Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
> 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.
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?
Your post is as disappointing as the original moderation abuse.
/.ers, views that are not agreed with are considered trolling.
Like seemingly many
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.
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.