Our Cheating Hearts

Posted on 6/22/2005 by csven

I’ve probably made at least one previous reference to the problem of design piracy. It’s an issue which resonates with me probably because I’ve seen it first-hand during trips overseas and while conducting tours through manufacturing supplier workshops where the original, patented product is sitting on a workbench and the “we make better” prototype version is being constructed on the shop table next to it – looking for all intent and purposes like the same product. To add insult to injury, there’s also a good chance the tour guide will proudly volunteer how they run the latest, greatest CAD software and then chuckle about how they bought it pre-installed on a harddrive (for some out-of-the-way places, lack of broadband makes this a nice option). That the effort is being both unofficially endorsed and officially rewarded by both Western retailers and consumers, makes the competitive landscape look less like a football field and more like a Cambodian minefield. I’m not saying it’s impossible to overcome these inequities, but I am saying it hurts small Western businesses both directly and indirectly; and like a drug addict enjoying the honeymoon of a new high, there will in my opinion come a time when the honeymoon ends and withdrawal sets in.

If I sound frustrated, I am. Not with the creative effort and process and the joy of designing, but with the nonchalant attitude of the consuming masses who somehow feel it’s their birthright to acquire everything they desire – regardless of how they acquire it or what impact their actions have on others (or themselves). And this applies across the board: from the dirty products they buy in the real world, to the hacked software and entertainment products they download on the internet. The sad part is, I think the honeymoon has yet to reach the bedroom.

What we’ve not really yet seen is the merging of tangible product with virtual 3D content. But we will. And the collision between the two worlds may turn out to be a kind of perfect storm. On the one hand are the learned attitudes and practices of the “download” culture. Add to this the “credit you deserve” and “gotta have it” mentality that leads people to purchase foreign goods which pillage the intellectual capital of their own culture while sending jobs and money to others (not realizing that these things sustain their system and their own quality of life). And on the other hand is the potential to some day download a file and fabricate the product on demand (already a possibility in some sectors, like posters and printed t-shirts). No, the quality won’t be as good initially. And no, rip-offs aren’t normally as well-made and long-lasting as pricier originals. But then since when has the consuming public shown that quality trumps price; just look at the history of Wal*Mart and how they grew to the world-consuming retailer they are today – “From the beginning, Walton had bought goods wherever he could get them cheapest, with any other considerations secondary“).

The world through my eyes – as a creator of both real and virtual product – looks like this:

>Second Life resident public comments – “Yes I violate trademarks…. My personal approach about copyright issues is this: I will break them.”

>Ongoing white collar job lay-offs in the U.S. reported today – “Ford cutting 1,700 salaried positions”

>Virtual products using trademarked brands (above image): SLBoutique fashion accessories

>And the reason for today’s entry courtesy of BusinessWeek blog Well Spent: – “The Cheating Culture”

Again, this is not a new issue for me. Since “reBang” was started with the original intent of creating products that spanned both the virtual and real product worlds, I’ve both observed and commented on it before. I just wish that at this point I had some solid sense of whether the effort is worthwhile.

Second Life Marketing Rope-a-dope

Posted on 6/10/2005 by csven

I spent too much time writing up and posting on the Second Life forum a lengthy follow-up to a question I posed at yesterday’s Second Life “Town Hall Meeting”. It’s way too long to post in its entirety, so I’ll attempt to condense it and post the “summaries” I included.

My original question and the response:

Csven Concord: What guidelines does LL currently have in place regarding the marketing and advertising of RL products in SL, and any measures (if any) to limit the impact of RL advertising on SL’s newly emerging internal markets?
David Linden: People can advertise in SL with prior approval. That’s something that Robin manages.
David Linden: Currently we are not actively pursuing external advertising.
David Linden: next

Not really the answer I was hoping to receive. So here are the first two “summary” requests that have to do with the Linden Lab requirement to submit for approval any inworld advertising of a real life product or service:

A) Could Linden Labs please promulgate the Guidelines for submitting and gaining authorization to advertise inside the Second Life simulation?

B) Could Linden Labs please maintain a listing of RL brands which have been given authorization to advertise inside the Second Life simulation?

The disconnect in all this is that there are already many branded products in the Second Life simulation. Which are authorized and which aren’t? I suspect many of them are unauthorized advertisements as well as being illegal violations of copyright and trademark. But Linden Labs is careful in their Terms of Service to avoid responsibility for user content; they don’t “police”. And their position is both practical and understandable. It also creates an interesting Catch-22 situation for them: how can they filter content but also claim lack of control over content?

