Camilla Media: Second Life

My Second Life

2007-05-18T15:40:00.000+12:00

Amsterdam II

2007-05-18T15:07:00.001+12:00

Introducing the Virtual Economies of Second Life

2007-05-17T19:51:00.000+12:00

Yesterday, I roamed the streets of Amsterdam like any curious tourist. Despite knowing full well that this European city is renowned the world over as a city of sex, drugs and rock n’ roll, I hardly expected it to be so at 9.30 am in the older areas of town. As I strolled past the antique trams, books shops and other lost pedestrians, I noticed two rather briefly dressed young women talking to an old man. Interested by their activity, I stood near them and began to listen to their conversation. “600 and no less old man!” yelled the blonde. “You think we stand here waiting around for nothing! We are here to make some money!” said the brunette. Surprised by their candidness, I turned to leave, not expecting to be the audience to a man flaunting a somewhat incredulous-sized penis. “Do you have to show that to the world? Don’t you have any tact?” I yelled. He simply put his hands on his waist and began to laugh. “You must be new honey. Don’t you know, anything goes around here!” he replied candidly.

Welcome to the ‘dynamic, mutable, an emergent’ world of Second Life!

Philip Rosedale - Creators vs. Consumers in Second Life

2007-05-17T19:50:00.000+12:00

Thesis Statement

2007-05-17T19:49:00.001+12:00

It is the aim of this essay (in the form of a blog) to explore the ‘dynamic, mutable, an emergent qualities’ of the online multiplayer game Second Life. Furthermore, the essay will analyse the issues involved with such features that rely on player involvement and investment when the game’s “structural difference places the player in a configurative role” (Humphries, 2005, p.38). Emerging issues of Copyright, Intellectual Property and Content-Regulation are becoming prominent, as in “places such as Second Life, user-created virtual worlds enable users to build virtual lives, with virtual bodies, virtual objects and virtual homes, that can have real, tangible value and meaning” (Lastowka & Hunter in Jones, 2006, p.4). In addition, many of these systems of regulation have become redundant and thus, as Spinello states, “we have not yet come to terms with the moral and legal status of intangible property” (2005, p.27).

I, Avatar

2007-05-17T19:48:00.000+12:00

Second Life: Recreating the First

2007-05-17T19:47:00.000+12:00

According to Humphries, Massive Multiple Online Games (MMOG’s) differ from older media because “they are structurally different text that exploit the multi-directional feedback loops offered by the medium” (2005, p.38). More importantly, they are sites created, developed and maintained by not only by the game developers and other producers alike, but also the actual players of the game. Therefore, we can presume that the “players are actants themselves” (Humphries, 2005, p.39), both within the game and the formation of game development. As Taylor indicates, “MMOG’s, at a basic level, are collaboratively authored spaces” (2006, p.132). However, it is also important at this stage of discussion to define exactly which ‘space’ these role alterations is taking place, namely virtual reality.

Therefore, virtual reality can be defined as:
a technology that convinces the participant that he or she is actually in another place by substituting the primary sensory input with data received and produced by a computer ... The “as-if” quality of virtuality becomes a pragmatic reality when the virtual world becomes a workspace and the user identifies with the virtual body and feels a sense of belonging to a virtual community (Heim in Jones, p.9).

Overall, “the goal of virtual reality is to foster a sense of presence” (Bolter & Grusin, 1999, p.22) within a seemingly parallel world. With regards to Second Life and its contribution to this reality, it appears Bolter & Grusin would suggest it is a “simultaneously automatic and interactive” (1999, p.33) space whereby both cultural and economical activities take place. Despite the fact that “Second Life is not what virtual reality purists would describe as an immersive virtual world” (Jones, p.10) (due to the fact that it does not require ‘goggles or tactile interfaces’), it does attempt to recreate seemingly realistic ‘avatars,’ architecture and provide social activities that rival the ‘real’ world.

