In a comment here on the VentureBeat article I wrote , Steven Davis stated, U komentar ovdje na VentureBeat članak sam napisao, Steven Davis izjavio je,

I was with you until your final comments. Bio sam s vama sve do konačnog komentare. Outside the US, MMOs/online games are moving to a Virtual Asset Purchase model. Izvan SAD, MMOs / online igre su se kreće na Virtual imovinom Kupnja model. They are selling you the songs while sitting by the campfire is free (though you don’t get many songs until you pay, to strain your metaphor). Oni su prodajom vam pjesme dok sjedi po logorska vatra je besplatan (iako se ne bi puno pjesama dok ne plati, da strain Vaše metafori). Second Life should be the same. Second Life bi trebao biti isti. Where they have run into trouble is that they do not manage “song creation” / virtual asset creation by their players well so their DRM system is not effective - and has begun to undermine the player-driven economy. Gdje su pokrenuti u nevolji je da oni ne upravljaju "pjesma stvaranje" / stvaranje virtualne imovine od strane njihovih igrača tako i njihove DRM sustav nije učinkovit - i je poceo da podrivaju player-promidžbenom gospodarstvu. Whether it is possible to do so in a system like Second Life is a subject of a different discussion, but “song sales” seem to be growing rapidly as the business model (according to Gamasutra , microtransactions now drive about 50% of the Korean online game industry). Da li je moguće učiniti u sistemu kao što su Second Life je predmet drugu raspravu, ali "pjesma sales" Čini se da raste brzo kao poslovni model (prema Gamasutra, microtransactions sada vozite oko 50% od korejski online igra industrija).

Well, yes. Well, yes. But no, at the same time. Ali ne, u isto vrijeme.

Let’s take a step back and see what types of microtransactions exist, and what they are for. Let's uzeti korak natrag i vidjeti što vrste microtransactions postoji, i što su za.

All the issues of RMT and microtransactions typically get caught up in the question of what a virtual item is. Sva pitanja RMT i microtransactions obično dobiti poneseni na pitanje što je virtualni predmet je. So let’s settle that issue once and for all. A digital item is made up of database entries. It’s bits and bytes living on a server. Tako neka je podmiriti taj problem jednom zauvijek. Digitalnog stavka je sastavljena od unosa baza podataka. It's bita i bajta koji žive na poslužitelju. It may have been made the same folks who operate the server, or it may not have. On svibanj su napravili isti ljudi koji rade na poslužitelju, ili svibanj ne imati. It may have been uploaded by someone who pays for the privilege of manipulating the data on the server, or it may have been uploaded by someone who gets access for free. On svibanj su ustupio netko koji se plaća za povlastice manipulira podacima na poslužitelju, ili ga svibanj su ustupio netko koji dobiva pristup za besplatno.

In some cases, these bits and bytes might be a unique arrangement of data, in which case it is probably copyrighted to someone. U nekim slučajevima, ove bita i bajta može biti jedinstven aranžman podataka, u kojem slučaju je vjerojatno da netko autorskim pravima. In some cases, it may actually be a record of activity instead, in which case and under some laws, it might be subject to privacy laws instead. U nekim slučajevima, svibanj zaista biti rekord od aktivnosti umjesto, u kojem slučaju i pod neke zakone, on može biti podložan zakonima o privatnosti.

In no sense are any of these database entries “objects.” U smislu nije se bilo koji od ovih baza podataka entries "predmeta."

When you play Pangya Golf, you in fact do pay using a microtransaction. Kada igrate Pangya Golf, ti u stvari učiniti platiti koristeći microtransaction. You do so in order to increment a database entry labelled “points.” This is the same as when you purchase Microsoft Live points or when you purchase cell phone minutes or when you purchase acorns in CyWorld. Vi učiniti kako bi se povećajte unos baze podataka s natpisom "points." To je isto kao kada kupiti Microsoft Live bodova ili kada kupiti mobitel minuta ili kada kupiti žir u CyWorld. From this point forward, there is no longer a real-world economic transaction. Od ove točke nadalje, vise nema u stvarnom svijetu ekonomske transakcije. In the dominant model of microtransactions, you are actually using the “wallet” model. U dominantan model microtransactions, vi ste zapravo koristeći "novčanik" model.

Purchases of new outfits for your golfer, new Live Arcade games, or new furniture for your house are no longer truly “microtransactions.” They are the reduction of a number in one field, and the addition of some data to another. Purchases of new outfits za Vaše golfer, novi Live Arcade igre, ili novi namještaj za svoj dom više nisu uistinu "microtransactions." Oni su smanjenje broj jedan u polju, i pored nekih podataka u drugu. It may be data that says you have access to a given other field in a database, or it might be a change in the records that state that you have access to download something — at which point the download system can go ahead and verify that, then initiate the download. To svibanj se govori podataka da imate pristup na određenom području u druge baze podataka, ili bi moglo biti promjena u zapisima koji navode da imate pristup preuzeti nešto - na kojem trenutku preuzimanja sustava može ići naprijed i potvrdite da je, zatim započeli preuzimanje.

This may seem stupidly obvious, but it’s worth going over because so many people misinterpret the issue of real money trades for digital items. Svibanj stupidly Ovaj činiti se očigledan, ali vrijedi prelaženju jer toliko ljudi pogrešno tumač pitanje pravi novac obrta za digitalne građe. When one person sells another an EverQuest sword, what is being traded is not actually an item (as in a retail supermarket) or even a stand-in for an item (as in markets for precious metals or pork bellies) or even bytes representing a bet on future price trajectories (as in futures markets), but rather moving some bytes from one column to another that have no analogue whatsoever. Kada jedna osoba proda drugome jedan EverQuest mača, što se trguje nije zapravo stavku (kao u maloprodaji supermarket) ili čak stand-u za jedan predmet (kao na tržištima za plemenite metale ili svinjskog bellies) ili čak bytes predstavlja kladiti se na buduće cijene trajectories (kao u futures tržišta), nego se kreće nekim bytes iz jedne u drugu kolonu koja nemaju što analogue.

