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."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5387867190 768022577&q=Anshe+Chung
I'm still here you bastards!
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.
all weapons ARE related to penises
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chinese_Woman_(Se infeld_episode)
Estelle: Who are you?
Donna: I'm Donna Chang.
Estelle: (recoils) You're not Chinese!
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.
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.
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.
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!
I'd rather go to tokin' town.
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).
Andrew Borntreger
Champion of cinematic disasters
The video is gone from YouTube... but is one Google Video.
> 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.
"...was attacked by animated flying penises during a virtual interview..."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
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.
Sometimes the best defense isn't a good offense, it's a good sense of humour.
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
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.
The most retarded thing I have ever seen or heard of in my life.
Go home. You're worse than Prokofy Neva.
Whether publication is justifiable or not is irrelevant to its legality.
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
Related Warren Ellis article for Reuters.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
...The issue has surfaced after the avatar Anshe Chung (real name Ailin Graef) was attacked by animated flying penises...
... "when I was young, at least you couldn't be attacked by a flock of 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
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
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.
And while I might not agree with it, I'll go to bat for their right to do so any day of the week.
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
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.
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
She could make money with that video, just call it "waltz of the penises".
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?
Developers: We can use your help.
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.
-R
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.
...) and other things that might cause one to get one's security clearance revoked.
...) to be the object of ridicule for acting like the sort of person one would want to see pelted with penii?
:-)
Some of these silly and fun times involved gobbling drugs, having sex with various other humans (of varying sexes - count them how you will
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
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!
her upcoming alliance with the RIAA and the MPAA all you flying penises will pay!!!! (about $4534.79)
It's only paranoia if your wrong...
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.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
...at crying "penis" in a crowded vagina.
> 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.
> 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.
You're funny
What?
Now we have lawsuits alleging gamers don't play fair? Jeepers...
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
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.
She has a set of deed restrictions 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.
Youtube link! http://youtube.com/watch?v=29361_XFpTc Lets get this featured!
I don't know anything about Second Live but I have found the WIKI article about her http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anshe_Chung 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.
Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
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.
> > 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.
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.
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
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.
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.
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.
What's with the 1996 graphics?
So you think every aspect of your own personal view of ethics --- or indeed ANY view of ethics --- should be LEGISLATED? I'd think you were a Baptist if you weren't reading sex blogs.
Or maybe I still do.
..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?
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 different it she were a porn star who never told her parents until the new neighbor made the connection, and then you'll have a leg to stand on. Until then, the paper was entirely within its ethical rights (and possibly even its ethical obligations) to investigate her identity and publish their findings.
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.
If you think THAT'S bad, check out what happened when a Linden Labs employee tried to get me to take down photos 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.
"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?"
If you were acting out those secrets in public, then yes I do have that right, and yes I should. Of course, this is a red herring, as there's no secrets involved here The most hated company that pretends to be a person in the entire "game" got flying penised, there's no secrets involved, just hilarity.
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 and internet news sites, and to keep unflattering images off the net. The DMCA just happens to be a convenient and easy-to-use tool to accomplish these ends. In the end, it is possible that the takedown notices aren't anything truly malicious, just someone trying to make sure that they aren't harassed continuously on a game they happen to enjoy.
That said, I agree that it's a bit ugly the possibility of asserting IP rights just to get rid of something you don't like. In this case I'm not ready to get bent all out of shape, despite being a huge proponent of free speech, because there's a reasonable explanation. The ideal situation would be that online harassment such as what was experienced in the photos/videos would be illegal. Yet, I think we're still a long way off from having anything resembling enlightened laws when dealing with online spaces like this.
My thoughts,
Brian "Psychochild" Green
MMO developer's blog
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? Have you ever fantasized about having an underage person perform sexual favors for you? Which favors? By whom? A family member?
Tell us, please, for the sake of truth. What harm could possibly come of it?
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
I know too little about SL's terms of service, etc. to have an opinion about this censoring of videos, but I have a hypothetical question about an analogous situation.
What would people think if YouTube or its ilk featured videos of actual rapes?
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
Of course, the editors here would probably like nothing more than for users to regard reading and posting comments as an online game, with its concomitant addiction.
damaged by dogma
Message to the plaintiff... Get a first life. Largest byte-holder on a server is definitely something you'll go down in history for.
Or he could just go ahead and NOT publish it all over the internet? Gee, what a concept!
Sorry dude, you tell anyone your secrets and you've got to be willing to accept that they're no longer secrets.
Nah, someone worse than Prokofy Neva would make a post 10 miles long, as opposed to the usual five.
He posts the Second Life Safari features at SomethingAwful, including the one that caused this.
