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 lawsIn 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.}
I’m following your investigation with great interest. Your inquiries are exactly the type of thing LL should have prepared for ages ago, but (surprise!) doesn’t seem to have formulated a suitable response to.
Agree. They seem very unprepared for this.
btw, has anyone stopped to consider just how unlikely it is for all four bandmember’s names to show up as an option at the same time? There are something like … what? … 40 last names available during any one cycle? And it just so happens that “Vox”, “Mullen”, “Clayton”, and “Edge” are available together (if you check the profiles for the U2 in SL members, they all signed up within 48 hours)? What are the chances of that happening?
I suspect that at the very least those names were picked because of the band members. Whether or not the group that migrated from There put in a request for this to happen, who knows? But Linden Lab defending them in apparent disregard of their own ToS does leave me wondering.
btw, I’m thinking “Nike in SL”. I have documentation to support a claim that I tried to get Nike’s permission.
Also, I noticed that we now have some nice last names we could use. I considered “Joey Bishop” but then I noticed the opportunity to pick “Jim Carroll“. Having met him, I happen to have his autograph. I could do poetry readings … “The Basketball Diaries in SL”!
For what it’s worth, LL usually picks batches of names by theme. Recently, there were names of utensils, onomonopoetic names, names of baked goods, etc. Back before I joined SL, I emailed LL and said I didn’t like the available names, and that I wished they offered some with an ancient Egyptian flavor. They added Anubis, Hathor, and Horus to the list. Great attention to customer service — I signed up as an Anubis for a premium account.
I do business with RL organizations in SL, and my work has included creation of a portrait avatar and branded objects, so I am very glad that this is under discussion. I believe I know where I stand re actual law, but it’s also important to me to understand LL’s position. Thank you for pressing this, Csven.
Food for thought: someone who appears to be from http://www.vrpromotions.com posted in the SL forums looking to hire an avatar creator.
“I’m not sure “hypocrisy” is the right word. I doubt the same person bought the trademarked goods and then later made the call to shut down that biz.”
As a business, Linden Lab should have a clear policy in place (which, btw, isn’t pushed aside when the mood strikes). If as a company they’re not being hypocritical, then the only thing I can say is that they’re being negligent. I prefer the former tbh.
That’s actually what I was wondering. Imagine if a group from There – prior to all the trademark discussions that happened last year – comes along and basically asked for these names. In my opinion, Linden Lab has a pretty dismal record of observing trademarks (as Cereal Milk revealed when he called out their hypocrisy in shutting him down after buying his illegally-trademarked goods). It wouldn’t surprise me if they did this knowing exactly what the intent was.
In addition, it’s apparent that Linden Lab is assuming this group only have good intentions (a naive assumption afaic given the business tie-in). That may be the case; but regardless of what they believe, the ToS is pretty clear and the intent of this group to actually promote confusion as to whether they are “the real thing” or not seems to make this case cut-n-dried afaic. After all, for all we know, it’s the real band hiding in plain sight.
Personally, I couldn’t believe the response Robin provided. And interesting news on VRPromotions. It appears that LL has opened the door to further reputation hijacking just in time. Good job, Linden Lab.
I’mnot sure “hypocrisy” is the right word. I doubt the same person bought the trademarked goods and then later made the call to shut down that biz. It seems more likely some random staffer just wasn’t aware of the ramifications of their actions when out shopping. It’s not terribly surprising, since lots of people don’t understand copyright/trademark, and I imagine by now LL has circulated the appropriate memo.
LL’s approach to the current situation seems to be pretty well in character. Their community management team, in particular, takes a very optimistic and hands-off approach. They seem to like to allow their customers the opportunity to do the right thing , without intervening for as long as possible. “Your World, Your Imagination” . . . as much as is practical. Although it’s true that this policy means less work than enforcement, I don’t think that’s all of what’s going on. I think, based on past discussion with LL staff, that they really are idealists. Which is a nice thing to see in business, or in anyone. However, I’m not as idealistic and optimistic myself, so I worry and question.
I’m not as worried as I might be, because the gang at LL is pragmatic enough to change policy (or interpretation of it) when things don’t pan out. If this weren’t the case, I’d be doing business elsewhere.
Oh . . . the VRPromotions ad went up on the forums *after* the thread re “U2 in SL.” I think someone following that discussion saw an opportunity to turn a buck.
btw, I just did a check on VRPromotions.com and while the most recent registration indicates that the domain was created on 04-feb-2006, I just found a referal log that indicates that same domain name was in use in September of 2004.