More importantly to me, it also creates a problem for Second Life’s inworld content creators. They’re competing in a virtual market increasingly filled with real world brand names. That makes selling original product all the more difficult. And what is their recourse? Well, as far as I can see, they have no officially documented means to address this issue. To file a complaint of copyright infringement to discourage this unfair practice, the complaintant is required by the Terms of Service to include what appears to be a legally-binding statement that not only is the information provided correct (the alleged intellectual property violation) but that the complaintant is the copyright owner or agent of the violated intellectual property. That’s pretty nonsensical to me. The practical result is that content creators are negatively impacted by these rules, and incentives for creating content under these conditions are also negatively affected. Why bother creating a new brand of virtual product when anyone can rip a logo from some real life corporation and plaster it all over their versions of a virtual product and get all that free brand equity… and not have to be overly concerned with the objections of legitimate inworld brands. In a funny way, this reminds me of leather jackets I’ve seen in third world countries – with, for example, “Fruit of the Loom” labels stitched inside (if only they’d known for which products those labels were intended).

So, the summary for that problem was simply:

C) Could Linden Labs please explain this apparent conflict of interest between the handling of content and the acknowledged need to support content creation inside the Second Life simulation?

This is either going to be really interesting or it’s going to be really ignored. I personally see a simple way to deal with this: allow anyone to report intellectual property violations. Of course that would require Linden Labs to be more vigilant in their efforts to filter content. And with the potential to get hit with a liability uppercut, I suspect not getting pinned in a corner is a strategy. Let’s see how long that lasts.

Two Views And Mine

Posted on 6/6/2005 by csven

MIT’s Technology Review site has two interesting entries on the subject of intellectual property. Because this blog covers an intersection of sorts between virtual and real “product” from a designer’s point of view, the topic is – as stated in previous posts – of interest to me. Here’s the links to the two positions:

“The People Own Ideas!” – Lawrence Lessig

“The Creators Own Ideas” – Richard A. Epstein

I’ll be honest, while I appreciate Lessig’s point of view, I think Epstein is more on the mark. Thing is, free tools and cultural freedom have little to do with most of what I come across on a regular basis. Empirically speaking, there’s not really all that much “remixing” as far as I can see in the realm of 3D content; mostly I see accurate, unremixed CG versions of movie characters, props, actors and real world objects/products posted.

For example, take a look at this site, which was front page news on CGChannel recently. For all I know these CG models were created with the open source Blender 3D application, and that’d be wonderful since I very much support Blender. But I bet they didn’t use it. More important is what this person or persons is selling: virtual replicas of designs created – and in all likelihood patented – by automobile manufacturers (Mercedes, Volvo, Audi, etc). Is that wrong? Well, the people at that website (probably) didn’t design these things, yet they’re obviously hoping to make a profit by selling these designs. Shouldn’t they be creating their own designs and selling those instead? Isn’t that the kind of freedom that’s behind much of the open source movement? empowering people to do their own thing? I’d venture a significant number of people doing 3D haven’t read the memo.

Now let’s take this further: if there’s nothing wrong with this practice, why not just scan the real parts instead of laboring in some complex 3D application to recreate them? If profit is the motive – and apparently profit is involved here – then streamlining the process makes sense. Okay, then, so when people can fab their own products, you could have piracy beyond software, movies and music. People could pirate pretty much anything!

Oh wait. We already have some of that:”Yes, it’s a copy of the Honda…”[edit: the link keeps reverting to a registration site, so Google china automobile piracy and select “Piracy on parade at China car show” which is the third or fourth link down](and here’s some more here, and here).

As someone who makes a living as a designer, I can tell you that for those individuals interested in designing, fabricating and selling their own products outside of the corporate cubicle, there is a very real concern that their efforts will not be adequately rewarded. Consequently, since the effort to bring a product to market is substantial, many don’t bother. And that’s bad for everyone.

There’s an old saying that comes to mind when I read/hear people defending piracy and/or preaching the virtues of free everything : “Be careful what you wish for… you may get it.” And btw, that site I linked to above is registered to an individual in South America. Wonder if he attended that rally in Porto Alegre?

(edit: happened across some additional discussion with some interesting links on another blog here)