Linden Lab has an extensive history of launching their marketing and advertising campaigns for Second Life to mixed reviews, and their most recent attempts have been no different.

Back in 2009, Linden Lab launched a new campaign on the Second Life website featuring the following ad:

At the time it was launched, I considered this ad to be a major upgrade from the stale, low quality past promotions and I was thrilled that it finally showcased a visually stunning Second Life experience, but others argued that the experience painted by this video was unrealistic and featured impossible instantaneous shopping experiences and interactions without gestures or animations.  Regardless, I have since then comfortably sent individuals who were completely unfamiliar with Second Life to the SecondLife.com website and/or shared this ad with them in order to give them a general view of SL.  That is until last week.

Last week, I noticed Linden Lab had started revamping the SecondLife.com website with new photos and ads.  Apparently, according to Sl.com, Second Life is about vampires.

To be fair, the website also showcases the new Linden Realms game and another female avatar, but the first thing you see is this vampire ad.

I didn’t complain when Linden Lab came out with it’s vampire based Google AdSense campaign as I’m sure it’s a popular theme and I wouldn’t even mind them using it as a secondary display on the webiste, but featuring it alone as the dominant first thing you see on SecondLife.com is sending a distorted and incorrect message about Second Life.

In addition, the image (as well as the other main images you can scroll through) is of poor quality.   Not only are the images not visually stunning, but they fall far short of what Second Life alone (without retouching) can achieve.  The images also feature avatars in stiff, rigid, and unnatural poses with blank stares that are too lifeless and dead for the vampire to pull off.   These images are not at all reflective of the potential of the Second Life platform (as-is) which is capable of producing brilliant, emotion evoking, photorealistic images with striking lighting, shadows, and depth of field, yet they are what potential users will first encounter.

Along with these new web images, Linden Lab has newly debuted the below machinima campaign.

This campaign is much closer to portraying a wider picture of SL, but it is still a far stretch from what Second Life is visually capable of producing.  However, while the biggest complaints about the video are that it misrepresents Second Life, the complaints refer again to things like the animated interactions and not the visual quality.

With Second Life constantly being compared graphically to popular games I would think that Linden Lab would want to show Second Life in the best light, right?

So then, why is Linden Lab underselling Second Life and why does the community want it to?

As my guests and I mentioned on last week’s MetaReality Podcast, many of the advertisements put out by the leading game developers (for games that Second Life is often compared to) aren’t exactly unretouched screen captures.

Take for example this “The Sims 3” ad below:

Last time I played “The Sims 3” it didn’t look anything like that.  The avatars weren’t nearly as realistic or cleanly modeled and I certainly don’t remember that street view.  Maybe it’s just that one ad.  Here’s another ad for “The Sims 3”:

Wow! In “The Sims 3,” I can “create EVERYTHING I EVER WANTED?”   It even, in a way, sounds like it could be an ad for Second Life even though it is much more limited and predefined than Second Life.

Maybe “The Sims” is a bad example.  At this point, everyone knows what “The Sims” is like, right?  Check out this ad for one of the hottest games this year, “Skyrim.”

Whoa, I knew Skyrim had amazing graphics, but real human actors and live action!  Why doesn’t my version of Skyrim look anything like this?

Advertising is an industry that has been built on selling a vision or dream rather than just a product.  While my “Sims 3” and “Skyrim” game play experiences weren’t really anything like their ads, I enjoyed them for what they were and generally understood that before purchasing them.  On the other hand, my Second Life experience may not be exactly like the ad because not everything is so easy or instantaneous, but I honestly find my Second Life experience to be better than its ad.

The ad can’t explain that when I’m in Second Life, I enjoy fashion and shopping even though it’s not instantaneous, and that even though I don’t really experience seamless animations I am so immersed in the moment that a *high-five* or *cheers* in chat feels the same.  The ad doesn’t quite portray the endless possibilities.. in my case, it doesn’t begin to cover the businesses I’ve built, the organizations I’ve helped, the issues I’ve brought awareness to, the once in a lifetime experiences I’ve had,  the friendships I’ve made, etc.  The ad doesn’t tell you that you too can discover the explainable magic of Second Life.

So I ask again:

Why is Linden Lab underselling Second Life and why does the community want it to?