[edit: I agree that someone might see this as an opportunity but the thread date is after the domain registration. That referral may be for a different incarnation which simply lapsed and was recently picked up. But it might have been registered after hearing about the recent “U2 in SL” event being promoted. The timeline probably makes sense in that case.]
Good lord, I wish I could help more… this totally isn’t my area though, legalistics and whatnot. I’m a total Forrest Gump at this. @_@
But what I CAN confirm is that indeed, last names often arrive in thematic clusters. I’ve seen a few cyberpunk faves show up, not-too-long after I made a “gentle suggestion”.
Also look for:
-BACHMAN
-TURNER
-OVERDRIVE
Csven it’s times like these I wish I had a LCD panel because your site would look so much crisper than this fading old monitor. :)
Well, Torley, it’s pretty obvious at this point that the Terms of Service in regards to the matter of assuming a real person’s identity are effectively worthless. Not only has my request for clarification of the applicable section been effectively ignored, the excuses provided by Robin make it clear that where the ToS provides a relatively”bright line”, Linden Lab’s actions have made it blurry to the point of being illegible.
Let’s go over this situation:
– Someone signs up for an account using a real celebrity’s full name.
– They then create an avatar that looks like the real person (as best allowable within the constraints of Second Life, but sufficient to garner praise from those outside the community).
– They assume the same occupation as the real person within a group where the other members have done the same thing.
– They stream the real band’s music into SL and “perform” to it.
– The people behind this deliberately confuse residents as to whether these are the actual celebrities behind the virtual doppelgangers.
– Both the band’s and the lead singer’s names are trademarked and are an integral part of the virtual band’s assumed identity.
– {edit to add} The members of the virtual group admit to not having permission from the band or it’s management, and have been found to make claims regarding contacting responsible parties that they later recanted.
Exactly what would someone have to do to actually violate the Terms of Service if this is considered a non-violation??? I can’t imagine doing anything more than what’s been done in this case.
Just wait til someone uses OGLE to pirate the U2 in SL skins and then gives them away anonymously via some free hosting site. We might then see some pron machinima starring everyone’s favorite foursome released as “U2 in SL on Brokeback Mountain”. I don’t believe “U2 in SL” is trademarked. And if “U2 in SL” doesn’t violate the real band’s IP, then this wouldn’t either. And if such a video were to make its way to a site like YouTube…
Slaissez Faire?
Csven wrote, “Just wait til someone uses OGLE to pirate the U2 in SL skins and then gives them away anonymously via some free hosting site. We might then see some pron machinima starring everyone’s favorite foursome released as “U2 in SL on Brokeback Mountain”. I don’t believe “U2 in SL” is trademarked. And if “U2 in SL” doesn’t violate the real band’s IP, then this would’t either. And if such a video were to make its way to a site like YouTube”
Right on. It’s inevitable that proprietary trademarked content will seep into these worlds a billion times over as they become more popular. (Life escaping in Jurassic Park) And every open VW platform will face the same slippery slope issues, just like happened with the peer-to-peer companies. It’s only a matter of time before such VW’s draw in the masses and trademark infringement becomes rampant.
Because I believe that bottom-up structures, many of which will rely on VW’s like SL, will drive the economy in the near-term (generally due to the social intelligence increases they will make possible), I think this issue will turn into a very big deal very quickly, and will likely polarize, as is customary for most contentious issues/ideologies/ideas. And so there will come a time when people call for serious content regulation in VWs.
This brings me to a wacky idea. Due to the tremendous foreseeable social value of these platforms, might it be feasible that a company launch an open VW platform that blatantly disregards IP laws, host the server in a country where that’s permissible, and just let that system evolve? A 100% Laissez Faire system that sticks to its guns as part of its business model? They’re marketing platform could be, “F*ck it. Nobody really owns these ideas. It’s just communication. This structure deserves to exist. And the U.S. or governing world body can’t stop me.” I’m not necessarily advocating such a structure, but do believe that millions of young people would identify with that message and would gravitate toward such a VW.
Of course, the “cover your ass, don’t get directly involved” strategy will rule for the near-term, but maybe there are seriously huge and ka-razy VW/ideological pairings just waiting to emerge, new structures like SLaissez Faire.
Y’know, the model you suggest might not be a bad idea. I’ve never been against piracy or IP hijacking for the sake of the corporations. I firmly believe that piracy actually hurts the consumer in the end via a number of channels. It’s why I often tell people to “get even” with greedy corporations not by stealing from them but by sending business to the independents. There are ways to make money simply from knowing that your content is being pirated. The worst thing we could do to greedy corporations would be to ignore them and their offerings entirely.
