Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Second Life Mogul Challenges Press Freedom

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the can't-take-a-joke dept.

416

An anonymous reader tipped us to a post on ZDNet about some disturbing freedom of the press issues in Second Life. Content mogul Anshe Chung is filing DMCA complaints with organizations that post screenshots of her content, citing an infringement of copyright. From the article: "The issue has surfaced after the avatar Anshe Chung (real name Ailin Graef) was attacked by animated flying penises during a virtual interview with CNET news, conducted in their Second Life bureau last month. A video of the attack surfaced on YouTube, and was then taken town after Anshe Chung Studios filed a DMCA complaint. The Sydney Morning Herald and the blog BoingBoing have also received similar notices."

cancel ×

416 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Pshaw. (5, Informative)

lysdexia (897) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491620)

Re:Pshaw. (5, Funny)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491676)

Now that's something that won't happen to you in the First Life!

Re:Pshaw. (1)

wrackedmind (902061) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491890)

God bless you kind sir.

Re:Pshaw. (1)

shanen (462549) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491910)

What's to get upset about? It was a such a romantic video!

However, it should have included testicles with the first penises. And maybe the should have been angled more upwards? Just some minor tweaks and it could be the next Love Story .

Re:Pshaw. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17491968)

I remember meeting Anshe Chung at a convention back in 2003. She had some very interesting things to say. But first let me ask you a question, and be honest: which young "celebrity" do you mentally strip naked every time
you see a picture of her?

Mine's a very guilty one Bindi Sue Irwin, daughter of
Australia's late "crocodile hunter" Steve Irwin (hey, can I help it if her Dad met with a tragic
accident? I had the hots for her before that).

I don't suppose someone skilled in Photoshop has ever obliged?

Alternatively, are there ANY genuine pictures of Bindi in anything less
than her classic safari-suit?

I'd love to hear others' "picks".

Re:Pshaw. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17492422)

My favorite would be the fact that I'm not a disgusting pedophile.

That was pure freedom. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17492310)

That was a show of pure freedom, as much as the American Founding Fathers could ever have hoped for.

Without even saying a word, whoever arranged for those pink penises to fly around like that managed to challenge anything the Anshe Chung character might have said during the interview. Such a tour de force only happens once or twice a decade. This video will rank up there with the likes of the "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" and the "The Unknown Rebel" photographs.

Ethically valid (-1, Troll)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491622)

I'm entirely happy with her having that content prohibited; no one is harmed by that material *not* being shown, which means its right and proper for her privacy and dignity to be respected.

It's unforunate this idea isn't part of law, which means she has to resort to the DCMA to get the ethically correct decision made and enforced.

Re:Ethically valid (3, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491728)

I'm entirely happy with her having that content prohibited; no one is harmed by that material *not* being shown, which means its right and proper for her privacy and dignity to be respected.

What privacy and dignity? Something everyone involved seems to have forgotten - This doesn't really involve her . Just an avatar in a "game". And even if it did, the content doesn't actually belong to her, it belongs to (if anyone) Second Life. So what gives this bink the right to go around issuing takedown notices???



It's unforunate this idea isn't part of law

Except, it does exist as part of (case) law - You only have a reasonable expectation of privacy up until the moment you go out in public. The only way this varies from the norm, she can go "out" in public without leaving her computer room.



Someone played a joke on her in a public forum. Someone else captured that joke for posterity. Nothing to see here, move along please.



(IANALBIRGL)

Re:Ethically valid (0, Troll)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491780)

> What privacy and dignity? Something everyone involved seems to have forgotten - This doesn't really
> involve her . Just an avatar in a "game".

I think if my avatar was attacked by flying penis' during a CNN interview, I would be mortified. I expect she feels this way. I think asserting an individual would NOT feel embarrassed and belittled is fanciful.

> And even if it did, the content doesn't actually belong to her, it belongs to (if anyone) Second Life.

It seems to me that since no one is harmed by this material being kept private, and by doing so her dignity is maintained, it is right and proper for Second Life to do so; so I don't see this makes a difference.

Re:Ethically valid (1)

blincoln (592401) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491838)

I think if my avatar was attacked by flying penis' during a CNN interview, I would be mortified. I expect she feels this way. I think asserting an individual would NOT feel embarrassed and belittled is fanciful.

Really? I would be annoyed if my *real* self were attacked by *real* flying penises during a CNN interview, but in a video game? Especially one with incredibly crappy graphics? That's just funny.

Re:Ethically valid (0, Troll)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492116)

If it's funny to you, that's fine. You won't feel the need to have that material kept private. But I hope you respect other people enough to understand that for some, it *would* be deeply embarrassing and they *would* want it kept private. It is not for others to live by your reactions.

Re:Ethically valid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17492240)

And yet its fine for you to try to make others live by your reactions?

Nobody is forcing you to look at it.

Re:Ethically valid (1)

nkh (750837) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492344)

It's just a stupid video game, nothing more. And this woman has huge psychological problems if she is embarassed by anything happening in this game without any connection to her private life (which is clearly the case here). People need to relax and be human beings once again because what she does has implications in real life (with this DMCA crap) and hurt society as a whole just because of fkying dicks in a crappy 3D game... (the same kind of 3D we already had 10 years ago I'd like to add)

Re:Ethically valid (1)

collectivescott (885118) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492432)

While I basically agree with you, isn't this person making money off of the game? That might change my attitude a bit...

