Manage updates with the Download App- Related Stories
-
The legal rights to your 'Second Life' avatar
January 5, 2007 -
Virtual magnate shares secrets of success
December 20, 2006
(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?
Graef: I realize I was taking it down the wrong path when making it a copyright issue, but my impression at the time was that Corporate America may view Second Life and what happens there strictly as a matter of pixels and textures and I had given up hope that my original concerns that I had raised would ever be taken seriously. I tried to engage into a discussion, also with Boing Boing and The Sydney Morning Herald, based on the paradigm of Second Life being a place where people interact and things happen--an analogy to the real world. But I was ignored when raising the issue of personality rights in that space. I felt like people believed they can do whatever they want because, anyway, they just show pixels and avatars/cartoons in a game. YouTube has not given me feedback about what exactly were the terms of use they saw violated.
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.
See more CNET content tagged:
Ailin Graef, Guntram Graef, DMCA, Second Life, complaint
30 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
What a pile of crap. If I held CNET shares, I'd sell them today in protest at this ridiculous use of their tech news journalism web site.
He must not be allowed to get away with this, every response must be met with a truckload of criticism.
He's pissed his wife was defamed. But he has no right to make the world ignore the event and pretend it didn't happen. We must deny his attempts to do so vigorously.
inappropriate use of the DMCA, (a horrifically bad law, by the
way), to prevent the dissemination of what he thought was
unflattering content. There never was any copyright violation
and, unless this person lacks insight or the ability to call a
lawyer, (solicitor), he never should have approached the problem
that way.
It seems to me, if this avatar "Anshe Chung," (I have a life, I don't
need Second Life, so I am not familiar with anything other than
what has been in the press), thought there was a copyright
violation, good business practice would have demanded that the
avatar send a cease and desist letter to YouTube allegeding a
copyright violation. Otherwise, one could argue that this "avatar"
had abandoned the copyright claim because of improper
attempts to protect it.
How can you defame an avatar, anyway? We already live in a
litigious society, do we really want to extend the right to assert a
cause of action for defamation, et ceter to non-entities like
avatars? How can one "sexually assault" an avatar?
This was an attempt at censorship, plain and simple, and he
should just admit what it really was and try and move on and
rebuild his reputation. Fortunately, for both parties to this
silliness, being petty and dumb is not actionable or illegal...
To the naysayers: Pretend someone posted digitally-made "videos" of your mother being raped. Would that be funny? Is that freedom of expression? Is that protected speech? If you don't answer "no, no, and no" then I feel sorry for you.
If someone is a well-known figure, they are fair game for satire, even the tasteless, pornographic kind. Suck it up and remember that we live in the land of the free. Sadly, those who live in China, like Chung or whatever his name is, probably don't understand that since censorship is a way of life for them.
But this is not that. This is like your grandmothers *video game character* being digitally altered to appear in an embarrassing situation.
Second Life is a video game, it is not Reality. Any "land baron" in a video game deserves the same respect as your average gold farmer in Everquest or WoW.
If I play Sid Meiers' 'Railroads' and become a land baron in that game, can I give YouTube DMCA takedown notices for any videos that show my character in a bad light?
I also can't believe Guntram can talk about freedom of speech, a topic he does seem to know the first thing about. If c|net is going to continue to give PR thinly veiled as interviews, at least try to ask some actual tough questions.
"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."
Uh, maybe someone should tell this guy that Second Life is
actually a GAME and not intended for "professional" use. Unless
I'm missing the point of Second Life, I have enough trouble
keeping up with my first life to think of indulging in a second
one.
Of course, if you see this as a game (as I do), then it takes most
of the air out of his arguments doesn't it. It starts to look pretty
silly when you start making claims of "sexual assult" from
pixelated ******* against a cartoon image.
I just did a quick search, and found American Apparel, W Hotels, Toyota, Adidas, Sun Micro Systems.
Harvard Law School Is now using Second Life to teach distance learning classes. It all sounds silly to me, however I have not used it yet, so I don't have the right to that opinion.
Many talented people are making a great deal of real life money in Second Life. Many people who are some what less talented than they think are spending quite a bit trying.
the pictures that were the cause of all this consternation (still
and forevermore available here: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://" target="_newWindow">http://</a>
www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4336) I would like to
say that Guntram lied when he said this:
"What got lost in the whole coverage of the issue was that
initially I had contacted all parties involved and tried to engage
them in a dialogue about the inappropriateness of the graphical
material they distributed."
Because he never contacted me. Never made the effort. And
from what I hear from other people, his original messages to
them were brusque demands, not engagements.
No matter. I can see why Anshe Chung Studios would be
concerned with burnishing the public image of their figurehead,
who, if I may remind everyone, started out in Second Life as a
virtual *****.
Daniel was the teporter in the interview. Now he is trying to turn some griefer bugging him online into some kind of major freedom of speech thing for the sake of his own personal gain.
Daniel, Wikipedia decided not to delete you, it is time to let this go.
The people who don't have accounts on SL don't care.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/19/terdiman_rosedale_resume/" target="_newWindow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/19/terdiman_rosedale_resume/</a>