[-empyre-] Re: // Second Life: Who's art is it anyway? //
sdv at krokodile.co.uk
sdv at krokodile.co.uk
Sun Mar 30 20:48:12 EST 2008
could you expand on this notion of a "subscription-based model of
citizenship" both in terms of corporations and perhaps the state...
I rather obviously live in a place where I am a "subject" and not a
"citizen" and am particularly interested in the different models applied.
> it's endearing how quick people are to invest in the managerial and
> corporate interests of Linden Labs as a Government, a make believe in
> seen in another light however: that a corporate interest could be double
> as a government is somehow honest. it strikes me - and perhaps other
> visitors of SL - as 'natural' especially given the increasing trend of
> western governments to run countries as geo-strategic corporations,
> tax-payers as employees, revenue generators and market stimulators:
> we're already used to a subscription-based model of citizenship.
>> h w schrieb:
>>> Could be that Second Life's public space isn't "in" SL itself if (i
>>> agree with Julian) it's an administrative gamespace, so everything you
>>> 'make' in SL is SL bound. But how about a public space of
>>> risk and ambiguity at its edge or threshold, as it were, its
>>> passage=moment. I mean, at the laptops in real space / place where
>>> subjects are flicking in and out of it? If you make a film from SL
>>> and put it on you-tube? (like 'China Tracey" did
>>> Julian covered that (emphasis mine):
>>>> you're allowed to take photos of it,
>>>> ***even make derivative works***,
>>>> but the island itself will always be the fixed home of the original.
>>> Making a film of it be like "allowed to take photos" and "make
>>> derivative works".
>>> Frankly, I agree with Julian, and would take his point further: since
>>> this is posing as a "public" space, there is a great deal of data
>>> imbricated into its development and performance. Obviously, if
>>> Microsoft or Fox News or GE simply bought SL right up, residents would
>>> get upset... However, now that the SL protocol has been reverse
>>> engineered, it only makes sense that there would be incentive for
>>> corporate interests to set themselves as interstitial portals, or
>>> Windows, on SL that provide "enhanced abilities" but also track and
>>> catalogue behaviour to be used for data mining and other
>>> Myspace was bought outright by News Corp, and Facebook has its own set
>>> of issues. Given the complexity and immersive character, SL is a more
>>> challenging "space" to conquer, but given the profit motive and
>>> coroporate investment in Linden Labs, SL's creator, that are resulting
>>> in higher prices, and the level of investment can be quite high
>>> (example: from wikipedia: total first year cost for a "16 acre" piece
>>> of virtual ground is US$1,650 setup fee and US$295 a month server
>>> fees... a total first year cost of $4,895.) There is incentive for such
>>> questionable behaviour,as such people clearly have disposable income,
>>> and waving cash around attracts people who want it.
>>> SL *is* a private space, and it *is* run by a corporation, so it *is*
>>> responsible to exhibit profit oriented behaviour as a requirement of
>>> its existence. Given that it is not the only game in town, and the
>>> classic problems of capitalist economics (declining profit over time,
>>> etc.) One sould not expect SL to be "benign". In fact, I would expect
>>> it to become more draconian and limited over time. To protect the
>>> children and all that, of course...
>>> No Cost - Get a month of Blockbuster Total Access now. Sweet deal for Yahoo! users and friends.
>>> empyre forum
>>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the empyre