Mr. Cecil's Peeps and Places in Second Life

2007-05-17T19:45:00.000+12:00

Second Life: Recreating the First

2007-05-17T19:43:00.000+12:00

However, in stating that Second Life is simply an emerging social domain, much like Ever Quest, insults the credible evidence that online gaming is more than Taylor suggests, is seen as “simply entertainment” (2006, p.135). Figures show that online gaming has not only evolved in to a network of gaming enthusiasts, but as Jones suggests, “between April and December of 2005, Second Life tripled in size with a growth curve closer to that of the adoption of a communication technology rather than that of a game” (Jones, p.27). Similar figures are stated by Dwyer (2007, p.6), who states, “5,710,444 people have adopted a digitally illustrated alter ego like mine.” Therefore, what can be seen perhaps is a media platform that is evolving into a communication system much more like MSN, email and mobile phones.

As stated previously, what sets MMOG’s apart from the conventional modes of communication and older media, is that “players can be formally enrolled as productive agents at multiple levels” (Taylor, 2006, p.146) of game-play. Players of Second Life have opportunities of not only immersing themselves in another seemingly parallel world, but also having to some extent, a say in how many things around them ‘play out.’ As Humphries indicates, MMOG’s such as Second Life enable a player to participate in “more than the active interpretation we engage in with conventional media texts, more than identity construction through consumption; this is an engagement which serves to create the text each time it is engaged” (2005, p.39). Players of Second Life have in Humphries’ opinion, created much of what is seen and done in these virtual spaces. “Communities have created objects, environments, artificial intelligence (AI) agents, and entire games,” affirms Humphries (2005, p.43). In accepting such a statement, two things must also be considered. Firstly, players are not only players if they have the capacity to alter, manipulate or create new elements of game play. Secondly, if players are able to do such things, they are not only playing a game, they are creating a productive social domain, in which social, cultural and economic activities are occurring.

Obviously, there are ramifications to the blurring between producer and consumer, player and inventor. If there are either tangible or intangible items, objects or property within the game, of which has been developed and contributed by any player, then it is difficult to deny that Intellectual Property (IP), Copyright and Content-Regulation are not serious problems. On such grounds, Herz believes “the game belongs to players, as much as the developers” (Humphries, 2005, p.41). They may not be problems if players are unconcerned that their time and effort in creation means nothing. But because “we increasingly live in a world in which opting out of technological systems is more and more difficult” (Taylor, 2005, p.135), it is reasonable that both their involvement and investment is an important issue. In this sense, it is understandable that players feel that disputing their rights and ownership over certain features of the game, is too great a risk of being expelled from the game and perhaps their social domain. As Humphries indicates, “the value of the social relationships is real and represents both emotional and time commitments; to start over in a new game would mean having to start the social processes of relationship and network building over again and would represent a loss of relationships in the current game” (2005, p.41).

Presently, “outside of any individual player’s time the account is in fact, devoid of meaning or game status” (Taylor, 2006, p.133). However, as stated previously, we are spending an increasing amount of time in online environments and much our social, cultural and economic activities are occurring in this space. As Taylor indicates, “the common framing of games… often obscures the ways they act as key cultural sites in which forgoing participation may have real costs” (2006, p.135). Similarly, Dave Kosak anticipates “sometime in the next five years, expect a couple of legal battles involving user-created content. If you create something spectacular in a game world, is that your property? Or does it belong forever to the game publisher? More importantly, who owns your persona?” (Taylor, 2006, p.145).