In fact, in the case of EverQuest, you are not even moving a copy of the sword’s information. U stvari, u slučaju EverQuest, niste se kreće čak i kopiju mač je information. You are only moving a pointer to the sword’s information, because in practice, there is only one sword defined in a template database. Vi ste samo premještanja pokazivača na mač je information, jer u praksi, postoji samo jedan mač definiran u predlošku baza podataka. Each local copy is an illusion; your inventory says “you have Sword X.” In many of these worlds, you can think of a piece of equipment and a skill as being exactly the same thing. The same is true for that clothing you purchased in Pangya or that chair you bought in Habbo. Svaka lokalna kopija je iluzija; vaš inventar kaže "imate Sword X." U mnogim od tih svjetova, koje se možete sjetiti dio opreme i vještine kao što se točno istu stvar. Isto vrijedi za da odjeća koju su kupili Pangya u stolac ili da ste kupili u Habbo.

Don’t worry, we’ll get to things like Second Life in a little bit. Ne brinite, mi ćemo doći do stvari kao što su Second Life na malo. OK, actually, in a long while, because first we’re going to briefly mangle the history of copyright. U redu, zapravo, u dugo vrijeme, jer je prvi smo odlaskom na kratko komadati povijest autorskih prava.

Recently, Steve Danuser wrote over at Moorgard.com about the topic of the proposed Korean legislation that Nedavno, Steve Danuser napisao više na Moorgard.com o temi predložene korejski zakonodavstva koje

the only way such legislation is going to work in the rest of the world is if we begin to understand how intellectual property differs from material goods–and that ain’t gonna be easy. jedini način takva zakonodavstva ide na posao u ostatku svijeta je, ako ćemo početi razumjeti kako intelektualnog vlasništva razlikuje od materijalnih dobara i da se ne æe biti lako.

The reason intellectual property seems like such a foreign concept to many in the Western world is that we come from a culture of ownership. Razlog intelektualnog vlasništva izgleda kao takav koncept u mnogim stranim u Zapadni svijet je u tome da smo došli iz kulture vlasništva. We buy a house, we buy a car, we buy a pair of pants, and these things become ours to do with as we please. Mi kupiti kuću, kupiti auto, kupiti par hlače, i sve to postati naša veze sa kao i mi molimo. But intellectual properties like music, movies, and games don’t work this way. Ali intelektualno svojstva kao što su glazba, filmovi i igre ne rade na taj način. The $15 you spend for a CD or a DVD buys you the packaging and a hunk of plastic, but it doesn’t buy you ownership of the music or movie itself. The $ 15 vam potrošiti za CD ili DVD kupi vam je pakiranje i veliki koma od plastike, ali se ne kupi ti vlasništva na glazbu ili film. All you’re paying for is a license to use the content within the guidelines established by the owner of the data. Svi ste se plaćati za licencu za korištenje sadržaja unutar smjernicama osnovana je vlasnik podataka. You have no legal right to redistribute that content to anyone who has not purchased a license from the content’s owner. Nemate pravo na pravnu redistribuirati da je sadržaj na bilo tko koji nije kupio licencu od vlasnika sadržaja.

Of course, with the understanding that all these digital trades and RMT cases for gold and swords and whatnot are actually just for moving bits and bytes in a database, we can see that in practice, the core issue behind RMT is not actually IP. The basis behind the companies’ assertion that users are not allowed to engage in RMT is because they assert ownership over the database, and therefore say that they are the only ones who have the permission to earn money from moving bits and bytes around on said database. Naravno, s razumijevanjem da sve te digitalne i zanatstvo RMT slučajevima za zlato i mačevima i whatnot su zapravo samo za kretanje bitova i bajtova u bazi podataka, možemo vidjeti da u praksi, ključni problem iza RMT nije zapravo IP. temelju iza tvrtke 'tvrdnja da su korisnici ne mogu sudjelovati u RMT je jer su potvrditi vlasništvo nad bazom podataka, i stoga reći da su samo oni koji imaju dozvolu da zaradite novac iz moving bitova i bajtova na oko, rekao je baza podataka. And this is handled via the EULA, which as Steve notes, explicitly covers the terms of use of said database and the client used to access it. A to se rješava putem EULA-om, kao što Steve bilješke, izričito obuhvaća uvjete korištenja, rekao je baza podataka i klijenta koriste za pristup Internet.

Where IP can come into play is that the company can assert that the arrangement of bytes in a given database field are a unique creation (for example, they can represent a texture, or a piece of text) that has been fixed into a tangible form. Gdje IP može doći u igru je da kompanije mogu potvrditi da je uređenje bytes u određenom polju baza podataka su jedinstveni stvaranja (na primjer, oni mogu predstavljati texture, ili dio teksta) koji je čvrst u obliku opipljive . At that moment, it is covered under copyright law and possibly trademark law if it’sa trademarked chunk of data. U tom trenutku, ona je prekrivena pod autorskom pravu i moguće pravo o zaštitnom znaku, ako it'sa zaštićeni blok podataka. People trying to make a buck by leveraging the content (since they are not actually selling it, but instead actually selling moving data from one field to another) can run afoul of IP law that way. Ljudi pokušavate izvršiti mužjak tako utjecati na sadržaj (budući da su oni zapravo ne prodaje ga, ali umjesto toga zapravo prodaje se kreće podataka iz jednog polja na drugo) može izvoditi afoul IP zakona koji način. For example, they might reproduce something copyrighted, like a texture, in order to persuade people to pay for the transfer of bytes from one field to another. Na primjer, oni mogu reproducirati nešto autorskih prava, kao što su tekstura, kako bi se uvjeriti narod platiti za prijenos bytes iz jednog polja na drugo. But someone engaging in RMT services for, let’s say, powerlevelling someone, isn’t even doing that directly. Ali netko uključenje u RMT za usluge, recimo, powerlevelling netko, nije ni da radi direktno. Keep in mind that the actual transfer of bytes from one field to another is not in itself illegal — it in fact it is the reason why you pay for access to the database in the first place , and RMT would not happen were said transfer not assumed to be a basic part of the functionality of the virtual world. Imajte na umu da je stvarni prijenos bytes iz jednog polja na drugo nije sam po sebi ilegalan - ona u stvari to je razlog zašto plaćate za pristup bazi podataka na prvo mjesto, i ne bi se dogoditi RMT su, rekao je transfer nije preuzeo da se osnovni dio funkcionalnosti u virtualnom svijetu.