Re:Ethically valid (5, Insightful)

iroll (717924) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491904)

Guess what? If you were attacked by flying penises in a public place in real life, I could publish pictures of it and there's not a damned thing you could do about it, no matter how embarrassing or mortifying this might be to you. I could even (gasp) make money off these pictures.

The fact that people are scared that the DMCA gives her this "cyber-power" is just another testiment to its utter malignancy.

Re:Ethically valid (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17492526)

Guess what? If you were attacked by flying penises in a public place in real life, I could publish pictures of it and there's not a damned thing you could do about it, no matter how embarrassing or mortifying this might be to you. I could even (gasp) make money off these pictures.
The idea of getting paid to shoot photos of actual flying penises scares me.

Re:Ethically valid (1)

DJCacophony (832334) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491932)

cnet. a cnet interview.

Re:Ethically valid (2, Insightful)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492208)

I think if my avatar was attacked by flying penis' during a CNN interview, I would be mortified.

I'll bet Dick Cheney was mortified when someone told him to to fuck himself during a CNN interview. [dailykos.com] That doesn't mean that Cheney has any right to squelch the footage.

Re:Ethically valid (1)

mccoma (64578) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492490)

her dignity is maintained
dignity or 'freedom from embarrassment' is not protected under the constitution - free speech and peaceful protest are.

Re:Ethically valid (1)

dr.badass (25287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492188)

And even if it did, the content doesn't actually belong to her, it belongs to (if anyone) Second Life.

Um, no. In Second Life, you own the content you create. Presumably this includes one's avatar.

Re:Ethically valid (1)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492468)

I would think that in the context of SL she falls into the same catagory as real life stars that get harrased by paprazzi. by simple virtue of having her avatar specifically interviewed she is now a public figure.

Re: You mean foolish (4, Insightful)

Badmovies (182275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491732)

This is trolling, correct? "If not showing the event is not harmful, then it is right and proper for it not to be shown - because it is embarrassing to her." Wow.

I have never participated in "Second Life," but understand that it wants to mimic the real thing. In real life, if flying penises attacked someone on camera, I think that any attempt to repress the footage would be a task beyond any force known to man (yes, even Ted Turner).

Re: You mean foolish (-1, Troll)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491792)

> This is trolling, correct? "If not showing the event is not harmful, then it is right and proper for it not
> to be shown - because it is embarrassing to her." Wow.

I'm *horrified* you think this is trolling - that you think this idea is crazy!

What *POSSIBLE* justification is there for publishing material where an individual has done nothing wrong, but where that material would humiliate them in public?

The British tabloid press do exactly this every day and they are responsible for devestating thousands and thousands of lives, for nothing, except to sell their paper every day.

Re: You mean foolish (5, Insightful)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491864)

Go home. You're worse than Prokofy Neva.

Whether publication is justifiable or not is irrelevant to its legality.

Re: You mean foolish (2, Insightful)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492174)

> Whether publication is justifiable or not is irrelevant to its legality.

There is a blogger I've read for a while.

She's very sexually activate and she writes anonymously. Her family have no idea - they're rather straightlaced.

She received an offer to publish her blog as a book. She accepted, on the condition it would be anonymous.

Well, as you can imagine, someone somewhere was bribed and the press got hold of her details - and they had a field day.

The first she knew was when the doorbell rang early one morning. She opened it, and was presented with a bunch of flowers from a flower delivery boy - and a photographer, who was hiding in her front garden, took her photo and ran off.

The newspaper then sent her a letter telling her who she was and what she did, who her parents were, where they lived, and what they did, and told her they were going to publish her identity, and since her photo wasn't very flattering, it would be best for all concerned if she came in for a decent photoshoot.

The papers then published her identity, her family and everyone she knew found out about her and read her blog.

Her life was absolutely and totally devestated.

And for what?

Well, it was done so those papers could sell copies. There was no ethical reason or need for it - and indeed I say there was a bloody good ethical reason asserting that they should NOT publish that material.

So, as I've written in another post already, my point is that the law right now is wrong. People should have an expectation of privacy at all times in all places, UNLESS that privacy would lead to others being harmed.

Re: You mean foolish (0, Flamebait)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492346)

It was her decision to write about her sexual activity in an outrageously and exclusively public place called the Internet in the first place. I daresay that when she fell to the temptation of greed, getting her licentious book published, that her fate was already sealed and nothing would have stopped her family from knowing. If she was over 18 and not living at home, I don't see how her family knowing would've been a real problem. If either of those conditions were false, she shouldn't have written a public blog about her sexual activity.

Her life was absolutely and totally "devestated" because she was a slut and an attention whore.

I don't really have a problem with the paper as they seem to have only reported the facts.
If I was in her situation I would probably have deleted my blog when threatened by the newspaper.

Re: You mean foolish (1)

iroll (717924) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491944)

And while I might not agree with it, I'll go to bat for their right to do so any day of the week.

Re: You mean foolish (4, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492006)

Ok, so let's supress freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Let's hope the oversight committee which decides what's humiliating always agrees with you. We'll let the government decide what to censor. Every speech in which President Bush humiliates the country and himself will now be undocumented.

Do you even appreciate the freedoms you have?

Re: You mean foolish (-1, Troll)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492196)

> Ok, so let's supress freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

How does individual privacy violate freedom of speech?

Do you really need - should you actually have! - the right to find out my most intimate secrets, which harm absolutely no one else, and publish them in public? that's what privacy means.

