Coming to America w/ John Amos and Samuel Jackson

Jackson was nominated for an Oscar, Amos was nominated for an Emmy, but neither won an Oscar.

Coming to America: Don Ameche and Cuba Gooding Jr.

No audiobook for you

Coming to America with Cuba Gooding Jr and Ralph Bellamy.

Ben was right, but is ineligible to win.

Cuba Gooding played a kid getting a haircut in the famous barber shop scene.

Ameche (and Bellamy) reprised their roles as the Duke brothers from another Eddie Murphy 80s comedy (trading places).

As Will pointed out, the question was inaccurate. It should have read which Academy Award winner and future Academay Award winner appeared in cameos. Ameche has already won his Award and Gooding wouldn’t yell “show me the money” for some time.

Just pointing out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Bellamy
“Final Years

In 1984, he was presented with a Life Achievement Award from the Screen Actors Guild, and in 1987 received an Honorary Academy Award ‘for his unique artistry and his distinguished service to the profession of acting’.”

Although this begs the question: Is he technically an Academy Award Winner? Someone with an honorary doctorate did not earn a doctorate, but technically has one.

Eh who am I kidding, I just want a free audiobook so I can have Wikinomics on my iPod at any time!

Fair enough, Shaun.

You are the winner. Email your snail mail address to mdover(at)ngenera(dot)com and I’ll have it sent to you.

Coming to America aside, the link between Facebook and Scrabulous/Wordscraper brings up some questions. A lot of people were playing a game that pretty clearly infringes on Hasbro’s IP, which brings (at least) three parties into a collusive relationship:

- the Scrabulous/Wordscraper guys;
- the people who played the game; and
- Facebook.

So, Hasbro stepped in and asserted copyright, which was within their right, and at least 50,000 people signed up to protest. The interesting point here is that a Wikinomics-type community was able to exert enough influence to cause a reasonable conflict between company policy/law and the best interests of the business. Hasbro was probably right, but they still came out looking like the bad guys. There’s probably a lesson in there for them about how to play similar “power of the crowd” situations in the future.

There’s also the question of Facebook’s role. While they chose to remain silent on the Scrabulous controversy, there is a knock-on effect to their business. I have personally found myself going to Facebook less often since Scrabulous was shut down for North America (I live in Europe, but my opponents are almost exclusively in the US). I don’t know what the volume of Scrabulous hardcore users means to Facebook, but it’s worth studying. It’s certainly possible that another application could become even more popular–perhaps to the extent that Facebook and that application become analogous–and a conflict between a copyright holder and an enthusiastic crowd might cause harm to the host. This would be the semi-innocent bystander dilemma.

I suspect there’s a lot companies can learn by reviewing how this unfolded. With organizational transaction costs plummeting, it is almost certain that the sometimes uneasy relationship between companies and crowds will become more figural, and that there will be more situations like Scrabulous.

[...] through. After writing a bunch more words than I had intended to in the comments section of a Wikinomics post on Scrabulous, it seemed useful to develop the idea a little more in this space (note: If you want much better [...]

Thanks for the comment, Joseph.

I think that if the wordscraper version came out first (where you can customize the game, even though one option is still “exactly like Scrabble”), they might have had more of a defense against Hasbro.

Facebook, IMO, needs to take responsibility for the content on the site, including where there is copyright infringement.

As for Hasbro, being the bad guys…I guess they were sort of the parents that came home early and busted a great party, but the brothers behind Scrabulous were making a lot of money off someone else’s content and the property owner was looking to protect their brand/investment.