Kampu Oyen

>My question being, if it's okay to use the name/title, Mad Men, why didn't they just state that from the start? Maybe I'm just looking at this wrong.... Precisely. It's entirely reasonable to believe that if it were OK to use the title, they would have done so, and that, conversely, the fact that they did not almost certainly means either that it wasn't, or they at least believed it might not be ("inchoate infringement"?). That the use of a different piece of text produced a bunch of confusion is a separate question, though, at least in terms of whether that may have been partly intentional. One need not agree with me on all points in order to agree with me on one point. I urge readers to consider as separate from the rest of my rants the question of what it means that LL used "MadMen5" as the name of an image for this promotion, given both the description of the items to be promoted, and how items were chosen to be excluded from promotion.

>How about becuase, as we have seen many many times lately, the commerce team sucks at communication, and especially at clear communication. Occam's razor. No need for wild conspiracy theories... That works OK for me, too, at least in this context. Conspiracies are irrelevant to the point this thread was supposed to make. The point being: the Madstyle promotion is derivative of the Mad Men television program, and the title of LL's image "MadMen5" proves this fact. >...> or accusations. The only accusation I want you to care about on this thread is the one stated above; that: the Madstyle promotion is derivative of the Mad Men television program, and the title of LL's image "MadMen5" proves this fact.

>If you make a claim and I point out the stupidity of that claim, I'm automatically "defending" those you make the claim against? Nice logic. What other purpose would be served by pointing out what you think is stupid about it? If you're just doing this as an intellectual exercise, telling us that might be helpful in getting the result you want from this process. >Oh, so it's one person at LL who pushed a button so that you can't see the Marketplace. I wonder whose turn it was today. Who is a separate problem. But it's hardly the first time that this has happened to me, or to others. Post something that someone at LL won't like, and then, suddenly, but "pure luck", the page you need to load in order to continue making your point won't load. The specific page. Of course, if you've never been anything but approving of LL, you'd never have noticed this, I understand. AGAIN, though: this point is completely separate from the point of this thread which you continue to avoid, even as I repeatedly point out that you're avoiding it. Why are you avoiding it?

>but LL is also trying to play off the premise of the show, not just the title. Titles, as such, do not matter. If you change the title of a book and nothing else, it's still the same book, under law. The same applies to motion pictures and to other narrative media, even if a book becomes a motion picture or a motion picture becomes a book, etc. Thus, merely changing the name "Mad Men" to Madstyle in no way changes the fact that the Marketplace promotion is conceptually derivative of the Mad Man television program. But when I say that titles, as such, do not matter, this does not contemplate a scenario, such as the one here treated, in which the covert use of a title provides supportive evidence to the claim that other parts of a work are derivative of the same original source. >Also, I still question, if there is nothing wrong with using it, why weren't they more clear-cut about what they were asking for, in terms of the merchants tagging items? Quite. This way of doing things both invites and leads users to believe that the promotion is conceptually derived from the Mad Men television program. That is: even if it were not so derived, it would be reasonable for users to think it to be, should they discover the image name "MadMen5".

>Sure sounds like a conspiracy to me. ROFLMAO! OK, keep on flogging your little straw man if it's all you've got. I never claimed an actual conspiracy, and, even if I had, it would be incidental to the whole point of this thread, which you abundantly continue to avoid. Why do you avoid it?

>There is no near the "mad men" logo, so it's not copyrighted or trademarked and you're free to use it however. There are likely various types of intellectual properties involved. The title graphic would not need to have a specific trademark notice in order for the rights to the rest of the show to be infringed or encroached-upon, and for the name of LL's graphic "MadMen5" to prove that this has been done. Again: the title, itself, is not all that important; it just shows that the rest of the promotional concept is, indeed, derivative.

>I'm not defending LL. Of course not. Except for the part where you keep suggesting that they've done nothing wrong, which is... well, practically all that you've said so far. >I'm pointing out stupidity. You point out what you subjectively characterize as stupidity while explicitly defending transparently stupid decisions by LL. Can you not see why someone might find that to be strange? >Conspiracy? You're the one who asserted that you couldn't access the Marketplace after this thread went up, not me... That's not a claim to conspiracy. I used LL in the plural as a manner of speaking. All it would take is one person to press the right button. One person isn't a conspiracy, and I've only ever claimed that the ill will of one person would be necessary to get carried out the bad things in SL I have explained are just as likely deliberate as accidental.

No, thanks. I'm not the vigilante forum police. LL's apologists are the vigilante forum police. I'm curious, though, what could possibly be your interest in defending LL on this matter? And why the need to play the "conspiracy" card? It seems like what LL would offer as an argument if they ever bothered to argue with me directly. Moreover, the possibility of "conspiracy" is immaterial to the matter originally at hand, and seems almost like a deliberate distraction. This thread was supposed to be about LL's unstated use of the Mad Men trademark, as specifically confirmed by the image name "MadMen5". Please either decide whether you're denying their unstated use of the Mad Men trademark or not, and please tell us what you decide. Otherwise, it's unclear enough what you are trying to say that it's natural to impute dishonest motives to your contribution here.