Right now of course, you don't have that right; when I'm in my home, what I do is private.

What's so different about that also being true in public? given the single caveat, that in all cases, this privacy cannot lead to others being harmed - so no cover ups, no censorship of stuff the State doesn't want people to know, etc.

Re: You mean foolish (1)

lysdexia (897) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492040)

I run a forum for folks involved in the punk scene in a certain midwestern city in the 1980's. We had a wiki (pikipiki acutally) that was created to describe some of the personalities that were involed and some of the very silly and fun times we had.

Some of these silly and fun times involved gobbling drugs, having sex with various other humans (of varying sexes - count them how you will ...) and other things that might cause one to get one's security clearance revoked.

However, the events described ACTUALLY HAPPENED (or were purported to). Therefore any actionable position I was placed into by hosting this wiki were informed by the original poster's evidence (often photographic). That being said, I gladly redacted the wiki when asked, and occaisionally sent a 'stifle yourself' email to a couple of the more vociferous users.

However, if two of these people were arguing in a forum about what did or did not happen, I would not intervene. What purpose would be served by censoring an argument? Or, for that matter, a flamewar? One can point to exactly who the numbnutz' are in a particular conversation without much effort.

Was it impolite on the part of the griefers and embarassing to the 'victim' to see an puppet of herself pelted with penii? Probably. Is it going to be more embarassing (or perhaps more profitable? After all, there is no such thing as bad publicity ...) to be the object of ridicule for acting like the sort of person one would want to see pelted with penii?

I suspect that the whole invocation of the DMCA was done, partly, in the hopes that it would push Slashdotter's buttons (not to mention BoingBoing or any other number of DMCA-loathers) thereby generating buzz. I suspect that we are both complete dipshits for adding pagerank for these people, but hey, I like a good argument! :-)

Re: You mean foolish (1)

dr.badass (25287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492158)

What *POSSIBLE* justification is there for publishing material where an individual has done nothing wrong,

Would it be ok if the individual had done something wrong? If so, who decides if it's wrong or not? Clearly, some people think Anshe Chung deserves the embarrassment.

Re: You mean foolish (-1, Troll)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492330)

> > What *POSSIBLE* justification is there for publishing material where an individual has done nothing wrong,

> Would it be ok if the individual had done something wrong?

Well, that is what I wrote =-)

> If so, who decides if it's wrong or not?

It's not difficult. All contracts must be voluntary and well-informed, and the only justification for involuntary and/or uninformed behaviour (e.g. intervention in someone elses life without their permission) is self-defence, of yourself or others.

> Clearly, some people think Anshe Chung deserves the embarrassment.

That's because people are generally unpleasent to each other and like to cause other people pain because of hate, which in turn ultimately comes from insecurity. Russell wrote about this - he noted that throughout history, it's always been a case of "doing other people good" by torturing them, depriving them, hurting them. How many cases can you think of where "doing other people good" has meant over-indulgence, luxury, etc? how many concentration camps can you think of where people were fed wonderful food and didn't have to do any work? a silly example, but it highlights the point.

Re: You mean foolish (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492220)

You're funny [72.14.253.104]

Re:Ethically valid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17491734)

Except that completely ignores the fact she was attending the virtual equivalent of a public event. The law has recognized for some time now (at least in the U.S) that people don't have a reasonable expectation to privacy in public. I am not sure how you're arriving at it's ethical correctnes. I would argue that if this sets a precedent eroding freedom of the press then people are being harmed.

down with the b***h

Re:Ethically valid (-1, Troll)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491882)

> Except that completely ignores the fact she was attending the virtual equivalent of a public event. The
> law has recognized for some time now (at least in the U.S) that people don't have a reasonable expectation
> to privacy in public.

That's exactly my point. I feel the law here is wrong. Bit of a co-incidence that I was thinking about this last night.

I think that we should have an expectation of privacy at all times, where-ever we are - UNLESS keep that privacy intact would cause harm to other people, by action or by inaction.

I don't see that being in a public place means we have given our consent to our actions being published in a mass circulation publication.

For example, when I used to post to Usenet back in the mid 90s, I knew that although the whole world could read the post, in reality, the readership of the group would read it, and the lurkers, and then after a week or so it would be gone forever.

With that particular privacy limit in mind, I posted as I did.

After a while, DejaNews came along and unilaterially changed the level of privacy available, by storing the posts forever.

I didn't agree to that - I didn't ask for it, or expect it, or want it. I don't like the fact my posts are now archived.

So, to take a real-life example, say I'm in public, at a party. I have a particular privacy limit there - I know the people there, I know they may tell their friends what I do, and that's about it. I'm there, I have that level of privacy.

Now imagine that a press photographer comes along - well, that's a completely different story. Now I know whatever I do could be put on the front cover of a mass circulation publication and literally millions of people would see it and read it.

Well - that I'm NOT okay with. I don't want that and I don't give my consent. So on what ethical basis can he violate my wishes to publish that material, UNLESS it is to prevent me causing harm to others? (e.g. acting in their self-defence).

Re:Ethically valid (5, Insightful)

ameoba (173803) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491978)

Did you even look at the video? She was _on_stage_ with CNet and an audience at a press conference/interview. There's no reasonable grounds for her to expect any sort of privacy in this context.