Maybe a completely free-for-all system would help the “free everything” crowd to realize it’s not necessarily all it’s cracked up to be.
It is just a matter of time before U2, for starters, just decide to buy up a large plot of land on which they may inforce laws that demand that a percentage of what is being sold by the user within the parcel is legally theirs. If the land has enough to offer to the basic user, vendors will happy to give a percentage away in exchange for mass amount of users the land brings forth.
Also, let’s not forget that Linden is also about to go open source, leaving the legal jargon completely in the hands of the server owner. Linden Lab doesn’t have to be prepared for this because they know that it will soon be in the hands of many others. There will be far too many creations like this in several virtual wolrds and games in the future. Until Sony develops a structure in which a user of Grand Theft Auto is paid for the gun he created, these objects of infringment remain simply as avatars in a little land called Second Life that pose question to IP.
Like Alvis said, “nobody owns these ideas. It’s just communication.” Does someone own my imitation of Mike Tyson? Who owns all of those Elvis look-alikes in Vegas?
Neither U2 nor any other trademark holder needs to own land to deal with the above issue; Linden Lab already has a stated policy of enforcing trademarks. The catch-22 in which they found themselves after making claims regarding the importance of original content brought that out. A shame they didn’t make this more clear – to both employees and residents – early on.
As for Linden Lab going open source, according to either Cory or Phillip, that is a long way off. So they do need to deal with these issues. Assuming they go open source in five years, they might find themselves competing with an as yet unlaunched project. If another project comes along that is the same as SL but has a good, built-in reputation system where people know that they’ll be rewarded for their efforts and not have to worry about a developer’s casual attitude toward intellectual property issues, I’d bet content creator’s would migrate.
The thing is, I don’t expect Linden Lab to “police” anything; trademark or otherwise. But, imo, they do need to enforce it when they encounter it. Not to be “fair” to corporations, but because it’s the best way to educate residents that hijacking someone’s identity is unacceptable. From what I’ve seen, their own actions have done quite a bit to confuse people on this issue. That’s not good for anyone’s future; especially one where more and more people create the product they sell.
As for owning ideas, I could say the same about real land. Remember, the American Indians thought the concept was preposterous. The reasons for all these things are tied to culture and the economy within the culture. If people want “free everything”, they need only to take a look at how that worked out for the former Soviet Union. There’s a reason it collapsed and much of it had to do with their inability to grow their economy to keep pace with the U.S.
The fact is, intellectual property laws have proven to be excellent incentive to spur innovation and economic growth. And both Lessig and Epstein from their own comments believe that assigning ownership of original ideas to the creators is worthwhile. Lessig said it: free doesn’t always work.
As for Mike Tyson, feel free to get plastic surgery to look like him and have your voice changed to sound like him. But the minute you start showing up at boxing clinics getting paid to show people how to box based on who people think you are, there’s a problem. Try impersonating a police office and see what happens.
As for Elvis look-alikes, I’ve not seen any that are booking concerts as “Elvis Presley in Nashville”, lip-synching to his recordings, and performing in movies using his name. Imagine if someone were to do this and then was caught raping a child. How much would that impact the real Elvis Presley estate?
By the way, if Trademark and Reputation are unimportant, why not post using your real name? Also, why not post images of your driver’s license, birth certificate, and any other documents that could allow someone to steal your identity? After all, trademarks are basically reputation. I assume you don’t do these things because you know that the biggest problem for people who have had their identities stolen is that their credit ratings are severely damaged. Sounds like Reputation to me. And Reputation = Trademark.
Nothing is free. Free is a romantic concept. And if there was free, I would be against it. Competition is the one thing that has driven SL to where it is now. A major issue regarding trademark and reputation in SL would be the best thing for SL and any new worlds like it that may emerge. However, your equation that states reputation=trademark is a bit simple. I don’t think the two will remain as mutually exclusive as your math intends.
I don’t place as much value in protecting names or trademarks for the sake of reputation because your reputiation is no longer your name or trademark, it’s your network. And anything negative for a trademark can be positive with the right response from the holder. Example, Metallica really acted like a bunch of *>?!#s in response to Napster’s supposed infringment. They didnt realize it could be the best thing for them if they responded in the right way.
