The Law and Virtual Worlds

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jack Ryker on September 30, 2007 at 2:32pm

Perhaps, a new governing board should be created to specifically address a
trans national, internet based world economy. A seperate economy, a seperate
country, which avatars can be an economic citizen of. I was envisioning a layer
on top of your current citizenship. Essentially as far as your counrty is concerned,
you are working overseas for another country -- cyberspace.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Goldie Katsu on September 30, 2007 at 4:22pm

We are looking at a continuation of the challenge started by the WWW becoming more than just an academic playground. As John Perry Barlow put it (to paraphrase) he realized that the US Constitution was just a local ordinance.

As long as cyberspace remains a reality that we access like a web page or a specific program it will be hard to declare cyberspace a separate jurisdiction. The physical presence in a specific locale will always lead to local jurisdiction. When I worked in NYC and lived in NJ, NJ still wanted my income taxes even though I earned them in another state. I don't see local governments wanting to give that up.

If we lived permanently "jacked-in" it might change that, but I think that the political landscape still would need to change.

The real challenge comes from the service provider perspective. Sure what I do is ruled by where I live, but what about the service provider. If it is illegal for a woman to show her knees in a particular locale what happens when they log into a virtual world that allows mini-skirts. Are these rules incumbent on the player alone, or does some culpability pass to the provider? Linden Labs is beginning to deal with some of these issues and it will be interesting to watch how this progresses.

These things become more complex as we expand to distributed grids. If the world is provided by a company in a particular country and all of there servers are in that company they have some degree of immunity provided by their physical/legal location and legislation. When the servers are distributed across countries the legality of what goes on starts to be ruled by more than one country's rules. Also, as we look at interconnecting worlds what happens as assets transfer from grid to grid. Do we end up with cross world visas? Contraband that can't be brought into certain parts of the metaverse?

Part of the challenge is that the cyberspace/metaverse still has a connection to existing real countries. The servers and the players still live in a second space outside of cyberspace, so it is not simply a matter of coming up with a new worlds rules but how to work the complexity of international laws in a world that crosses these legal boundaries.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jack Ryker on September 30, 2007 at 5:07pm

Currently, it seems the location of the servers defines what country it resides in.
But what if your server resides in the USA but all employees happen to be in China?

As far as creating a Cyberspace Economic Zone, perhaps definitions of what makes a person
eligible for this status is needed. Once he meets these requirements, then effectively
he becomes an expatriate (as far as taxes etc) who still lives locally.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alex Fedotov on September 30, 2007 at 6:10pm

As the previous campaign like this shows - I mean the 'Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace' by JPB mentioned above - there's no much chance of a separate 'jurisdiction'. Also, as it is well known from the past, namely post WWII 'Offshore business' saga - the country from which a business entity is CONTROLLED always can prevail in any and every serious legal dispute (there were multiple cases with 'offshore trusts' etc. etc.). Paperless technology only makes the things 'worse', everything's logged, all evidence is stored...

Basically... Don't even think about it, people. Don't loose your time (this is for sure a pure loss of time).

However! I'm absolutely sure that World Government will emerge in Cyberspace (sounds kinda crazy and contradicting the above, isn't it? but it is not) and will take over the world from 'there'. :)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sophrosyne Stenvaag on October 1, 2007 at 1:12pm

Goldie, you've identified a lot of my concerns -

It looks like we might be seeing a two-class metaverse ahead: one where big corporate worlds rule by the most restrictive laws in any jurisdiction, with no mature content, no political speech, and where our lack of rights is blatant - but we can "have fun" and buy first-life branded corporate products; and another class of open source but walled worlds run by a million impotent micro-factions of every possible sexual and political kink.

I think there *is* a market for creative and intellectual freedom- but will we have the chance to make that case, or will jurisdictional power grabs and fears of lawsuits strangle it?


And, while I usually have the good sense not to enter into other people's flame wars? The name on my post is my name, Use it or don't talk to me, thanks.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Prokofy on October 1, 2007 at 2:43pm

Sophrosyne,

I'm glad you've stood by the concept of "call me by the name I post with". It's not just a common courtesy and a reaonable request; in some worlds/games it's the TOS law -- first-life disclosure is not allowed. Is that sensible in the world of Google witch-hunting? Perhaps not, but there's no reason not to make a good-faith effort. Virtuality in some sense hinges on the ability of people to make avatars and invest them with whatever meaning they like. And the integrity of the avatar, just like the notion of integrity of the individual in real life law, is one that that must be preserved in a virtual world, against the encroachment not only of the "state" (game company, world software engineer) or other residents but other "non-state actors" (other residents, third-party corporations, etc.).

