For anyone who watched the Academy Awards, it was pretty hard not to get a sense that the Academy – and perhaps the movie industry in general – is finally realizing that what they’re really selling is an experience. I consider this both an interesting and important development because it points to some potential changes which may begin cascading into other areas (for reference and background – Link 1, Link 2).

Host Jon Stewart started off the show joking about film piracy and sharing his concern for the welfare of the diamond-encrusted audience. The audience’s response to this bit of humor was definitely on the chilly side. Obviously not everyone has gotten the memo. And even if they have, many probably don’t like the idea of what this potentially means to their bank account. Or to what they’ll need to do in the future to continue being compensated at the levels to which they’ve become accustomed.

Maybe what they need to do next year is have Mark Cuban show up as a surprise presenter because if they don’t re-orient their thinking and their business strategies soon, they’ll surely be left behind. As Stewart informed the audience, their kids are probably upstairs illegally downloading music. If they don’t care to watch the Academy Awards, they probably don’t care to wait around while a bunch of “old” people get their act together either.

The orchestra is playing.

Via Blue’s News I surfed through a Gamedev post (Link) discussing a recent patent granted to Microsoft to a very cool little video (Link) showing what for all intensive purposes is a real-to-virtual interface. I’ve not seen this video before though it might have made the rounds earlier.

I’d post an image but it’s pretty dark and difficult to see what’s going on. It may take a few minutes to understand what they’re demonstrating, but it’s worth seeing if, like me, you might have missed it earlier.

Well, I finally received an answer from Linden Lab on what appears to be a pretty clear hijacking of real world reputation/celebrity. For reference, see my previous post (Link) . You might also want to see some images (Link) of what I consider an obvious case of trademark infringement (as well as a violation of the Second Life Terms of Service) and some images of how this is being used to personally benefit at least one individual involved (Link 1 [ed – link no longer functioning], Link 2).

Here’s the official Linden Lab response to this situation:

What we know:
– the Second Life group who have been holding recreated U2 concerts have tried to get in touch with the band’s management
– until they do, it isn’t clear that the band would be unhappy with the concerts, which are meant to be in homage to the band and its charitable efforts
– there is no evidence that the concerts have been held as money-making events, or that they might not fall under the fair use provision of the copyright laws

In the absence of better information, we’ve asked the group to make it very clear that they are not U2, that the names U2 and Bono are registered trademarks and they intend no infringement, in a way very similar to the way we ask people using the Second Life trademark to acknowledge our ownership of the mark.

If U2 or its management contacts either the SL group or Linden Lab and feels that the avatars or the events violate their trademark registration or their copyrights, we will immediately remove the avatars and content related to the band.

And here’s my response asking for additional guidance so that I can take advantage of this situation:

Interesting to hear that Linden Lab has confirmed that this group has, without doubt, attempted to contact the band’s management in regards to this use of their trademark, reputation, and music.

However, your answer didn’t really address the section of the ToS about which I was asking since this is primarily a trademark issue and not a DMCA issue – which is how you’re now apparently treating this by suggesting the burden is on U2 or it’s management. Given the above answer, residents can only assume that the ToS is not enforced in this regard and that they can, in fact, set up accounts which intentionally use the reputation of a real person. Linden Lab then has the option to pass judgement over that trademark infringement as they see fit.

Now, as I’ve also attempted to contact real life trademark owners, I assume the same applies to me. Can you please inform me what constitutes sufficient documentation such that I can prove that I’ve made similar attempts? I’ve asked a similar question before if you recall, however the answer I received via private email assumed that a legal agreement had been reached between myself and the other party. This is of course very different.

Furthermore, by this answer, I can only conclude that I now have Linden Lab’s permission to:

a) recreate virtual representations of real products and label them in a manner that makes an obvious association with someone else’s trademark (“Disney in SL” for example)
b) use those objects as part of some event which, by itself, wouldn’t clearly make Disney unhappy … even if this causes other SL-based businesses difficulty by competing with their SL “original” events
c) use those objects in a way which leaves question as to how I might – beyond doubt – benefit … like give those virtual representations away for free at my store where I would sell similar objects just branded differently.

If I’m mistaken, please advise me on just how far Linden’s authority goes in this matter. To be honest, I didn’t know LL had any authority until now. And this certainly appears to conflict with previous comments regarding how Linden Lab would deal with trademark infringement.

Where to begin? “Apple in SL”? “Rubbermaid in SL”? “Black & Decker in SL”? “Cadillac in SL”? “Playboy in SL”??? So many brands from which to choose.

{Update: Ginsu Linden has provided what I consider a “no-response” response. Here it is:

Csven, I appreciate your interest in setting clear, “bright-line” rules about these matters. Unfortunately, this is an area where bright-line rules do not exist in real life, and consequently do not exist in Second Life. For example, although the law of fair use (which exists with respect to both copyright and trademark) provides some guidance to those who wish to use the intellectual property of others, no one can tell you prospectively whether a particular use will, without a doubt, be treated as fair use by a court having jurisdiction over the issue. The facts and circumstances of each situation must be judged individually.

If there is a particular situation with respect to which you are either the copyright owner or the alleged infringer, I am happy to provide Linden Lab’s position regarding that situation. However, where you are not a direct party in interest, there are limits to our ability to respond to your questions. I appreciate your indirect concern as a member of the community and a business owner generally – but this concern does not allow me to discuss private matters among third parties with you.

Once again, Linden Lab hasn’t addressed their own Terms of Service which are pretty clear in this situation. What part of their own ToS do they not understand? “You may not select as your Account ID or Avatar Name the name of another person, a name which violates any trademark right, copyright, or other proprietary right…“. Well, the name “Bono” is trademarked when used in conjunction with an audio performance and, given that the appearance of the virtual singer is intended to represent Bono, the lead singer of U2, and the performances in SL are actually the real U2’s music being streamed, Linden Lab’s position is looking pretty nonsensical to me … and I suspect others.

In addition, this part in particular – “However, where you are not a direct party in interest, there are limits to our ability to respond to your questions” – translates nicely into “We’re going to do what we want so keep your nose out of our business even if it isn’t consistent with our Terms of Service and the law.”

I don’t think this is over and will be watching what I expect will be some interesting developments in the days ahead.}

Apparently Bruce Sterling, that’s who. And since he coined the term, I guess it’s appropriate.

I’ll admit to not having paid much attention to his blog lately (I can only take so much Bollywood intrigue) but last night I happened to surf through and noticed a series of “Spime Watch” entries. The most interesting to me were “Spime Watch III” and “Spime Watch VI” (the latter because I’d read Raph Koster’s comments earlier). And now SWIII been picked up by Boing Boing (Link).

If you’re interested in objects that are one rung below self-awareness, you might want to check out Sterling’s blog (Link). You might also want to read up because this is related to my recent posts on architecture (Link 1, Link 2) … which is actually being influenced by something else I’m following.

After just looking over the Manufacturer’s Blog and now noticing that I haven’t had much visual stimuli here lately, I surfed over to Archinect’s gallery and found some interesting images in the “Construction Photos” section (Link). I was feeling in a “manufacturing” state of mind.

The first images that caught my attention were some photos of a Frank Gehry building under construction (I decided not to post an image here – one look at how they go together and you might think twice about entering one).

The next images that piqued my interest were an intriguing series of photos simply labeled “Zaha”. The structure being documented is the Phaeno Museum designed by Zaha Hadid. I suggest you go take a look and keep these structures in mind when I start posting about stuff like robotic termites. Soon.

{Image source: Archinect}