(continued from previous page)
Explain what happened with YouTube.
Graef: When I first noticed the video, I searched for a way to notify them about the abusive and inappropriate nature of the material. I wasn't able to locate any forms, phone numbers or e-mail addresses for that purpose. The only thing readily available was the DMCA complaint form. I submitted a complaint that way, but it wasn't a DMCA complaint. I stated it was a personal attack, sexual in nature, and an infringement on a woman's human rights. It wasn't a copyright claim.
A few days later I received a response that only confronted me with starting a DMCA claim or not continuing. Only then did I actually begin thinking about copyright...So I made a copyright violation claim but also repeated my original concerns. Later, as soon as I learned about the (censorship) questions this raised, I immediately withdrew that DMCA claim and told YouTube that I didn't want to uphold that claim, but that I wanted them to review the video based on my original concerns.
Were you corresponding with an individual, or through some sort of form system?
Graef: I corresponded with their support team, it appears. A ticketing system with several individuals handling tickets/e-mails.
At that point, they said they would re-evaluate the video based on your original concerns?
Graef: Yes, that is what they replied then.
Did they tell you precisely what the violation was?
Would you say that the dialogue is still continuing between yourself and YouTube, or is it concluded?
Graef: I believe YouTube closed the issue on the original video when they banned it as a terms-of-use violation.
Are you aware that there are now several other copies of the video posted on YouTube, as well as at least two copies on Google Video? And if so, do you expect that those versions will be deleted as well?
Graef: I am aware of that. I am curious to see how Google is going to handle that problem.
My understanding is that each instance of a problem video must be addressed individually. But I'm not 100 percent sure about that, as YouTube has refused to comment to me about this.
Graef: That is certainly not practical. If the effort it takes to file repeated claims is greater than the effort to create an account and repost a video, then certainly something is flawed. Intuitively I would think that YouTube/Google have a responsibility to review a newly posted video and to not admit it if it is similar to a previously banned one.
Do you have a sense of how Anshe Chung will protect herself against future griefing attacks in Second Life public forums? Because, as you know, the griefing continued when the interview moved from the CNET theater to the Anshe Chung Studios space.
Graef: I think only she can answer that. Personally, if I were in her situation, I would avoid appearances in sims that I am not administrator in. It is an interesting aspect. I don't understand why the estate management tools failed there.
Do you feel that perhaps Linden Lab bears some responsibility there for holes in the Second Life client?
Graef: Maybe the griefers used an exploit. My expectation would be that Linden Lab swiftly research that problem and close that loophole. Otherwise it would raise questions about how ready Second Life actually is for professional use.
30 commentsJoin the conversation! Add your comment