The virtual world Second Life is having to contend with a new piece of software that makes it easy to copy in-game artifacts. Most virtual worlds claim total ownership and control of anything created in the game, but Second Life allows players to claim a copyright in their creations. Players can sell (or refuse to sell) their in-game tchotchkes, or give them away under Creative Commons licenses. Second Life has a thriving economy based on the trading of user-created objects.
An open-source tool called CopyBot allows players to cruise around copying the objects sported by other players. Many SL players are upset by this, and demanding action. Second Life's proprietors, Linden Labs, are trying to figure out what to do. They've ruled out eliminating third-party programs from Second Life, and they are on record as refusing to become copyright enforcers for their community. They are offering to temporarily adjudicate questions of infringement to see if they violate the Second Life terms of service, but they're seeking better solutions, including reputation systems.
This is a hard problem. As a practical matter, it's just not feasible to control copying in an environment like Second Life, which means that SL entrepreneurs are going to need businesses that don't collapse when copying takes place. But there are much gnarlier problems here — for example, in real life, questions of copyright infringement are adjudicated on the basis of law passed by elected lawmakers, while in Second Life, these questions are adjudicated by a company based on its non-negotiable terms of service. You can fire law-makers who make bad copyright, but you can't fire companies that make bad terms of service. You can take your business elsewhere, but if all your "assets" live in a proprietary virtual world, you have to go away empty handed, without any of your "copyrighted works."
Second Life's management is doing an exemplary job of coping with this, but benevolent dictatorships aren't the same thing as democracies. If a game is going to declare that its players are citizens who own property, can the company go on "owning" the game?
This isn't a criticism — it's a question. Linden Labs walks a fine line between "government" and "owner" (or, if you prefer, "God"). They're pushing some hard boundaries.
These are important features because the implications of copying should not be about Linden Lab's approach to copyright enforcement. We are not in the copyright enforcement business. The communities within Second Life should have the tools and the freedoms to decide how and when they deal with potentially infringing content. Many will decide on less restrictive regimes in order to maximize innovation and creativity. Others will choose more restrictive options and ban visitors who do not respect them. Consumers, creators, and all residents need to have the final say about which approaches work best for them.
Please recognize that using the Terms of Service is not a permanent solution. Nor is it shift in Linden Lab's support of libsecondlife (who have removed CopyBot from their Subversion repository), machinima creators, or others who have explored Second Life beyond the features of the Second Life client. I continue to feel that libsecondlife is an incredibly important part of Second Life's development and community.
Update: Second Life journalist Wagner James Au has a good piece on the controversy in New World Notes.
