Copyright

This may be a little off topic, but what ever happened to creation for the sake of creation? For personal and public enjoyment?

I liked Ope's post. He expessed some poignant thoughts about the nature of copyright. But from reading it I don't get the impression that he's out breaking copyright laws. Not like how Prana seems to have interpeted. Or am i wrong?
I wondered myself about how copyright laws are going effect this game when it goes live, considering all the infringment going on when i arrived - and there seems to be no slowing down either. For the most part I really don't think it'll add up to anything serious, but who knows?
About the AVs looking like...well some idea gained from a media outside our own imagination (which unfortunately is inspired by ideas seen around us all the time anyway). I recently copied the idea of Darkness from Legend, a film directed by Ridley Scott and costume effects by Rob Bottin. I suppose i should have written a letter to Rob asking him for permission to do so, but alas i have not. I wasn't so sure how well the horns would come out, but they've done much better than i thought, glad that some people got to see the results and the comments as well. I know I'll be changing the look eventually, but it seems to be a shame that one of my motivations will be some nagging fear that i could face a lawsuit for my efforts.

PS, I've thought about your quote Prana and frankly it spooks me...you spend alot of your time looking over your shoulder? =)

I want to apologies if I gave the impression I was attacking Ope or anyone else. When I say you or me or we etc I mean it figuratively, I mean us as a society not anyone in particular. I don't mean to imply that Ope or anyone else here is stealing or breaking any law, I am only replying to thier comments and trying to express my view. I don't mean to force my opinion on anyone or make anyone feel bad if they have stolen, It's not my place to judge. That's why I admitted I had stolen in the past before I knew about copyright. I am not perfect and I don't expect anyone else to be. The point of this thread was to educate people about the law since most people are unaware, and to ask for alternative views. So, if I have offended anyone please forgive me.

Seadog - I'm not sure what you mean about my quote. I believe we act like our true selves only when we think no one can see us or judge us. Sometimes who we are in private is good and sometimes bad. I know who I am behind closed doors and I am happy with who that is. I believe in karma so I know that if I do something wrong when I know it to be wrong I will get what I deserve. I'm happy with who I am, which is why all my avatars look like me, act like me etc. I don't play games to be someone else, I play them to be me in a different environment. So no, I don't look over my shoulder a lot, because I don't fear people knowing who I really am. What you see is what you get.

Good luck and blessings, Prana

P.S. Oh and I spoke with a Linden the other night and he gave me the impression that they would be enforcing the no copyrighted images rule when the game goes live. I am by no means an authority here nor do I have any inside information, this is just the impression I got from speaking with him. And it makes sense if you think about it. I mean, it's one of the rules for a reason.

Prana, I didn't take any offense at all. I enjoy conversations like this.

In response to your post up there, yes, it's true. no one is stopping me from expressing things in my own way. also, no one is stopping those who use copyrights from expressing things in their own way. If i am trying to express the same idea, why should i be forced to come up with a new way to express it, if a perfectly good way has already been provided? my goal is to get a message across, because the importance is in the utility of the information, not in how it was expressed.

i understand the desire to be recognized for ones work and contribution, but the recognition and return should and would come naturally from the use of the idea, the effect that it makes, not from your name in the credits.

Honestly, this may sound mean, but, I don't really feel bad about artists and especially record companies losing money. My friends and I are very artistic, and IMO most of us are much more talented than most so called "professionals". I believe it's because we do it for the love of expression. Not because we want to make money. This is true art. Besides, professional entertainers make more money on live performances than they do on albums. Who makes money off the albums? The record companies. The copiers themselves.

I disagree with the notion that more freedom to share information would lead to chaos. We already live in a society with incredible access to and sharing of information. Copyrights don't even slow down communication. And, I don't think that we're near chaos. We’re just being charged on the side, unnecessarily, for what we are supposed to believe is a good or service they are providing.

Freedom to share information also doesn't mean that we have to share. If you have information that you want to keep secret, then do so. Don't reveal the blueprints to your house, or the code to your software.

information is intangible. You can’t grab it and manipulate it. It exists with or without a medium to transmit it. It is a representation of something else. To consider information as property in the same way as physical property makes no sense.