.

In addition to Linden Lab’s official viewer, users can access the virtual world of Second Life through a number of customized third party viewers.  This has created much debate throughout the Second Life community as to whether these third party viewers are safe to use.

While Linden Lab does provide a Viewer Directory that highlights viewers that have self-certified their compliance with the Lab’s Policy on Third Party Viewers (TPV), they have also stated that it is the responsibility of the user to take reasonable precautions, before installing or using a third-party viewer as it is the user (as well as the developer) who is accountable for all risks, expenses, and actions while using a third party viewer.

While these rules and risks apply to all third party viewers, the Emerald viewer has been surrounded in far more controversy and concern than all the viewers put together.  However, it is also believed to be the most popular third party viewer.  While we don’t know for sure the number of users who access Second Life using the Emerald Viewer, most estimates place the figures around 20-30% of all users.

Emerald Controversies

For those who are unfamiliar, the controversy around Emerald begins with the actions of a number of the developers behind the viewer.

Initial apprehension stemmed from the fact that several of the developers were well known griefers and had previous accounts permanently banned from Second Life.  These concern were then followed by a slew of others such as:

• privacy concerns
• reports that developers were data mining and had compiled a database of avatar names, IP addresses, and geo-location information for SL users
• controversy over Onyx and the Client Detection System (CDS)

In addition, last week,  (now former) Emerald developer LordGregGreg published a sharp-tongued post questioning Emerald’s integrity and the moral compass of it’s developers, citing issues such hidden code “that braodcasted your viewers title bar and executable path in a obfuscated manner” and stating ”To the people who have took my word on emerald’s credibility, I apologize deeply for my claims.”

Denial of Service and the TPV

As if that wasn’t enough over the weekend news came to light that Emerald lead developer Fractured Crystal, committed a crime by launching a distributed denial of service attack (DDOS) and used the computers, bandwidth, and (blind faith) trust of every Emerald user to do so.

Emerald PR representative Arabella Steadham denied the attack stating that is was just a prank or “shenanigans” as she called it.

“This idea was to target a blog owned by a creator of a malicious viewer, and boast of the traffic Emerald has captured. The method for doing this was to add links to the Emerald log in page linked to said blog. Each time anyone logged in, our page loaded up and also the other page loaded up – simply to show off our volume of traffic.

This was not a DDoS. This was a poor attempt at boasting that failed miserably. Once we discovered this, these links were deleted and the dev concerned was disciplined.

The entire Emerald Team offers it’s sincere apologies for concern, panic, worry, mistrust and disappointment felt by our users because of this. I can most strongly assure you that this will not happen again.”

As news spread on Twitter under the hashtag #EmeraldGate, Linden Lab began to take notice.  The Security Technical Lead for Lab, Brian McGroarty (aka Soft Linden) responded by stating:

“’Crosslinking’ drops the context of hiding gibberish requests to a critic’s website in a hidden frame that will never be revealed to the user. This isn’t a mere hyperlink to another page or naively stealing someone else’s image hosting.

My read (but I’m no lawyer) is that this looks like 2.d.iii of http://secondlife.com/corporate/tpv.php and we’re already having that discussion. If anyone can come up with specific reasons why this might have had legitimate reason to be there, or how this one could be yet another oversight or mistake, that would be helpful. I sure haven’t heard any to date.”

The TPV policy section referred to states:

“d. iii. You must not launch Denial of Service (“DoS”) attacks, engage in griefing, or distribute other functionality that Linden Lab considers harmful or disruptive to Second Life or the Second Life community.”

Some time later, the Emerald Viewer was silently removed from the viewer directory by Linden Lab.

Eventually Fractured Crystal admitted the DDOS, removed himself from the project,  and transferred control of the project and the web server to Arabella Steadham.

A New Emerald

New owner Arabella Steadham and Emerald Quality Assurance officer Jessica Lyons appeared on the Tonight Show with Paisley Beebe to discuss the entire cluster of events as well as to announce that the Emerald team had undergone a massive restructuring and would be applying again to the viewer directory.

Today the new Emerald site went live.

Trust Issues

While the appearance on Tonight Live was reassuring to some users, many are still questioning  whether the Emerald team can be trusted.