The only reason your identity matters when it comes to managing a credit card is because others have set it up that way. Credit cards will soon look like rotary telephones. Believe me, the fat cats who established the Federal Reserve System were NOT thinking about your reputation. Again, your reputation is your network, you can call it whatever you want and make any logo you want, the value is in the behavior of the network and how that behavior is idenfified by the buyer. A trademark can be bought and sold everyday but the network is where the sustainability is. The whole idea of trademark is already morphing into something new so you can’t carry over the same value from former markets to latter markets in their infancy.
As for dressing up like Elvis and raping a little girl, that seems a bit extreme. It would never impact the Elvis Presley estate. That’s a terrible example. And the reason you don’t dress up like a police officer is because of real danger, not because you could possibly steal their ideas or ebay account. This issue is giving us the chance to develope a new system. We shouldn’t be looking at how we can maintain an old system.
I don’t think Second Life will have the chance to act on this issue. They do however have the choice to sell their servers to private and public companies if the issue gets too nasty.I believe that before SL has the ability to go open source, home consoles will already be installed. The video game market is going capitalize on everything LL has screwed up on. SL is the guinnea pig for this stuff and it wont be hard for Microsoft and Sony to replicate this communication technology while providing a seemless market for newcomers.
Aside from video games, people won’t fully adopt a platform like SL for their business activity until they own the entire mechanism. Second Life as a technology will be mass produced in the next five to ten years under many different names.
As for names. I’m actually posting my business name.
True enough. Nothing is truly free. Unfortunately, explaining how that applies to something like an mp3 file is usually a waste of effort. Too many people just don’t care. They just want.
“However, your equation that states reputation=trademark is a bit simple. I don’t think the two will remain as mutually exclusive as your math intends.”
I agree. My equation is simple. But then at this stage most people think a trademark is just a logo; a graphic stuck on something. That’s why they’re confusing copyright with trademark in the first place.
Unfortunately, discussing anything more complex is likely to get blank stares and glazed eyes. I’ll sacrifice accuracy for a spark of understanding. When people finally see that the two are linked, then I’ll worry about discussing complexities.
“I don’t place as much value in protecting names or trademarks for the sake of reputation because your reputiation is no longer your name or trademark, it’s your network.”
I disagree. That comment as an equation would be Network = Reputation, which is as oversimplified as my equation above. Only I don’t see a reason for simplifying this one. Most people aren’t even ready for the simple version of this concept.
“Example, Metallica really acted like a bunch of *>?!#s in response to Napster’s supposed infringment. They didnt realize it could be the best thing for them if they responded in the right way.”
What’s “the best thing for them” is for Metallica to determine; not us. The point is, it’s Metallica’s right to determine how their music is distributed. It is not everyone else’s right. We are not entitled. The people who were angry were a network of which I’m not a part. Metallica’s rep may have suffered among that crowd, but if I were them, I wouldn’t give a damn.
“The only reason your identity matters when it comes to managing a credit card is because others have set it up that way.”
I didn’t say credit cards, I said credit ratings. Credit ratings are based on an individual’s reliability to pay back a loan. So basically credit rating is a form of reputation system. How and why it exists is irrelevant to the point I was making.
“Again, your reputation is your network, you can call it whatever you want and make any logo you want, the value is in the behavior of the network and how that behavior is idenfified by the buyer.”
And in my comments, the culture is the network. And the economy is a part of the culture. And while corporate trademarks are bought/sold/licensed, in the end they’re an asset that is valued because of what it communicates relevant to the market of the culture in which it exists. So if we’re going to have a culture that punishes those who protect their creative work, then what I’m saying is that such an environment is not conducive to creative, innovative endeavors. So the network can certainly respond negatively to a Metallica, but that doesn’t mean the network is acting in the best interests of future growth. In fact, a focus on immediate gratification is one sign of eventual stagnation.
“As for dressing up like Elvis and raping a little girl, that seems a bit extreme. It would never impact the Elvis Presley estate.”
I disagree. Negative associations do have an impact. Perhaps not always significant, but the point is that no one should ever have the power to unilaterally impact someone else’s reputation in whatever manner.
“And the reason you don’t dress up like a police officer is because of real danger…
I didn’t say “dress up”. I said “impersonate”. Impersonating is illegal and will get the impersonater arrested.
“We shouldn’t be looking at how we can maintain an old system.”
Respecting someone else’s original idea as a means to provide incentive for innovation is a part of the “old system”. And you would replace it with what? Without incentive, what spurs sufficient risk-taking activity necessary for the kinds of innovation that can maintain economic growth?