Lets say I come up with a good idea that I haven’t shared yet. Let’s call this idea my “intellectual property”. In this sense it is my property because I have complete control over it. I can decide whether to share it or not. The thing is, that once I share it with someone else, it is now their intellectual property as well. They own it, and have complete control over it. They can decide whether to share it or not, also. What does a copyright expect to do? Jump into our minds, or our hardware, and take it back?

I still and probably will always feel that copyrights make no sense.

This is how I personally believe copywritten information in the digital world of Second Life will be handled after it goes live.

Stage 1 Recognition: The owner of a copywritten work will notice that his/her work is inside of Second Life.

Stage 2 Reaction: The owner will either a: Do somthing that does not require special attention (Such as praise this person, ignore what has occured, write about it in an article, etc. etc.) or b: Do somthing that does require special attention (Contact Linden Labs to complain, file suite, harrass the player, etc. etc.).

If choice b, continue to Stage 3.

Stage 3 Enforcement: Linden Labs will ask the player to please remove the copywritten work from his build. There are too many forks in the road at this point, but let us assume that, being a good player, the person will take away the work.

Stage 4 Reproduction: The same work is reproduced by someone in the game again.

Stage 5 Apocalypse/Ignorance(Bliss): One of two things will happen. a: Linden Labs is sued by a major copywrite owner and Second Life is shut down or b: Copywrite owners decide that this is too much of a hassle, realize that nobody is personally gaining profit off of other people's work, and ignorance ensues, thus leaving SL the same blissful community it has been.

Um, this is just my personal belief. There are an infinite amount of possible ways it will really span out, but in the long run, I do truly believe that either SL is shut down, or copywriters just give up and ignore what we do.

I'm the kind of person who loves to find middle ground in debates and arguments, but in this case, I think it's like herding cats.

As an artist who happens to make my living from my art in the real world I'm very sensitive to copyright issues. I've had a large gallery of my art and photography online for many years. I've been stolen from. I've seen my work posted elsewhere without credit. I've even gotten email from people so bold as to complain that a particular image I made was too dark to make a good background for their homepage!

I have a shop in SL (Freemon) where I sell original art that people can use to decorate their SL homes. I worry about that far less than having things on the web in general, but truthfully I worry about neither all that much. Images I post on the web or upload to SL are small compressed jpegs. They aren't nearly of the quality of the original files and they're not suitable for printing in anything but postage stamp size. It would be easy for me to prove ownership if it ever became an issue.

I do however worry about the long term effects on artists and musicians in the grand scheme of things. While the internet is a wonderful thing that helps connect people and ideas from all over the world, it's also fostered the notion that anything you find online is free to take. Napster didn't hurt individual musicians as much as it hurt the public perception and level of respect for copyrights. We've raised an entire generation of people who don't see anything wrong with stealing online... most of them don't even know it's wrong because they see everyone else doing it. In the long run if that trend continues it will become harder and harder for artists, writers, and musicians to earn an honest living with their craft, and when that happens (and it will) we ALL suffer.

I think we all can agree that it's a long term problem facing us as a society, and in that respect we each really just have one of two choices. We can either do our part to make it better, or we can help make it worse. Which will you choose?

"I'm not sure what you mean about my quote. I believe we act like our true selves only when we think no one can see us or judge us. Sometimes who we are in private is good and sometimes bad. I know who I am behind closed doors and I am happy with who that is."
Since you had asked about what we though about your quote, i thought i would give my input. I admit i was flippant to a degree, but I took the interpretation in a way which it is used as it's worst. But that's really another story. Anyhow i'm glad you're in touch with your true self.