As of this date, the Emerald viewer has not be re-included in the viewer directory, despite the fact that it advertises the listing on the About page of the new site.

Is the Emerald Viewer compliant with the Second Life Terms of Service? Yes, Emerald is compliant with the ToS, the Community Standards, and the Third Party Viewer Policy. We are also listed in Linden Lab’s Viewer Directory.

In addition, while it was announced that the development team was restructured the new site’s team list includes previously scandal-plagued members Skills Hax and Lonely Bluebird (aka Phox).

New owner Arabella Steadham has now also come into question.  During her appearance on Tonight Live she told host Paisley Beebe that she did not lie when she called the DDOS a prank.  She states that she herself was lied to about the attack.  Her lack of technical knowledge has led many to question how she can ensure Emerald’s integrity.  Ms. Beebe also asked her if she would now be accountable to users by providing real world contact information.  She declined stating that she was accountable to Linden Lab and “they know who she is”.

In fact all that Arabella Steadham could offer Emerald users was her apology and her word.

But is that enough?

Project Snowstorm

Third Party Viewers aren’t the only ones who receive criticism.  While users of official Second Life viewer have no concerns about security, privacy, or ethics, they do have trust issues.  Many users anxiously waited for the new elusive Viewer 2 while Linden Lab worked on it behind closed doors.  When it debuted many were not only disappointed, but annoyed by the changes.  In fact, it was these changes that led many to download a third party viewer.

At this year’s Second Life Community Convention (SLCC) Linden Lab announced several significant changes including Project Snowstorm.  Project Snowstorm hopes not only to improve the viewer, but CEO Philip Rosedale says that the Lab wants to “win back the lead”, and have the best viewer overall.  With Emerald users wary of the Emerald viewer, Linden Lab is positioned to do just that, but first they will also have to regain user’s trust.

Project Snowstorm is prepared to begin rebuilding that trust by promising transparency and allowing users to participate in the process.  It sounds like a good plan, but many users are still skeptical that the Lab will follow through with what they say.

Rebuilding

It seems like both Emerald and Linden Lab have a lot of work to do if they want to gain back their users trust.

My suggestions:

1. “Acta, non verba”  - I borrowed this phrase from Crap Mariner who applied it to both Emerald and Linden Lab.  Declaring trust does not create trust. It’s not what you say, it’s what you do that counts.  If you want your users to trust you, show them by your actions.  You are what you do.
2. Lead the debate, don’t hide from it – In our new culture of social media, we now have the ability to identify and address potential crises as they surface.  Users are listening to what you have to say and are eager to hear your response.  Defensive posture implies that you have something to hide.  However, when you are silent, others can create the truths about you.
3. Be Accountable – Trustworthy messages must come from a trustworthy source. Say what you mean and mean what you say.  If you were wrong, or made a mistake, admit it.  Give users a way to communicate.  Robert Scoble is the perfect example of this. Here’s a guy who is an internet celebrity, worked at Microsoft, has just as many haters as followers, and was willing to put his cell phone number on his website.

Update 2:20pm - This afternoon at I received an email from Linden Lab CEO Philip Rosedale that informed Second Life users of the denial-of-service attack and that Emerald had been removed from the viewer directory.  Philip explained that the Lab takes take privacy, safety, and security very seriously and work to protect it.  You can read the for email on (which has been posted on the official blog as well) here.  I applaud Linden Lab for their action throughout this manner.

As users the ball is back in our court.

Who do you trust more?

Can you trust Emerald again?

Are you willing to trust the avatar Arabella Steadham?

Has Project Snowstorm met your expectations?  Have you participated?

The above picture was taken by Jeff Lowe.  The caption reads, “The SL Name Tag simply displays your real name and whatever affiliation you choose as text above the tag. Seems simplistic, but it’s really handy to have a quick visual reference to an avatar’s physical world identity.”

Second Life users have long wanted a way to change their avatar name in a way that did not destroy the history and links associated with it.  In attempt to solve this “identity crisis”,  at the Second Life Community Convention (SLCC) amongst a slew a new features, Linden Lab announced that users would be getting Display Names.

