Behind the scenes of Second Life Real Estate King and DMCA allegations

Behind the scenes of Second Life Real Estate King and DMCA allegations

In December 2006, Anshe Chung, the real estate tycoon of the virtual world “Second Life,” appeared in an interview with CNET News and told the inside story of Second Life. “Ansche Chung” is an avatar created by Chinese business woman Ailin Graef (Ansche Chung bought and maintained Second Life real estate little by little, renting and selling it to people, 2006. in November, the first 9.95 US dollars invested in it and swelled in terms of up to 100 million equivalent to the assets and the currency of the real world in Second Life announced became famous).

As widely reported, the interview, conducted in front of a large crowd at CNET Networks’ Second Life Theater, was interrupted by a group of malicious players called “griefers,” Ansche Chung said. For 15 minutes, he was exposed to “digital attacks” by flying male genital swarms and pornographic images.

Shortly thereafter, a video showing the whole story of the attack was posted on the video sharing site “YouTube” with pop music background music. The case was reported in Australia’s The Sydney Morning Herald and the tech culture blog Boing Boing, with a screenshot of the video in question.

The images used in the videos and articles quickly spread through the Internet, infuriating Ailin Graef’s husband and business partner Guntram Graef. Graef considered the video an act of “copyright infringement” and filed a complaint with YouTube under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Second Life has granted users ownership of the content they created, alleging that the videos and photos in question were copyright infringement in that they used Anshe Chung’s images without permission.

YouTube responded quickly, but lawyers said that the use of images by the media was fair use, and Graef’s claim to remove videos and photos freed the press. There was a voice saying that it was a threat. The DMCA, established in 1998, aims to extend copyright protection to materials published on the Internet.

In mid-January, YouTube and Google Video had already begun to make copies of the first video, but YouTube removed the video in question under the new name “Violation of Terms of Service.” There was no detailed explanation from YouTube on this matter.

Guntram Graef recently spoke for the first time in public why he alleged a DMCA breach and later withdrew his claim.

An exclusive interview took place at Anshe Chung Studios’ new furniture store in Second Life, where Graef shared his thoughts on a variety of issues, including the issue.

–What should we start with?

I think there are many misunderstandings and misunderstandings.

–What?

The first thing I want to make clear is that I regret alleging a DMCA violation for this event. Copyright is not at the heart of the matter. I didn’t expect anyone to misunderstand my allegations as censorship. There is no such intention. I haven’t reported any articles, but I initially tried to reach out to all involved and communicate through dialogue how inappropriate the images they delivered.

The videos and images in question were arguably defamatory and sexually violent. I’m not concerned with the free flow of information. Members of Anshe Chung Studios recognize the importance of the media reporting events and facts without censorship. But that doesn’t mean that you can disperse pornographic images created to hurt women.

–How are these images defamatory? Isn’t it just a parody? It’s a bad hobby, but isn’t it just a parody?

What many Americans and Australians overlook is that Ailin is Chinese. It is unbearable for humans living in the Chinese culture to publish processed photographs that look like they have huge male genitals. By US standards, posting images of women with male genitals is a serious sexual violence, far from a parody.

–I understand that, but this one was in the news because Anshe Chung is a celebrity. And the images–at least the images in “Boing Boing” and “The Sydney Morning Herald” were meant to convey the incident.

Yes. That’s why we didn’t try to interfere with the media coverage either. But that doesn’t mean you need to disperse pornographic images created by attackers. “Boing Boing” and “The Sydney Morning Herald” used images created by the attackers. The only purpose of this attack was to hurt Ailin by distributing the created images over the Internet.

It is no exaggeration to say that some media outlets were used for this purpose. Even without touching the laws of Australia, the United States, Germany and China, this is a totally futile, hobbyist act that undermines the credibility of the Western media and undermines the credibility of freedom of speech in many countries. was.

–What kind of interaction did you have with YouTube?

When I first noticed the video in question, I tried to tell YouTube how vile and inappropriate this was. However, I couldn’t find a phone number, email address, or any means of contact. All that was provided was a form for alleging a DMCA violation. I used this form, but I haven’t filed a DMCA breach. He claimed that this was a sexual personal attack and an act of trampling on the human rights of women. I didn’t make copyright an issue.

A few days later, I got a reply. It offered only the option of starting or canceling the DMCA violation allegations. Only at this stage did I start thinking about copyright … Eventually, I alleged piracy, but at the same time repeated my initial concerns. Later, when I learned that the allegation was causing controversy (whether it was censorship), I immediately withdrew the allegation of DMCA violation and stopped the allegation on YouTube, but based on my first concern.

–Is this a personal exchange? Or did you use something like a form system?

I think it was the support team that I talked to. It is a ticket system where multiple staff members process tickets / emails instead of a specific individual.

–At that time, did you answer that you would revisit the video based on your initial concerns?

Yes, there was such a reply at that time.

–Did YouTube give you a specific explanation of the violation?

It was a mistake to raise copyright issues in the first place, but I thought American companies would consider Second Life and what happened there as fictional and wouldn’t take my first concern seriously. I tried to talk to Boing Boing and The Sydney Morning Herald according to the paradigm that Second Life is a place where people interact and things happen, and it’s a real-world analogy. However, the story of personality rights in the virtual world was ignored. It’s a game, it’s just a world of pixels and avatars / cartoons, so you can do whatever you want–people seemed to think so. There was no feedback from YouTube regarding the specific content of the violation of the Terms of Service.

–Is the dialogue with YouTube still going on? Or is it finished?

YouTube has banned viewing of the original video because of a violation of the Terms of Service. At this point, I think YouTube has put an end to the discussion about the first video.

–Did you know that there are several copies of the original video posted on YouTube? At least two copies have also been posted on Google Video. If you know, do you think these videos will be deleted as well?

I know the matter. I’m curious how Google will deal with this issue.

–I understand that when a problematic video is posted, it must be dealt with individually. However, YouTube refuses to comment on this matter, so I don’t really know.

If it’s easier to create an account and repost a video than to repeatedly complain, you should consider the system to be problematic. Intuitively, YouTube / Google is responsible for looking at newly posted videos and refusing to post them if they resemble previously banned videos.

–How will Anshe Chung protect himself from Greefer attacks in Second Life’s public forums? As you know, the attack continued even if the interview was changed from CNET Theater to Anshe Chung Studios.

You won’t know it unless you ask him. But if I were her, I wouldn’t go to a SIM (Second Life land) that I didn’t control. What’s interesting is why real estate management tools didn’t work.

–Do you think Linden Lab is also responsible for the problem with the Second Life client?

The greefer may have used the loophole. We hope that Linden Lab will promptly investigate the issue and close this loophole. Otherwise, the commercial use of Second Life will be questioned.

 

Listestates

Please follow our facebook page to connect us.

Comments

mood_bad
  • No comments yet.
  • Add a comment