Identities in Virtual Reality

2007-05-17T19:36:00.000+12:00

Dynamic, Mutable, Emergent

2007-05-17T19:35:00.000+12:00

Kline, Dyer-Witheford and DePeuter discuss the emergence of the “prosumer” (Taylor, 2006, p.145) within the virtual spaces of MMOG’s such as Second Life. The combination however, of producer and consumer have only enmeshed due to the “dynamic, mutable, emergent qualities” (Humphries, 2005) of the MMOG. The roles of player and developer can be considered as ‘dynamic’ due to their constant renegotiations of power, intent and direction of the online game. In fact, the developers ironically rely heavily on the players’ commitment, as indicated by Taylor’s comment that “companies are benefiting from a sizable amount of unpaid labour” (2006, p.146). Despite companies generally having both legal and financial control of the games they develop, a majority of the content has been created by their players (namely prosumers) and therefore, players demand a certain amount of respect and leverage. Taylor further suggests “it is in large part only through the labour of the players that dynamic identities and characters are created, that culture and community come to grow, and that the game is made animate” (2006, p.133). Therefore, questions as to whether the corporations exploit players, their skills and even their property, tangible or not, arise. When considering that “player investments in the game occur at a number of different levels and are integral and essential to the success of the game” (Humphries, 2005, p.39), it is difficult to deny.

Unlike older forms of media text, Second Life and similar games are ‘mutable’ in the sense that they cannot be read, analysed or viewed in the same way twice. The media is constantly changing, evolving and developing new aspects and therefore, cannot be assessed in the same meaningful way of older forms. “The transparent presentation of the real and the enjoyment of the opacity of media themselves” (Bolter et al. 1999, p.21) have reified much of the content in Second Life, however in doing so, such as in ‘real’ life, no two moments are the same. Jones states, “Second Life not only grew out of a particular cultural discourse but also out of an ancestry of publicly available virtual worlds, marrying the user creativity and sociability of text-based Multi-User Dungeons/Domains (MUDs) with the graphic richness of Massively Multi-Player Role Playing Games (MMORPGs)” (p.16).

Due to the evolution of the ‘prosumer’ within the online environment, games like Second Life are in a constant state of change unlike any other media, and therefore new ideas of social and community networks have emerged. Unlike more archaic gaming technology, there is a ‘real’ life investment by the player in time, skill and even money with tangible outcomes. Despite the fact that “the players…depend on each other for significant amounts of the game play” (Humphries, 2005, p.40), the creative process of developing intangible assets, such as virtual realty and other forms of property, are largely an individual pursuit. However, as Humphries suggests, “they (players) have some control over both the narrative and the stylistic realisation” (2005, p.47) they envisaged. Furthermore, with the incessant evolution of technology “participants enjoy a great deal of freedom in adopting roles, in indicating movement through the virtual environment” (Wood & Smith, 2005, p.14). However, the most emergent quality of such a domain as is that “virtual entities (such as Second Life) are indeed real, functional, and even central to life in coming eras. Part of work and leisure life will transpire in virtual environments” (Heim in Jones, p.9).

Second Life - Clanger's Inventions

2007-05-17T19:34:00.000+12:00

Virtual Spaces, Virtual Homes

2007-05-17T19:32:00.000+12:00

Virtual Reality and Virtual Realty

2007-05-17T19:31:00.000+12:00

“When coupled with the brisk trade in virtual land in the world (Second Life), virtual property exchange within a framework of real world rights provides an environment that parallels the free-market, consumer culture of the actual world,” (Jones, p.21). The issue of virtual realty encapsulates two important problems with regulating property rights. Firstly, “the ultimate source of the problem is, of course, the nature of digital information” (Spinello, 2005, p.27) and the general intangibility of this asset. Secondly, as people are able to live an increasing amount of time in virtual space and contribution both tangible time and money, “virtual properties hold real economic value for users…in terms of the construction of virtual worlds as a type of reality” (Jones, p.19).

The vastness and complexity of virtual property can be described as:
a powerful physics simulation running on a backbone of hundreds of connected computers and growing with the population allows you to be immersed in a visceral, interactive world that as of April 2005 covers more than 12,000 acres and 20,000 owned plots of land. The ability to design and resell 3D content, combined with the ability to own and develop land and a micro currency, which can be exchanged to real money, means that you can build a real business entirely within Second Life. (Linden Labs in Jones, p.16)

Despite the unfathomable nature of such a space, players invest increasing amounts of time and money investing in these ‘properties’ and developing them like any other piece of land. Moreover, “users pay fees on land of a certain acreage that they have over time (like a property tax). So, goods and land exist in the world that have real asset value to the users of the system” (Jones, p.19).