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/, http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/11/01/eff-crook-d mca-lawsuit/
This Anshe Chung/Ailin Graef is just as bad as Michael Crook.
Some people just don't know how to take a compliment.
+0 Meh
She's just like a guy in that ugly guys will create these online personas that make them rich, handsome, and strong.
She creates an online persona that makes her look hot. And then when you see the picture, she looks homely and is apparently a big pain in the ass.
She should thank god the guys put a digital penis in her hands... it makes her slightly interesting.
"Her" in this context is her avatar that is subjected to a (lame) parade of penises moving across the 3d scene in front of _it_. The way I see it, Graef should be the last person to turn to the state and its courts for enforcement .. unless she wants to really go Virtual=Real and pay _all_ the taxes in due on the "Lindendollars" she has accumulated.
Well, that is what I wrote =-)
No, it wasn't.
It's not difficult. All contracts must be voluntary...blah blah blah
I said who not how. Clearly you think that it should be you, or those that share your shallow and unrealistic views.
a silly example, but it highlights the point.
No it doesn't, it conceals it behind a smokescreen in the vague shape of Bertrand Russell's head.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
- 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 !
Read radical news here
Reasonable expectation. You have the reasonable expectation that things you do in private are private. You do not have the reasonable expectation that things you do in public are private. That's the difference between public and private you see. Things that happen in public are *drum roll* PUBLIC.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Just in case you where living under a rock these past few years, here is the link:
a _Bean.aspx
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The_Brillant_Paul
the fact is, just because you dont' like what some one has to say that doesn't give you the right to silence them. you are also allowed to copy works for use a parody, which is 100% what this was. if this bitch sent me a dmca for such a thing i'd say bring it on
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
...she orchestrated it herself. As they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
If you can read this sig, you're too close.
Is that really a photo of her holding a giant penis prop ? Did she get where she is by doing porn or somthing ?
I can't think of any other reason why someone would have giant penises come back to haunt them.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
US copyright law protects copying content for journalism and critical reviews of even fictional content. It doesn't protect copying for mere replay of entertainment. The court has to decide whether the copying is "informational" or "entertainment".
Now that US journalism is largely indistinguishable from entertainment, it will often lose its copyright exemption protection.
Not that you'd know that from watching TV.
--
make install -not war
I do believe this has been addressed before. Furthermore your right to privacy is not guarenteed while in a public place.
It really amazes me that some people think they can dictate what happens on the internet, especially when they got money.
Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
I really do not care a fig if this violates AnsheChung's privacy or not, nor do I care which way this particular dispute is resolved, whether in the court of law or the court of public opinion. What interests me is that the issue and challenges thrown up in this case in SecondLife is very close to what would have happened in RealLife as well. ( The analogy of Mr Kennedy being insulted at a private Democratic party fund raiser ... as quoted by another post ... is particularly accurate)
What this means that SecondLIfe is approaching RealLife in many aspects ( OK, agreed, there is no hunger, no starvation and no terrorist related death, AS YET ) ... and this is a sign of convergence.
As we have more and more such convergence, we will see more and more MMORPGs like SecondLife emerging out the woodwork and entering mainstream, digital cyberia.
That is when a universal, 'open', browser like client will become a reality, and this will force the 'open' VRML( or equivalent ?) based servers to become the backbone of the new 3D-worldwideweb.
If flying penises and law courts further the cause, let us have more of it :-)
Insight into much, Influence over nothing !
I for one welcome our flying penis overloads
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."
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.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
"However, what happened was that someone else humiliated her in public. *She did nothing wrong*."
Umm.. she might not have done anything wrong *at the event*, but let me be the first (evidently) to enlighten you that it doesn't take a whole lot of looking to find a whole lot of people that do not like a whole lot of things that she has done in her quest to accumulate a whole lot of land and make a whole lot of money.
We have enough youth, how about a fountain of SMART?
This is no different than someone getting a pie to the face, like when Bill Gates got that pie in his kisser. She wants publicity and to get all these interviews, but she also wants to perserve her privacy. Sorry babe, you can't have it both ways. Once you enter that public arena you can reap the rewards and but you also suffer the draw backs of that fame.
Just what the heck copyright prevention technology is being claimed as violated???
Flying penis attack on an avatar. Aha. Exciting. Wow. I can barely hold my water. Almost as exciting as watching the living room linoleum warp.
That would have been my reaction if I was just told that some avatar on some online game was attacked by waves of flying penises. Now, though, since the owner of the avatar caused a riot about it, I went out of my way to see it. After all, there's gotta be something worth being seen if she's actually going out of her way to start a lawsuit (or whatever) against a video.
Turns out my first hunch was correct, it ain't worth seeing. But, and that's the catch in it, I only saw it because she caused a riot about it.
