Subject: Re: [mmox] mmox Digest, Vol 2, Issue 4

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:59:26 GMT

>You are arguing against the case for interoperability.

No, I'm arguing the case for letting the horse run away with the cart and no driver.

>You don't want it because it changes your land business model and
claim that it makes it harder for you to protect your IP.

This is silly, hysterical conspiracy theory and violates your beloved Nizkorian precepts. My land business is tiny. It's a tiny part of my RL income from other jobs completely unrelated to SL. And my particular model depends more on service and community than physical land and its value anyway lol. 

I'm not the one who depends on the land model for my business, small or big. Linden Lab is. They're the ones who will flush the value out of their land model (and are already flushing it) by either opensourcing their own code or being forced to compete with reverse engineers. I'm not the one scared here; they are. They're the ones who depend on me to pay them tier for their bottom line; once they can't make us do that anymore, they are sunk. That's why the big scurry to force interoperability standards and a vague promise of opensourcing the code to privilege community, content access, currency exchange, shopping sites, etc. over the old-fashioned model  of dirt -- server space. So either they will charge bunches for a hook-up fee to access the sheer numbers of people they will have by contrast to all the garage-sims, or they will simply run various cross-grid services like content *access* (not I say "access" which means pwning the search, advertising space, community groups, etc. not the content itself, which they don't particularly try to protect), but they aren't quite there yet.

I actually don't find a thing wrong with the land model because it works to get Linden Lab paid and to get scores of vendors who resell or rent their land paid and everybody's happy. But I guess they can't scale it with the current technology or cash burn to run the servers and pay staff. So they are retracting, freezing the mainland auction

So repeat, so you and all the other silly geeks who keep coming up with this utterly fake and ridiculous "sinister evil motivation" on my part for criticizing opensource: *I'm not the one who has to fear the loss of their land model; Linden Lab is the one who has to fear the loss of their land model*. I bought land and paid for it long ago from its profits from rentals. If they opensource it and suck all the content and life out of SL by opening the sluicegates over to the garage sims, so what? Either a) I take my hundreds of customers in dozens of groups into such sims if they are trustworthy and stop paying tier instantly -- their loss, not mine; b) I stay put because the huge rush out will lead to an ebb back in about 3 days as everyone discovers all the problems with opensims and comes back; c) I go out of business and free up my time to do some other business in addition to my regular jobs. End of story. No big collapse and FUD and horror for Prokofy Neva as you imagine. 

>You know this comment is a thing of conspiracy theories.  

Actually, uh, no. It's the thing of everything from Sakharov's Nobel Prize speech and 1968 "Reflections on Progress, Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom"; it's the "Two Cultures" essay; it's C.S. Lewis' "That Hideous Strength"; it's a thousand thoughtful oped pieces by those in the humanities commenting on those in the sciences and pondering ethical and legal issues. But...that must go over your head if you were educated at DeVry or work at rackspace.com or whatever you do, CTO of Megamultiverse, Inc. It's more than fine for civilians to have some say -- and control! and oversight! -- over what scientists do. That you imagine they don't, or can't, or shouldn't, and it's some kind of "FUD" or "conspiracy" is partly ignorance but partly a danger to society.

Re: "aliens got to them". Tech journalists are terribly beholden to the A-lister bloggers like Arrington and terribly beholden to the Silicon Valley tech companies and can't report independently. They make an echo chamber that the MSM can't get out of. But this is off-topic.

>Actually..    FUD means 'fear uncertainty and doubt'..    which..
applies to your statement.  You didn't provide proof, therefore you
didn't satisfy the Burden of Proof and can't make that claim.  Pretty
much nothing you can logically argue at this point will change
that(except if you provide sufficient proof).  

I don't play Nizkor. I realize you are a level 70 paladin at Nizkor, but I don't play it. Nizkor is not interoperable with normal, common sense dialogue about policy and practice.