Copyright laws are in fact a Western sort of invention. Copyright zakoni su u stvari Western vrsta izum. They exist because with the advent of the printing press, it was easy for someone to take something someone else had written, copy it and print it up and sell it as their own, and profit in a way that gave no revenues to the original publisher (or the author). Oni postoje, jer sa nastup u stampariju, to je bio lagan za nekoga da se nešto netko je napisao, kopirajte ga i ispisati ga i prodavati ga kao vlastitu, i dobit na način da se dade bez prihoda na izvornu izdavača (ili autora). Originally, the Stationers’ Company had a monopoly on copyright; whoever entered the title of a publication in the guild’s ledger first was held to have the exclusive right to make printed copies. Izvorno, Stationers' Company je imao monopol na autorsko pravo, tko je ušao u naslov od objavljivanja u ceh je knjiga prvi je održan da imaju isključivo pravo da Tiskana naklada. Later, the Statute of Anne said that in fact it was the author who controlled the rights to make copies, and ever since, authors have negotiated away said permission in order to allow publishers to publish their work. Kasnije, Statuta Anne je rekao da je u činjenici da je autor koji kontrolira prava da kopije, i od tada, autori su pregovarali daleko, rekao je dozvolu kako bi se dozvoliti da izdavači objaviti svoj rad.

In the case of the book published back in 1710 when the Statute of Anne went into effect, all the way up through the last book you bought, what copyright controls is who gets to make a buck. U slučaju knjige objavljene još u 1710 kada Statuta Anne ode u snazi, sve je način se kroz posljednje knjige ste kupili, što je autorsko pravo kontrole koji dobiva napraviti mužjak. The book is a container. U knjizi je kontejner. Under the Doctrine of First Sale , which was first enshrined in US law back in 1908, you can resell the container (or in fact, sell the container for the first time), and the original author of the copyrighted work has no say whatsoever over what happens to it. Pod nauk First Prodaju, koji je prvi sadržan u US zakonu natrag u 1908, možete preprodati u kontejner (ili zapravo, prodati kontejner za prvi put), i originalni autor zaštićen rad nema više što reći što se događa s njom. There’s little question that the copyrighted work within the container essentially boosts the value of the container; try selling a blank book for the same price as a first edition of Dante’s Inferno . Tu je malo pitanje da je zaštićen autorskim pravima rad u kontejner bitno podiže vrijednost na kontejner; pokušajte prodaju praznu knjigu za istu cijenu kao Prvo izdanje Dante's Inferno. However, you cannot profit by taking the copyrighted work and doing something else with it, say by issuing an audio recording, or creating a new edition of the copyrighted work and printing and selling that instead. Međutim, ne možete dobiti tako da idu na rad zaštićen autorskim pravima i radite nešto drugo s njim, reći po izdavanjem audio snimanje, ili stvaranje novog izdanja u autorskim pravima rad i tiskanje i prodaju da umjesto. The doctrine of first sale is about reselling the original containers, not making new ones. Nauk prvi prodaju je o reselling originalne posude, a ne stvaranje nove.

There’s two big exceptions: software, and phonorecords. Postoje dva velika iznimke: softver, i phonorecords. The exceptions are about leasing, lending, and renting the container objects, not sale. The iznimke su o zakupu, pozajmljivanje, iznajmljivanje i kontejnerski objekti, a ne prodaju. And these exceptions, frankly, have zero to do with logic and everything to do with who had better lobbyists in Washington DC at the time. I ove iznimke, frankly, imate nula veze s logikom i sve veze sa koji je imao bolje lobisti u Washington DC na vrijeme. (Ever wonder why you can rent movies at Blockbuster, but not audio recordings?) In the muddled case of software, publishers rely on EULAs and shrinkwrap agreements, not copyright. (Sve čudo zašto možete unajmiti filmove na Blockbuster, ali ne i audio snimke?) Muddled U slučaju softvera, izdavači osloniti na EULA-e i shrinkwrap sporazuma, a ne pravila.

What does all of this have to do with microtransactions? Što sve ovo ima veze sa microtransactions?

Well, Moorgard said of Second Life, Well, Moorgard, rekao je u Second Life,

Second Life, in so many ways, is an aberration that cannot continue to exist in its current form. Second Life, u tako mnogo načina, jedan je lom da ne mogu dalje postojati u svom trenutnom obliku. As with Mark Cuban’s point about YouTube, Second Life will eventually have to face the music (literally) for allowing the unlicensed distribution of copyrighted content. Kao što je s Markom kubanski je točka o YouTube, Second Life će na kraju morati suočiti s glazbom (doslovno) za čime je bespravna distribuciju sadržaja zaštićenih autorskim pravima.

But in many ways, it’s the copyright regime that is an aberration. No, na mnogo načina, to je autorsko pravo režim koji je lom. For one, it’s only a few hundred years old; prior to that, people copied and reproduced with abandon. Za jedan, to je samo nekoliko stotina godina, prije toga, ljudi kopirati i reproducirati sa odustati. Today, you can get sued for parodying (and even though you shouldn’t lose this case, sometimes you do); for briefly excerpting; for repurposing; for outright use. Danas, možete dobiti tužio za parodying (i, čak i ako ne treba izgubiti ovom slučaju, ponekad ćete učiniti); za kratko excerpting; za repurposing; za izravnu upotrebu. What’s more, the length of time for which a given copyright lasts has been hugely extended. Što je više, duljinu vremena za koje je dano autorsko pravo traje hugely je proširena. The Statute of Anne only granted 14 years for new works. Statuta Anne odobrava samo 14 godina za nova djela.