So this was either a publicity stunt by her to get some attention (though I dunno why, I didn't buy anything from her yet and as far as I'm concerned won't in the future), or just really, plainly dumb.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
If you can read this sig, you're too close.
Ted Turner, maybe. But what about, CAPTAIN PLANET?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QYFu__Q9ASU
What a "dick-head" stunt to pull, an even bigger one she must be to think she has any expectation of privacy during a news conference. Isn't it ironic!
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Democrats and Republicans are like AIDS and Cancer, I want neither!
> And for what?
Beside the point; if it came out that Bush indeed invaded Irak under false pretences there would also be zero reason to tell the world of this truth? Lest it devastate his life?
The point is not the hurt that comes from revealing the truth, it comes from the fact that the lies that have been hold back can no longer be told.
And if you can be told only certain truths, it follows that you can be told what to think and do. That's why we have freedom of the press.
I had a run in with Anshe when she was new in SL. My partner and I had just bought a parcel of land from a club owner to have space to build and mess around. BigJohn was his name I think. Well the poor man set it with $L1 as my partner paid him with real cash (I know.. wtf, we fought over that one) and didn't set anyone on the list of who could buy. Along comes a 2 day old Anshe and buys it right in front of him, my partner and myself.
Long story short BigJohn had to contact LL and go through a grievance process as Anshe wouldn't speak to anyone on the matter, nor sell it back for less than 15k. We ended up getting it back, but her name stuck in my head as a sneaky unreasonable @#$$^. I haven't been on SL in a year or so. It's kind of sad I'm reading about her after all this time doing things like this, I'd had doubts that I'd been fair. Maybe I was. Then again, she makes decent money selling fake land. =P
I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one... - advocate_one
What about the freedom of speech of whoever launched the flying penises? Besides, where are you guaranteed freedom of anything in a place owned by private citizens? If there's a "right to free speech" in Second Life, then there's a right for me to force you to let me into your house to preach about the Flying Spagh... er, Flying Penis Monster.
Read the First Amendment. The first four words are "Congress shall make no law". You only have a right of speech free from government censorship. And that's a specific real government, so don't go saying that Linden Labs is the government in Second Life, so therefore the First Amendment must apply to them too. It's their sandbox, they can do as they like. If you don't like it, start your own.
That being said, this Chung bitch was way out of line to abuse the DMCA and whine a complaint. HowTF does the DMCA apply?
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
...err, unless you were talking about teh FoS of the people posting the videos. In that case, in the immortal words of Emily Latella, "Neeeever Miiiind."
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
I'll pass. My *first* life is already busy enough.
So people are buying virtual land which has been artificially restricted. Only in 21st century 'RealLife' could this concern people. What happens if Linden Labs allows a virtually infinite map, or gateways to private SL world servers? And why would any sane person give a shit?
http://www.internetisshit.org/print.html
In this case, the claim made here - "copyright in a photograph belongs to the subject" - is wholly incorrect. According to the UK Patent Office,As anyone who's ever been involved in organising a wedding will be all too aware...
My Crocodile Sense is tingling... Given how much she enjoys being in the media, I suspect she also loves being at the center of this controversy.
Prokofy Neva once called me the most dangerous person she had ever encountered in Second Life.
I took that to mean that I was doing something right and talking sense against her views, which she didn't like.
She seems to have bought herself a really heavy duty Reality Distortion Field. The sad thing is, the more mind-bonglingly ridiculous her statements become, the more exposure she gets.
The likelihood that she's actually someone's experiment in social AI is growing stronger, because it's unlikely that a human could keep up such a vitriolic one-sided tirade of utter nonsense for so many months and years. She's like Eliza, but abusive instead of quaint. They're both equally uncomprehending of the other side of a discussion.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I think if Anshe Chung has an issue with ANYONE, it's CNET. They failed to turn off public rezzing of items and scripts in their area, therefore they failed to take reasonable measures to prevent this attack. The video is a straw man... it'd happen in RL as well if someone "crashed" a live interview throwing hot-dogs across the stage. It doesn't happen much during professional interviews because security is usually tight. This simple switch on the land owned by CNET would have prevented this attack. By failing to do so, they're liable by failing to secure their land from such an attack.
Yeah, I realize the griefer himself was in the wrong as well, but he actually just didn't take Chung as seriously as she apparently takes herself. Honestly, I couldn't care less and I'm not a griefer, but I actually found it rather amusing.
I don't know why people think there is any question as to the legality of these threats.
