Don't buy TV's offering archive.org streams

Forgive me if you inferred that from what I said. I honestly don't know if a single login is being used, though that may or may not be the case. My point was merely that he's bypassing the actual website. Considering that they solicit donations on that website, he's depriving archive.org of much-needed potential financial compensation for providing an invaluable resource.

I got a response from archive.org, and they should be getting back to me soon with answers to my questions. I tried to make it as plain and all-encompassing as I can -- explaining SL, streaming video, commercial players, in-world video, bundling content, etc... Hoping for not just an answer for myself, but for the SL community at-large.

Breaking my self-imposed vow of silence to clear up a few things.

a) There's no shared logins being used. The URLs I have are the same as anyone can get by visiting archive.org.
b) If anyone's interested in archive.org's bandwidth, click here for real-time status.

The ruckus seems to be over the fact that I possess a very large list of the archive.org links, and have been including it in my TVs. My judgment and thinking at this point is that:
a) I'll be removing the archive.org links from my products, and sell my products "naked" (no, not THAT kind of naked).
b) I'll continue the dialogue with archive.org, and see how/if/under what conditions they would like to see their content available in SL.

The main issue, I think, is a) the fact that I was selling the links and the script together, and b) the fact that archive.org is non-commercial. Would there be a difference if, say, I sold the script on it's own and gave away the links for free? That's something I've given some thought to. Here's something else:

How free/noncommercial are we talking? Free as in cost or free as in full_mod, full_copy, full_give? What if I gave away the links notecard for free, but it was no_mod, no_copy? I'm not trying to be facetious, but thinking this out isn't a simple task.

But...

Right now, the ball's in archive.org's court. They're the ones who should decide how they want their content accessed, what they consider acceptable and fair use, and what they consider noncommercial access. I've got no complaints against that.

--CB

Okay, I think I see where you are coming from. I'll still wait to see the response from Archive.org themselves before changing my opinion, though. Perhaps if he shared some of his revenue with Archive.org people would be less willing to burn him at the stake... or if he listed the link to their "donate" page for people who want to help keep them afloat.

And the shoplifting analogy is just as flawed as my analogy. He is NOT selling the content (the DVDs in your analogy), and last I checked, taking the free samples is not shoplifting. Perhaps the best analogy is that he is doing the same thing that everyone who sells a jukebox ingame is doing... loading his media player with a list of URL presets to streaming media. I don't see anyone crying about that anywhere, why the outcry about the TVs?

Good question...

That was a well written response, Captain. You've gone about this the right way, and I apologize for idle speculation. Good luck with the archive.org people.

To be honest, I'd forgotten all about jukeboxes since I keep streaming music turned off. You're right that the two situations are actually very similar, and I agree that the response should be the same. People who do not seek prior approval before selling a product that leeches bandwidth aren't behaving very ethically.

Also, there was a minor outcry related to music URLs. However, the concern wasn't related to jukeboxes but to masking the URL on the parcel info window, to prevent unauthorized leeching.

But, the thing is... whether I use a jukebox to set the URL, or do it manually... how is that different from the point of view of the people sending the stream? The jukebox isn't leeching bandwidth... the land allowing streaming music is, when I set it to an URL. The jukebox, and thus the TV, is just making the process automated. Gosh, I'm actually enjoying debating this with you, as you take a calm, reasoned approach to the whole thing, and its obvious that you are willing to change your opinion if the facts warrant it. I strive for the same thing myself, though sometimes the devil on my shoulder gets the better of me. See, everybody?! Folks can disagree and discuss a topic without it getting ugly!

Yes, I remember... something about people having limited bandwidth on their servers, and people copying the URLs onto their own land were using it up and leaving the guy who actually paid to set it all up without enough bandwidth to cover the guests on his land. That seems to be taken care of now with the masked URLs in the "About Land" info.

I'd like to apologize if my reply early in the thread came off as a serious, firm one. It wasn't meant to be, and I don't think one winkmoticon was enough so I wanted to clarify that it was meant tongue-in-cheek and a reference to an earlier posting I made.

I'd be a hypercrite* otherwise.

Sorry for any confusion!


*yes that is the intended spelling.

Well, the primary difference, as you say, is that you're automating the process. Is it wrong to freely publish a list of streams? Probably not, thought it may be wrong to actually use a listed stream if the owner of the server doesn't want people to be wasting his bandwidth. However, the moment you profit off such a list you are essentially selling access to something which does not belong to you... this creates a couple of problems. First, the owner of that stream should be entitled to a share of the profits, since he's enduring a large share of the expense. Second, customers should be able to depend on that stream remaining up for a while. If you populate a jukebox with nothing but illicit streams, you run the risk that eventually those streams are going to shut down. Though that risk is present for any stream, it is probably going to be higher for a stream which is just randomly chosen.

That's how I feel about it, at least. Admittedly, my approach is probably a bit idealistic since I don't actually listen to any streamed music in world. Regardless, I've also enjoyed this reasoned debate. Thanks for discussing the issue.

If I was the creator of these T.Vs, I would contact the person who runs archive and explain what you do, and offer a percentage of the USD you makem off this. Everyone might be able to benefit.

Oh, thanks Captain! (And to you, Ardith )


In that case, this issue seems to me to once more line up with what I initially thought...that is, your product is a value-added re-packaging of a freely-available resource, like a $20 Linux Bible which includes a full distribution on CD-ROM.

