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."

Comments

Ethically valid

[Toby The Economist]

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

[Toby The Economist]

> 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

[Toby The Economist]

> 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

[Toby The Economist]

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

[Toby The Economist]

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

[Toby The Economist]

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

[Toby The Economist]

> 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:What?

[Toby The Economist]

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: You mean foolish

[Toby The Economist]

> 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:Pshaw.

[Anonymous Coward]

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: You mean foolish

[Toby The Economist]

> 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

[Toby The Economist]

> > 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.