LIVEdigitally

I’m going to summarize this entire blog post in 12 seconds for the attention-span-deprived members of my audience:

The Internet is full of tubes, not facts on 12seconds.tv

As is too-often repeated but still ever so appropriate, “with great power comes great responsibility” (it comes from Spiderman). The Internet, but more specifically user-generated content such as blogs, tweets, and vlogs, allows anyone to become a content source. The more one has followers/readers/viewers, the more ‘power’ one has. When I blogged a few months ago that Macbooks would take a 50% share of all laptops, I had a variety of comments show up here (most of which completely missed the point I was trying to make, but that’s a different story). I have a handful of readers, so this didn’t really go anywhere – but had an a-list blogger written the same story, who knows where it’d end up.

Example #1: an earthquake occurred in Los Angeles today. The news spread quickly by both “official channels” and individuals using blogs and twitter. A story went up over at VentureBeat which included a reference to a video posted on 12seconds.tv entitled “5.8 LA Earthquake Recreation 36th Floor.” I added the bolded “recreation” myself for emphasis here because many people took the video as fact. Despite it not looking very “earthquake-ish” and despite it posting 30 minutes after the quake was over. Now the VB article’s been updated, but it has since spawned a post decrying the video as “fake”.

I’m pointing this out because not only did the VB author miss the title of the video (which is understandable), but the follow-up blogger did as well, despite the fact that he was clearly trying to determine whether or not it’s a fake. The power of the original article was so strong that even the title of the video wasn’t enough to make someone researching the topic realize it was baloney.

Example #2: Urban legends. How on earth do these still circulate??? My wife is on a mailing list with thousands of mothers in the Bay Area, they recently got sent an email talking about McDonald’s play pens and hypodermic needles. A simple google search for “McDonald’s Ball Pit” reveals link after link decrying the story as fake. Yet it continues to circulate to and from intelligent people all over the place. Need a better example? How about one tweet to instantly convince 50,000 people that Jared Fogle (Subway Jared) is dead (he’s not). One word here: snopes.

Example #3: Today I saw the following headline on FriendFeed: “20% of Primetime Television Now Watched Online” with a link to this article. Now I don’t read SearchEngineWatch, so I have no idea why they’re covering such a topic, but that’s not quite the topic du jour. The person sharing the article has now propagated the story, and his followers (and the followers of whomever then reshares it) will all be wandering around on- and off-line sharing the fact that 20% of TV is being watched online. Only one problem: it’s not. I did one more google search for the firm quoted in the article (Integrated Media Measurement Inc.) and one click later found this finding: “IMMI finds more than 20 percent of panel members watch some prime time programming online” (again, emphasis for effect). While this is still an important statistics, it is a far cry different from the headline being shared (one which is, in my opinion, quite hard to believe anyway, but that’s another matter). Updated: it’s sad to say, but Reuters now has the “20%” story, and yes, they have it wrong.

I know it’s a lot of fun to be on the cutting edge of information. It’s also fun to learn a new fact and rapidly share it along to your friends and family. But whatever happened to double-checking a source? Let’s face it, the news is more about entertainment and ad revenue than it is about reporting facts and accuracy. Just because it happened online doesn’t make it real. As they say, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

It’s probably not a fun thing to do, telling a half million people that they cannot play a game they love, especially when it’s your game.  Only it wasn’t Hasbro’s game they were playing, exactly, it was a copy of Hasbro’s game.  Hasbro actually purchased the US/Canadian rights to the Scrabble brand many years ago, and for that reason alone is 100%, undoubtably justified in their decision to kill Scrabulous.  But, as Mathew Ingram asked, is it right?  I say yes (and I’m not alone).

First, they were protecting their brand.  While this is a highly-scrutinized activity by the public and media, if you own a brand/trademark you must protect it.  This isn’t just about “a cool homage to their game” it’s about the long-term strength of the name Scrabble (TM).  Had Scrabulous been allowed to continue, this would have set a precedent whereby other companies could also mimic the name and board design and gameplay rules. Like it or not, Hasbro has paid money for these assets, has worked hard to promote these assets, and deserves to have them.

Further on this point, Scrabulous has directly shown that derivative works can become popular.  This makes the threat to the Scrabble brand even more visible.  It’s one thing to have the janky “San-Fran-opoly” games sold in Fisherman’s Wharf where the gameplay is not quite the same as Monopoly, and as a result, nowhere nearly as good in quality (if you don’t believe me and actually own one of these knockoffs, go take a look at the dust on it relative to the real Monopoly/variant set you own).  So Scrabulous showed hands-down just how dangerous a good knockoff can be!

Don Reisinger wrote a good article on the topic, but I disagree with this point:

Instead of embracing the past and clinging to its faulty hope that Scrabble will somehow beat Scrabulous, Hasbro should have realized that the latter has over 500,000 active users at any given time – far more than those playing the board game – and could quite easily monetize that game and enjoy an even greater Return on Investment than it will by shutting it down.

I think it’s safe to say that while a few of the Scrabulous users won’t come back to play Scrabble, the majority won’t give a damn about who did what to who.  The people who were addicted to playing will still be addicted to playing.  Further, anyone coming to Facebook who searches “Scrabble” will naturally find it.  I’m not a big believer that the bulk of current users are as concerned about “the community” as other bloggers make it sound.

This all may sound a little funny coming from me, as both a “community guy” as well as a discordant voice when it comes to copyright issues.  But this isn’t about copyright per se, and I just don’t think the Scrabulous guys (whose product I do appreciate) exactly “deserve” anything here, regardless of their attempts to talk to Hasbro etc.  There are plenty of opportunities to go create games, people do it every day (and I hope that those talented programmers take their skills to build something new and exciting).

Just as we must protect individuals and consumers from large corporations throwing muscle around (big media, oil, insurance, healthcare, food production, etc), companies too deserve the right to protect their assets when threatened.  There’s obviously a fine and delicate line to watch here, but I believe in this case Hasbro is on the right side of that line.