wow interesting! like a start to the creation of super heroes!! it kind of sound like science is playing God here, determining and extending lives. it is already evident now in this society without fastforwarding to the future of cyborgs and artificial limbs and organs. i think this debate reminds me of organ transplants. are the rich who can afford the expensive medical expenses involved in organ transplants have the right to live only because they are rich? what about the poor? does money = right to live now?

i think the more interesting topic is the issue of whether human rights should apply to avatars as well. some people immerse themselves so much in games that they see their avatars as literally their "2nd life". i suppose when an online avatar or character killed another online avatar, it should strictly be dealt with "charges" online. but if its the case like you mentioned where the person's avatar is harassed. If an avatar is a representation of humans projecting their identity, wouldnt harassing this identity indirectly affect the human as well? should it be liken to going online and defame someone but pointing fingers at his display pic and not the person himself?

Elaine Ong wrote:
> http://news.cnet.com/The-legal-rights-to-your-Second-Life-avatar/2100-1047_3-6147700.html
>
> Summary: Anshe Chung, the virtual world's biggest land owner in Second Life has convinced YouTube to pull down an off-color video of her virtual self being harassed during an interview. During the interview--which took place in a digital theater in front of dozens of audience members' avatars--a group intent on sabotaging the event attacked it with 15 minutes of animated penises and photographs of Anshe Chung's real-life owner, Ailin Graef, digitally altered to make her look like she was holding a giant penis.
>
> When Anshe Chung Studios filed a complaint with the popular video service claiming that Graef's copyrights had been infringed because images of her avatar were used without her permission, YouTube promptly removed the video.
>
>
>
> My thoughts on this:
> Just because someone had used a photo of her avatar and digitally enhanced it, does that mean it actually infringed on her copyright laws? So if I created an avatar that accidentally looks like hers, does that mean that Second Life has all the right to terminate my account? If so, everyone would sink into a trend of stamping a mark of creative commons on the back of their avatars.
>
> Furthermore, there is the issue of fair use. Anyone has the right to digitally enhance an image for whatever they create, the rights belong to them. If Youtube or any online news portal want to publish that piece of news and post videos of the incident online, what gives Anshe Chung the right to demand removal of those videos? Reporters have the right to report whatever they want, and the Internet is supposed to be a free-for-all platform to accommodate that very purpose. How come Youtube gave in to their demands so easily? Is it because of some other underlying reason, like power manipulation? What ever happened to digital freedom?
>
> Furthermore, do human rights apply to avatars as well? Avatars are in itself just a representation of humans projecting their identity. There is so much contention about the blurry line between reality and the virtual world. If my avatar killed someone online, would that mean that I should be charged with murder?

hi weiye,

i agree with you that this brings in the topic of representation. maybe you should try taking media and representation by Dr. Ingrid to discuss more on this.

Going back to your question, i think blogs and avatars are different representations of oneself online. And the nature of their purposes are different. Blogs are opinions, textual iteration of thoughts of one true self. If the blogs are written anonymously, or under a different identity, regarding a context that is only available on the virtual world then maybe it would be dealt differently. When you sue a blogger i think it is in regards to the comments made by the blogger to another blogger (who both exists in real life.) In regards to avatars, i used the example of killing avatars and they dont exist in real life. so charges should be done online. if one avatar defame a avatar and not the user behind the avatar i think it should also be dealt online. However the avatar directly insults the user behind the avatar, i think this case should be valid for real life charges.

(i hope i am making sense here!)

