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.