Re:Ethically valid (1)

Ptraci (584179) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492092)

>Now imagine that a press photographer comes along - well, that's a completely different story. Now >I know whatever I do could be put on the front cover of a mass circulation publication and >literally millions of people would see it and read it. Then you would be completely within your rights to leave the party. You have no right to prevent someone who is allowed in by the host from taking pictures and printing them, and if you would be ashamed to have your presence or your actions in that place publicized perhaps you shouldn't be there.

Re:Ethically valid (1)

Ptraci (584179) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492152)

Is there a way to set the default to text? I'd like to protect me from myself.

Re:Ethically valid (1)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492224)

> > Now imagine that a press photographer comes along - well, that's a completely different story.
> > Now I know whatever I do could be put on the front cover of a mass circulation publication and
> > literally millions of people would see it and read it.

> Then you would be completely within your rights to leave the party. You have no right to prevent
> someone who is allowed in by the host from taking pictures and printing them, and if you would be
> ashamed to have your presence or your actions in that place publicized perhaps you shouldn't be there.

Wrong. It is not for me to run and hide from where-ever the photographer goes. It is for him to only take photos *with my consent* (unless not taking them would lead to others being harmed, in which case he is right to ignore my wishes).

Your argument - it's like saying if the heavy mob come round and threaten to burn your shop down unless you pay, well, then you have every right to leave and set up shop somewhere else.

It's crazy - the real answer is that the heavy mob shouldn't be coming round and doing that in the first place.

Re:Ethically valid (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17492384)

I think that we should have an expectation of privacy at all times, where-ever we are - UNLESS keep that privacy intact would cause harm to other people, by action or by inaction.

If that video hadn't been published, I would have been robbed of possibly life-saving laughter. I would have been harmed. Yes, that's kind of sophistic, but the point is that it isn't so easy to define "harm", and frequently, in ethics, the magnitude of any harm (or any gain) isn't widely accepted to be the only issue, or even the most important one.

Let's turn this back on you. Suppose I claim that we should have an expectation of the right to pass on any information we want in any circumstances we want - UNLESS doing so would cause harm to other people. You may even be with me so far.

Now, suppose I further claim that this particular incident does NOT harm whatsername in any way that's important. Here's where you're going to want to fly off the handle. OK, explain to me why this "harm" to her, which has no effect whatsoever on her physical body, takes away none of her property, prevents her from doing nothing she could otherwise have done, and forces her to do nothing she otherwise would not have done, outweighs even the obviously pretty shakey claim of "harm" if I don't get a good laugh.

If you manage to do that, then you can try the really hard part... explaining why this notional harm that takes place in a game outweighs the very real and obvious harm to large numbers of people caused by people having control over all information about their behavior... or even the harm created by the chilling effect, if every time I publish something I have to guess whether some authority is going to agree with me as to whether or not it caused any possible kind of "harm" to somebody... especially if the authority seems to be willing to accept stick-up-the-ass, bluenosed embarassment at a joke in a video game as a legitimate form of harm.

Utilitarianism has sharp edges. Handle with care.

For example, when I used to post to Usenet back in the mid 90s, I knew that although the whole world could read the post, in reality, the readership of the group would read it, and the lurkers, and then after a week or so it would be gone forever.

With that particular privacy limit in mind, I posted as I did.

After a while, DejaNews came along and unilaterially changed the level of privacy available, by storing the posts forever.

I didn't agree to that - I didn't ask for it, or expect it, or want it. I don't like the fact my posts are now archived.

Oh, you're one of those people.

I remember the whole brouhaha when the "X-no-archive" header was created. That was before DejaNews came along, by the way, and DejaNews honored it from day one, so in fact you did have a choice about being archived by them, and you still have that choice, because Google still honors that header, as well as allowing you to rewrite history by removing your posts after the fact. Neither of those is a courtesy that I would extend to you, by the way.

DejaNews most definitely did not whip out some sort of magic time machine and recreate posts from the past. It's true that it got ahold of posts from the past, but it got them from archives made by others... and the existence of those archives simply proves that your expectation that your posts would evaporate was never correct, and was never reasonable. People were archiving Usenet in various forms from day one, and nobody ever had any control over who did it or what they did with the archives.

In fact, the early news readers used to print big warnings before you made your first post, telling you that posting should be treated as comparable to publication. There was never, even at the very earliest days of Usenet, the slightest reasonable expectation that posts were truly temporary.

Then a bunch of privacy extremists came in and tried to rewrite the rules, using a copyright argument.

Now the same privacy extremists are apparently claiming that their rewritten rules were the original ones.

Feh.

... but you know what? It doesn't matter, because your expectations of privacy aren't relevant. You have no right to privacy in your public actions REGARDLESS OF YOUR EXPECTATIONS... and a cNet interview, in Second Life or anywhere else, is public. Those are the rules, and they have always been the rules, throughout history. Giving an interview carries a risk of embarrassment. Being in a public place carries a risk of embarrassment. Deal with it.

You may not even have any should-be-legal right to privacy in your "private" actions. You might reasonably expect it as a courtesy, but courtesy is, and should be different from ethics, and ethics is, and should be, different from law. You might have an ethical or legal right to expect somebody to honor a promise of privacy, but not your simple expectation.

Re:Ethically valid (5, Insightful)

lysdexia (897) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491748)

I disagree. How much expectation of privacy can one have when one is "representing" as a software avatar in a forum? True, the forum is privately owned and the avatar is considered IP (I think TFA made an excellent analogy to a piece of haute coture), but if someone beaned Ted Kennedy with a rubber phallus at a private Democratic Party fundraiser and someone caught a picture of it, would that not fall under fair use for it to be distributed for no cost, regardless of whether Mr. K was wearing a bespoke suit by Jaques Penne?