This is a great thread and about a subject that deeply intrests me. In retrospect I don't think i'll be retiring Darkness nor will i stop creating AVs that immitate well, or not-so-well known charaters in fiction. That's what we're here for. To share ideas and enjoy shared ideas. Culture could not exist without it. I think the only primary reason that copyright exists is greed. It sounds like a rather crude estimate, but i think that's what it all boils down to. I'll admit it myself - if i spend loads of time of my sweat and effort, only to see someone else profit from my work, I would feel victimized - and rightly so. Here copyright is my friend and attempts to protect the product of my efforts. You could go on and on about different scenarios, but this is the issue that gets the most attention. Is my work being used by someone else for personal gain/profit? Then i start thinking about what is the exchange rate of Linden$ to real-world$? This has been studied before with other online games with their own economies, and i wonder if this could be used to build a case vs copyright violation? Say if i upload lots of copyrighted information and sell them to other players. Say I make alot of in-game money this way and 6 months later I sell my account or sell my Linden$ in exchange for RL money via E-bay? Have i not benefitted from my copyright violation? I guess the answer is obvious, but how serious could the repercussions be upon our lil world?
(rats, i think Dave already answered this)

Hi all,

I've been watching this thread closely as it is related to something that we have been working on for a while.

Hopefully by the end of today, we will have a Copyright/trademark FAQ posted that clearly explains Linden Labs policy.

In short, Linden Lab will be complying with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) with regards to copyrighted material.

Copyright owners will be able to follow a procedure to report copyrighted material and that material will be removed. Counter-notifications can be filed if the resident believes that material in question does NOT violate a copyright.

As for trademarks- thats an entirely different matter. With respect to trademarks, Linden Lab will remove material infringing upon a trademark upon receipt of notice of such infringement from the trademark owner.

Care to know more about both? Try these links:
What is a copyright?

What is a trademark?

What is fair use?

Everyone should note that we have built Second Life to favor the digital rights of the creators. Thus, the permission systems for copying textures/objects are set by the creator.

As long as I am talking about creators rights, I'd like to mention something that came up in last nights town hall, and has come up a few times elsewhere - permissions on clothing.

We are working on putting the permission system on clothing, but it is, er... rather hard to do. Currently the permission system will work on objects like a box, but not on clothes. We expect to have the system built by this fall.

This is a fascinating thread. Please keep it going as we tend to devour your food-for-thought.

Thanks much, have fun,

-Peter

you are infringing on a trademark.

for example, if you make your character look like mickey mouse, disney can theoretically sue you for copyright and trademark infringement.

this (copyright) is a VERY sticky issue for Lindenlab, and they need to be careful.

I have no doubt that they have lawyers etc working on this tho...

With the DMCA reporting thing, do I have to be an owner of the copyright to report the copyright infringement?

This post will mostly be for the Americans in the audience...

Please read this link: The Mouse That Ate The Public Domain

Like them or not, copyright laws do exist and should be followed. Personally I do not like them as they are now, I think they give far too much power to the creator of a work. I believe that is mostly due to the huge lobbying efforts of big businesses, not individual artists.

----- begin rant -----

The effect of copyright law has strayed far from the purpose intended by the Founding Fathers. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives congress the power to enact copyright law:


The whole purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. It is NOT to make it so that a person will forever "own" ideas or their representation of ideas. The exclusive rights to one's writings and discoveries are not "intrinsic" rights that every person should have, such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". These rights have one purpose, to encourage people to create. The only reason they exist is that people would not create as much if they couldn't get paid for it, or if anyone could use whatever they created immediately.

When you create something, it is not your property. You merely have the "exclusive right" to use it for a limited time. I fail to see how granting that exclusive right for 70 years AFTER THE CREATOR DIES gives any more incentive to prospective artists than a limited 25 year term. Is someone that makes a good living off of a book for 25 years going to stop writing new books in disgust because it's copyright expired? Or are they going to stop creating new works after they die because their heirs won't be receiving money for 70 more years?

I can hardly believe it when people compare copyright theft to stealing material goods from a brick and mortar store. In one case the store actually spent money on that individual item and it was something they owned. They could walk down the isle and put their hand on it and say "This belongs to the store." If someone steals that from them, they will no longer have it. On the other hand, if someone copies a texture file or sound clip from someone else, the creator has no way of knowing unless they see it being used and say "Hay, that guy is using my idea without my permission!" In one case the harm is physical and can be detected by something missing, the other it is not.

If you're as angry at the 11 copyright extensions (going from the original 14 to over 100 years now), PLEASE contact your state's senators and representatives.