>BTW. Love how you insert a disclaimer in there for LL. Almost as good as those IM logging disclaimers It's not a disclaimer. It's an explanation of what they'll be asserting if they use intellectual property as a supposed basis to remove the item. And, other than that, what reason could they possibly have?

>You wasted your time and L$10 on that? This just gets funnier and funnier. It's even funnier that you're wasting more value than that trying to defend LL on this. Or are you getting paid to waste your time? I don't see that your business is bringing in any more revenue than mine, "merchant".

Well, then, if there's no problem, nothing can go wrong with this, either.... right? https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/MadMen5-madstyle-60s-poster-texture-full-permissions/3494539

I wasn't having any problem until I started this thread. But if you really need some background, it's here: http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Merchants/If-psychedelic-is-not-quot-madstyle-quot-then-how-is-anything/td-p/1514703

Yep. Game over and the rest of you yiffers still won't let me in the scritch. Win some and lose some, I guess, eh.

лол

The precise name isn't the point. The point is that we already knew LL was making unstated use of the Mad Men trademark by the way the promotion was being administered. The similarity between the name of the graphic and the trademark of which they made unstated use merely confirms what we already knew. Moreover, if I hadn't just hit some kind of nerve, why would LL now be disallowing my browser to open this URL?: https://marketplace.secondlife.com/ And if there were anything to deny, wouldn't it be a lot less trouble just to deny it than to block me from further accessing the page in question, and yet letting me point out that they have done so? How much deeper do they want to dig themselves in with this? Don't they realize I've been their best friend all along, warning them as early as possible that they're making more and more trouble for themselves every day with this poorly-considered promotion?

It's not only the title that was used. But that the title was also used would seem to confirm that the rest of the trademark was used.

Yeah. Weird. I don't know why I didn't check that earlier. If Lions Gate Entertainment's legal department also didn't bother to check, I've now saved them the trouble. Of course, I suppose there could have been authorization. But then why "madstyle" rather than "madmen"?

Just for kicks, I went to save the Mad Style promotional image to my computer desktop. It turns out that the name of the graphic is: MadMen5 Check it out for yourself. https://d1ij7zv8zivhs3.cloudfront.net/assets/5424408/original/MadMen5.jpg?1334696563

The video echoes what the Heath Brothers say in "Switch", in terms of the way that behaviors that are often attributed to matters of character are better explained by situational variables. And because I prefer to see things that way in any case, there is a kind of temptation to believe that LL can get itself straight just by fixing the situational variables that are limiting them in producing the behavior which they, themselves want to produce. But, also being a scientific person, I agree with your lecturer that intuitions have to be tested. So here's a test: What situational variables will explain the already-announced box shutoff of 1 June without DD support for breedables as anything other than an intentional service downgrade?

A theory of mere incompetence does not explain why the boxes are going to be shut off on 1 June without first providing DD support for breedables. A theory of intentional service downgrades does.

рыба воняет с головы

>Maybe this is the case because unlike many of the other areas of LL, the SL Merchant community and the SL ecommerce (selling & buying of content) is the most complicated, ties into far more unique and critical systems of LL, and most heavily operationally active compared to any other LL areas. i.e. when LL Commerce makes a bad decision or makes a system change, they potentially impact several areas of Merchant operations - even beyond what the LL team realized. That would explain the apparent clumsiness. It would not explain why every step in the process has been consistent with what would be calculated to produce a steady, incremental push on merchants to focus more and more on in-world commerce. > As such, this community is more in tune with everything going on with LL and dont sit back and quietly tolerate poor actions and decisions that come from the Commerce Team. But, really, they mostly do just put up with it. As of 1 June, a whole class of merchants is going to have to go in-world in order to continue doing business (bet on it). And where is the outrage? Most of them have not even posted a complaint about it, anywhere. Maybe, in a way, they deserve what's coming. But that doesn't mean it's a fair thing to do to everyone else, too. > but we better have a huge vat of popcorn Why do I think that's the perfect metaphor? Pick a link... http://www.google.com.co/search?rlz=1C1SNNT_enCO408CO408&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=stale+popcorn+study

>So they did something apparently They did for you, at least. Now, if everyone else affected would just post their own data...

> skins, avatars dresses jeans bikinis tops jewelry hair furniture shoes/boots ... Thank you very much for posting that. One person isn't a very compelling sample, but someone has to go first anyway. Hopefully there won't be any reason for others to follow, but if there is, you've got the door open.

>if search is working correctly, I consider that to be a very reasonable stipulation. People might not game the system so much if the system were not gaming them first.