“SL is the guinnea pig for this stuff and it wont be hard for Microsoft and Sony to replicate this communication technology while providing a seemless market for newcomers.”
There were a couple stories recently on MS’s XBox 360. I need to read them again, but there’s something odd going on. They seem to be attempting to exert too much control. And I thought there would be a stronger showing from their Virtual Market, but I’m not hearing much of anything about it. I’m not sure either Sony or MS is ready for what’s coming.
btw, I just found that the spam is catching up. I’ll leave this open for a response for another day. After that I need to close it.
Your response is assuring. This is not a simple issue.
I do stand by my statement that the network is the reputation. Back when companies realized they could lawfully consider themselves as individuals was an example of responsibility and accountablility spreading throughout a network. This means, the reputation of the company, who is looked at legally as a person, is actually in the hands of the entire network of people that make up the company.
“And you would replace it with what? Without incentive, what spurs sufficient risk-taking activity necessary for the kinds of innovation that can maintain economic growth?”
The kinds of innovation that maintain economic growth are all results of risk, and if they aren’t risky, then they fail and do not contribute to economic growth. The incentive for innovation has everything to do with winning, not even for money, it’s for public and private competition. Game Theory. The old system will be replaced. The new, to me and some others, looks a bit like a Human Resource Stock exchange. Sounds crazy right? It’s not though. Humans are now becoming companies, they are exposed to all technologies that enable reputation building and maintaining. The new system looks like a game between these groups. The major difference is, major players may disclose their stats. When you hide something, you give others the chance to take it from you. If it is open within a network, accountablility spreads among the network. Let’s not get crazy.
Microsoft is already prepared for the virtual market. They are waiting for someone else to introduce it, that way they dont look like a Tyrant. Their new Xbox has all the features needed to exchange virtual goods. Allard knows exactly what’s going on.
I’ll assume you’re being sarcastic in characterizing my comment as reassuring since it’s anything but. I’ll assume you read my entry on the immaturity of South Korea’s netizens. I don’t think those issues are going to get better. On the contrary, I believe things will get much worse for all of us; partly because there is a growing “entitlement culture”.
Let’s just say I’m not blindly optimistic. I’m one of those who “hopes for the best but plans for the worst”.
wrt to company reputations formed by the network of workers, I’m certainly all to aware of that as an ex-military person. Being a “representative” of the U.S. is drummed into service personnel. But your comment actually gets to one reason I consider your equation simplistic: there are networks inside networks linked in various ways to other networks at various levels within societal networks, global networks, family networks, friends networks, consumer networks, etc etc etc. It’s a spaghetti mess.
The problem with using Metallica as an example is that in a network of thieves, the best reputation will not necessarily go to the creators. Additionally, if the big networks – societal/cultural and global – are effectively overrun by the thieves, then there’s little incentive for creating (look at the Taiwanese music industry or China’s effectively non-existent software industry). So why would Metallica even care to remain in that network? They wouldn’t. They’ll align with a network that respects their work and abides by their wishes for how it’s distributed. So while their reputation might be harmed – as you suggest – within one network, it may improve in another. So reputation is dependent on which network and dependent on an observer’s point of view from one network relative to another (and probably influenced by other networks – it’s actually a lot like orbital mechanics).
As I said, it’s more complex than a simple equation as I’m sure you’re aware. But most people aren’t even ready to engage in those discussions. An “entitlement culture” couldn’t care less, so one thing at time.
“The incentive for innovation has everything to do with winning, not even for money, it’s for public and private competition. Game Theory. The old system will be replaced. The new, to me and some others, looks a bit like a Human Resource Stock exchange. Sounds crazy right?”
Not at all. Because we’ve seen this … on Star Trek. The problem is that no where in this utopian vision has anyone outlined what happens during the transition to it. I doubt I’ll live to see a Star Trek utopia, but I’m already seeing the Transition. The only thing I can do now is hope to have some minor influence on reaching the ideal. But to me, that starts with basic respect. Hammurabi’s Code was really nothing more than a respect system (which, btw, started and ended with prayers to the gods). The Ten Commandments are another set of rules codifying mutual respect. And of course our own laws reflect these same things.
Getting angry at a band and calling them names because they don’t like people stealing the content that they created and is their livelihood betrays a lack of respect imo. That’s a problem. An ancient problem.
“When you hide something, you give others the chance to take it from you.”
And when you show it, you certainly give others the chance to take it from you.