For another, we’re increasingly entering a world where the notions of “container” are being stretched quite a lot. Za drugi, smo sve unosom svijetu u kojem se pojmovi "kontejner" se pružio dosta. The stretching started to happen when things like cassette tapes, photocopiers, and cameras came along. The istezanje počeli se dogoditi kada stvari kao što su magnetna traka, fotokopirnim, i kamera je došao zajedno. All of a sudden, reproductions of copyrighted works could be created by instantly creating a new container for them. Sve je odjednom, od reprodukcije djela zaštićenih autorskim pravom mogao biti kreiran odmah po stvaranju novih posuda za njih.

Then there’s the issue of streaming content of various sorts. Zatim, tu je i pitanje streaming sadržaja raznih vrsta. The courts ruled a long time ago that it was OK for you to record audio off the radio or TV signals onto videotape. Sudova vladaju odavno da je u redu da audio zapis s radio ili TV signala na videotape. The reason is that there are plenty of non-infringing reasons to do so, most specifically time-shifting. Razlog je u tome da ima dosta non-sporni razloga to učiniti, većina je posebno vrijeme-koji se kreće. In fact, you the consumer pay a premium for blank media of all sorts precisely because of this. U stvari, koju je potrošač platiti premija za prazne medije svih vrsta upravo zbog toga. It is presumed that the added hidden costs on the blank media cover the losses that the copyright holders incur from people pirating stuff off of “streaming” media. To je smatra da je dodano skrivene troškove na prazne medije pokriju gubici da nositelje autorskih prava izložiti se opasnosti od ljudi pirating stuff off "streaming" medija. (The copyright holders actually wanted to instead make illegal the sale of methods to record streams, but the courts found against them). (Nositelji autorskih prava zapravo htjeli učiniti umjesto nezakonite prodaje metode za snimanje potoka, ali je sud pronašao protiv njih).

On the Web, everything is streaming. Na webu, sve je streaminga. In fact, when the content reaches the computer, it is in fact the first time it has been put into a container for sale . U stvari, kada dostigne sadržaja na računalu, to je zapravo prvi put ga je stavio u kontejner za prodaju. This meant that once you bought something via download, in theory you could have then turned around and sold the disk you downloaded it onto, under the doctrine of first sale. To je značilo da kada ste kupili nešto putem download, u teoriji ti mogao imati zatim se okrenu oko i proda disk koji ga skinuti na, prema nauku prvi prodaju. Except that putting it onto a disk in fact is making another copy. Osim toga, nalazi se na disku u činjenici što je još jedan primjerak. In the world of digital data, everything is infinitely, perfectly reproducible. U svijetu digitalnih podataka, sve strane siriti do u beskonacnost, savršeno reproducible. Basically, MPEG encoding or any other form of encoding is just sort of an alphabet, and the plastic disc you have that has MPEGs on it is very much like the paper-and-glue object that carries stuff encoded in a different alphabet. Basically, MPEG kodiranje ili bilo koji drugi oblik kodiranja je samo jedna vrsta pisma, i plastični disk ste da je MPEGs na vrlo je mnogo kao što su papir i ljepilo objekt koji nosi stvari kodirane u nekom drugom pismu. The difference lies in how easy it is to read — some alphabets require special reading tools (like DVD players and screens) and others do not, because our brains are adequate to the task. Razlika leži u tome lako je za čitati - neki pismu zahtijevaju posebne alate za čitanje (kao što su DVD playeri i screens) i drugi nemaju, jer naš mozak se odgovarajuća na zadatak.

This fundamental disjoint with the notions of how copyright and first sale should work is what ultimately bequeathed us the DMCA. In a nutshell, the DMCA says that in this brave new world of easy copying, that it’s illegal to try to get around the technological barriers that publishers may have put into their “containers.” It went further than any previous copyright legislation, and made it part of copyright law that there be anti-copying measures in the decoding tools. Ova osnovna disjunktan s pojmovima kako autorsko pravo i prvi prodaju bi trebao raditi ono što je u konačnici bequeathed nas DMCA. U Ukratko, DMCA zaključuje da u ovom hrabri novi svijet lako kopirati, da je nezakonita da pokušate dobiti oko tehnoloških prepreka da izdavači svibanj morati staviti u njihove "posude." To je otišao dalje od bilo koje prethodne copyright zakonodavstvo, i napravio je dio o autorskom pravu da se protiv kopiranja mjere u alate za dekodiranje.

It also, fortunately, provided something called “safe harbor” for all those poor intermediaries who found that because of how digital media work, that they were making copies of everything that passed through their routers and servers, willy-nilly, without even knowing it. Također, na sreću, ukoliko se nešto naziva "sigurne luke" za sve one siromašnih posrednika koji je utvrdio da zbog, kako digitalni mediji rade, da su stvaranje kopije sve što je prošlo kroz njihovo usmjerivači i poslužitelji, hoćeš-nećeš, bez čak i znajući da . You see, when you send something to someone else via the Net, you’re not sending “it,” you are always sending a copy. Vidite, kada ste mu poslali nešto da je netko preko Net, niste slanje "," ti si uvijek slati kopiju. What’s more, tons of copies get created at intermediate hops all along the way. Što je više, tona kopije dobiti urednik at intermediate hmelj sve uz put. Once it gets reassembled at the other end, there’s another copy there, and if someone then scrapes that content or archives it, there’s another copy. Nakon što dobiva reassembled na drugi kraj, tu je još jedan primjerak postoji, i ako netko onda scrapes da sadržaj ili zapis je, tu je još jedan primjerak. The DMCA says “well, they didn’t know where it was coming from, so they can’t be blamed.” DMCA kaže "dobro, da ne zna gdje je koji dolaze iz, tako da se ne može kriviti nas."