----- end rant -----

If you read all of that and think I hate copyrights, you missed the point. However, I think some people are taking it too far, saying they will not create content for the game because someone "might" copy their stuff. From that, it appears to me that the effect of copyright law is backfiring. If everything immediately entered the public domain, they would probably create the content anyway just to see it in the game. If you have a computerized picture that you plan on ever distributing, whether it's for a web page, an application, or whatever, someone can copy it. At the very least they can take a screenshot and use a paint tool to get at the image. If someone in the game co-opts your image, tell the staff and they will remove it. If that's not good enough for you, don't upload it. No matter what you might think, the lack of that one image from someone is not going to make or break the game for the rest of us. Does it make you want to create less knowing that someone appreciated your image enough to want to use it themselves?

I do believe copyrights are beneficial, and I think that Second Life can protect intellectual property. Granted anyone could import a file that violates copyright, but it wouldn't be too hard after an offense has occurred to find a texture and remove it from anywhere it exists in the world. Plus an MD5 hash could be made of the texture file so that if anyone tries uploading or using the same file in the future, they will not be able to. It would be pretty easy to setup a system for lodging complaints and tieing them to comments on users' accounts to prevent or punish habitual abusers. How about this for an idea: when you upload an image, you have the option of copyrighting it with your login name. If you choose to set that flag, then no one can use that texture on any object or copy it off any object but you...

Most of all, I think Second Life will be a great way to get people to express themselves and find a market (albeit virtual) for their work. If you're a good painter, create a great painting and upload the image of it. Create a canvas object and apply the texture to it. Make the canvas so that it cannot be copied or modified and sell it for L$. I could definitely see a market for artwork, and high prices going for limited editions or single prints.

Zaphod Beach

The founding fathers didn't have the internet.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1004-07.htm

I read a synopsis of this article in her book (Fences and Windows) the other day, but it seems Ms. Klein's work is here too at commondreams. Draw your own conclusions, but overall (i think) this is a sample of some of the worst interpetations of copyright enforcement - cashing in on hysteria?
Certainly a two-edged sword - but as much as we are to remind ourselves about NOT violating copyright, we must call down those who are trying to ABUSE it.

Nice post Zaphod.

Excuse my density, but I do NOT see the problem as clearly as others seem to see it.

Images I upload for display as textures or graphics are for my reasonable personal use, as long as I legally own or aquired them in the first place.

I do not sell them, or compete in any way with the original holders. Any such images in my custody are ALWAYS locked and not for sale. I don't think I violate any restrictions in the "reasonable use" provisions.

I never claim authorship, nor reap profits, nor damage the future marketability of the material.

As for civil damages, I think a court would have a hard time deciding damages. Do you think Meridith Corporation might sue me for thier loss of Linden Bucks?

Now, all that having been said, there is one fork in this road I wouldn't even consider. I think all those folks who display corporate logos are very brave indeed. Now THAT's a legal quagmire of the worst kind....

What about the guy who first said "2+2=4"? If we couldn't "steal" this idea that he "owned" then we'd owe him a whole lot of money for royalties, wouldn't we?

He wasn't the first one to come up with the idea. He just came up with a way to represent and communicate it. 2+2=4 was true before he existed. He did not make it up or bring it into being.

This is a good point, and fortunately copyright laws have a provision for "non-copyrightable" works, listed below and taken from:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci



WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT?
Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)

Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents

Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration

Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)




I think that the 2+2=4 expression falls under the "common property containing no original authorship" clause. Granted, SOMEONE must have chosen to write it down, but I am pretty sure that that authorship right has expired after more than 2K years. It also falls under the exclusions of ideas and probably principles.

The big debates and bigger legal bills start happening when the principal is public (such as the laws of physics and the the principle that water is wet) but the expression of the knowledge is copyrighted. For instance: the DNA code. No one owns the rights to DNA. Many companies are currently "cracking" the code. Once it is published, the "expression" of that code as written by the many companies that funded the research will be copyrightable. So for all practical purposes, the DNA code will be "copyrighted" unless another company finds another method of "recracking" the code and expressing it differently. This is entirely possible, but not practical and not likely. (Unless a group of open-source scientists all agree to try, but thats another debate.)