Re: Prim Perfect case -- only one of a number of such cases right now.
Such cases cannot be dimissed by merely saying "oh, it's an isolated case" when there are now a number of them, and when all you have to do to see 

>If you're talking about John Hurliman making libOMV(libsecondlife),
yes he had a hand it in.   Copybot was created using
LibOMV(libsecondlife) to talk with the SecondLifeGrid Servers.    

And talk it did! lol

Oops, you performed a Nizkorian no-no again, swapping elements. Before it was "you didn't prove all opensourceniks were copyleftists" and now all of a sudden it's "you didn't prove all opensourceniks are pushing for IP violations". Two different propositions. I repeat: yes, all opensourceniks in the AWG (the scope we're discussing here) are copyleftists. Yes, indeedy.

>Additionally, Ari Blackthorne in the comments says;
"A prim replicator is not copybot. It doesn’t copy scripts or things
like this, but it does replicate prims and is a good tool (I use one
in my own building efforts.) But, like any other tool, can be abused."

>Can you prove that the person in the article did, indeed use copybot?
No.  Can you prove that person copied the content, Yes.  Did John
Hurliman copy the content?  No.  Did Adam Frisby copy the content?
No.  Did Linden Lab copy the content?  No.   Did I copy the content?
No.

Oh. I see what I'm dealing with now! someone really in the thick of Second Life. Not just a visitor from some other platform. Someone deeply involved in the warp and weave of libsecondlife politics who is a deep Copybot denier lol. Well, now that we've flushed out this user profile, I'll say: sorry, not playing. You are now a known quantity, and not a valid interlocutor.

Um, BTW, if you are going to scream about land barons who lost their land model, you could mention your friend Adam Frisby. Of course, after making his first million, he went and founded opensim. It's too bad that not every single person in the land business, and there are some with hundreds of sims they sell or re-rent, can't first make their money off them before the world is destroyed by opensim, then go and make money...um...consulting about opensource to eager but inexperienced big corporations wanting sims. Oh well I guess that's what you call market communism or NEP lol.

I saw you make illogical statements like, "All Open
Source developers are copyleftist"..

Again, my statement was: the AWG are all copyleftists to a man. Because they are. Because they think everyone should work on opensource collectively, give code away, give stuff away in general and "share and learn" in one big happy collective together. These are not people who need to worry about their dress shops being plundered by business-in-a-box lol. Anyway, I realize what a known quantity I'm dealing with now so I don't need to take up this particular venue with responding. My answers to your type of person with your type of narrow sectarian viewpoints is to read my blog, read my JIRAS and go back to studying Nizkor some more til you get it picture-perfect.

Not saying that "IP violations are ok" doesn't count for anything in a debate about the technical implementation of copyright protection. It's merely a nod, a sop, a distraction. Perhaps you need to study up some more on your Lessigism. Copyleftism isn't about approval of "violation of IP". It's about promoting a culture where people's IP is always free and spreadable and for which they only get credit, and upon which they are supposed to build any businesses not on the content itself but on, oh, lecture fees or t-shirts or something. Like the Grateful Dead. Except, read their diaries. They earned 30 percent of their revenue from record sales. T-shirts don't keep you alive. 

____________________________________________________________
Digital Photography - Click Now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTDvmTbzyTMmhHr49nZjXlyltlUIf0qiLcaAt6OOUXvCurTjO4LKE4/

---

From: Dan Olivares <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 06:20:09 -0500

You didn't argue my statement about you wording your comments for
maximum scare value.

You did argue my assumptions about what your purpose is, though
previously you've asked if you could argue against the case for
interoperability and the arguments that you've made suggest that your
actual purpose is to argue against the case for interoperability.
You spent about half of your last e-mail clearly laying out how Linden
Lab's revenue gets hurt from interoperability..  Are you sure you're
not arguing the case against interoperability?  Then, you made a post
on your blog titled Agoraphobia which argues against the case for
interoperability.  Once again, are you sure you're not arguing the
case for interoperability?