I realize there are arguable differences, but my original point were that there were also arguable similarities.

The OP's principal concern seemed to be that your charging for these TVs somehow threatened archive.org's ability to serve their files to more direct requestors. My immediate thought was that, had you given the TVs away for free, archive.org's servers would have been ultimately hit with a greater demand from inside the grid. I wasn't sure how the whole greed-versus-resource-protection argument held water, and still am not....and my (still incomplete) reading of the site's FAQs led me to believe that your venture could have been undertaken with honest intentions and commendable enthusiasm, a conclusion to which I now return.

I might suggest that you incorporate "commercials" into your TV's...a series of slides rotating from time to time between movies, extolling the site's virtues and enticing your viewers to go up and have a look for themselves. In my experience, non-profits appreciate evangelism almost as much as they appreciate donations

-- yoshi

I don't know the scripting involved, but this does sound like an option that could be brought up with Archive.org, if they have some objection concerning the bypass of their website. Also maybe stating, "If you find these streams enjoyable, please, donate to the provider - Archive.org!"
This should appease a lot of the grumbling and establish that you are selling the ingame box, not the streams themselves.

Yoshi -- great idea, and easily done with the script. I know Live365 does self-advertising in their free music streams. I'll see if archive.org wants free adverts/donation links, and if it's okay by them. Thanks!

*sigh*

This thread is a bunch of bollux.

SL Video streaming is nothing more than a glorified Quicktime Player. Now, if archive.org charged you for using a praticular player...or, heck, charged you for *any* use of thier content, I'd see the point. But they don't. If I log onto this website and view content with a Quicktime Player on my PC, I'm using no more bandwidth than a person viewing using SL. And I can also set URL bookmarks in my PC viewer to 'bypass' their website, just like this TV can.

Look, I want to be able to actually *use* SL video. But if we follow the logic of this arguement to it's conclusion, there'll be *no* streaming, both in audio and in video, that we should ethically use. If it's out there to hook into, and offered for free, then what does it matter how we view it? Can we please stop the Chicken Little calls of "The Bandwidth Is Falling!!! The Bandwidth Is Falling!!!"

I'm selling links to secondlife.com for 50L$ each in world. Simply pay me the money and I'll send you the link!

I think its fine if you're selling an object that has free links built into it. But if you're say selling a notecard with links in it, or a blank box using the media script provided in the library with free links in it. Thats a bit shifty. But putting work into creating a nice looking TV deserves some credit, anything else would be an added benefit.

Mention this thread and get 10L$ off your link!

WOW! What a bargain! Put me down for 10!

Seriously...what's the difference between an object with free links in it, and a notecard with free links in it? Unless what you mean is you're selling the notecard itself...Oh. Okay, I answered my own question.

*Shifts into Roseanne Rosannadanna mode* Never Mind.

Hope you get this straightened out soon Cap, I want to buy one of your TV's. I don't see anything wrong with tapping into the site's streams since tapping into their streams is what the site is there for. Though putting in ads for them would be a nice thing to do.

And I don't see anything wrong with selling the tv's and the script used since you did put in the time and effort to make them, regardless of what certain rather pompous self-righteous parties claim.

Regardless of the merits of this arguement, I think that's an excellent idea, Cappy! Acknowledging the hard work of archive.org in your TV is a Good Thing no matter how you cut it. Heck, maybe you could even add a clickable link to the archive.org website on your TV, too. Good luck!

Or even; sell the script/tv and set up the links free/donations accepted (donations could then be converted to US$ and donated to the archive.org website). You could even include information and links to the website near the links you are giving away for streams, to help build publicity for the website. Just some thoughts.

Archive.org's Terms of Service contains this statement:

"Access to the Archive’s Collections is provided at no cost to you and is granted for scholarship and research purposes only."

Clearly, accessing the collection for "entertainment" purposes is against their TOS.

It seems to me that anyone facilitating the violation of Archive.org's Terms of Service could be liable for damages at least to the extent of the additional cost to archive.org for the unauthorized access that they caused or facilitated. (If archive.org chose to go after them.)

Buster

Oops...there's the deal-breaker.

I am sorry, but who really cares if this is an alt or not? I could be wrong but I believe the TOS also states we are not to point out alts unless said alt clearly makes it available to the open public.

That really sucks. I'm really going to have to stop listening to Torley's music (hosted at archive.org) for entertainment. And my live concerts I downloaded, too.

Hmm. I guess I'll have to publish a research paper, "Archive.org, streaming video, and the culture of the Second Life Forums" when I'm done.


While certainly a possibility, it seems a bit out of step with the spirit of archive.org. A TOS violation seems to be indiciative of a denial of service to an individual involved. Regardless, I'm suspending judgment until I hear back from them.

--CB

Dana, I cant believe you are really that dumb where is the monthly fee he is charging for bandwith?? hello??

If I buy a real world tv, I buy the tv, the air waves come free, right? how is this different?
there is no fee to stream in game. Only for his work to build the tv. If you dont like his, use one of the free ones. I cant believe you otherwise intelligent adults are falling for this obviously faulty logic. It blows my mind. No wonder the world is in the state it is

According to Dana's logic, because real life tv stations broadcast their signal free of charge on the air waves, Zenith, Motorola, etc etc, has no right to sell their tv's......come on ppl!! pull your heads out!!

*points to his nose and points to Liona* you got it.



Good point.

Btw I am also selling Air Waves at 20L$ a wave.
(no discounts and no refunds)