Second Life Mogul Challenges Press Freedom

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."

Pshaw.

[lysdexia]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5387867190 768022577&q=Anshe+Chung [google.com]

I'm still here you bastards!

Re:Pshaw.

[Vo0k]

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

That was pure freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Heh

[Xenographic]

If it wasn't for this stupid DMCA notice, I doubt I'd have ever known or cared about this video. Now everyone knows about it and millions of people will make copies of this just out of spite. Hasn't anyone learned this by now?

This level of 'brillance' is worthy of Paula.

Re:Pshaw.

[sethstorm]

I'm here [youtube.com] too.
(yes, it's Youtube, but feel free to wget this with a modified user agent to mirror.) [google.com]

Re:

[metroplex]

Yep. The video and images can also be found here [somethingawful.com], on the original and exclusive coverage of the attack put together by somethingawful.com with material provided by Room101, the originators of the attack.

I personally find somethingawful.com's Second Life Safari pretty hilarious, here [somethingawful.com] are all the episodes so far, for those who missed them.

Re:

[Criterion]

There are some constraints you need to be aware of concerning the second life building tools. The main one that is relevant in this case is that when using flexprims, as was witnessed here by the umm.. flexing of the members.. only one end can appear to be solidly attached to any other prim. I say appear to be, because any prim attached to the flexible end will stay in it's inert position while the flexprim does it's own little dance in the wind. This would result, in this case, in the base of the member wa

Re:Pshaw.

[WNight]

No, why do people have this broken property metaphor? Virtual space is infinite, why buy into a system where it's artificially limited.

Why "rent" a tiny plot from some virtual landlord who thereby controls your server resources? Why are acreage and CPU power linked?

SL is a horribly designed system, imho because Linden Labs wanted to design a cash cow - have people paying maintenance fees on their creations when they total a few K in a database. If Ms Chung didn't exist they'd have invented her - someone to convince everyone else that "land" in the game has value.

What?

[locokamil]

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:

[1ucius]

The DMCA is one of the most mis-understood things in history. It's only relevance here is to provide the newspapers with a defense. The real cause of action is good, old-fashion copyright law.

Re:What?

[truthsearch]

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:

[blincoln]

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 "priva

Limits of jurisdiction

[candiman]

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:

[omegashenron]

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

The best defense...

[Valacosa]

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

this might be

[gelfling]

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

Re:this might be

[truthsearch]

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

Re:this might be

[jb.hl.com]

I'd say the same, even after seeing actual retards.

Re:this might be

[Arcturax]

No kidding. I mean really who cares? That and from what I understand she lives in GERMANY, not the US. Isn't invoking the DMCA, a US law as a German citizen a little, well, useless? Or is it because the Second Life servers are in the US?

Karma Whoring

[Captain Splendid]

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

The shape of things to come

[suv4x4]

...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

[Mantrid42]

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]

Re:The Google Video Version, and Something Awful

[Petey_Alchemist]

Documented it? That is the source of all the images. Steve Hutcheon of the SMH asked me if he could use my graphics to make a composite image. I gave him permission, and all the other news companies just decided to use his.

I don't really care. It's funny one way or the other.

"The people who ruin it for the rest of us"

[Anonymous Coward]

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:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Original Replica]

" I find other communities are far more restricted than Second life is often."

MOD PARENT DOWN! ... I kid, I kid.

Re:

[rubberchickenboy]

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.

I don't see the difference. It saves me a lot of time to buy a suit in Second Life for 200 Linden dollars (less than a buck) rather than make the thing myself. And the people who sell things can then use that money for other purchases (saving time, also, I suppose). That's a stupid argument.

As for equating mindless farming in Wo

Stupid.

[Runefox]

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:

[kfg]

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:

[Runefox]

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 y

Re:

[kfg]

At least, that's my understanding of it.

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

KFG

Re:

[Bob9113]

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.

If that is a statement of what should be, I am inclined to agree. If that is intended as a statement of what is, unfortunately, you are mistaken.

I.M. Pei - a man who would otherwise be worthy of respect for his extraordinary architectural designs - successfully sued a man for distributing photographs of the Rock'n'Rol

Re:

[russotto]

While copyright law does allow protection of architectural works, it specifically does not extend that protection to photographs of copyrighted buildings. It was the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame who sued, not I.M. Pei. They sued on trademark grounds, not copyright. And they lost on appeal.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/IP/trademark/rock _and_roll.htm [lsu.edu]

Re:Stupid.