Some famous quotes from you:
"The content creators of SL, as a mass, have NOT called for
interoperability without copyright protections and without an
intellectual property regime, and they are not willing to be told to
call their lawyers or put in a CC notecard into their products."

"I *am* legitimate when it comes to these issues by countering your
extremism in a quest for a more practical and effective approach.
There is no objective demand for interoperability; it is a geek
concoction."

The switchover from copyleftist to actively pursuing IP violations is
somewhat valid because of some comments you made, are you
backpedalling here?
"There, we are to expect that the permissions will "hold" but that
grid has no permissions and a decided copyleftist outlook on these
matters."

"Opensourceniks make terrible customer service people, they don't care
about private property and that's what their customers have."

"Company C which has an opensource grid and various developers with
their own private
grids and customers, both open and closed:
"It's great that we're all interoperable now! woot! We love finally
being able to download and upload our inventories from other worlds
and also populating our barren servers with all that wonderful free CC
donated content you're streaming our way. No,
creator's names actually can't show on textures and skins themselves
but we're working on
a project on that for 2 years from now. Clones and copybots you say?
Well, hope you have
programming skills, financing for a T-1 line, and your own servers,
you can insert whatever module you'd like to address those issues. We
have provided them merely as an option. Oh, you say you know for a
fact that Lightning99 Striker has ripped your stuff? We can't reach
him because he's a free account with no payment information on
file...looks like he uses an anonymizer to log on each time, sorry."
"
These are characterizations of your 'copyleftist' category.

"But...that must go over your head if you were educated at DeVry or
work at rackspace.com or whatever you do, CTO of Megamultiverse, Inc"
This is you making an invalid comment about my education.  Nice personal attack.

"Re: "aliens got to them". Tech journalists are terribly beholden to
the A-lister bloggers like Arrington and terribly beholden to the
Silicon Valley tech companies and can't report independently. They
make an echo chamber that the MSM can't get out of."

Not really people do report on the privacy concerns of google.
( Ref: http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/bentley/eff-raises-privacy-concerns-with-google-latitude/?cs=30514
)
( Ref: http://news.cnet.com/Privacy-concerns-dog-Google-DoubleClick-deal/2100-1024_3-6177029.html
)
( Ref: http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/feb2009/gb2009029_161135.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
)
( Ref: http://www.webpronews.com/blogtalk/2007/05/02/google-privacy-concerns )
( Ref: http://www.techspot.com/news/28391-google-faces-privacy-concerns-over-google-reader.html
)

Privacy concerns reported on Microsoft:
( Ref: http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000421.html )
( Ref: http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=338993 )
( Ref: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E0DC133BF93BA15756C0A9649C8B63
)
( Ref: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2007/oct/09/health/chi-1009health_digitaloct09
)
( Ref: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2005/12/2065.ars )

In fact, when it matters, bloggers and news outlets do report on it.

Then we get to your book and article references that are supposed to
support your paranoid view.
"Reflections on Progress, Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom",
Sakharav are talking about the Scientific Culture and the Humanity
culture and converging them.  It doesn't, in fact, support your claim.
  It makes more claims about the sharing of information..  a rather
copyleftist view..  according to you.

"Excerpts"
"Economic, social, and ideological convergence should bring about a
scientifically governed, democratic, pluralistic society free of
intolerance and dogmatism, a humanitarian society which would care for
the Earth and its future, and would embody the positive features of
both systems. "

"[1] The division of mankind threatens it with destruction... Only
universal cooperation under conditions of intellectual freedom and the
lofty moral ideals of socialism and labor, accompanied by the
elimination of dogmatism and pressure of the concealed interests of
ruling classes, will preserve civilization...