Now, finally, we get to Second Life. Sada, konačno smo dobili na Second Life. That “safe harbor” provision is exactly what both YouTube and Second Life rely on, you see. Da je "sigurna luka" odredba je upravo ono što i YouTube i osloniti na Second Life, you see. That’s why they don’t check in advance what gets posted; if they were in an editorial position, they’d be liable. Zato oni ne provjeriti što dobiva unaprijed postavljene, ako su bili u uredničku poziciju, oni bi biti odgovoran. By not putting themselves in such a position, they can instead just accept takedown notices as they occur. By ne stavljajući sebe u takvoj poziciji, oni mogu umjesto samo prihvatiti takedown obavijesti čim se pojave. As long as they follow the letter of the law, they should in theory be OK. Dokle god oni prate slovo zakona, oni u teoriji bi trebao biti u redu. Lawsuits against the likes of YouTube arise because copyright holders feel that YouTube is following the letter of the law, but not its intent: that they are knowingly profiting off of a flood of copyrighted content that is illegally uploaded, and their business model depends on it, even though they don’t actually have any one specific piece of copyrighted content in mind. Tužbe protiv YouTubea voli, ustani, jer nositelja autorskih prava smatra kako je YouTube slijedeći slovo zakona, ali ne i njegove namjere: da su svjesno profiting off of potop autorskim pravima sadržaj koji je ilegalno učitali, a njihovi poslovni model ovisi o tome da , Iako ne zaista imate jedan specifičan dio sadržaja zaštićenih autorskim pravima, na umu.

This gets even more tangled when you realize that much of the Web works by linking as opposed to just uploading. To dobiva čak i više tangled kada ste shvatili da veći dio Web djela povezivanja za razliku od samo upload. Generally speaking, you can point to anything you like, and because of the way the web works, it’ll show up as part of your content, indistinguishable to the end user. Generally speaking, možete pokažite na sve što želite, i zbog načina na webu radi, ona će se prikazati kao dio svog sadržaja, indistinguishable do krajnjeg korisnika. Worse, an end user could link to something and make it look like part of your site… you get the idea. Loše, krajnji korisnik može link na nešto i učiniti Internet izgledati kao dio vaših web stranica… te dobiti ideja.

I mentioned before that when you buy a piece of furniture in Habbo Hotel, you were actually not buying anything. Sam spomenuo prije da kada kupiti komad namještaja u Habbo Hotel, koju su u stvari ne kupuju ništa. Let’s look at the specific process that we go through: Pogledajmo na specifičan proces da idemo kroz:

• An artist creates the particular arrangement of pixels that we see as a chair when parsed as a particular image format. Umjetnik stvara određeni aranžman od piksela da vidimo kao stolac kad raščlaniti kao određeni format slike. (Keep in mind that it could also be parsed as audio, as braille, as ASCII, or any other of numerous “alphabets”). (Imajte na umu da to može biti i analizirati kao audio, kao Brailleovo, kao ASCII, ili bilo kojim drugim od brojnih "pismu"). It is now “fixed” in digital form, in copy #1 on their machine. To je sada "fiksne" u digitalnom obliku, u kopiju # 1 na njihovom stroj.
• Copyright immediately vests in this artist. Copyright odmah prsluk u ovom umjetniku.
• Except that as a condition of employment, they actually assigned the copyright for their work-related creations to the company. Osim toga, kao uvjet za zapošljavanje, oni zapravo dodjeljuju autorska prava za svoj rad u svezi s kreacijama na tvrtku.
• The work is probably copied up to several servers: a version control database, a build server, a run-time server, and so on. U radu je vjerojatno kopiran do nekoliko poslužitelja: kontrola verzije baze podataka, izgraditi server, vrijeme na serveru, i tako dalje. Copies #2, #3, and #4 are made. Primjeraka # 2, # 3, # 4 su napravili.
• From there, more copies are made as the item is reflected out to the local databases of all the other developers. Od tamo, više primjeraka su izrađeni kao stavku ogleda se u lokalne baze podataka o svim ostalim razvijateljima.
• A user maybe pays the company for the right to connect to the server which has, among other things, a database entry somewhere with the bytes that look like a chair when parsed in a particular way. A možda korisnik plaća tvrtka za pravo da se povezati s poslužiteljem koji je, između ostalog, baze podataka unos negdje sa bytes da izgledaju kao stolac kad raščlaniti na poseban način. Or maybe the user doesn’t pay, and they can connect for free. Ili možda korisnik ne plati, i oni mogu povezati besplatno. Either way, when they connect, they agree with the company operating the servers that there are some activities they won’t engage in with the database, and that the operator can kick them off if the operator so chooses. Bilo kako bilo, kad se spojiti, oni suglasni s operativnim tvrtka na poslužiteljima koji se nalaze neke aktivnosti se neće baviti sa baza podataka, i da operator može ih kick off, ako tako odabere operatora.
• The user pays money in order to increment a field in the database associated with their account. Korisnik plaća novac kako bi se prirast polja u bazi podataka povezane s njihovih računa. Said money goes to the company. Rekao je novac ide na tvrtku.
• The user voluntarily reduces the value of that field in their account, and in exchange gets a pointer in their account to the database entry that holds the bytes that when assembled correctly, look like a chair. Korisnik dobrovoljno smanjuje vrijednost tog polja u njihov račun, te u zamjenu dobiva pokazivač na njihov račun na bazi ulazak u kojem se nalazi bytes da kada se pravilno sastavljen, izgledaju kao stolica.
• At some point, the bytes are fetched from the database, and sent over the network to the user’s client. U nekom trenutku, bytes su preuzeta iz baze podataka, i posla preko mreže do korisnika klijenta. Many copies are made along the way in this process, but most of them are erased instantly. Mnogi su izrađene kopije uz put u taj proces, ali većina njih su odmah izbrisani.
• A copy now exists in memory on the user’s computer. Primjerak sada postoji u spomen na korisnikovom računalu. If it’s cached, it might also get written to the hard drive (so the user has two copies, at least until they exit the program). Ako je spremljeno, to može također dobiti pisani na hard disk (tako da korisnik ima dva primjerka, barem dok se izlaz iz programa).
• The “alphabet” is parsed and the bytes are arranged into a graphic that we recognize as a chair when it is displayed as colored dots on a screen. "Abeceda" je raščlaniti i bytes su uređeni u grafici koje smo prepoznali kao stolac kada je prikazan kao obojene točkice na zaslonu.
• The excited user takes a screenshot, and… The uzbuđeni Korisnik odabire jednu sliku, i…