[Reaperducer]

Not entirely correct. As I recall, it was the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame that sued over a guy distributing posters, and in fact they lost because there is a very specific part of copyright law that covers this:

 
United States Code - Title 17 - Chapter 1 - Section 120
Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works

                (a) Pictorial Representations Permitted. - The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

 
( as quoted by http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/ [glasssteelandstone.com] )

Here's a copy of the court ruling in the defendant's (poster making guy) favor:

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/IP/trademark/rock _and_roll.htm [lsu.edu]

Urk

[retro128]

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.

Re:Urk

[Improv]

She's also harmful to Second Life's culture. At one time, I "rented" land in a nice little forest with a bunch of other folk. She eventually came in, bought up most of the land, established some wild west thing, and made it very unpleasant to be there. At the same time, she did her best to get the rest of us to leave. I think the community would be better off without her. She ruins everything she touches.

Remember, your right to free speech ends...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Disturbing?

[uvajed_ekil]

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:

[vadim_t]

So what exactly are you doing here, then?

You're here, so I take it means you have nothing better to fill your boring life with.
And, I bet that you're not called "uvajed_ekil" in real life either, so there goes the fake identity bit as well.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet that you're not called "uvajed_ekil" in real life either

Even with European alphabets, I bet it's hard to correctly pronounce the underscore.

Re:

[Overly Critical Guy]

The fact you write a short post on Slashdot means you have nothing better to fill your boring life with? ...and what about you?

Re:

[shish]

One world is physical and the other digital, but how is the latter "fake"? Just because it's made out of data rather than atoms doesn't mean it doesn't exist~

She might have deserved it...

[Skylinux]

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.

Re:

[ThomasHoward]

While she may or may not have deserved it before, she certainly deserves it now.

Re:

[mccoma]

Too bad we can't spawn massive dicks in real live

Speak for yourself, little man!

you have multiple?!?

The extent of copyright is what?

[erroneus]

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.

This is a possible future

[argent]

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.

Just how..

[wknoxwalker]

..did these griefers make all those things fly at her? Did they break the game in some way, or is it part of the standard model?

Re:

[vadim_t]

In-game scripting. You create objects with an in-game 3D editor, then put a script in it that makes it fly around.

Note that it's perfectly possible for the owner of an area to disable object creation and scripts in it.

Can't take a joke department?

[Petey_Alchemist]

If you think THAT'S bad, check out what happened when a Linden Labs employee tried to get me to take down photos [somethingawful.com] of his "mate's" babyfur child porn.

Or maybe every instance that Prokofy Neva has called me a virtual Leninist griefing scum terrorist or whatever else has been on her litany of overreactions.

Re:

[Overly Critical Guy]

The Second Life Safari rocks. That is all.

Probably a case of self-defense.

[Psychochild]

Speaking from a community management point of view, griefers (people who send flying penises into places to disrupt the activity) want attention. Knowing that the flying penises you sent to harass someone is being posted all over the internet? Holy crap, that's the griefer supreme jackpot. (That surely makes up for all the years that mommy didn't love you.)

So, I suspect that one of the real motivations here is to show that harassing Anshe Chung does not automatically equal free exposure on popular blogs

Re:Probably a case of self-defense.

[glwtta]

The ideal situation would be that online harassment such as what was experienced in the photos/videos would be illegal.

Seriously? You think it would be "ideal" if there were laws regarding what kind of polygons people can put on the same screen as other people's polygons? Unless they are exploiting game mechanics, the "griefers" are just as much "playing a game they happen to enjoy" as anyone else. Oh, and it's a "reasonable explanation" for someone being able to use criminal law to avoid "unflattering" attention? Give me a break.

Saying that you are a proponent of free speech in the middle of that nonsense is a huge freaking joke dude.

Reminds me of Michael Crook DMCA notice

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe Michael Crook did the same thing with 10zenmonkeys when they show a pic of him while he was interviewed by Fox News. He tried to pull the same DMCA crap and the EFF is suing. Hopefully the out come of the case would set a precedence and let people know that this kind of crap won't work. See: http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/09/18/in-the-comp any-of-jerkoffs/ [10zenmonkeys.com], http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/11/01/eff-crook-d mca-lawsuit/ [10zenmonkeys.com]

This Anshe Chung/Ailin Graef is just as bad as Michael Crook.