[2] The second basic thesis is that intellectual freedom is essential
to human society -- freedom to obtain and distribute information,
freedom for open-minded and unfearing debate and freedom from pressure
by officialdom and prejudices. Such a trinity of freedom of thought is
the only guarantee against an infection of people by mass myths,
which, in the hands of treacherous hypocrites and demagogues, can be
transformed into bloody dictatorship. Freedom of thought is the only
guarantee of the feasibility of a scientific democratic approach to
politics, economics and culture."
"

The Two Cultures reference also does not support your claim. You have
yet to prove that the IETF is not open to the needs of the 'Humanity'
culture.   Given that anyone can join this list and make arguments and
propose goals of this group.  Anyone can also post specifications,
requirements, ideas.   On the contrary, you making comments about what
you suppose my education is and somehow that limits the validity of my
arguments, is exactly what 'Two Cultures' is decrying!   I'm not
discounting you based on educational basis, nor are we having any
difficulty understanding each other.

Additionally the article "Two Cultures or One?" by Paul Grobstein and
Elenor A Bliss, Bryn Mawr College said,
"The following letter, sent to the editors of the New York Review for
possible publication, suggests that a less exclusive and more
realistic conception of the scientific enterprise would not only
better help to bridge the two cultures gap, but better serve as well
to defend science and assure its important contribution to human
culture generally"

"That Hideous Strength" by C. S. Lewis is science /fiction/.

"Oh. I see what I'm dealing with now! someone really in the thick of
Second Life. Not just a visitor from some other platform. Someone
deeply involved in the warp and weave of libsecondlife politics who is
a deep Copybot denier lol. Well, now that we've flushed out this user
profile, I'll say: sorry, not playing. You are now a known quantity,
and not a valid interlocutor."

Suddenly you think that I'm 'deeply involved in the the warp and weave
of libsecondlife politics' and a copybot denier to boot..  just
because I did my research!
Hasty Generalization.  Who said anything about me being an
Interlocutor.  I certainly didn't.  You don't have to play.   Most of
the arguments you've made in the past have been without evidence,
factually false, and illogical.   Are you expecting the 'known
quantity' argument to scare me into not arguing my points with logic?
You'll be sorely disappointed because I will call you out if you
attempt to file me into categories heavily laden with biases.

Sincerely

Daniel Olivares

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:59 AM, [email-masked]
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTDvmTb5oI4iy9rrOXQMIW8HoJ2SyWmsZzAuqIA1rxVf3NBrpR3EvW/
>

---

From: Dan Olivares <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 07:45:12 -0500

One more thing.   Your statement is that all members of the AWG don't
care about other people's intellectual property.   This statement is
false.   I have an avatar in the AWG group.  I care about intellectual
property.

You're going to attempt to discredit or otherwise invalidate my claim
above because of my statement that I'm arguing for the use of the word
'MAY' instead of 'MUST' when it comes to defining the interoperability
protocol and that somehow, in your view, I can't 'care' about
intellectual property because I'm not forcing it on everyone who uses
the protocol.  This, however, is not valid because I've said that I
want to define provisions for marking intent and enforcing
intellectual property restrictions.  My statements about what I care
about are indisputable because they are statements from me, about my
beliefs about myself.   Your statement about everyone in the AWG group
being 'copyleftist' is false.

Sincerely

Daniel Olivares

---

From: "Mystical Demina" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:30:27 -0500

Do you have a proposal?  I am not following what you goals are or what you
are contributing that may be implemented into a standard.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 3:59 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mmox] mmox Digest, Vol 2, Issue 4

>You are arguing against the case for interoperability.

No, I'm arguing the case for letting the horse run away with the cart and no
driver.

This is silly, hysterical conspiracy theory and violates your beloved
Nizkorian precepts. My land business is tiny. It's a tiny part of my RL
income from other jobs completely unrelated to SL. And my particular model
depends more on service and community than physical land and its value
anyway lol. 

I'm not the one who depends on the land model for my business, small or big.
Linden Lab is. They're the ones who will flush the value out of their land
model (and are already flushing it) by either opensourcing their own code or
being forced to compete with reverse engineers. I'm not the one scared here;
they are. They're the ones who depend on me to pay them tier for their
bottom line; once they can't make us do that anymore, they are sunk. That's
why the big scurry to force interoperability standards and a vague promise
of opensourcing the code to privilege community, content access, currency
exchange, shopping sites, etc. over the old-fashioned model  of dirt --
server space. So either they will charge bunches for a hook-up fee to access
the sheer numbers of people they will have by contrast to all the
garage-sims, or they will simply run various cross-grid services like
content *access* (not I say "access" which means pwning the search,
advertising space, community groups, etc. not the content itself, which they
don't particularly try to protect), but they aren't quite there yet.