What are Display Names

Display Names will allow Second Life users the ability to choose two names: a unique user name that cannot be changed and an optional Display Name that you can periodically change and that can be set to almost anything that you would like, whether it be an avatar name, your real name, a pseudonym, gamer tag, or even a description.  The change also means that new users will no longer be forced to choose from a limited set of last names (for current users, your existing Second Life avatar name will become your unique user name).

Torley Linden created the below video in order to expand on that what you can do with this new feature and why it’s so important:

Overall, Display Names offer increased freedom to express identity while still providing the ability for users to retain anonymity if they choose.  It sounds good on paper, but many long term users (also know as residents) are not happy with how it is being deployed.  In fact, the announcement seems to be causing more disappointment and concern, than enthusiasm.

What’s Wrong with Display Names

Some of the reasons I have been hearing are:

• It’s the end of an era.  Creative avatar names like Am Radio, TheDiva Rockin, GoSpeed Racer, and Space Dinosaur will most likely become John and Jane Smith.
• It adds a new level of confusion for new residents (as if there wasn’t enough to confuse them already)
• It’s too easy to “grief” someone using Display Names.
• It makes it difficult to report abuse, identify avatars, or find chat logs.

While all of these are valid reasons, with some scrutiny they are mostly inconsequential.

• I agree, it is sad to see the end of the last names lists.  We have come to know a lot about avatars by their last names and have grown found of them and the creative avatars they spawned, but if Second Life wants to move into the future, many potential users were lost at this part of the signup process and simply will not tolerate being forced to choose a limited name.  Virtually every other platform allows you to choose your own name.
• I don’t see Display Names adding a new level of confusion to new users.  In fact, as I stated above, a think it removes one and makes the sign up process that much easier.  Display Names are most likely not something that new users will even be aware of until after they have a better understanding of the platform and the more basic features of SL.
• I think abuse of Display Names will be more annoying than it will actually cause any real problems.  While they might fool someone at first, they won’t end up being any more effective then any of the other ways to speak as someone, etc
• The same thing goes for other methods of identifying avatars.   It might be a little confusing at first, but it is not any different from a friend changing their display name on something like Skype and having to resort to their user name to locate them.

The Real Problem

My concerns are not the result of the uneasiness that often accompanies change in SL, but my belief that we are comparing apples and oranges.  To me, my disappointment was not based on the details of how Display Names are being implemented, as much as that they are being implemented.

Users didn’t ask for a way to display a nickname, they asked for a way to CHANGE their avatar’s name.

It’s the difference between correction tape and an eraser.

While I am excited for this new level of expression, I still consider this a missed opportunity for Second Life/Linden Lab and I hope in the future there will be a better way to link our online presences, if we so choose.

Recently, the PBS program, “Frontline,” featured a 90-minute documentary entitled “Digital Nation: Life on the Virtual Frontier” which examined what it means to live, work, socialize, in a digital world.  I first heard about the documentary from media theorist, writer, and digital native Douglas Rushkoff during his recent appearance on the virtual talk show, Metanomics.  On the show, Rushkoff discussed his most recent book Life, Inc. and the Digital Nation documentary which he wrote with the film’s producer and director Rachel Dretzin.  I was excited as he described how segments of the film came together, stating ”It’s not us telling America, ‘This is who you are.  You are in a digital nation.’  It was more kind of our digital nation telling us who they are, feeding us the stories that they wanted to see covered.”  (watch the full Metanomics episode here)

Unfortunately, when I tuned in I was saddened, disappointed, and frustrated. It’s not that the piece wasn’t interesting or well done, it was just smothered with this overwhelming feeling of inevitable doom.  I wasn’t the only one who felt this way.  Professor Robert Bloomfield who optimistically hosted Rushkoff’s aforementioned appearance on Metanomics just a few days before the show aired, now wrote on the show’s blog, “The emotional thrust of the piece is clearly that life on the virtual frontier is frightening, dysfunctional, and spells the end of all that is good and wholesome.”

I could easily write pages on how I think this documentary asked the wrong questions, how I think a similar program probably aired decades ago with an identical warning about television, how many of us use computers all day long at work and no one calls us addicts, or how at one point I got up and yelled at a dazed mother to stop mourning over her “addicted” son and do some parenting… but I’ve seen many great blog posts discussing all these points and more.  The segment that I haven’t seen discussed enough is the segment on virtual worlds.

