Subject: Re: [mmox] mmox Digest, Vol 1, Issue 73

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 06:58:04 GMT

>From: Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity) <[email-masked]>
To: Ann Otoole <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 4:38:33 PM
Subject: Re: [mmox] Content metadata through interoperability

>ann. this is not the forum for discussions of intellectual property in general. this is a 
forum for discussing issues related to technical interoperability.

Infinity, that would seem reasonable except...if interoperability itself will simply strip away all property rights in the very process of developing standards, by cutting out the c/m/t, by telling everyone to call their lawyer, or put a CC notecard in their prim instead. That's the problem, if the technology and the drive towards interoperability standards hinge on first dropping the metadata and the previous engineering of an implementation of c/m/t. Then suddenly interoperability *does* become a discussion of intellectual property -- because you refused to defend it technically. You can go on saying, "Oh, please let me do that, let me finish my engineering of the bridge, let us all please have technical discussions without you getting in the way with your commercial concerns, and then I promise I'll pop in IP later as a module," but many see this as putting the cart before the horse. This isn't some internecine quarrel, it goes to the heart of the matter: does interoperability build in protection of intellectual property along the way toward developing, or does it drop it as technically not feasible or politically undesirable and promise to try to "do something" about the social problem of content creators' ire later?

____________________________________________________________
Find k-12 education here. We take education seriously.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTKM1VSJS3GUuoZzBp7zx3BCzBqOhpf4VUWjcu7OxmR6XMOtKpypSQ/

---

From: "Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:24:23 -0800

On Feb 20, 2009, at 10:58 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Infinity, that would seem reasonable except...if interoperability  
> itself will simply strip away all property rights in the very  
> process of developing standards, by cutting out the c/m/t, by  
> telling everyone to call their lawyer, or put a CC notecard in their  
> prim instead.

ann. i've yet to see this mandated in any protocol suggested here or  
by the AWG. please do not mis-represent the work going on here. this  
is a forum for the discussion and development of technical standards.

> That's the problem, if the technology and the drive towards  
> interoperability standards hinge on first dropping the metadata and  
> the previous engineering of an implementation of c/m/t.

again. there are no protocols being considered by this group that  
would REQUIRE the abandonment of the transport of permissions metadata.

> Then suddenly interoperability *does* become a discussion of  
> intellectual property -- because you refused to defend it  
> technically. You can go on saying, "Oh, please let me do that, let  
> me finish my engineering of the bridge, let us all please have  
> technical discussions without you getting in the way with your  
> commercial concerns, and then I promise I'll pop in IP later as a  
> module," but many see this as putting the cart before the horse.  
> This isn't some internecine quarrel, it goes to the heart of the  
> matter: does interoperabi
> lity build in protection of intellectual property along the way  
> toward developing, or does it drop it as technically not feasible or  
> politically undesirable and promise to try to "do something" about  
> the social problem of content creators' ire later?

this is not a forum for you to complain about the permissions system  
currently deployed on the second life main grid or linden lab's  
policies regarding digital asset creator's intellectual property  
rights. there _are_ other forums where this is appropriate and i  
encourage you to participate in them.