I actually don't find a thing wrong with the land model because it works to
get Linden Lab paid and to get scores of vendors who resell or rent their
land paid and everybody's happy. But I guess they can't scale it with the
current technology or cash burn to run the servers and pay staff. So they
are retracting, freezing the mainland auction

So repeat, so you and all the other silly geeks who keep coming up with this
utterly fake and ridiculous "sinister evil motivation" on my part for
criticizing opensource: *I'm not the one who has to fear the loss of their
land model; Linden Lab is the one who has to fear the loss of their land
model*. I bought land and paid for it long ago from its profits from
rentals. If they opensource it and suck all the content and life out of SL
by opening the sluicegates over to the garage sims, so what? Either a) I
take my hundreds of customers in dozens of groups into such sims if they are
trustworthy and stop paying tier instantly -- their loss, not mine; b) I
stay put because the huge rush out will lead to an ebb back in about 3 days
as everyone discovers all the problems with opensims and comes back; c) I go
out of business and free up my time to do some other business in addition to
my regular jobs. End of story. No big collapse and FUD and horror for
Prokofy Neva as you imagine. 

>You know this comment is a thing of conspiracy theories.  

Actually, uh, no. It's the thing of everything from Sakharov's Nobel Prize
speech and 1968 "Reflections on Progress, Coexistence, and Intellectual
Freedom"; it's the "Two Cultures" essay; it's C.S. Lewis' "That Hideous
Strength"; it's a thousand thoughtful oped pieces by those in the humanities
commenting on those in the sciences and pondering ethical and legal issues.
But...that must go over your head if you were educated at DeVry or work at
rackspace.com or whatever you do, CTO of Megamultiverse, Inc. It's more than
fine for civilians to have some say -- and control! and oversight! -- over
what scientists do. That you imagine they don't, or can't, or shouldn't, and
it's some kind of "FUD" or "conspiracy" is partly ignorance but partly a
danger to society.

Re: "aliens got to them". Tech journalists are terribly beholden to the
A-lister bloggers like Arrington and terribly beholden to the Silicon Valley
tech companies and can't report independently. They make an echo chamber
that the MSM can't get out of. But this is off-topic.

I don't play Nizkor. I realize you are a level 70 paladin at Nizkor, but I
don't play it. Nizkor is not interoperable with normal, common sense
dialogue about policy and practice.

Re: Prim Perfect case -- only one of a number of such cases right now.
Such cases cannot be dimissed by merely saying "oh, it's an isolated case"
when there are now a number of them, and when all you have to do to see 

And talk it did! lol

Oops, you performed a Nizkorian no-no again, swapping elements. Before it
was "you didn't prove all opensourceniks were copyleftists" and now all of a
sudden it's "you didn't prove all opensourceniks are pushing for IP
violations". Two different propositions. I repeat: yes, all opensourceniks
in the AWG (the scope we're discussing here) are copyleftists. Yes, indeedy.

>Additionally, Ari Blackthorne in the comments says;
"A prim replicator is not copybot. It doesn't copy scripts or things
like this, but it does replicate prims and is a good tool (I use one
in my own building efforts.) But, like any other tool, can be abused."

Oh. I see what I'm dealing with now! someone really in the thick of Second
Life. Not just a visitor from some other platform. Someone deeply involved
in the warp and weave of libsecondlife politics who is a deep Copybot denier
lol. Well, now that we've flushed out this user profile, I'll say: sorry,
not playing. You are now a known quantity, and not a valid interlocutor.