-P

2 +2=4 is an idea and a fact, these things are NOT copyrighted. Only a unique work of writing,music, artistry etc is copyrighted. Let me say it one more time, ideas are not copyrighted. Whch is why you you can express the idea of a rainbow, but not take my article on rainbows and say it's your own. You can draw your own picture of one, you just can't take mine. You can write a song about them and sing it however and whenever you like, you just can't take MY song.

I really don't understand the assumption that all things everywhere should be free to all people. I guess if we lived in a perfect world where money and poverty and survival wasn't so important then it would make sense but we don't live in that world. In this world we have to make a living and provide for ourselves and families. On top of that, we create in order to express. So how is it fair that I create but you profit. Or I express and you swipe it as your own. How is it an expression of your feelings when I am the one who expressed it?

Where everyone appears to be hung up is on the money. I do not charge for my graphics, I provide them freely for websites and Incredimail stationary. All I ask is that no one else profit from them and that I be given credit. Some people think that wanting recognition or money for your work is petty and selfish. How so? If you can charge for my work (even in game money) that means some people won't get to see and use my work. If I am not given credit for my work when you use it then you get the credit and therefore are getting paid. Not in money but in esteem, respect, appreciation. So it is ok for you to profit but not me? I want to be given credit for my work, to see my name on it. Why? Because it's a mark of who I am and what I did. It means people will remember me as an artistic person who gave beautiful things freely. It's my mark on the world, my way to be remembered. I think we all want that, to be remembered.

Some people seem to think that is doesn't cost us anything to create so when they steal it from us we shouldn't be upset. Well it does cost us something. Money for the programs to make it, time that could have been spent with our families, effort which could have gone elsewhere. All so we can share something lovely with you, and then be disrepected and unappreciated. If it was so easy to make these things, you would do it yourself instead of taking the work of others. I am very ill, I have Liver Disease. I don't want pity but I do want you to understand. It is hard for me to sit here for hours on end perfecting something to share with others free of charge. It is painful and stressful, but not nearly so much as having my work stolen, used without permission and no credit given. It's like being told we like what you do, we want it, but your not good enough to respect, your not worthy enough to be appreciated. It's a slap in the face.

This generation got the internet and got everthing for free. So now we think as long as you can get to it online it's yours for the taking free of charge. We've lost respect for each other and appreciation of what we have. We say gimme gimme gimme now now now and expect it to happen. We don't want to take the time and effort to create something of our own, we want someone else to pour thier blood sweat and tears into it and then reap the benefits. I feel sorry for our children who will grow up thinking everything is free without limits or concideration. A generation of spoiled, selfish, disrespectful children.

Let me ask you this. If it is ok to take music, graphics, etc becuase your not making a profit from it and copyright laws are so horrible and you should get whatever you want for free whenever you want it, where do you draw the line. If my kid steals your kids school report and passes it off as thier own, thereby getting and A while your kid gets an F, is that ok? Afterall, my kid made no money off it. Is it ok if I take a photo of you from your website and put your head on the body of a porn star to share with everyone I know? Afterall I'm not making any money off it. And since some people seem to think that it's ok to take the credit for others work, I suppose you won't mind if I take your paycheck even though you did the work? You see, copyright laws, as well as other laws which protect our right to be given credit and compensation for our work, protect us in ways you don't even think about. How horrified would you be to find that someone had taken a photo of your child and then digitally removed the clothing to pass out to fellow perverts? Pretty aweful huh? Without laws that say 'What you own, what you make, what you work for is yours.' anyone could do anything with what is rightfully yours.

In the end it doesn't matter what we think is right or wrong with the law, you must follow it. If you don't like it, then use your freedom of choice to go and fight it, have it changed. But when you break a law, even a 'small' one, you are still breaking the law. Don't kid yourself into thinking it's just a little criminal activity, just a little sin.

Now I personally think that some copyright laws are silly. I think fanfiction, in writing and art, should be legal so long as you don't make a profit since you are doing the work yourself and really expressing yourself not just ripping off someone elses work. I have no problem with game avatars who look like famous people becuase you did the work to look that way and you aren't making a profit. But customizing an avatar to look similar to someone is like dressing up as them for halloween. Stealing an actual graphic of the person is like stealing the costume from the store.

