Brainstorm

Miriam, 12 November 2008

What makes the problem so complicated is, I think, the search for sustainable solutions. Do these really lie in the law?
Because, in the real world, the trademark laws are solid, yet infringement is abundantly present everywhere in, for example, the form of illegitimate replicas of products being sold. If laws on this matter are not sustainable even in the real world, then why would they be effective in a virtual world?
Quoting trademark lawyer Martin Schwimmer: "If Nike goes to Chinatown and shuts down 10 sources of counterfeit Nikes, they will have to come back next week to shut down ten more".

Can law be a sustainable solution to this? And, if not law, what else could be used to regulate intellectual property violations? Is there even a different option to think of than laws?


Mr. Savirimuthu, 12 November 2008

Think about you and the brands that attract you? Are you surrounded by branded goods? Home, work, clothes, food etc?
Switch gears - think about your surfing habits. Do you spend lots of time online? Do you notice brands as much as you do offline? Did you notice the 'pop-up' or targeted advertising when you logged onto the Internet?
What do you notice about the way companies market to your generation? And even the generation that was born ten years before you?
Imagine - 1890. It is the industrial revolution. People have started to move from the countryside to the cities. They
have money and time for leisure/entertainment. You had brands then - the law too had a role. Laws and brands were very much tied up with geography and proximity. People were less mobile. Did law provide a sustainable solution? Well - you always had a problem with counterfeits. Nothing has changed - well, something has. Now. How does the Internet change the way companies target their consumers? Then, think about VW. How many registered users? A Marketing Managers dream, don't you think? Pause. VW is different from real world. Sim island is largely user generated content.
If you are a company - how much would it cost you to monitor, police and enforce. Avatars are 'real' people. Think the impossible - can we give our brands away? Go and look at IBM and LANCOME (SL search function). Maybe even Coca Cola.
Therein lies the answer to your dilemma. Law is never a solution, particularly in a decentralised environment.


Miriam, 12 November 2008

I am completely surrounded and influenced (not always consciously) by branded goods. I surf a lot and I do notice that every web site is drained with advertising, and though I do not always look at it and rarely click it, it does somehow have its influence, I think.
Though a virtual world is different from the real one, it does have the important similarity that people can create themselves an image/attitude/appearance with branded goods. And I think this aspect of brands is even more significant in a virtual world, because the possibilites are more extreme and 'more endless'. Or are they not?

The internet makes country boundaries insignificant. Enforcing trademark laws in a world such as Second Life brings along tremendous complexity in pursuiting laws and regulations, because the users all come from different countries and continents, with different laws, am I right? Though Second Life has Trade Mark Laws, and can enforce them, the responsibilty of doing this actually lies with the brand owner. And so if a brand owner wants to fight piracy, it has to track down the avatar's real user, and sue him in real life, which brings along his or hers country's laws and regulations. And this then brings along large costs, much time, and maybe even negative effects on the brand.

So what do you mean exactly by 'giving brands away'? Are you referring to cooperation with users so as to join forces instead of fighting it? That is something Playboy is willing to do, seeing that in the article I posted on our Research Blog, the manager has offered its cooperation with unauthorized Playboy product creators:

Grosso's even offered a few partnership deals with knock-off creators. "In some cases," he said, "we have already said, 'We love what you designed. Are you up for a rev share for using the brand?'
"Some are up for it because we will help promote them," he says. "Some are not so cooperative." In those cases, they've occasionally turned to the vendor's landlord. "Some have signed lease agreements with landlords that say 'no copyright infringement'," Grosso explains, "and when you alert the landlords they shut the store down."

This can be an option, and would probably generate money instead of costing? So, this would be a more sustainable solution to resolve losing value by (mis)use of a brand than investing in monitoring, policing & enforcing? But is it possible? And it would not eliminate the problem, would it?


Mr. Savirimuthu, 12 November 2008

My point about Brands - there are really no "new" questions or issues. What is true of society in the 1800s, is true now. There is no "silver bullet" to the problem of counterfeiting. I was in Beijing before the Olympics - one of the shopping complexes had a big sign in the entrance, claiming respect for IP. The various floors on the Complex sold every conceivable 'knock-off' item of all the leading brands.
VW introduces what I call "lifestyle" branding - corporations like LANCOME, COCA COLA (maybe you can find some more - use the search function under purchases etc) are keen get you and I to define our identities through their brands. We are already doing this - why would a young person walk around with those iPod earphones. What does the iPod brand "say" about that person: cool, unfussy, uncomplicated and savvy. Guess what - is Apple "stopping" you from doing this. They are in one sense giving the brand/image away. Why should VW be different?


Miriam, 12 November 2008

I get your point about brands. Hence, the aim is not to find a 'silver bullet' to eliminate the problem, but to find measures 'to make the most of it'? I mean to turn the company's strategy towards this enormous opportunity and turn the situation into a profitable one instead of a 'profit-decreasing' one? Which, of course, some are already (successfully) doing. Such as, indeed, Apple.

But companies that have already adapted their strategies to this opportunity and that are officially present in the virtual world still lose a significant percentage of potential sales due to trademark infringement and counterfeiting, or not? So there has to be done something against -or 'with' - that situation, and that is the problem we have to find solutions for, is it not?
The unauthorized use of trademarks. The Playboy strategy of offering partnership deals with 'knock-off' creators gives an idea for that problem, right?