in this, why are you discussing this in the forums?
2) You keep using the phrase class-action. Was this granted class-action status?

*blink*

Wait, what, I didn't read the entire thread; my attention span isn't that long.

Is this whole Telehub-Buyback thing a result of a class-action lawsuit?

If it is, ya'll should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves.

I don't think so LF, we would have heard about it.

What I think this is about, is that Katy is trying to claim that there could and possibly should be a lawsuit. She's been applying RW legalese to the situation for few days now.

It's my understanding that the way the ToS is written protects LL from such claims.

You mean LL should be ashamed of themselves for conducting themselves in a manner that opens them up to actionable liability? I agree.

Ricky, what is your end game in SL now?

Obviously you despise LL, and are quite bitter over LindeX.

Is it your goal now to jump into any topic that may contain some dissenting attitude toward LL, and amplify it out of simple vindictiveness?

If so, you've lost the game, because you've given up the moral high ground you may have had and exchanged it for the opportunity to jab bitterly at those you feel wronged you.

This is one of the big mysteries of SL to me - the cognitive dissonance displayed by those who project such a loathing for LL and their business practices, yet hang around.

You mean they can't change their own game systems around in order to better serve their customers?

Yes, that's a horrible idea. We should feature-freeze the entire grid so no one gets disenfranchised.

I don't despise LL. I feel saddened by the way they have been able to run such a promising endeavour into the ground with bad, shortsighted decisions. Many people steadfastly laud this company every time they fix something, without also taking them to task over what it was that caused the problem to begin with. I'm happy to give credit where it is due, and was one of LL's biggest supporters for a long time. Sadly, I've seen few reasons to promote it in the past six months (even before we decided to close down GOM) as many bugs persist for revision after revision and minimally-useful (and often broken) features are introduced. If you feel that my past with LL makes my opinion of current events invalid, tht's your business. It might be more constructive, however, if you stuck to a rebuttal of the points I make rather than trying to make this about me personally.

And, just to clear up your cognitive dissonance, I've paid my yearly membership, and have paid tier long enough that I shouldn't be berated for voicing my opinion now that I don't have to keep PR in mind.

Absolutely. That's *just* what I said.

Try to delve a little deeper into the implications. What this says is that they should, if they choose to change their game system, make it known to the community as early as possible so that people who are trying to rely on SL to do business are able to adjust. They knew they were going to be killing telehubs back in the summer. They kept this fact from the community, telehub auctions were started at a higher rate than non-telehub land, and people relied on the continued existence of telehubs to their detriment. LL was wrong to keep the upcoming change hidden, this fact was pointed out to them, and they are compensating affected parties.

Well, it's how you come across, to me, and several folks I have discussed the issue with.

This isn't about past only. It's about your propensity to inject sarcasm in the NOW, because of those feelings yoour harboring due to your personal experience with LL.

I am afraid that you make it about yourself personally when you allow your past with LL to color your commentary on current events. You then open yourself up for some critique. It's sort of difficult to formulate constructive material based upon destructive material.

Well you could be using that paid up year to do more construtive things, especially in light of your admonishing me to be constructive, but that's your choice. This isn't about PR, last I checked you didn't work for LL and in fact turned them down to that end. This is about coloring your current and future tenor based upon a past incident, and your perception of it.

At any rate, I am not going to belabor this. Let's let the thread disintegrate into a LL bashfest orchestrated by would-be forum lawyers.

Happy New Year, I honestly hope the end of this one leaves you with a better taste in your mouth than 2005 did. I do mean that, because I think that underneath all this sarcasm and anger, you're a good person.

/applauds

MJ

/doesn't applaud

coco