In the real world, you automatically own the rights to your likeness, just like this woman owns the rights to her avatar. However, this woman is a public figure; she is the public face for an entire realm of in-game players and has already been interviewed by some big-name magazines. She obviously doesn't mind the media attention, because she was on stage for yet another interview when this happened. Libel law rules that no member of the press can be held liable for reporting something that happened to a public figure in a public space.
So, remember when Fabio was attacked by that duck on that rollercoaster? Same thing, except drop the coaster and add a flock of flying penises. She was a public figure in a public space and something newsworthy happened to her. Fame is a bitch; deal with it.
DejaNews invented the X-No-Archive header, so it can hardly predate DejaNews. And yes, I was there as well.
And even before DejaNews, one of the standard pieces of advice given to new users on Usenet was "Don't post anything you wouldn't want a potential employer to read 10 years from now". Not everybody read these advices though, and some people was chocked when they discovered their posts wouldn't go away.
Anshe Chung is an *hole, but didn't know that she is also lunatic/psychotic. She WILL fall.
For me it seems, that "world police" goverment's president and Anshe Chung shares the same degree & type of mental illness, unfortunately, there's a lot of people that fails to notice that from being too naive(or something else, which i won't mention here).
These are my 2 cents, like it or not.
.
.
.
(Do i now get sued by Anshe Chung for my opinion?)
Pulsed Media Seedboxes
I just saw Ailin Graef and she looks ugly and fat.
But I guess in SL no one knows you are an ugly fat dog who gives you an imaginery blow job.
In virtual worlds seems that virtual sex sells too....uglllllly
Since you seem incapable of not reading, I'm compelled to taunt you some more, especially by insisting on the point that you find so "disgusting." You claim there can be no analogy between the public penis-swarming and a rape, on what grounds? that one is legal and the other is not. Bravo! You've recognized that for two things to be analogous, they have to be different. Have I ever claimed otherwise? No, I haven't. However, here's a news flash (news to you, that is): two things different in one respect can be the same in another. This claim is what you find so "disgusting" that you can't respond substantively to it? I patiently tried to explain to you just what the issue is, and you insist on not getting it. It's kind of like the stupid debates people get into about the analogies between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War. (The question is not stupid, but the way people deal with it is, one side shouting "they're totally not the same" and the other "they totally are.") You seem particularly enraged by my little (TM) comment, so let's talk about that some more, too! You claim that I responded that you "forgot the /. tradition of 'TM' after Real Life": I did no such thing. I'm not aware of any such tradition. My only (snarky) point was that you treated the ordinary phrase "real life" as if it were a trademark by capitalizing it. You keep fulminating about this, as though I were some kind of Slashdot pedant, policing people's posts for proper procedure. Not so. I still don't know what you're talking about. Hope you enjoyed your tiny spittle-flecked, back-arching ragegasm.
Finally (unless you respond with more abusive illiteracy, moral and otherwise), let me say that you missed the point about my picking out the word "illegal" in your euphemistic and pleonastic "illegal sexual assault against a person": that it was a pleonasm. You seemed to recognize the problem earlier, but now have forgotten it again. So sad.
P.S. The "charitable" reading I offered relied not only on the words of yours that you helpfully reproduce, but also on your incoherent vitriol against VRML, whatever that is.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
That's the tradgedy of Second Life. You can't give a huge gaggle of people the ability to make anything they can think of, and assume that nobody is going to make guns, or large flying pink members, or whatever. Second Life gets hit with grey goo attacks and vandalism because Linden Labs did not prepare properly, and do not handle problems very well when they spring up. On a side note, I did not anticipate seeing anybody being showboated by gigantic flying wangs today.
A lot of the discusion here seems to focus on dignity. If this statement is true, this person obviously didn't see dignity as a problem in the past when profit was more important.
You'll have to forgive some of these guys, WNight. See, we in the U.S. have gone through roughly a century in which every single thing that could conceivably benefit anyone had a UPC symbol attached to it and started getting traded on the commodities market.
Criterion, it's like this: it is only rational to exchange scarce tokens (i.e. money) for scarce resources (CPU cycles). Pretend your brain is an SL server. Now picture two things:
1. A ten-foot by ten-foot square
2. A ten-mile by ten-mile square
During which of those did you use up more of your breakfast?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
My high-school Latin teacher used every opportunity
Did he like gladiator movies?
Would you complain if he preferred mussels to clams?
Wrong. The first four words are "Congress shall make no". :P
Isn't this just a video game? Griefing happens in every online game you play, why is everyone going apeshit over it in Second Life? If you aren't having fun because of griefers, play a different game! If you still want to play Second Life, ignore the griefers! If you're main source of income is through Second Life and the griefers are making it difficult, either find another source of income or deal with it. Why is that so fucking difficult for these people to do? The internet is so stupid.