The virtual worlds section begins with an interview with Second Life creator Philip Rosedale.  While Rosedale does a great job sharing his visions and enthusiasm, Ruschkoff’s explanation of the fundamental question, what is Second Life, misses the mark.  Ruschkoff says,  “Second Life is an immersive 3D online universe.  You make a character called an avatar, and then you live in that worlds as that person.”   I can’t speak for all Second Life users, but for me, my avatar is not a character.  I also don’t “live” in Second Life, but when I am in-world, I don’t “live as that person.”  My avatar is simply an extension of myself, a 3D representation of me.

Almost as bad as the explanation, is the machinima footage of the virtual world.  There are multiple clips of Ruschkoff’s avatar hopping around in different poorly build locations as he tries to fly.   These are followed by numerous clips of avatars dancing in various locations, and then more dancing, and after that, still more dancing.  In another clip, you see several well known and high profile avatars, like Pooky Amsterdam,  standing around drinking.  Pooky is the avatar behind two of Second Life’s biggest live television shows as part of her award winning production company, PookyMedia.  Yet, despite this, there is no high quality machinima, no footage of these shows.. just dancing and drinking and more dancing.  It’s simply inexcusable to me, that they could “document” virtual worlds without showing ANY quality content or machinima.  I’ve heard several people argue that they might not have had the knowledge, nor the funding to hire professionals.  I’m currently working on a project for the University of Southern California in collaboration with PBS Frontline, and we would not even dream of producing anything but the highest quality content and machinima.  The paradoxical part about all of this is that the Frontline program is funded by the MacArthur Foundation, who also funds some of the most amazing projects and discussions in Second Life.

As if this wasn’t bad enough, Ruschkoff joins the list of uniformed reporters who covered the “failures” of Second Life stating, “For awhile, companies like Coke and Calvin Klein, thinking Second Life would be the next big thing, opened virtual outposts there.   It didn’t work.  Marketing real goods in virtual worlds never really took off.”  The BBC also published a similar uninformed and angled story (just about four months ago) employing the same premise and even using identical images of the closed virtual American Apparel store.  In a response to the BBC, Wagner James Au stated, “It’s astounding any credible media outlet would cite the experiences of American Apparel and Reuters’ ill-fated SL bureau of two-three years ago as if they were relevant to Second Life as it is now.”  While those failures are completely irrelevant, they are also not failures of Second Life, but of the delusive developers who relished in all the money companies were impetuously throwing into Second Life, while they created them big superfluous virtual ghost towns.  How Second Life can be used successfully by brands is a whole other blog post, but it is being done more and more all the time now when organizations take the time to understand the platform and the communities that exist there, instead of simply just building the virtual equivalent of a billboard.

Just when I thought the piece couldn’t be any more off base, Ruschoff dares to ask, “Do virtual worlds really bring us together with others, or do they just make being utterly alone a little more bearable?”  Again, I can’t speak for everyone, but I use Second Life often as my company works in-world almost as much as we do outside of Second Life.  It has nothing to do with feeling lonely.  I am surrounded by people in the real world and in the virtual world.  I don’t go in-world because I am lonely, I go there because I get to experience so many amazing things I would never have had the opportunity to do otherwise (like the time I met Yoko Ono in-world) and because I love helping organizations harness the power of these worlds so that together we can create those opportunities for others.

Despite the documentary’s tone of impending doom, Ruschoff closes the film by stating that you can still count him “among the believers.”  While I doubt that resonated with very many viewers after just being subjected to 90 minutes of fear mongering, I was glad to see that he hadn’t actually changed his mind about technology.  With that in mind, I extend to him an invitation to come back to Second Life, leave the sensationalism behind, and for lack of better words.. take a second look.

Though I disagreed with much of this documentary, it was still very though provoking.  It raises many questions which generate important conversations about technology and the future.  I encourage all of you to take the time to watch it in full and come back and share your thoughts.

Starting on September 14, 2009 virtual items that are in violation of real world copyrights or that infringe on brand owners’ intellectual property will no longer be for sale on Second Life’s ecommerce site, XStreet SL.