Oops. Ups. Even though there have been probably a dozen copies made throughout this process, it’s this last one that is suddenly a possible violation of copyright. Iako su vjerojatno postoji desetak kopija napravljena po tom procesu, to je ova posljednja da je odjednom moguće kršenje autorskih prava. Even though the user has two or three copies on their machine at that moment (one in the cache and one in main memory and possibly one in video memory) nobody is worried, because “that’s just how it works.” In fact, if you made a copy of your cache as a backup, in case you had to format your hard drive, nobody would really say Boo. Čak i ako korisnik ima dva ili tri primjerka na njihovom stroj u tom trenutku (jednom u memoriju i jedna u glavnu memoriju i eventualno jednom u video memorije) niko se zabrinuti, jer "da je samo kako se to radi." U stvari, ako je napravio kopiju Vašeg predmemorija kao rezervne, u slučaju da je format za vaš tvrdi disk, niko ne bi zaista kažem izviždati.

But start uploading that screenshot, and someone might get a takedcown notice under the DMCA. Ali, početi da upload sliku, i netko može dobiti takedcown primjetiti pod DMCA. Clip out the pixels that represent that chair, and paste them into another texture and upload it to Second Life, and someone might get a takedown notice under the DMCA. Isječak iz piksela koji predstavljaju taj stolac, i zalijepite ih u drugi texture i postavite je na Second Life, i netko može dobiti takedown primjetiti pod DMCA.

You see, even though the data stream from the server may be encrypted (and it’s illegal under the DMCA to circumvent that), there’s the equivalent of the “analog hole” — you can always just capture what appears on the screen or plays through the speakers. Once the decoder is our senses, there can be no DRM. Te vidjeti, čak i ako je tok podataka s poslužitelja svibanj biti šifriran (i to je ilegalan pod DMCA da zaobići da), postoji i ekvivalent u "analognih rupa" - uvijek možete samo hvatanje što se pojavljuje na zaslonu ili igra preko zvučnika. dekoder Nakon što je naš osjetila, ne moze biti ni DRM.

The Habbo scenario and the Second Life scenario (I told you I’d get there eventually) are in fact identical in every way except the issue of who holds the copyright on it. The Habbo scenarij i drugi Life scenarij (Rekao sam ti bih doći na kraju) su u stvari identične u svemu osim u broju koji zadržava autorsko pravo na to. You can trace the entire chain and get the Second Life scenario with the sole change of dropping bullet #3, the one that reads “Except that as a condition of employment, they actually assigned the copyright for their work-related creations to the company.” And that is why Second Life made headlines back when they irst announced this policy back at the first State of Play conference. Možete trag čitav lanac i dobiti Second Life scenariju s jedinom promjenu pada bullet # 3, onaj koji čita "Osim toga, kao uvjet za zapošljavanje, oni zapravo dodjeljuju autorska prava za svoj rad u svezi s kreacijama na tvrtku. "A zašto da je Second Life je napravio naslov natrag kada se ovo pravilo irst najavio povratak na prvi State of Play konferenciji.

Many companies have asserted that the act of uploading grants them either copyright in the work, or a variety of publication rights. Mnoge kompanije imaju konstatirano da je akt upload grantovi ih ili autorsko pravo na rad, ili niz publikacija prava. In fact, Second Life also has to assert that it grants them some rights, because they are in the business of replicating and distributing this content. They don’t stand in an editorial position, though, because to do so would require that they vet the content for copyright and trademark violations, and that’s expensive. U stvari, Second Life ima za dokazivanje da je potpora im neke prava, jer su u poslovanje Umnožava i distribuiranje ovog sadržaja. Ne stojim u uredničku poziciju, iako, jer to učiniti će zahtijevati da veterinar sadržaja za autorska prava, patente ili povrede, i to je skupo. So they take the position that they do not look at the stuff, they just blindly copy it and redistribute it, just like a forum does when you post on it. Tako su preuzeti poziciju da ne gledati na stvari, oni samo slijepo kopirati i redistribuirati ga, baš kao i forum se kad objavite na njega.

Where does this leave microtransactions? Gdje se ovo ostaviti microtransactions?

Well, everything I have said till now is based on following the letter of the law. Pa, sve što sam rekao do sada temelji se na slijedeći slovo zakona. But in practice, here’s something we do know. No, u praksi, ovdje je nešto radimo znam. The law doesn’t work. Zakon ne radi. Copyright, since the days of the Stationers’ Guild, is premised on social consensus — it is completely unenforceable against anyone outside the law or who does not share the same social framework. Copyright, jer je dana od Stationers ceh, je premised na društveni konsenzus - što je potpuno neprovediva protiv nikome izvan zakona ili koji ne dijele iste social framework. Some countries have something called a “moral right” to creative content, but like most morals, it’s visible only to those who share the same morality. Neke zemlje imaju nešto naziva "moralnim pravo" da kreativni sadržaj, ali kao što je većina morala, ona je vidljiva samo na one koji dijele isti moral.