I don't expect us to all agree, although I do hope you understand my side. I respect all of you, especially for staying on topic and not flaming anyone. But I do expect us to follow the game rules and the RL law. And I hope, that next time you think about taking something you didn't make or don't have the permission to use, that you will think about the time, money and effort someone put into it and how you wouldn't want it to happen to you.

Good luck and blessings, Prana

If anyone is interested, here are some links you might find useful. I would also like to mention that I have used the work of many artists with thier permission and they were happy to let me use it. I have never been turned down and it only took a couple minutes of my time. So please consider asking for written permission.

To protect your work :
http://www.artistrightscoalition.com/
http://www.rightsforartists.com/siteindex.html
http://stopthief.org/

Alternatives to get what you want without stealing:
(Music)http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/28/tech/main551278.shtml

(Public Domain Guide)http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

*snipped*

(Incredimail - Kid Friendly)http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Family-Incredimail-Letters/

(Graphics)
http://www.istockphoto.com/

http://www.image-cafe.net/icgallery/

how can a image be copywrighted it would have to have a c with a circle around it to be copywrighted and anyway you could edit that out in photoshop

RYGAR - That is a commen misconception. A work is copyrighted the moment it is created in a tangible form. So the second I draw a picture or write down a song, it is copyrighted. The little C in the circle is just a reminder to everyone else that it is copyrighted. Removing the C doesn't remove the copyright and you can still be held accountable for copyright infringement.

Good luck and blessings, Prana

Actually Rygar, this is a very common error. Many people think that because it doesn't have a circle c (C) and the appropriate date and name attached that the work in question is not copyrighted.

As of March 1, 1989, this is no longer true.

Copyrights are granted to creators of original works the moment it is put in a tangible reproducable form. Removing a (c) using photoshop or any other program does not remove the copyright.

see:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci
for more info.

yeah but isnt it if you only sell it or make a profit off it?

Rygar - Nope, even if you use it in a way that makes you no profit whatsoever, it is still against the law. Any use of copyrighted material without permission of the original artist is copyright infringement. There are some exceptions, such as for educational purposes. But for this to apply you would have to work for a school or other legitimate place of learning and you would have to meet certain restrictions.

Good luck and blessings, Prana

Hey Prana and Peter. I just can't seem to put this conversation down yet I'm very interested in this topic and I think it's horrible that anyone should suffer like the recent college students who now have to pay thousands just for sharing information.


Anyway, you both have said that an idea is not copyrightable. Ok. What is an idea? In my view, "idea" is just another word for "information". I use the two interchangeably. And I just don't see any way to distinguish different types of information. Songs, books, ideas, its all the same.

IMO information cannot be owned like physical property because it is not something physical. It can be represented physically, in your mind or on paper for example. An instance of representation can be held and 'owned' exclusively. But, the information itself is not a physical object. It exists independently of any representation, any format in which to represent it. There is no way to trade physical property with something that is not somehow physically limited in quantity also.

Copyrights exist under the presumption that people will be more productive intellectually if they are effectively rewarded with ownership and control of their idea, and the benefits monetary or otherwise that may come with it. To this end, they attempt to make information ownable. But, information is not physical and therefore not ownable. It cannot be traded like a physical scarce commodity. Copyrights do not effectively solve the problem of rewarding intellectual work.

The desire to be rewarded for intellectual work, though, makes sense. Why else would I try to come up with something clever? But, who says that the reward must come in the form of money or recognition?

The most famous example to date of an intellectual work that was created for free is the Linux operating system. It was created by many people all working without being paid for it. This particular type of production model is sometimes called ‘commons-based peer production’. It is a viable production model, evidenced by the quality and popularity of Linux, as well as many other open-source projects.

So, what was the reward for all the work that these people did? As Dionysus said earlier, it was creation for the sake of creation. The product was the reward.

I think it’s a bit ironic that here we are, all participants in a game where creating things and working together is the funnest part, yet we feel that the only way to be rewarded for work is with property.