Weiye Loh wrote:
> Hi Mag,
>
> I will like to ask then, if one blogger defame another blogger, should it be dealt with online? If not, what makes avatar so special as a form of representation? Isn't my blog also another representation of me? So then we can argue that blogs should have rights too. =) Like avatar. Especially those that update on their own based on codes created to scout the net for thematic articles. I think such a scenario is not impossible.
>
> Side tracking, I think the issue of representation is very interesting. And if I may, I think we can look at what defines a human through the lens of representation. And when we do so, we can start to question, how full a representation is necessary for a human to be (re)presented or considered valid? In another word, do I need to be physically represented to be present? Do I have to be present to be represented? Presence here is of course temporal. So in that sense, if I am not present at this moment, am I then not represented? So technically speaking, given the technology's capability of allowing asynchronous communication, am I then not represented through my blog posts when you read them when I am not present?
>
> If we want to start questioning our Being, then perhaps even when I am present, I am not really represented fully. For for all presencing to be possible, there must be some form of eidetic concealment according to Heidegger. So then a full representation is not necessary after all given its impossibility. And we've not even come to the point of (mis)representation. Hmm.. Shall go for lunch and ponder over it. =) Interesting!
>
> Thank you for your posts. =)
>
>
>
> Magdaleine wrote:
> > Hi Weiye,
> >
> > Actually when i said to defame someone, i mentioned it as "pointing fingers at his display pic" as an analogy of accusation, which could fall under any of the 3 components of defamation you provided, at an online persona. i did not literally mean sit behind a computer and "pointing a middle finger at a photo". Of course, I wrote that with assumption that it could very well be proven as a defamation. My point was more focused on the fact that the defamation was directed at a "display pic" or an online persona or representation.
> >
> > And answering your questions on avatar rights, i believe i mentioned also in my earlier response that i think if 2 avatars were to run into "legal" problems, "it should strictly be dealt with charges online". meaning to carry out the legal case online, directed at the avatar and not the user. I see the whole issue as a real world in a virtual world. Therefore since everything are to be settled in the online community, it should be compensated with Linden dollars. Whether or not Linden dollars could be purchased by actually dollars would be another case altogether.
> >
> > That's my opinion anyway.
> >
> >
> > Weiye Loh wrote:
> > > Hi Mag,
> > >
> > > I think you need to refine your analogy further for defamation does not occur within closed walls or just between the two persons in question according to the law i.e. I can say whatever I want about you to you and you will not be able to sue me for defamation if there's no third party around.
> > >
> > > Defamation requires a few components to be considered
> > > 1. malicious intent
> > > 2. falsehood of claim
> > > 3. cause significant impact on the claimant's reputation
> > >
> > > That list of course differs in different legal systems and constitutions e.g. it is argued to be easier to prove defamation in Singapore unlike in US.
> > >
> > > Hence, pointing a middle finger at a photo would not probably be considered defamation.
> > >
> > > In the case of the second life, the fulfillment of the first two criteria is apparent. The third requires the claimant to prove so but it should be arguably present.
> > >
> > > Going by your interest on the issue of whether avatars should have rights as well, I will like to ask. if one avatar defames another avatar, who do we sue? (assuming that they have legal rights) The avatar? Or the user? Who should be compensated? The avatar defamed? Or the user of the avatar defamed? In what currency (if monetary compensation is involved)? Linden dollars? Or actual money? The last question might not be so clearly separated for actual money can be used to purchase Linden dollars and vice versa. =)
> > >
> > > Magdaleine wrote:
> > > > i think the more interesting topic is the issue of whether human rights should apply to avatars as well. some people immerse themselves so much in games that they see their avatars as literally their "2nd life". i suppose when an online avatar or character killed another online avatar, it should strictly be dealt with "charges" online. but if its the case like you mentioned where the person's avatar is harassed. If an avatar is a representation of humans projecting their identity, wouldnt harassing this identity indirectly affect the human as well? should it be liken to going online and defame someone but pointing fingers at his display pic and not the person himself?
> > > >
> > > > Elaine Ong wrote:
> > > > > http://news.cnet.com/The-legal-rights-to-your-Second-Life-avatar/2100-1047_3-6147700.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Summary: Anshe Chung, the virtual world's biggest land owner in Second Life has convinced YouTube to pull down an off-color video of her virtual self being harassed during an interview. During the interview--which took place in a digital theater in front of dozens of audience members' avatars--a group intent on sabotaging the event attacked it with 15 minutes of animated penises and photographs of Anshe Chung's real-life owner, Ailin Graef, digitally altered to make her look like she was holding a giant penis.
> > > > >
> > > > > When Anshe Chung Studios filed a complaint with the popular video service claiming that Graef's copyrights had been infringed because images of her avatar were used without her permission, YouTube promptly removed the video.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My thoughts on this:
> > > > > Just because someone had used a photo of her avatar and digitally enhanced it, does that mean it actually infringed on her copyright laws? So if I created an avatar that accidentally looks like hers, does that mean that Second Life has all the right to terminate my account? If so, everyone would sink into a trend of stamping a mark of creative commons on the back of their avatars.
> > > > >
> > > > > Furthermore, there is the issue of fair use. Anyone has the right to digitally enhance an image for whatever they create, the rights belong to them. If Youtube or any online news portal want to publish that piece of news and post videos of the incident online, what gives Anshe Chung the right to demand removal of those videos? Reporters have the right to report whatever they want, and the Internet is supposed to be a free-for-all platform to accommodate that very purpose. How come Youtube gave in to their demands so easily? Is it because of some other underlying reason, like power manipulation? What ever happened to digital freedom?
> > > > >
> > > > > Furthermore, do human rights apply to avatars as well? Avatars are in itself just a representation of humans projecting their identity. There is so much contention about the blurry line between reality and the virtual world. If my avatar killed someone online, would that mean that I should be charged with murder?