Brand Building in Second Life

2007-05-17T19:30:00.000+12:00

Money Must Be Funny in the Virtual World

2007-05-17T19:28:00.000+12:00

“The profit is not simply in ‘virtual’ money,” (Taylor, 2006, p.132). Taylor’s statement can be seen as true on many levels as the virtual markets are rarely free and therefore, similar to our everyday economies. Despite the fact that the Second Life exchange rate is minor to any real world economy, tangible money all the same is exchanged and therefore must be accounted for. Furthermore, “while Second Life’s economy is not as large, its currency, “Linden Dollars,” did exchange for approximately $1 to every 266 Linden Dollars as of December of 2005 on the LindeX currency market on the Second Life website” (Linden Labs in Jones, 2005a). Considering that some players are “making more than $100,000 a year in real-world money by selling digital wares constructed inside the world or running full-fledged role-playing games” (Borland in Jones, p.19), the issues of copyright and content-regulation again appear.

New Media Opportunities In The Online World Second Life

2007-05-17T19:25:00.000+12:00

Social Utopia or Capitalist Paradise?

2007-05-17T19:24:00.001+12:00

“Second Life is not an idyllic world, unless one envisions a capitalist paradise” states Jones (p.21). Akin to the ‘real’ world economy, Second Life’s idealized vision of a social playground has in fact become more of a consumer heaven. Similarly, as in Western culture “it is this commerce that allows the system to be viable” (Jones, p.21). In accordance, Humphries suggests Second Life is “an environment that was always already commercial and that is as much about community as about text” (2005, p.44). Exploring the virtual Amsterdam and looking at the various virtual shops, I was constantly barraged by advertising. Dwyer also comments that “the copious ‘for sale’ billboards and dollar signs spinning in trees have debased this new Garden of Eden in a staggeringly short space of time” (2007, p.6). Acknowledging that many companies are now promoting their products in Second Life, both as tangible and intangible commodities, new definitions of consumption and economy have emerged. Below is a film clip showing the virtual Apple Store, of which both advertises tangible products such as laptops, as well as enabling your avatar to purchase the virtual, intangible version. Despite the idea that “the interests of commerce and the interests of culture are not necessarily opposed” (Humphries, 2005, p.47), Teranova concedes, “it seems more reasonable to think of cultural flows as originating within a field that is always and already capitalistic” (Taylor, 2006, p.146).

As people begin to accumulate both their own self-made assets as well as purchased items, whether it is property, clothing or any other form of commodity, players (or prosumers) rightly expect certain rights to be allocated to them.

Taylor suggests that:
“as people increasingly come to live and work in these worlds, the domination of legal property issues…may appear one-sided and unjust. If corporate wizards continue to assert complete ownership rights over virtual lives, cyborg inhabitants will bring their concerns to real-world courts to prevent certain fundamental rights from being contracted away” (Taylor, 2005, p.135).

Second Life Apple Store

2007-05-17T19:22:00.000+12:00

Copyright and Content Regulations: Laws of Second Life

2007-05-17T19:21:00.000+12:00

The ‘reifying processes embodied by copyright law and content-regulation systems’ have in many cases become superfluous in virtual spaces like Second Life. “Copyright relies on a particular model of production” (Humphries, 2005, p.43), an older version, in which the concept of the ‘prosumer’ does not exist. The problem with any form of legal or even social regulation, rests with the fact that Internet technologies are “largely free from government control, and run on a completely decentralised basis” (Mowlana, 1997, p.103), therefore making it difficult both to create regulations and define property ownership. However, as Spinello states, “while some changes might be economically feasible, it would be impractical and imprudent to abandon copyright laws entirely and make cyberspace a copyright-free zone” (2005, p.29).

What has been a surprising emergence within Second Life is that “much of the social regulation in a game happens through peer regulation” (Humphries, 2005, p.46). Therefore, what can be seen in this virtual world are not only a commercial development but also certain social decisions. Humphries asserts, “the game adds specific layers of rules, governance, fantasy, goals, and constraints” (2005, p.42), which can be seen as drawing clear definitions of applicable behaviour. However, if user experience is anything to go by, many basic rights and legalities are disregarded. Among other activities online gambling and prostitution are earning very real money. Dwyer fittingly questions the morality of Second Life querying, “I wonder if she can hurt me and, if so, what court would defend my rights?” (2007, p.7).