I could understand your argument if it were a nekkid picture taken by a peeping tom in a persons bathroom, but lets take a step back, eh?

As far as "harm by omission" goes, isn't cumulative public opinion and devloping more's something that a court must take into effect? One might present logs showing a number of viewings vs. complaints lodged as a bit of evidence? Yeah, derivative, but I'm having a hard time finding harm on either side of this! :-)

Re:Ethically valid (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17491854)


""I'm entirely happy with her having that content prohibited; no one is harmed by that material *not* being shown, which means its right and proper for her privacy and dignity to be respected.

It's unforunate this idea isn't part of law, which means she has to resort to the DCMA to get the ethically correct decision made and enforced.""


You DO realize Second Life is a game, and we're now talking about changing LAWS because of disputes arising from GAMES which have consequences such as JAIL TIME, correct?

If ANYONE has been irresponsable here, it's the company which created and profits from second life and the users of that game. The company has been irresponsable for allowing its customers to get so involved in their game, which they provide, that they can not detach, and the users have become irresponsable for allowing their lives to revolve around a game. Trust me on this one; I was RAISED by a SNES and NES because my parents were too cheap and shitty to teach me things like social skills and now that I have social skills and a real life, I consider those more important than any digital personsa I may have.

I mean, seriously, the world CAN'T have gone THIS far down the tubes, to the point we're using laws to protect the "dignity and privacy" of digital characters within a game. For fucks sakes, if you've gone that far into a game, you need to shred your disks, delete your characters, unsubscribe your account then sledghamer, douse in gasoline and burn your computer.

After doing that, you need to wash the caked sweat and dead skin which has formed infectious rashes all over your body, off of your body, then eat some steak and salad and go get some sunshine. Find a job, lose or gain some weight (where applicable), then dress nice and go find yourself some friends or date. The first one is always the hardest and after that they come easier.

And if you have an itch for a game, go play something [b]with an ending[/b].

Re:Ethically valid (1)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491926)

Well said, although I would like to point out that since real money trades hands *both* ways in this massively-multiplayer online game, things become a little different.

"Anshe Chung" is a real-life multimillionaire because of "her" Second Life real estate speculation, hence the CNET interview. The economy of Second Life trades about a million USD every day. This, I must note, is also a game where you can put Hermione in bondage gear and have her raped on a rack by a half-naked Santa Claus and anthropomorphic foxes with multiple penises. Hence the griefers and Something Awful's Second Life Safari. I have to congratulate Chris "Petey" Peterson for what he's been doing with that.

Re:Ethically valid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17492332)

This, I must note, is also a game where you can put Hermione in bondage gear and have her raped on a rack by a half-naked Santa Claus and anthropomorphic foxes with multiple penises. Hence the griefers and Something Awful's Second Life Safari. I have to congratulate Chris "Petey" Peterson for what he's been doing with that.
Really? I want the Google video of that one!

Re:Ethically valid (0, Troll)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491896)

The ./ mods really disappoint me.

My post - which has not been modded up - has now been modded "-3 Overrated".

This is, I think, because if anyone so much as mentions ANYTHING which implies complete and utter freedom of information is wrong, mods go bananas and suppress the post.

FUCKING ironic, isn't it?

Re:Ethically valid (1)

MilenCent (219397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491972)

While the Overrated mod IS frequently abused (take a look to what'll probably happen to this comment), the real shame here is that your original post wasn't marked -3 Troll instead. The Overrated mod is used because it's immune to metamoderation.

Re:Ethically valid (0, Troll)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492072)

Your post is as disappointing as the original moderation abuse.

Like seemingly many /.ers, views that are not agreed with are considered trolling.

This is a desperately narrow mindset. There seems to be a fundamental inability to comprehend that other people can genuinely hold views that are not understood by the reader.

Re:Ethically valid (1)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492252)

All right, I for one know that you are, in fact, incredibly naive and believe wholeheartedly that what "Anshe Chung" is doing is ethical.

You should try to understand that it is easy for many people to "mistake" your viewpoint for trolling because of several things:

Many of the people who are replying to you have written troll posts or been caught and embarrassed by trolls in the past. The humiliating experience of the latter is not quickly forgotten.

It is a likely viewpoint that a troll might take in order to get many heated replies.

It APPLAUDS the twisting of an extant US copyright law to cover a merely embarrassing situation involving things that happened in a public interview to a virtual avatar that Ailin Graef has probably attached a bit *too* much of her sizable ego to on what amounts to a video game.

You wholeheartedly endorse the overturning of United States case law that states that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. We came to this understanding over many years in order to accomodate FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. Hence the article title. Whether you marred the distinction between public and private life intentionally or merely fumbled in your conflation thereof due to a grave lack of understanding, I do not ken.

You do all this because you think it's "not nice" to fling animated penises at people who happen to be playing the same computer game as you, so the ends justifies the means, and worse, that Graef's embarrassment over the humiliation her avatar suffered actually makes it "ethical".

These things are fairly outrageous to most reasonable people and whether your post was intended as a troll or not, I hope you can see how it was easily construed as one. Slashdot is subject to a tremendous number of intellectually dishonest and intentional troll posts, perhaps dozens in the larger articles.

