Subject: Re: [mmox] mmox Digest, Vol 1, Issue 113

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:52:50 GMT

>Business models that require user content IP protection can limit
interoperability based on acceptance of a contract to respect
intellectual property rights with punishments for non-compliance.

Then maybe there's no reason for interoperability? It's ok to debate whether there is isn't a case for operability on the way to discussing the standards. I have yet to hear a cogent "mission statement" that explains what the value-add is for interoperability, what the platform providers gain collectively and individually from this theoretical, arduous, likely costly, and likely non-productive exercise.

>Also, while I agree with you on the I-Phone analogy does demonstrate
one business model, I wanted to make a point that the i-phone uses the
centralized clearing house you argued against with jw (Jon Watte)
regarding There.com

Um, I didn't argue "against" the centralized clearing-model. I pointed out merely that it was a solution to IP theft which many would find too controlling and rigid, especially after being autonomous actors in a free economy in Second Life, and that it would not solve the problems of c/m/t. Like firewalls, it's an internal company solution but it doesn't grapple with the collective problem of interoperability and IP, and the problem of how c/m/t is lost through interoperability unless it is welded in to start with.

Generally, when someone has to start invoking Nizkorisms and begins Fisking and Haskelling and all the rest, they don't have persuasive arguments and facts, and are left to browbeating over "process".  It's usually a reliable marker.

____________________________________________________________
Let great B to B marketing solutions propel your brand to new heights! Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTMPaBuiQG6q8ESkQ31Hpx0mWEFSySuje35XRnFh36XYJsXwfi2uA4/

---

From: Dan Olivares <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:19:03 -0500

"Then maybe there's no reason for interoperability? It's ok to debate
whether there is isn't a case for operability on the way to discussing
the standards. I have yet to hear a cogent "mission statement" that
explains what the value-add is for interoperability, what the platform
providers gain collectively and individually from this theoretical,
arduous, likely costly, and likely non-productive exercise."
You are correct, and are more then welcome to debate the case for
interoperability.

"Um, I didn't argue "against" the centralized clearing-model. I
pointed out merely that it was a solution to IP theft which many would
find too controlling and rigid, especially after being autonomous
actors in a free economy in Second Life, and that it would not solve
the problems of c/m/t. Like firewalls, it's an internal company
solution but it doesn't grapple with the collective problem of
interoperability and IP, and the problem of how c/m/t is lost through
interoperability unless it is welded in to start with."

okay, I must have misunderstood you then when you said,

"I'm not complaining about the current permissions system, I'm
celebrating it as a good thing and urging that it be used as the
standard. It's not about privileging one company over another, as I
think the c/m/t regime is a pretty workable and remarkably successful
regime that works far better than other solutions that companies have
come up with (no UGC allowed, all UGC cleared through a central
committee, corporate firewalls on private grids, etc.)"

and

"In the There.com/Forterra context, customer content is cleared
through a centralized clearing house and must be approved by the
company before it can be uploaded; customers are in a subordinate
role. In Second Life, content-makers and scripters and animators
appear as equals to the platform provider when it comes to content
generation, and in fact have produced the lion's share of the world's
content, unlike other worlds where the platform providers make all the
content. Therefore this isn't just some "customer specifics" that has
to be routed through the company, as you prefer."

"Generally, when someone has to start invoking Nizkorisms and begins
Fisking and Haskelling and all the rest, they don't have persuasive
arguments and facts, and are left to browbeating over "process".  It's
usually a reliable marker."

Logic is not process.  Please examine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic  I think you'll find that logic is
a requirement of any discussion.

I've made my position on this issue extremely clear.   I'm arguing for
the use of 'MAY' in the standard and not "MUST" with regards to
protecting User IP rights and let the companies that require it based
on their business models to require contracts with punishments to be
signed before they allow one organization to 'connect'

Thanks

Daniel Olivares

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 3:52 PM, [email-masked]
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTMPaBugve2YtZ258gY9lHWA9TGr5fwUS8JjrPQ3oSa3t4xHhJzci8/
>

---

From: Jon Watte <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:50:09 -0800

> company before it can be uploaded; customers are in a subordinate

Just to be clear: There.com (operated by Makena Technologies) and OLIVE 
(sold by Forterra Systems) are different products, with very different 
customers and very different processes. There.com has a central 
clearinghouse. Forterra Systems does not -- each customer of the OLIVE 
platform decides how and what content goes into their installation.

The There.com model is "we provide a PG-13 safe environment with some 
degree of content protection, and we implement it through a content 
review system" (and now the iPhone store does the same thing).

The OLIVE model is "let the customer decide, although we can help you 
with that if you need help."

Sincerely,

jw

---

From: "Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:54:30 -0800

but i believe the sense of the comment was that the end user (distinct  
from the person who administers the service) is not allowed to upload  
arbitrary content.

my understanding of both OLIVE and there.com is that they both do not  
allow arbitrary content upload, but instead require someone other than  
the content creator approve (and transfer) the content.

but... i could be wrong.

On Feb 23, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Jon Watte wrote:

> Just to be clear: There.com (operated by Makena Technologies) and  
> OLIVE (sold by Forterra Systems) are different products, with very  
> different customers and very different processes. There.com has a  
> central clearinghouse. Forterra Systems does not -- each customer of  
> the OLIVE platform decides how and what content goes into their  
> installation.
>
> The There.com model is "we provide a PG-13 safe environment with  
> some degree of content protection, and we implement it through a  
> content review system" (and now the iPhone store does the same thing).
>
> The OLIVE model is "let the customer decide, although we can help  
> you with that if you need help."
>
> Sincerely,
>
> jw
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox

---

From: Jon Watte <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:37:20 -0800

> the content creator approve (and transfer) the content.

OLIVE can support that just fine. The fact that most installations don't 
bother or wish for that to happen is a policy decision, not a mechanism 
problem. And the fact that pretty much all customers of ours make that 
policy decision might also mean something, although I'm not yet sure 
exactly what...

Sincerely,

jw