The problem is that “take” needs to be replaced with “give”. And when someone gives, they should “get” something in return. An “entitlement culture” does not recognize that dynamic.
As for Microsoft, I’ll assume you missed my prediction post last year: Link. However, again, the things I’ve read lately sound all wrong. Allard is just one part of the MS network!
This is definitely the better of blog pages concerning virtual worlds and their implications.
We have definitely developed into an “entitlement culture.” I suppose this would be contrarian to ask but, is Metallica of that cultural code by demanding money? I definitely find it completely normal to expect something in return for a given service, but I just dont like it when a party reacts negatively without understanding the benefits and disadvantages of a technology. They are of the old mind and an example had to have be made, they were it.
As for networks, yes, it is a spaghetti mess. I suppose you are closing this post soon but I would like to know something, what do you think is in Microsofts plan based on your prediction post, and why don’t you have faith in them?
Metallica is well-known for having scratched out success largely on their own terms; there’s no indication they had any love for Corporate America. But to reach the largest audience, they had to partner with the devil. That was the system our consumer culture had put in place – right or wrong. In the end, it’s the consumers who allow themselves to be manipulated and who determine the winners and losers in the economy, thus shaping the system and the rules for success. But when the opportunity to easily steal music instead of paying for it presented itself, they ditched the rules, pure and simple. It’s not like consumers care about anything else but themselves and their wants. Pearl Jam’s efforts to escape the clutches of the TicketMaster system largely fell on deaf ears. Don’t hear much about that anymore, do we? Consumer activism in action [/sarcasm]. Scratch one band. System intact.
If anything, I think the artists were simply caught in the middle between greedy corporations and “gimme gimme” consumers. This wasn’t about making Metallica an example. It was opportunism.
Anyone who’s read Courtney Love’s amazing Salon.com piece knows that artists generally get screwed in the system. So I don’t think Metallica was protecting themselves so much as speaking up for those bands that couldn’t speak out against the unfair situation developing around them. Metallica was in a position – financially and popularly – to stand up and call it like it was. Downloading a band’s music without their approval is theft; it’s disrespectful. That took guts afaic. And more than one real fan sided with the band. The “gimme gimme” crowd crucified them.
I recall exchanging emails with some MSM journalist writing inflammatory articles and saying people were revolting against prices. During the exchange, the bonehead finally explained how vinyl came from a rare tree in South America which accounted for the justifiably high cost of vinyl albums in comparison to CDs (accounting for inflation, amount of content, etc). I couldn’t believe what I was reading. After supplying a list of links to educate him, he stopped emailing. That was the kind of misinformation that found it’s way to an audience looking for excuses to do what they wanted.
More than anyone, musicians had a front row seat to how Corporate America would respond to the situation, and we’ve largely seen that come to pass: more of the same, risk-averse crap. Mass consumption for the non-discriminating. Innovation as an increasingly rare occurence. American Idol, American Inventor, etc etc. Worse yet, they’re turning the situation into a corporate win by spinning *less* variety into a winning formula: let the people vote! Great.
Lars is no dummy. He knew. I don’t doubt he saw this coming.
Back then, years ago, the argument was, “Hey, let the bands go straight to the people if they don’t like signing record deals.” Of course that didn’t help the bands already signed. As for the unsigned, I watched bands pre-Napster, co-Napster, and post-Napster to see what business models would succeed. Nothing significant emerged. Heck, it’s taken all this time for other avenues to finally open up (e.g. MySpace). Six years. Some bands don’t even last that long. I know a few that died on the vine.
Well, what goes round comes round. American workers are “of the old mind” as well. Let’s see how they like an increasingly uncertain future with no health insurance, no pension plan, lower salaries, fewer good-paying jobs, ongoing overtime, offshoring … the works. Karmic retribution is going to be a bitch.
wrt Microsoft, it’s not that I don’t have faith in their ability to pull it off, I’m just not sure they can loosen the grip sufficiently to capitalize on the infrastructure they’ve put in place. When I have more time, I’ll be investigating what’s going on. I just have a feeling right now that something is off in their camp.
And I appreciate the kind comment. I’ve been into this since the mid-80’s, so it’s nice to finally see things happening.
Do you post video. I have a very interesting interview of Philip Rosedale that I did about a week before a Second Life gathernig in NYC. I asked him some pretty good questions regarding their position.
I might have a couple of months ago, but after getting picked up by some relatively well-known/high-traffic websites, my own traffic has ballooned.
Post it to YouTube. I can embed it here. And I’d be interested in seeing it.