Ever since there has been copyright, there have been people copying, because copying is the default mode of learning. Od tamo je autorsko pravo, tamo su ljudi kopiranje, kopirati, jer je zadana način učenja. We learn songs by listening to them, writing them down, watching a performance, and sharing tab on illegal guitar tab websites. Mi smo naučili pjesme koju slušate njih, pisanje ih, gledate performansi i dijeljenje karticu na nezakonite gitara karticu web stranica. We learn to paint by copying the Old Masters, and we learn to write by imitating other authors. Smo saznali da se bojite kopiranjem starih majstora, te smo saznali da napišete po koji oponašaju drugih autora. In many of these cases, the copying is subtle; in others it is blatant. U mnogim od tih slučajeva, kopiranje je suptilan, u drugima je napadan. In the cases of fan fiction, we leverage so much of the original creation that there’s little doubt we are co-opting someone else’s creation, without which ours would not exist. U slučajevima Beletristika, utjecati toliko na stvaranju originalnih da postoji malo sumnje smo Kooptirajući netko drugi je stvaranje, bez koje bi naš ne postoji. The line between a legitimate use and an illegitimate one is often questionable — see the recent case of the sequel to Peter Pan, for example. Linija između legitimne i nelegitimne koristiti jedan je često upitna - pogledajte nedavne slučaju, nastavak Petar Pan, za primjer.

In particular, since anything that can be seen by our senses can be reproduced, for better or worse, all digital forms of enforcing copyright are doomed to fail. Every form of encryption is moot, because everything must be decrypted in order for us to see it. At some point, the data is in the clear, and then it can be copied. Konkretno, budući da išta može se vidjeti u našim osjetilima može se reproducirati, za bolje ili lošije, sve digitalne oblike jačanja copyright osuđeni na propast. Svaki oblik šifriranja je sporan, jer sve mora biti decrypted kako bi za nas da vidimo ga. u nekom trenutku, data je u vedro, a zatim ga se može kopirati.

What’s more, the dominant mode of discourse on the Internet is no longer the central-server model that serves the microtransaction systems so well. Što je više, dominantan način diskursa na Internetu više nije na centar-server model koji služi microtransaction sustava tako dobro. Today, end users of remote Internet services upload as much data as they download. This is true even in the case of the closed service MMORPGs that make their living by effectively broadcasting the state of their database to you. Danas, krajnjih korisnika i udaljenog Internet usluge upload koliko podataka kao što su download. To vrijedi čak iu slučaju zatvorenog usluga MMORPGs da čine njihovu dnevnu by učinkovito emitiranje stanju svojih baza podataka na vas. You chat, and they log it, storing gigabytes worth of data. Vi chat, i oni se prijavite, spremanje vrijedi gigabajta podataka. You move, and you do things, and they track a history of frequently highly private information. You move, i vi činite stvari, i oni pratiti povijest često vrlo privatne informacije. And you write reviews to upload to Amazon, you upload graphics in Second Life, and you post stuff on this blog — more data, in fact, in comments than there is in the posts. A ti napiši recenzije za učitavanje na Amazon, da ste uploadali grafika u Second Life, i ti post stvari na ovom blogu - više podataka, u stvari, u komentare nego se nalazi u komentara.

In the end, microtransactions are an ancillary business model because there are copies of everything everywhere. Microtransactions from the server side depend on the notion of monopoly. The artist at Habbo or EverQuest is ultimately able to sell you access to that image solely because you cannot get it any other way. Na kraju, microtransactions su jedan dodatni poslovni model jer su sve kopije posvuda. Microtransactions od strane poslužitelja ovise o pojam monopol. Umjetnik u Habbo ili EverQuest je u konačnici mogli prodati koju sliku da je pristup isključivo zbog vas ne mogu preuzmite ga bilo koji drugi način. But other ways are increasingly available. Ali druge načine sve više dostupni. In order to prevent you from getting it, they have to impose forms of DRM. Da biste spriječili vas iz uzimajući ga, oni moraju nametnuti oblike DRM. They have to tell you “no, you cannot upload images.” They have to tell you “no, you cannot transfer access to these bytes to another user.” But all of these depend on the user not simply choosing to go somewhere else. Oni su se, kažem vam: "Ne, ne možete uploadati slike." Oni su se, kažem vam: "Ne, ne možete prenijeti pristup ovim bytes na drugi korisnik." No, sve te ovise o korisniku nije jednostavno odabrati da ide negdje drugdje. After all, were there a completely open uploading platform like say, Second Life, they could simply take all the screenshots of Habbo furniture and upload them as textures there instead, and thumb their noses at you. Uostalom, tu su bili potpuno otvoreni upload platforme kao što kažem, Second Life, oni mogu jednostavno preuzeti sve screenshotovima, Habbo namještaj i učitajte ih kao tekstura umjesto postoji, i njihovim thumb noses na vas.

We see this in operation on the Web, where easily copied content has led to the result that pretty much everything on the Web is freely available all over the place. Vidimo to u rad na web, gdje jednostavno kopirati sadržaj dovela je do rezultata da je ljepušan velik dio sve što je na web-je i besplatno dostupni na cijelom mjestu. The only thing stopping you are scruples, savvy, and the vigilance of the copyright holder going after every place which hosts the content, sending them DMCA notices to make them take the stuff down. Jedina stvar koju su zaustavljanje scruples, pamet, i budnost vlasnika autorskih prava ide nakon svakome mjestu koje domaćini sadržaja, poslavši im DMCA obavijesti kako bi ih uzeti stvari. Scruples have a way of bending. Scruples imati način savijanje. Savvy has a way of always increasing. Pamet je način uvijek raste. And the latter mechanism, IP-holder enforcement, only works as long as the host site shares the same social context (try enforcing copyright into North Korea, for example). I potonji mehanizam, IP-nositelj provođenja mjera, samo radi sve dok je domaćin site dijeli isti društvenom kontekstu (pokušajte provedbu autorskih prava u Sjevernoj Koreji, na primjer).

The reason iTunes can make money is not the content, it’s the service : it makes music easier to find, with a slick interface and useful databases. Razlog iTunes mogu zaraditi novac nije sadržaj, ona je usluga: glazba čini lakše naći, s točno sučelje i korisnih baza podataka. In terms of actual end-user utility, it’s far worse than illegally downloading stuff off of a P2P service. U smislu stvarne end-user uslužni program, to je daleko gore nego ilegalno skidate stvari od nekog P2P servisa. After all, it imposes all kinds of license-based restrictions on where and how you can listen to that music, and its database is far smaller than the extraordinary array of stuff available on the Web. Uostalom, ona nameće sve vrste licenci-based ograničenja o tome gdje i kako možete slušati glazbu da, i njene baze podataka je daleko manji od izvanrednih niz stvari dostupni na Web-u.