Um, BTW, if you are going to scream about land barons who lost their land
model, you could mention your friend Adam Frisby. Of course, after making
his first million, he went and founded opensim. It's too bad that not every
single person in the land business, and there are some with hundreds of sims
they sell or re-rent, can't first make their money off them before the world
is destroyed by opensim, then go and make money...um...consulting about
opensource to eager but inexperienced big corporations wanting sims. Oh well
I guess that's what you call market communism or NEP lol.

Again, my statement was: the AWG are all copyleftists to a man. Because they
are. Because they think everyone should work on opensource collectively,
give code away, give stuff away in general and "share and learn" in one big
happy collective together. These are not people who need to worry about
their dress shops being plundered by business-in-a-box lol. Anyway, I
realize what a known quantity I'm dealing with now so I don't need to take
up this particular venue with responding. My answers to your type of person
with your type of narrow sectarian viewpoints is to read my blog, read my
JIRAS and go back to studying Nizkor some more til you get it
picture-perfect.

Not saying that "IP violations are ok" doesn't count for anything in a
debate about the technical implementation of copyright protection. It's
merely a nod, a sop, a distraction. Perhaps you need to study up some more
on your Lessigism. Copyleftism isn't about approval of "violation of IP".
It's about promoting a culture where people's IP is always free and
spreadable and for which they only get credit, and upon which they are
supposed to build any businesses not on the content itself but on, oh,
lecture fees or t-shirts or something. Like the Grateful Dead. Except, read
their diaries. They earned 30 percent of their revenue from record sales.
T-shirts don't keep you alive. 

____________________________________________________________
Digital Photography - Click Now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTDvmTbzyTMmhHr49nZjXlyltlU
If0qiLcaAt6OOUXvCurTjO4LKE4/
_______________________________________________
mmox mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox

---

From: Dan Olivares <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:39:11 -0500

Well, if we want to cook up our own DRM we have to be /really/ careful
as there are a lot of patents in this area of development, one thing
that we could do to enforce IP restrictions is, define a gateway that
provides access to content directly to clients.  The client would
perhaps get a temporary and time sensitive code along with meta data
and a direct link to symmetrically encrypted (rijndael block cipher
encryption? (export restrictions?)) asset data (perhaps over HTTP(s)
using the RequestTextureDownload CAP?).  Presumably, the client would
get the link to the data through a cap provided by whatever we decide
to call the 'Agent Domain' that is defined in the current OGP
implementation.

Additionally, there could be a hash appended to the beginning of the
asset and end of the asset that digests the asset plus the owner
avatar's UUID and "Secure session id", plus the creator's avatar UUID
(and permissions?) plus some session data provided by the 'Agent
Domain'.

Then potentially it could be digested and the digest of it
all(including the appended digests) is appended to it and the whole
thing is run through a HMAC algorithm (rfc2104) as the message element
with the symmetric key for verification.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAC & http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2104 )
The time limit of the key could be limited to the maximum amount of
time that an intermediate caching server could cache it
(Cache-Control http header?).

Alternatively, we could use one of a few existing open-ish DRM solutions.
ORDL ( http://ordl.net )
XrML ( http://www.xrml.org/ }

I don't think we really need to specify exactly what the DRM solutions
will be right now, however I do think that it's important that we
discuss what's out there to be 'informed' of the requirements of each
and therefore are in the best position to know what the protocol needs
to contain to support the use of any one of the DRM systems that we
intend to be able to support.  We also need to know what issues we're
trying to solve here.  Are we trying to take out the middleman
(simulator) in as many of the cases as possible(The simulator doesn't
need to know the content of a notecard or script and most (but not all
)texture data.  It doesn't need to know the content of assets
referenced in object inventory)?   Are we trying to secure the content
'End to End' as well?   Some argue that you can use some kind of an
OpenGL spy to steal textures off the video card..   Can we spam the
video card with thousands of bogus textures and geometry every so
often to make it more difficult?  Do we need a 'black box' library to
do the decryption?   How do we provide a way in the protocol to
support the various ways that DRM is employed?

Best Regards

Dan