Some Jerks dont know the value of what they have

[unity100]

- You become a 'mogul' in a VIRTUAL GAME, you make heaploads of money from it, then you file copyright. Well well, WHERE is the content you are 'creating' residing in ? In some virtual world which SOME OTHERS HAVE CREATED.

Who has the greater right on virtual stuff there now ? Definitely not you. The company has - the fact that they have had signed a contract with you to the effect that you can hold the rights there does not make what you create here rightfully yours.

Its just like living in an omnipotent creator's universe as its creation, and then 'creating' something and then suing the source creator over it.

Im a person of no religion other than my own spirit, but i have this to say to you :

Fuckin greedy bitch !

Anshe vs Furries

[Arcturax]

I was present back when Anshe pulled some nasty underhandedness with some a group of "furries" and removed all their content from an area they rented from her for disagreeing with her. This sparked a full on second life riot in the said area.

Hillarity ensued." [nyud.net]

You know Anshe wouldn't get this treatment is she wasn't such a stuck up shark who abuses her position. No one has a problem with her being a business woman. The real problem is her attitude and her bad business practices.

I'd highly recommend that people simply stop renting from her, because the true cost (her attitude and DMCA crap like this) is really not worth it.

Re:Anshe vs Furries

[Arcturax]

Well keep in mind that most furs actually are fairly disgusted with the baby fur crowd and such. Some other other groups, like the 20 breasted vixen taurs, well we just kind of take it as being overly imaginative :) Thing is, the more out there elements are the ones who are the most easily noticed.

I personally haven't really had any problems with SL goons. I actually really enjoy the Second Life Safari. These guys haven't seen anything yet. I've seen some truly out there stuff on SL, and yes, I admit most of it was furry created. Like the giant vore armadillo I made on a lark.

I made a gigantic armadillo that stands halfway to the clouds. This thing has a full digestive system you can go through, including intestinal maze. Whenever I drop it somewhere, people come from all over the sim I'm on to look at it and inevitably, go through it. Within five minutes you will see this thing basically shitting avatars. It's really funny when the rear end loving crowd flies up there to stare at it and gets hit by people falling out of the intestinal maze. I really need to make a vid of this sometime, as it's one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

I wouldn't mind if the SL people came and made fun of it either. I mean that is why I made it, just for amusement purposes. There's really not point in getting upset over it. Which is what makes this whole Anshe thing so sad.

You know, as easy as SL is to copy people (I've made George Bush, the Shredder from TMNT and others)... someone could make an Anshe look alike and do fucked up things to it just to piss her off. Of course then she will have to trademark her looks, thus banning all Asian women from Second Life forever.

Cui bono?

[JourneyExpertApe]

I'm sure her public image is really suffering because of this alleged violation of the DMCA. And I'm also sure she had nothing whatsoever to do with this unprovoked penis attack. It was probably just a freak coincidence that all those penises decided to attack this relatively unknown wannabe celebrity all at once.

Re:Ethically valid

[pla]

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:

[dr.badass]

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:

[Original Replica]

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:

[ikkonoishi]

Microsoft has a copyright on MS Word. Microsoft does not own copyright on any screenshots taken of MS Word. In this case CNN owns the copyrights on the footage in question.

Re:

[blincoln]

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:

[nkh]

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:

[collectivescott]

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

Re:

[The PS3 Will Fail]

She should have passed on doing the interview if she didn't want it made public.

Re:

[scdeimos]

She should have passed on doing the interview if she didn't want it made public.

I don't think flying pensises would have been listed on the interview agenda. Even so, I think she's way out of line using DMCA to force take downs:

• There's no way a DMCA take-down notice could work on published video of a public gathering in real life - why should work for Second Life?
• She's the content owner of neither the video itself, nor the avatar and artwork, which were rendered using Second Life's proprietary engine and

Re:

[rohan972]

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.

As far as I'm aware, there are no laws protecting you from embarrassment. Nor should there be. Slander and libel laws protect your reputation, that's the closest, but not by a long way do they protect you from embarrassment. As you say "It is not for others to live by your reactions."

Re:Ethically valid

[iroll]

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:

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[ScrewMaster]

The very idea of a flying penis scares the hell out of me.

Re:Ethically valid

[dr.badass]

The very idea of a flying penis scares the hell out of me.

My high-school Latin teacher used every opportunity to remind the class that in ancient Rome, a winged phallus was a symbol of luck and protection.

Just thought you might want to know, in case you start having nightmares or something.

Re:Ethically valid

[iroll]

There's a difference between being an ass and being an ass that should feel the wrath of the law.