In the end, these are the truisms: Na kraju, ovo su truisms:

• RMT is not about IP. RMT ne o IP. IP is just the method that companies use to maintain monopoly access to stuff in their DB. IP je samo način da kompanije koristiti kako bi održali monopol pristup stvari u njihovoj DB.
• Microtransactions work as long as providers have monopolistic or cartel-level control over the data. Microtransactions raditi sve dok pružatelji usluga imaju monopolski ili kartel-level kontrolu nad podacima.
• In a digital world, it is impossible to maintain said control. U digitalni svijet, nemoguće je održati kontrolu, rekao je. Everything can be copied. Sve može biti kopiran.
• Copyright only functions as long as everyone agrees to it. Copyright samo funkcije sve dok se slaže da svakoga.
• “Broadcast” unidirectional services are going, going, gone. "Broadcast" jednosmjerni usluge su idući, idući, gone.
• Providers can still make quite a lot of money even if they give up on the notion of control, if they instead embrace the idea that what people really want access to isn’t the bytes that look like a chair, it’s the service. Pružatelji usluga, još uvijek možete napraviti dosta novaca čak i ako oni daju se na pojam kontrole, ako se umjesto zagrljaju ideji da ljudi zaista ono što želite pristup nije bytes da izgledaju kao stolica, on je usluga.

In the end, what people want isn’t the picture of the chair, or the picture of the sword. Na kraju, što želite da ljudi ne slike od predsjedatelja, ili na sliku mača. It’s the value of having a chair in your apartment in Habbo Hotel, the value of having a badass sword in EverQuest because you can kill more stuff. To je vrijednost koja ima stolicu u svom apartmanu u Habbo Hotel, vrijednost vlasništvo badass mač u EverQuest jer možete ubiti više stvari. The actual IP bit is mostly useless outside of that context. Stvarni IP bitna je uglavnom beskorisna izvan tog konteksta.

To say that Second Life (or indeed any world which permits uploads of user content) is an “aberration” or doing things “wrong” because they aren’t wedded to the broadcast model and the notion of DRM is silly. Reći da je Second Life (ili bilo koji svijet koji omogućava učitavanja sadržaja od korisnika) je "lom" ili stvari radi "krivu" jer nisu wedded u emisiji model i pojam DRM je luckast. In fact, saying that SL didn’t do enough in terms of implementing DRM is silly — it actually has MORE of it than Habbo does to protect its own assets! U stvari, govoreći: "SL da nije dovoljno učiniti u pogledu uvođenja DRM je budala - to je zapravo više je nego Habbo se kako bi zaštitili vlastitu imovinu!

If anything, it’s the market in Korea not quite catching up to the full implications of the bi-directional Web. Ako ništa, to je tržište u Koreji nije dosta važnih do pune implikacije, bi-directional Web. It’s the misapprehension that this is at core about copyright. To je zabluda da je to jezgra oko autorskih prava. What is really at stake is the question of how much permission users have to reach into the database and twiddle the bits, and whether the results of that twiddling can be considered a service provided to other users in exchange for payment. Što je stvarno u igri je pitanje koliko korisnici imaju dozvolu do u bazu podataka i okretati se u bita, i da li su rezultati koje twiddling može se smatrati usluga pod uvjetom da drugim korisnicima u zamjenu za plaćanje. It’s whether it’s fair game to make use of, resell, or otherwise appropriate content once it’s tied to a container that you own. To je da li je fer igra na korištenje, preprodavati, ili na drugi odgovarajući sadržaj nakon što je vezan za jedan kontejner koju posjedujete. In the end, the debate is actually about whether the screen belongs to you, or to the person sending the bits down the wire. Na kraju, rasprava je zapravo o tome da li je zaslon pripada vama, ili da se osobi slanja bitova niz žica.

The value is in the service, not the content. Vrijednost je u službi, a ne sadržaj. In the service, not the microtransactions. U uslugu, a ne microtransactions. A digital item is worth nothing . A digital item vrijedi ništa. What is of value is the context. Što je vrijednost kontekstu. People are increasingly not willing to pay for the experience of hearing a song by itself in the abstract. Ljudi su sve više nisu spremni platiti za iskustvo slušanja jedna pjesma sama po sebi u sažetak. They pay for the concert as a whole (the iTunes experience as a whole, the CD experience as a whole, the movie-going experience as a whole, the EverQuest experience as a whole), and it will be smart venue operators who survive and make the money in the long run. Oni plaćaju za koncert u cjelini (iTunes iskustvo kao cjeline, CD iskustvo kao cjelina, film-ide iskustvo kao cjeline, EverQuest iskustvo kao cjeline), i ona će biti smart mjesto operatera koji opstane i čine novac u dugoj vožnji.

Edit: two things I didn’t cover (because this was damn long already)… One, trademark is a different beastie than copyright, and there are several legit ways in which trademark protection could be used as an argument against RMT. Uredi: dvije stvari nisam pokrivaju (jer je to kletva već dugo)… Jedan, zaštitni znak je drugačiji beastie od autorskih prava, i postoji nekoliko načina na koje LEGIT zaštitni znak zaštite bi se mogla koristiti kao argument protiv RMT. And secondly, not all data is of course displayed on the client end and therefore will be available for copying. I drugo, a ne sve podatke je naravno prikazan na kraju klijent i stoga će biti dostupna za kopiranje. Much server-side value can be gotten from stuff that is simply never displayed. Većinu strani poslužitelja vrijednost može biti dobivši od stvari koje se jednostavno nikada nije prikazan. The mistake is to rely on copyable stuff for revenue. Grešku je da se oslanjaju na copyable stvari za prihod.