http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/blur-and-radiohead-fight-for-digital-rights-580364

Musicians and bands are coming together to fight for their digital rights. The artistes are trying to fight for more rights to belong to them (the "producers of their music) rather than belonging to the labels that helped release their songs and albums.

Blur and Radiohead argued that it is not an action against the listeners and consumers but rather the businesses that make huge profits by exploiting artistic content for which they pay little or nothing at all.

Problem/discussion:
Do artistes own more right to their music than the labels who helped produce and release them to the public? Afterall, the labels are using their resources and money to help these artistes promote their music and therefore own a right to the music produced and release? Likewise in a company where data are churned out by the employees, but the IP belongs to the company because they paid for the employees' time, effort and energy to produce these data for the company good. So should music artistes be seen as these normal employees working for their labels, AKA companies?

Olivia Chang wrote:

> Ethical Questions and Problems:
> 1. Is it ethical to arrest and fine the downloader of the music (instead of the uploaders)? Where should the boundary lie in pinpointing the perpetuator of the 'crime'?

although i believe it takes 2 to clap, i think the position of the uploaders can be liken to someone who displays a cd he brought in his home and plays it for his friend. whereas the downloaders are those who requests to duplicate the cd knowing perfectly well that it is an illegal act.

http://tnp.sg/news/story/0,4136,211631,00.html?

Summary:
Almost 100% of those polled in survey agreed that thieving from a physical store is illegal and wrong. However about 44per cent of Singaporeans think that illegal downloads of copyrighted material is not considered theft. Yet 80% of them acknowledge that this is illegal.

The authorities here are now studying a new 'three strikes' law to curb illegal downloads. Illegal downloaders will be warned thrice before their accounts are terminated by their Internet service providers.

Problem/things to think about:
Most people think that because digital media have no physical content (i.e. in digital bits only), it is not as a serious problem as stealing a physical and tangible item from a store or someone else. Many argued that it is similar to borrowing a CD from a friend to listen; they are still not purchasing the CD. Also, it may serve as a "sample" for them before deciding if it is good enough for them to spend their money on.

Without a physical product does not mean the digital content has no value. Digital content are such to save the cost of producing a CD or print a book. It is just another format of displaying the content. So is illegal downloads really unethical? Is diminishing copyrights on digital content worthy a fight?

http://digital.asiaone.com/Digital/News/Story/A1Story20090819-161932.html

THE authorities are studying a new way to pull the plug on unauthorised downloads: terminating Internet access of hardcore pirates who refuse to quit despite repeat warnings.

If such a law is adopted, the pirate could get three warnings if caught downloading illegally. Do it again and the authorities will get the Internet service provider (ISP) to cut off Internet access.

Commonly known as the 'three strikes' law, it is already in force in South Korea to deter users found downloading pirated materials, typically through their ISPs.

Ethical Question:
Is it right for the authorities to get the ISP to cut off the Internet access totally or should other punishments be used? Is cutting the internet access of the pirates a breach of the personal (negative) rights? However, considering the pirates have first breach an ethical issue, should it be considered ethically correct to punish them in such a way?

Ethical Problem:
The principle of Ultilitarianism which means it gives priority to reaching a certain end of good that require us to make moral decisions by means of a rational,objective cost/benefit analysis. By illegal downloading or swapping of files online, puts across a dilemna at stake because one side of the coin, the pirate gets to enjoy the file, yet the otherside, the file was downloaded without the consent of the copyrighter.

However, should it be decided, like in this case, that the pirates are downloading the files illegally, negative rights implies that one is free from external interference in one's affairs. Is the state's interference a interference into the negative rights?