Re:Ethically valid (-1, Troll)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492370)

> All right, I for one know that you are, in fact, incredibly naive and believe wholeheartedly that what
> "Anshe Chung" is doing is ethical.

And I for one know that you are massively condescending and as such have a tiny, tiny dick. You'll also find the reason you can't see much is because your head is stuck right up your ASS.

> You should try to understand that it is easy for many people to "mistake" your viewpoint for trolling
> because of several things:

You've got the wrong end of the stick. The OP was marked 100%, -3 Offtopic. That's not people marking it as trolling, that's people suppressing it because they don't like it.

Re:Ethically valid (1)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492538)

Earth to Toby, MOST of your posts in response to this article have been modded down as -1, Troll. I read at -1 and with no special modifiers to different types of moderation (everything is at +0, even Funny)

There's at least one Troll mod to your OP. It's already been explained to you that Overrated is often used in place of Troll because it is immune to meta-moderation. Whether or not most of the down-moderation on your original post is due to being modded Overrated is irrelevant to the fact that at least one poster has called you out as a troll and most of your posts are currently -1, Troll. That is how you are being perceived by the readers, like it or not. I blame a healthy respect for the Bill of Rights for this attitude towards your viewpoint. Simply put, you show no respect for freedom of speech or of the press.

Allow me to clarify, with apologies, insulting you was entirely unintentional. I believe the extent of your naievete is such that most people find it incredible, as in, unbelievable, hence, a troll. Please try to take constructive criticism with a little more maturity.

I see you did not address any of my actual logical arguments, which is somewhat disappointing. I'm starting to wonder myself whether you actually are a troll or are just infected with a trollish meme virus (expectation of total privacy in any place? c'mon!).

Re:Ethically valid (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492292)

The bastards!

its true (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17491640)


all weapons ARE related to penises

What? (3, Insightful)

locokamil (850008) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491658)

It couldn't be that she's using the DMCA to take down something that could hurt her reputation, could it?

Nah... The law is never abused.

Re:What? (0, Troll)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491722)

Your argument is invalid.

If she had done something unethical - stolen, decieved, harmed another - then her actions would be something that would *rightfully* hurt her reputation, and then actions on her part to covert it up would be unethical.

However, what happened was that someone else humiliated her in public. *She did nothing wrong*. As such, what happened has no bearing whatsoever on her reputation; it only affects her dignity. As such, it is wrong and improper for anyone to publish this material. However, the press are usually a bunch of fuckers who are only interested in money, and will happily destroy private lives to obtain material for their publications.

I fully support her actions - I just wish it was possible to obtain such an action without needing the mostrosity of the DCMA to be in existance, to be mis-used for this valid and proper end.

Re:What? (5, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491802)

So let's say she was walking down the street and tripped. She feels humiliated. The press took a photo and published it. She should be able to supress the press photo because she felt humiliated? That's absurd.

I'd rather the press retain the freedom to document what's happening. Even if their motives aren't altruistic.

Re:What? (1)

lysdexia (897) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491858)

Come, let us reason together:

I just wish it was possible to obtain such an action without needing the mostrosity of the DCMA to be in existance, to be mis-used for this valid and proper end.
1. Wishing that a law exists does not automatically invoke other laws, nor does a wish inform an existing law until it passes through the tort process. Law does not inherit like an OOP class. (Although that dirty, rotten scoundrel Charles Stross's Accellerando [accelerando.org] has a silly throw-away comment about a corporation's charter being written in python that has been invading my mind for about two weeks - how would laws be different if they had to compile before they could be enforced? AAAARGH? LOGLAN! WHA? PHILISOPHIC LANGUAGE? AIEEEEE! )

2. If this is a misuse of a law, as you state, then how is it ethical for it to be applied? Two wrongs do not, etc. If you are, in fact, arguing that use of the DMCA is justified since it's embarassing for the 'victim', then "Cops" is in trouble.

I actually suspect you are trolling here, but I'm not entirely sure.

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

blincoln (592401) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491886)

However, what happened was that someone else humiliated her in public. *She did nothing wrong*. As such, what happened has no bearing whatsoever on her reputation; it only affects her dignity. As such, it is wrong and improper for anyone to publish this material. However, the press are usually a bunch of fuckers who are only interested in money, and will happily destroy private lives to obtain material for their publications.

I think where your argument falls apart is where you imply that "public" and "private" are the same thing. You were on a roll until then, though.

Re:What? (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492480)

If she had done something unethical...

Aaahh, but she did. She allowed herself to br publicly humuliated. She's obviously a witch. Burn her!

Which law should be used (1)

freqmod (793244) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491698)

Why is a virtual avatar different from the real world? Could she sue the news companies if she wore a self designed dress during a similar accident in real life? I think it would be more appropriate to get compensation for damages for intrusion of her privacy etc, but then it is the question if that applies to virtual worlds.

privacy in the virtual world (2, Informative)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492234)

In real life, most countries accept that you have a right to privacy in your own home (there are a few exceptions but most of those involve crimes being committed). You have to invite people in for them to be sound legally to film. However it's easy to impose conditions on entry that visitors have to agree on, one being that all photography has to be approved and ok'd before publishing.

It's one of the things art museums and some attractions at themeparks often like doing so they can sell you £2.50 postcards (it's for the protection of the exhibits, honest!).

However this often interferes with public interest which is a freedom granted to the press. Does public interest outweigh a private civil agreement made? I'm not a lawyer, I haven't a clue but it must've sparked a fair few expensive trials.