In line with their other recent changes, Linden Lab employee Pink Linden announced the new XStreet SL listing guidelines prohibiting the sale of unauthorized virtual replicas of real world products and brands including unauthorized clothing, furniture, jewelry, car designs, use of trademarks or logos, avatars based on copyrighted characters or celebrities, and more.

This move comes after Linden was recently sued by Taser International Inc. for trademark-infringement due to products with ‘Taser’ in their description/names being sold on XStreet SL and in an SL roleplay area.

While the new guidelines are not unexpected, and they will most likely will apply to in-world sales as well, they still leave some unanswered questions and bring some interesting debate. Wagner James Au (aka Hamlet) over at New World Notes points out that “In the real world, you can still buy an unauthorized Barack Obama mask for Halloween. Not so in Second Life very soon.”

In my opinion, brands should be taking advantage of these opportunities especially within the roleplay communities such as Dune, which was recently asked to shut down. There is obviously interest and market within these communities where they could be setting up official representations. Brands are missing a huge chance to engage and tell their stories, where the economy is thriving despite the recession. Now is the time to fill the void that these new guidelines create.

Linden Lab Vice President of Customer Relations Cyn Linden has a very lengthy, but clear and concise post on the company’s official blog detailing their new “Content Management Roadmap” for Second Life content and its creators.

Cyn says that Linden Lab is “committed to empowering content creators to better manage and control their content.” She presented a multi-faceted plan help manage content on several levels.

Improved Intellectual Property Enforcement

“In response to Resident feedback about the time and effort involved in submitting (DMCA) notifications to us, we’ve been developing an improved process. In the not-too-distant future, intellectual property owners will be able to submit complaints to us electronically through an online form. The form will make it easier for intellectual property owners to submit complaints, and it will help us expedite their processing.”

This is a welcomed advancement! If you have ever had any experience with LL’s current DMCA process you’ll know that it is not only lengthy, but also subject to much abuse. The current process allows for claims to be submitted by fax or written letter (regular mail or courier) only. An email addresses was originally provided, but quickly when it became the target of spam, making it difficult to review legitimate communications. Making the filing of DMCA complaints easier will be a significant step to improving this process.

Enhanced Content Licensing

“As we develop our stand-alone, behind-the-firewall Second Life solution, we’re aware of the opportunity it presents for talented and entrepreneurial content creators to reach more customers in a broad inter-connected 3D marketplace. To help facilitate this marketplace, we are developing the ability to attach “sticky licenses” to content sold to enterprise customers running a stand-alone version of Second Life. Content with these “sticky licenses” will have additional metadata such that the license information can “stick” to the content as it is distributed to the enterprise customer’s server, and users of the server solution can review the license terms through the Second Life viewer.”

Currently, technological restrictions known as the “permissions system” that can determine how content can be used in-world. This system is limited though, and does not grant any legal permission to use content outside of Second Life. With the arrival of new solutions, there will be content creators who want to sell or transfer content to these new “private grids.” Enhanced and extended licenses such as what is being proposed will most definitely be needed to both protect and assist content creators.

Clear Polices and Practices for Copying Tools

“As we’ve discussed above, the Second Life “permissions system” does not grant any legal permission to use content outside of Second Life. Even content that is “full permissions” may only be used within Second Life absent a specific license agreement from the intellectual property owner(s) authorizing the content’s use outside of Second Life. Thus, a check that the user is the Second Life “creator” of the content helps protect intellectual property because the “creator” is potentially the intellectual property owner of the content, while a user who is merely the Second Life “owner” of the content is not likely to have permission to use the content outside of Second Life.”

This improvement further protects the enhanced licensing changes discussed. This is also clarification that copying tools are against the TOS. This clarification comes after the disgruntled owner of Rezzbles recently announced, in their most unethical move yet, that they intended to sell the code to their version of copybot (it did not check who the creator was before copying the items on a SIM) called, BuilderBot. It’s great to see LL taken a clear stance against this type of copyright theft.

New Content Seller Program

“As our community grows, Second Life needs a content seller program to help the community trade content safely and trust one another. By “content seller program,” we mean a program that sellers may participate in if they meet certain eligibility standards intended to show a level of trustworthiness and quality of content.
At a minimum, participation in the program will require that the selling Resident:

• have identity and payment information on file with Linden Lab;
• be in good standing and not have been suspended for any violation of the Second Life Terms of Service;
• meet a minimum threshold for content transactions; and
• affirm that all necessary intellectual property rights and licenses have been obtained for all content that the Resident has for sale.”