Civil Liberties guarantee a certain degree of assdom, because if they didn't, we'd devolve into a fascist police state overnight.

Re:

[Mr. Slippery]

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:

[mccoma]

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

Re: You mean foolish

[Badmovies]

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

[dreddnott]

Go home. You're worse than Prokofy Neva.

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

Re:

[Toby The Economist]

> 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 on

Re:

[Planesdragon]

Her life was absolutely and totally devestated.

And for what?

Truth.

If her life could be devastated simply by the revelation of her secrets--that is, without anyone doing anything unethical with those secrets once they're known--then the fault is squarely on her own shoulders. She should not have set her life up around a lie, and if she was not willing to face the simple consequences to her relationships of the revelation, then she shouldn't have done what she did in the first place.

Show me how this is diffe

Salve veritate...

[BorgCopyeditor]

If you have not "set up your life around a lie," then you won't mind having the answers to all these questions made public under your own name with the full knowledge of all of your family, friends, co-workers, enemies, and the public at large:

Have you ever told a lie? What was it and when and to whom did you tell it? Have you ever digitally stimulated your own anus? Did you enjoy it? How about anal insertion of foreign objects? Which kinds and for how long? Privately or with others present or assisting? Ha

Re:

[iroll]

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

[truthsearch]

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:

[dr.badass]

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:Ethically valid

[lysdexia]

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

[Criterion]

Just checking to see if you realize that this person.. whom you are so concerned about the dignity of.. started her SL career as a hooker.

Re:

[MilenCent]

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:

[daigu]

I've read your original post and this one, and I think the difficulty is the same: your expectations.

The expectation that what you do in a public forum will remain private or that you somehow can control it an expectation you can have only if you can create or rely on an environment of negative network effects. If there are resource limitations, such as disk drive space to hold Usenet posts or the combination of limited personal connections with limited interest in what you do or say, then you have "priva

Re:

[dangitman]

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?

No, it's not ironic at all. Even if your posts are moderated down to -3, slashdot users can still read what you have to say. Your post is not deleted. You are free to say what you like on slashdot, and others are free to mod you up or down. Total freedom.

This is a lot better than most forums, where posts get deleted if they don't agree with a moderator's sensibilities. Even if slashdot DID delete your posts, there's nothing wrong with that - because slashdot is a privately-owned forum. You still have your

Re:Ethically valid

[ameoba]

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

[dcam]

Actually I believe she wasn't on stage. She was sitting in front of a computer. Her character/avatar was on stage.

Re:

[phorm]

And she wasn't actually attacked or taped, unless somebody videotaped her in the computer room where flying wangs were somehow attacking her in real-life, as well.

Re:

[Frosty Piss]

Did you even look at the video? She was _on_stage_ with CNet and an audience at a press conference/interview.

And in that context, if anyone "owned" the experience of what ever transpired, wouldn't it more likely be CNet?

Re:Ethically valid

[tsm_sf]

True, but the perpetrators violated her reasonable expectation not to be attacked by flying penises in that context.

Are you brand new to the internet or something?

Re:Ethically valid

[Anonymous Coward]

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 th

Re:

[Toby The Economist]

> > 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

Re:

[Reaperducer]

I can see you very fervently believe what you're saying. Foruntately for the free press, the law doesn't agree with you.

privacy in the virtual world

[abigsmurf]

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 p

Re:

[Fear the Clam]

I would think that you were falling victim to a slippery slope fallacy. Rape is rape. Flying penis interruption is not rape, not even close.

Frankly, I think this woman got off lightly. In a virtual world I'd be assassinating her annoying ass or burning down her holdings just for fun. If I really cared about the press fawning over a glorified real estate developer I could just watch TV in real life.

Re:

[BorgCopyeditor]

Flying penis interruption is not rape

That's why I called it an analogous situation.

not even close

If there's an opposite fallacy to "slippery slope," I think you've committed it. I'd call it "The World is Flat" if that wasn't already the title of a shitty book.

Re:

[Criterion]

Because it's less expensive, and you have a nicer environment to call your virtual home.

To buy land from LL you have to look at this breakdown.. first off you have to have a premium membership, which is $9.95 a month if you pay monthly - $7.50 month quarterly or $6.00 month anually, which is offset somewhat by a weekly stipend of (currently) 300L which equates to aprox $57 a year. With a premium membership, you recieve free tier of 512 sq meters of land which will support 114 prims. This means you only have