Re:Which law should be used (1)

WK1 (987981) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492306)

Could she sue the news companies if she wore a self designed dress during a similar accident in real life?

A similar accident in real life?

Limits of jurisdiction (5, Insightful)

candiman (629910) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491714)

Hate to be the one that mentions it but the "Sydney Morning Herald" is an Australian newspaper owned by an Australian company. There isn't much a US law can do to them.

Re:Limits of jurisdiction (1)

seth_k (667214) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492488)

Except the US pressured Austrialia to adopt the DCMA as part of a trade treaty.

Re:Limits of jurisdiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17492518)

Hate to be the one that mentions it but the "Sydney Morning Herald" is an Australian newspaper owned by an Australian company. There isn't much a US law can do to them.

David Hicks was an Australian man who broke no Afghan or Australian laws, but he's still sitting in Guantanamo five years later.

Re:Limits of jurisdiction (2, Insightful)

omegashenron (942375) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492594)

The FTA between the US and Australia was supposed to bring Australian copyright law in line with US. The SMH would have been threatened with the equivalent law

DMCA the Press (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17491716)

Using the DMCA to tick off the press? We need more of this, bring it on, file DMCA on the press daily, PLEASE. While your at it use the unPatriotic Act on them and why not leave an anomyous tip or a thousand with the MPAA and RIAA as I am sure they must have some violations somewhere on their computers. Then let's see the power of the press!

Taken town? (1)

Mike Blakemore (999177) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491724)

I'd rather go to tokin' town.

The Video! (0, Redundant)

Tester (591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491736)

The video is gone from YouTube... but is one Google Video [google.com] .

Let me be the first to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17491806)

"...was attacked by animated flying penises during a virtual interview..."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

hmm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17491814)

The attacker KNEW this would happen, hence the flying penices.. so in my mind she got what she deserved.

Oh.. and serving DMCA takedowns because of her "copyrighted" avatar is pure bs too.

The best defense... (1)

Valacosa (863657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491816)

Sometimes the best defense isn't a good offense, it's a good sense of humour.

I have nothing positive to contribute. (1)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491822)

I just wanted to say this tops my personal list as some of the most hilarious griefing I've ever seen.

We should all aspire to be more like the gentlemen of room 101.

this might be (4, Funny)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491836)

The most retarded thing I have ever seen or heard of in my life.

Re:this might be (5, Funny)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491874)

And that's saying a lot considering you have a 4 digit slashdot id.

Re:this might be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17492194)

This might be the most retarded thing I have ever seen or heard of in my second life life.

Karma Whoring (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491872)

Related Warren Ellis article [reuters.com] for Reuters.

The shape of things to come (4, Funny)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491880)

...The issue has surfaced after the avatar Anshe Chung (real name Ailin Graef) was attacked by animated flying penises...

In hundred years from now as virtual reality will be everywhere and has become a core part of our lives.

I'm sure old folks will bring back aging memories from real life ... "when I was young, at least you couldn't be attacked by a flock of animated flying penises"...

The Google Video Version, and Something Awful (2, Informative)

Mantrid42 (972953) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491916)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5387867190 768022577&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en [google.com]

Theres the video on Google Video.

And a week or so back, Something Awful's "Second Life Safari" documented it: http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4336 [somethingawful.com]

"The people who ruin it for the rest of us" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17491940)

The people who make Second Life remind me of the people who in school caused new and Draconian rules to be created by the administration which made life miserable for the rest of the students. The morons giving real life money for virtual real estate, the knuckle draggers who are doing basically MOO/MUSH objects then selling them for real money, and now the attempted use of the DMCA hammer on anything in their way.

End result is likely going to be the IRS (or whatever the country's tax body is) horning its way into every MMO and online game, wanting its cut of the online proceeds.

To boot, if the DMCA is successfully used in this context, this sets a bad precedent -- post a screenshot of your character, go to jail for copyright violation.

I can see it now in WoW... before you can loot a purple item, you have to pay with gold or from your credit card your country's VAT. Screenshots are protected with some type of DRM system that only allows authorized computers to view the files.

I don't know who is worse -- the people selling crap in 2L for real money, or the knuckle draggers buying objects in that game. At least people who buy gold/platinum/adena/pyreals in a MMO like EQ or WoW are usually doing it to save time, rather than mindlessly farm, and that sort of can be understood.

Re:"The people who ruin it for the rest of us" (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492068)

The people who make Second Life remind me of the people who in school caused new and Draconian rules to be created by the administration which made life miserable for the rest of the students. The morons giving real life money for virtual real estate, the knuckle draggers who are doing basically MOO/MUSH objects then selling them for real money, and now the attempted use of the DMCA hammer on anything in their way.
Under the circumstances, I don't really feel Lindenlabs has put much of a Draconian rule over Second life. I find other communities are far more restricted than Second life is often.

Stupid. (4, Interesting)

Runefox (905204) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491954)

This is something that SL users have been bitching about for a while - That their stuff shouldn't be screenshotted for the sole reason that it's their intellectual property, even if it's not being claimed to be otherwise. An example is SomethingAwful's Second Life Safari, where one such SL user went ape shit over the posting of "intellectual property" (read: Screen shot).

No. If your shit can be seen simply by logging into SL (which is free to roam around in), it can be posted anywhere. It's like clipping a Slashdotter's post and popping it on a site as a quote.