This program is very similar to Linden’s solution provider program. If implemented successfully, I believe this program would provided a new level of transparency and accountable that would deter most clearcut cases of theft.

Improved Communication of Policies about Intellectual Property

“We are committed to clarifying and updating our policies to promote awareness of intellectual property and protect against infringement. We believe that informative and educational policies often help people do the right thing.”

This is something that will most definitely be needed in the future as the lines continue to blur. It only helps with the above policies in protecting content creators and other IP and copyright holders.

I applaud Linden Lab and Cyn for taking these steps and for so clearly stating in writing their intentions and plan of action. I also am glad that they are giving us, the residents and users of Second Life, the chance to provide our suggestions and feedback in the discussion forums. I highly recommend you take the time to view these discussion and state your thoughts on how best to protect and manage intellectual property.

Whether you like it or not, sex sells… even virtually. That may be why yesterday in Playboy’s Q1 2008 earnings conference call, Playboy Enterprises chairman and CEO Christie Hefner (the daughter of Hugh Hefner) discussed the company’s future plans and in doing so hinted that Playboy may be developing its own virtual world in the future.

While describing the future of the Playboy brand Hefner said:

“It is the strength and appeal of the brand that will drive the company’s future success, and we intend to leverage that in both the immersive real world and in the virtual environment to increase shareholder value.”

Hefner elaborated by saying:

“We believe that the potential of online is much greater than the performance we’ve seen in the last several years. And to realize that potential we have to catch up in terms of technological infrastructure and breadth of content and interconnectedness between what we do in the virtual world and what we’re doing in other businesses in terms of e-commerce, in terms of events, in terms of advertising, in terms of social networking, etc.”

Will Playboy actually develop their own virtual world? They already have what I have praised as one of the most successful, if not the most successful, immersion of a real life brand into Second Life. Do they really need to have their own virtual world? Will this encourage other brands to develop their own virtual worlds? Personally, I think that a virtual Playboy could be a huge success, but it won’t work for all brands, and having multiple separate branded virtual worlds isn’t very viable compared to having one world like Second Life that can encompasses many individual brands while still allowing them each the opportunity to develop their own individual space and identity.

Though I announced a few days ago that I would be bringing back my blog, I waited until today to start writing again. I did this out of respect for my fellow bloggers who write specifically about Second Life. These bloggers held a three day strike from April 15th-April 18th to protest the new Second Life® trademark policy. While I don’t completely agree with some of their arguments and I don’t think striking was the best way to protest, I am not one to go crossing even the virtual picket lines of those who I support in general.

It started when Linden Lab, under the pretext of introducing the new “Second Life® Brand Center,” announced their new trademark policy. In classic Linden fashion, their delivery was mismanaged and outraged the community. The policy was also not very clear. About a week later, Linden Lab offered a further explanation of the policy, but the explanation only reiterated what was already stated and did not further answer any additional concerns or questions. With no real response to their questions, the Second Life bloggers began to protest. SL blogger Gwyneth Llewelyn wrote a petition to Linden Labs and when it went unanswered the strike was organized.

The bloggers did receive a response this time. It addressed many of the issues that were raised, but most of the bloggers are still not satisfied with the answers. They wanted Linden Labs to hold to the old “fansite” policies and to grandfather in everyone.

My opinion is that obviously it would be impossible to grandfather that amount of people in and they are under no obligation to do so. I understand what Linden Lab is now saying contradicts some of the previous “fansite” policies, but Linden Labs is doing exactly what it should do and what they have to do to protect their brand. I think their delivery should have been better and they should have done it a long time ago, but not doing it at all is not an option. If they continue letting people take advantage of the Second Life brand they could lose it completely and it would be quite difficult to then stop others from using it inappropriately.

I suggest that the community stop fighting the inevitable, and make the necessary adjustments. But if you are still bitter, you can vent your resentments in response to Vint Falken’s call for the Best Trademark Parody. Your animosity might just earn you the $10,000L bounty.