Copy Content OK unless you specify no ?

Probably what most people think of it now. The place where losers go.

This.

We shouldn't be complaining about the Library of Congress archiving virtual worlds.

We should be cheering in the streets that the LoC thinks something in Second Life is important enough to be preserved. I only wish they'd been doing this from the beginning.

On the bright side, at least Stanford says "please", unlike most copybotters.

It's the way they're going about it that is somewhat irritating.

That is pretty cool in terms of compliments, but I'm not sure I want Big Brother in my virtual world, as it sets a precedent that could someday come back and bite us in the butt.

think of those beautiful sims that have vanished without trace. I'd rather have a backup of them sitting in a library archive somewhere then nothing left at all.

I'm sure they'll figure out some way to screw it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Domesday_Project

I'm picturing a future museum exhibit featuring a photo of a bewildered-looking Sunday school teacher, next to a scale model of her unique Zindra build.

MAYBE even 'activity books' with dot to dot puzzle drawings of tentacles.

Sorry, I'm with Argent and others . . .

Assuming that this project has safeguards to ensure that content isn't being copied and distributed without permissions, I just don't see a downside to this. "Big Brother" isn't interfering in SL: it is archiving the best that SL has produced. And some of that is well worth archiving.

Seriously, why does this have people's backs up?

Discomfit many feel in perceived lack of choice/freedom.

Fear of being ripped off for profit.

Well, apparently they are only talking about archiving three very specific sims in SL, so most of us can ignore this.

I have mixed feelings on the matter. I've often seen people post that it would be wonderful if some sim that was doomed to vanish could somehow be archived. Think of some of the truly magnificent sims you've visited, that no longer exist, for whatever reason. I know a few of the sims and groups of sims that I created in the past, I really would have liked to have archived somewhere, before they got dismantled and destroyed.

On the other hand, I dislike the attitude of "We're gonna copy it unless you specifcly tell us we can't". And I dislike the idea that they feel they are entitled to use that archived data to re-create the sim later, not just in SL but also in other virtual worlds, such as an OpenSim grid. While preserving the sim on a stand-alone OpenSim server may be the only way to preserve access after SL itself is just a memory of a failed project, it still opens a rather large can of worms in terms of IP rights.

If I were the OP, I think it would make a fair amount of difference as to precisely WHAT works of mine were to be archived, as part of what sim, and why. However, any archived copy will be missing one of the most important elements. The Residents who used it. And as such, I think the value of the archive will be very limited.

Would be fun to walk through a virtual (or any other) reproduction of SL beta or SL early days.

Possibly the notification should have been worded somewhat differently. I'm not sure how this really impinges on anyone's "freedom" however?


This is valid; maybe they need to make the safeguards -- and their own credentials -- clearer?

Freedom of choice. Freedom to choose to pursue such things rather than having a decision imposed upon one.

Remember I said 'perceived.' I think it's an important distinction.

I don't see any difference between this and any other museum showing works. Except they're asking first, unlike most museums that display artefacts looted during the ages of empire and refuse to hand them back.

As for the idea of limited utility, going to stonehenge now or looking at the pyramids may not have the immersion of being there at the time of their creation but it's still worthwhile on many levels.

i am in ur inventory... stealing ur stuffs

This kind of thing is exactly why there is a fair use exemption to copyright, and the Library of Congress (which is to a very great extent responsible for administering copyright in the US) is using a specific "fair use" framework created specifically FOR them. Up until 1989 in the US you would have had to sent a copy of your sim to them ANYWAY to even HAVE copyright on it.

If anything there really needs to be MORE of this.

See also http://www.free-culture.cc/

There's a huge difference here. That original Rembrandt hanging on some museum you're looking at? Rembrandt painted that with his own hands. It's the only copy that exists. This is a museum telling Rembrandt, while he's still alive, that they're going to make as many copies of that painting as they wish, to display it in multiple museums, unless he chooses to say no. Extremely major difference.

Fixed it for ya.

/me nods. Yep, understood.

Those who oppose this on those grounds are, I suspect, of the libertarian persuasion (/me glares at Chris) who are likely to object to anything with the word "government" associated with it out of principle.


Also yep. They don't need to have a disinterred and stuffed Carroll O'Connor sitting on Archie Bunker's chair in the Smithsonian to make this a worthwhile cultural artifact.

The other extremely major difference is that Rembrandt's painting is a physical artifact that didn't go suddenly go "poof" when Rembrandt decided to log out of RL for good.

First, there's the problem some people have with we're coming to take your creations without either permission or compensation.

Second, those safeguards do not appear to be in place. The only thing it says is they won't make commercial use of your work. Anything else appears to be fair game.

What's to stop them from recreating full permission versions of it within SL? Nothing. That would kind of be a kick in the teeth.

On a tangent, I'd like to know what they consider the best that SL has produced and how they decide that. I hope they get the Stepford Diner.

Actually, I don't disagree with any of these points. I think the notice should have been approached differently, and I don't think it is unreasonable to expect compensation. (Although the major book depositories of the world -- the British Library, the Library of Congress, the Bibiotheque Nationale, etc. don't have to "buy" the books they archive.) And yes, there should be assurances -- legal ones -- that IP rights will be respected.

I also agree that it would be interesting to know more about the process by which they determine what is worth archiving.

As for the Stepford Diner -- yeah, someone better archive it, before I get my posse of vigilantes together to fire bomb the place. Not me personally, of course: I appear to be on the ban list there for some reason . . .

are you talking stepford inworld? If you are I can probably understand why tbh dolcett is not something most of the sisterhood are (understandably) comfortable with.

/me waves "Hi" to Scylla.

I haven't followed this thread much, since I don't support imaginary property rights.

I do watch All in the Family every once in a while. It isn't nearly as stupid as most of what is on TV now days.