Now, I couldn't actually figure out what TFA was talking about, whether it was the SL staff involved, or SL users, but all the same, if it's the SL staff, people have no right to complain; It's their servers, and if they don't want you doing something, they have every right in the world to take you off, especially if you're one of those "free" users. People don't seem to realize that freedom of speech is restricted to political views and religion, and are rescinded while in private property. Censorship is wholly allowed in private.

Such a horrible "game" with a terribly whiny community, and this Anshe Chung person has had more press coverage than should be allowed.

Re:Stupid. (2, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492288)

People don't seem to realize that freedom of speech is restricted to political views and religion. . .

Which part of "no" don't you understand?

KFG

Re:Stupid. (1)

Runefox (905204) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492564)

Ideally, you're right, that's incorrect. As far as reality is concerned, the correct answer is yes, that's correct.

Perhaps hate speech and direct threats would be easy examples of things outside the realm of freedom of speech; Also, perhaps try heading into an airport and yelling "bomb"; Or alternatively, walk into a preschool and start making lewd comments about your nether regions. We'll see how well "freedom of speech" holds up then.

What freedom of speech DOES entitle you to is to formulate and express your own opinions without being persecuted; It does NOT give you the right to say whatever you want to whoever you want, and especially not on their property, where their ideas of decency with regard to speech are paramount.

At least, that's my understanding of it. It seems to be precisely how things work.

Holy crap (1)

wrackedmind (902061) | more than 7 years ago | (#17491990)

She could make money with that video, just call it "waltz of the penises".

Urk (5, Insightful)

retro128 (318602) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492016)

I'm getting just a little tired of hearing about this woman. "Oh look at me I own a million dollars of virtual real estate located on servers subject to regular DoS attacks. And neither insurance companies or the law offer any recourse if it all gets wiped out." Please.

She loves being in the news as long as the press is favorable, but one dildo attack gets written about and all of a sudden she brings out the DMCA stick. I will place a bet that we're about to see how mob rule on Second Life works. Attacks against her will most certainly be scaled up now that this news broke.

When she announces.... (1)

AlphaLop (930759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492074)

her upcoming alliance with the RIAA and the MPAA all you flying penises will pay!!!! (about $4534.79)

Remember, your right to free speech ends... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17492162)

...at crying "penis" in a crowded vagina.

Disturbing? (4, Insightful)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492222)

The only "disturbing" issue surrounding Second Life is how seriously some people take it. Last time I checked, it was a freaking fake world consisting of people's made up identities and false realities. In First Life, we call it a "game", and it is "played" by unadventurous, delusional game addicts who have nothing else with which to fill their boring real lives.

Now we have lawsuits alleging gamers don't play fair? Jeepers...

Re:Disturbing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17492304)

what??!?! How dare you say such a thing about my space.... Oh wait you were talking about second life, never mind.

Unreal: Zoning Restrictions. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17492260)

She has a set of deed restrictions [anshechung.com] on her rental and sales to would make the most hardened lawyer blush (assuming a lawyer had a pulse). They include no screenshots without permission and no constant parties. No word if you mow your front lawn with your shirt off.

She might have deserved it... (4, Interesting)

Skylinux (942824) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492308)

I don't know anything about Second Live but I have found the WIKI article about her http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anshe_Chung [wikipedia.org] and after reading I think she might have deserved it.

Too bad we can't spawn massive dicks in real live. This would come in useful when our officials make an ass out of us on TV.

The extent of copyright is what? (3, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492426)

We all take for granted that the tools used to create a work aren't included as part of a copyrightable work. And when we use bits and pieces of existing works to create a new and original work, that is called fair use.

And when someone uses the DMCA take-down as a means to suppress others, especially in a creative or speech effort, there is certainly a cause for suit against the initiator.

I say that all people involved in the creation of the "attack scene" need to file suit against the people responsible for the initial abusive DMCA take-down.

I hope she gets kicked + banned. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17492440)

She's harassing users of the game in *real life*, having taken her grudge match outside of the game.

That's exactly the sort of behavior that - in any other game - would get users permanently banned.

And if Linden says that's not an option (negative press, etc) - then they have a larger problem in that one of their users has become more influential in their game than *they* are.

As an occasional 2nd Life "player", I thought the whole incident was hilarious until this abuse of the law kicked in - now I just think it's stupid.

This is a possible future (3, Interesting)

argent (18001) | more than 7 years ago | (#17492514)

One thing that's interesting about this is that the very strong DRM in SL (at least inside the game context... it's not particularly effective outside the game) gives people an expectation of being able to absolutely control the distribution of stuff they make, because SL lets them control the distribution of stuff they make to an extreme degree (and, yet, a lot of people still argue they don't have enough control). The idea that a 512x512 pixel image (which is what a dress in SL is, basically) should get this kind of protection is typical of the game. SL clothing designers will argue with a straight face that it's a violation of their artistic expression for you to be able to let out or cut off the sleeves on a shirt you bought!

The thing is, if the people who are pushing for ever-stronger DRM get their way, this is the kind of future we're heading for, over the long term. As soon as they come up with a mechanism that would make your shirt disintegrate if you tried to change the tailoring, you're going to have people arguing that it's their right to control how you wear your clothes. Disintegrating DVDs are just the tip of the iceberg... and the changes won't come in big obvious jumps, just a gradual erosion of our rights as IP laws and DRM become stronger and stronger.

Is that 2nd Life? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17492570)

What's with the 1996 graphics?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>