On 1/9/07, Len Bullard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Letting out the viewer is something of a SOP.  I think the server-side is
> possibly more important given that there are any number of open source
> viewers out there for 3D platforms that are just as good or better.  It is
> the management of the server farm that makes the difference, that and a big
> budget for marketing.
yes the server side services *and* the networking: SL uses UDP, X3D
has little in the way of networking capability - direct from the
client. I have been trying for two years to get improved networking
and web services capability into X3D, but it is arduous. It became a
working group proposal a year ago and still have not got the WG
approved. The Consortium is slow to recognise what, I think, is
essential to its success.


> Yes, I think they are looking at migrating the building market, but the only
> thing that brings in the bigCos is the site traffic.  Otherwise, to Sears,
> there is no advantage to being there.   IBM can talk a lot about boardroom
> VR but they are a services company in this market and without other
> companies willing to host on private farms, there is no market.
> There is a lot of puff in the online worlds market.  Of what value is it to
> own content that you can't move because it only works on that platform?  So
> like a Macintosh or a Mall, without a big membership that is actually going
> there often, having a presence there is largely a decorative bauble, a loss
> leader for being 'in the know'.  This market is relying on the naivete of
> the IT groups of the companies hosting there.
> The in-world economy is a fascinating experiment in waiting to see when the
> Feds will begin to look at it the same way they look at church bingo.  They
> tend to wait until the value is high enough that they can safely take their
> cut without killing the game.
> len
> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of Or Botton
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:06 AM
> To: VOS Discussion
> Subject: Re: [vos-d] SecondLife client goes Open Source
> Granted, it was expected, but there is one major issue thats a big
> bad omen: And thats content copy protection.
> SecondLife has been largely tauted as a place where you can make a
> "quick buck" by creating and selling copies of content. This is
> mostly an artificial market created by placing DRM on objects - being
> able to flag a texture, model, script or an entire package as non
> copyable, modifyable or transferable.
> Personally, I am all for an opensource platform with no DRM involved.
> I believe that a VR platform can only become mainstream and
> widespread if it is open and free. But SecondLife's act is more self
> destructive because by nature they are not open and free.
> With the source out, it would be a rather easy task to duplicate
> models and textures of objects, pretty much "breaking the DRM" with a
> very casual effort from the programmer. This could be very damaging
> to their internal economy. Again, I do not support the concept of
> having virtual economies, but doing what they just did is more like
> shooting their own foot.
> Perhaps this signs that LindenLab now views the big gamers -
> companies and such as the real customers now? These people will have
> much less of an issue to "enforce their copyrights" then the regular
> person.
> _______________________________________________
> vos-d mailing list
> vos-d@interreality.org
> http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d

vos-d mailing list

Reply via email to