Other suggestions of reifying processes can be applied to the situation, namely “we need to develop more complex ideas about the life of digital cultural artefacts, joint ownership, and the autonomy of user experience” (Taylor, 2006, p.147). Furthermore, it is important to understand that it is that actual nature of digital information is the central issue. Players cannot create and inhabit Second Life without the support of Linden Labs, and yet Linden Labs relies on these inhabitants to maintain game-play. Taylor however, believes “players are simply ‘renting’ the game contents for the duration of the play session” (2006, p.132). Should players therefore, have no property rights over their intangible possessions?

Second Life Casinos

2007-05-17T19:19:00.000+12:00

Virtually Concluding...

2007-05-17T19:18:00.000+12:00

Regardless of whether there are rights over digital property, “through ownership of land and objects, Second Life encourages a sense of place and self” (Jones, p.21). As in ‘real’ life the world is regulated by certain rules and has specific agendas that in turn, create “winners and losers as broadly defined and as subjective as in real life” (Dwyer, 2007, p.6). Only recently, as technology has evolved and thus enabled users to spend more time in the virtual world, has the issue of property rights progressed. As Jones suggests, “by giving virtual avatars virtual property, particularly property that is created out of their own ‘work,’ simulation, interactivity and meaning (through a sense of ownership and accomplishment) increase” (p.19). This issue is only going to become more prevalent in the future, as technology can either liberate or imprison people’s ‘lives’. In addition, Spinello suggests, “the nature of digital property along with the capabilities of the Internet seem to desensitise us to the worth of intellectual property and the need to respect copyright laws as a matter of justice” (2005, p.28). Thus, we are at a point whereby making decisions as to what constitutes ‘property’ in the virtual is vital. Despite lacking legal foundations, the prosumer is also not a powerless figure. They are constantly redefining their role and reminding corporations “there is no descriptive disconnection between our real-world property system and virtual assets” (Lastowka and Hunter in Taylor, 2006, p.134).

References:

2007-05-17T14:54:00.000+12:00

Bolter, J. & Grusin, R. ‘Immediacy, Hypermediacy and Remediation’ in Remediation: Understanding New Media, Cambridge & London, MIT Press, 1999. pp.20-50

Dwyer, M. ‘Born Yesterday’ in Livewire, in Age, on 26 April, 2007. pp. 6-7

Flew, T. ‘Virtual Cultures’ in New Media: An Introduction (2nd Ed). Oxford & New York, Oxford University Press, 2005. pp.61-82

Humphries, S. ‘Productive Players: Online Computer Games’ Challenge to Conventional Media Forms’ in Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies Vol.2 No.1, Routledge, 2005. pp. 37-51

Jones, D.E. ‘I, Avatar: Constructions of Self and Place in Second Life and the Technological Imagination’ in Communication, Culture and Technology, gnovis Publications, Georgetown University, 2006 (http://gnovis.georgetown.edu/articles/FA05-01-secondlife.pdf)

Mowlana, H. Global Information and World Communication: New Frontiers in International Relations, London, Sage Publications, 1997.

Oravec, J. Virtual Individuals, Virtual Groups: Human Dimensions of Groupware and Computer Networking, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Spinello, R. ‘Beyond Copyright: A Moral Investigation of Intellectual Property Protection in Cyberspace’ in The Impact of the Internet on Our Moral Lives, Robert Cavalier, Albany, State University of New York Press, 2005. pp. 27-48

Taylor, T.L. ‘Whose game is this anyway?’ in Play Between Worlds: Exploring Online Game Culture, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England MIT Press. 2006. pp. 125-50

Wood, A. & Smith, M. Online Communication: Linking Technology, Identity, and Culture, Mahwah, New Jersey & London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005.