My jaw dropped at this post from Lo-fi librarian. You must see the post for lo-fi’s screenshots. Also in the Times Online.
Field Fisher Waterhouse have opened an office in Second Life.
This is just wrong in so many ways.
The media hype about ‘real world’ businesses and politicians setting up in Second Life has faded after the first rush about 6 months ago, so the publicity value is low - I didn’t see mention of it before yesterday in the mainstream media and that a minor one - so it becomes a classic too-late jump on the bandwagon by a law firm.
And then, in a virtual world where architectural feats of imagination far beyond the dreams of those bound by gravity and engineering are possible, Field Fisher Waterhouse appear to have built (or had built for them) a generic late modern corporate office building (with roof garden for entertaining clients, naturally). Thusly, the message is ‘Lawyers - they’re not too far behind the times but wherever they go they spread corporate greyness’.
Thirdly, as SQMLaw points out, Second Life as a virtual realm, rather than as a company property, is not subject to the laws of any jurisdiction - that is more or less the point - except for the rules set down and policed by Linden, who own and run it (despite vociferous objections from the inhabitants at times). However, given that the currency of Second Life - Lindens - is convertible into dollars, it is probably only a matter of time before questions of jurisdiction emerge.
Lastly - to the suggestion that this could be a virtual meeting place for the firm - do they want their trainees turning up as Daleks, purple baboons and winged dominatrixes? Or to have a crucial meeting gatecrashed by a group of furries? (As I understand it, privacy is a only matter of consent or obscurity in Second Life, but I could be wrong).
I mean what the hell is the point of a virtual world that is exactly like the physical world, complete with Gap, Nike, accountants and lawyers, only with less gravity?
Although less gravity would be nice.
For many, the “point” of this simple: it’s the next interface. When computers got powerful enough, we started clicking little pictures instead of typing lines of instruction. Now, we can run 3D graphics. My argument is that interfaces will always converge toward real life, for the simple reason that real life has a zero learning curve. So in 10 years, if I want a dictionary, I’m going to reach over and take it off a virtual shelf. Not type in “dictionary.com” or whatever. And this (maybe not Second Life, but *some* kind of virtual space) will be basically what a lot of the web looks like in a decade.
In other words, I bet you anything that some idiot was saying the same thing about the first law firm to put up a web site.
For many, the “point” of this simple: it’s the next interface. When computers got powerful enough, we started clicking little pictures instead of typing lines of instruction. Now, we can run 3D graphics. My argument is that interfaces will always converge toward real life, for the simple reason that real life has a zero learning curve. So in 10 years, if I want a dictionary, I’m going to reach over and take it off a virtual shelf. Not type in “dictionary.com” or whatever. And this (maybe not Second Life, but *some* kind of virtual space) will be basically what a lot of the web looks like in a decade.
In other words, I bet you anything that some idiot was saying the same thing about the first law firm to put up a web site.
I don’t think that this idiot was saying what you think they were.
I was moaning about the encroachment onto a ludic realm, not objecting to a graphical world per se.
However, isn’t it worth remembering that online dictionaries etc. took off was because they are often quicker to find and use than searching your bookshelf? The next generation of operating system file search has had to be brought in because of the failures of the desktop metaphor (too much stuff in folders), so emulating real life would replicate the problems in finding stuff of real life.
Real life doesn’t have a zero learning curve, by the way. It has huge one. But I agree it can be re-used.
[...] Legal counsels “Please, No. It’s just wrong.” I tend to [...]
[...] Binary Law asks: “What’s wrong with this life?” in the wake of the decision by Field Fisher Waterhouse to open an office in ‘Second Life’ - worth a read, as is the comment on this development by RollonFriday. Nearly Legal counsels “Please, No. It’s just wrong.” [...]