The two class Metaverse is a distinct possibility, I think you've framed it accurately. I don't see that 'host-your-own' gives any more latitude, as the same problems are simply inhererited in microcosm.

And the game gods and world gods have figured out that they can really go a long way to appease people's yearning for "freedom" by granting them limitless, or loosely limited, sexual licentiousness and freedom of sexual expression of any sort, and all kinds of mindless entertainment distractions, as long as they reach a tacit agreement never to go to the third rail of game-god politics itself, and question what the game gods themselves are doing -- or even the larger politics of real life (the war in Iraq, gay rights)

So far, I have not seen jurisdictional power grabs in Second Life in quite the way you imagine or that anyone imagines, such as to need to rush to the protection of self-declared juntas and illegitimate governing bodies made by those with ambitious agendas. Instead, I see something else going on, illustrated by these actual cases:

o ordinary citizens appalled at "ageplay," simulated child rape, who contact the media and law enforcement. Their local media, say, in Germany or the Netherlands, covers the scandal, and asks their local enforcement what they're doing about this scandal, and under this glare, the prosecutors begin probing, but with little results. So here, non-state actors in civil society are acting, not a state.

o right-wing groups in society, such as a family-values sort of group in France, attempting to sue for obscenity Linden Lab, along with other Internet services accessible through French providers -- and getting nowhere, their case is not accepted by the judge. Again, non-state actors

o the maker of a popular sex pose bed sues another resident whom he claims has copied his bed and stolen his copyrighted design, which he has gone to the trouble of copyrighting real life. Non-state actor.

o an outraged land baron who used an exploit he claims was in fact an available feature to obtain some auction land at a a far lower price than normal sues LL when they close his account and seize all his assets, not just the disputed auction items -- non-state actor.

o a person who believes they suffered such sexual harassment that it constituted rape in Second Life appeals to a Belgium prosecutor -- again, non-state actor initiates it, and this prosecutor hasn't gotten anywhere yet, AFAIK, but I'd like to find more about this case

o Linden Lab announces first that they have invited in the FBI to take a look at casinos in SL, and then respond by merely banning their advertising, as if their tacit operation is ok. Then suddenly, a few weeks later, they ban gambling in various forms itself. Here, the real-life authorities didn't take the initiative; Linden Lab did, in response to the threat of enforcement of the new Internet gambling law as they themselves read it

o Linden Lab announces suddenly that they will collect the VAT; if there was a real-life entity like the EU or the British government sending them notice, we're not aware of it.

So...you can see that the greatest threat to our freedoms so far, in actuality, as you see it play out, does not come from "real life jurisdictional authorities" per se, taking initiative. The threat, as always comes from one's own neighbour who doesn't know how to get alone with your or tolerate you, and wishes to sic either the game company or real-life authority on you. This is an important distinction to realize, because it suggests that finding ways for people to reduce conflict and mediate conflict is paramount in worlds to avoid real-life interference. Still, it leaves open the problem of real crime in virtual worlds that everyone can concede as crime, no matter what their jurisdiction (say, fraud, theft).

And the desire to avoid any real-life encroachment such as some national or international gaming commission that would crack down on virtual worlds, makes people wish to have "self-governance". On the other hand, in doing so, we can fall prey to all kinds of illegitimate "self-governors" unelected, unappointed, unacclaimed, whose sectarian agendas mean their mediation is corrupted, or who have too-close proximity to the game gods.

Or else the central authority of the world, which acts as a kind of weak emblem of the state, supposedly standing ready to cooperate with the real-life state, doesn't act. Such was the case with the sex bed maker, who couldn't get justice within the world of SL itself through the broken permissions system, and the indifferent game gods who wouldn't remove content until there was a court ruling. So...real life authority begins to look like a great thing, promising as it does follow-through, unbiased due process, and justice away from the horrid constraints of the "code as law" environment.

The reality is, with as much conflict as you see roiling around Second Life in the news, there is only one current lawsuit in progress (Bragg). And no one has made use of this new mediation disputes system offered as an alternative to litigation.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sophrosyne Stenvaag on October 1, 2007 at 8:52pm

I couldn't possibly agree with you more about "integrity of the avatar." And it's such a well established concept in the atomic world - we say "Google revealed new product," not, "Joe Blow, purporting to represent an "artificial person" he calls "Google," claimed..."

And, very good point about the trend line all those points fall on. In synthetic worlds, we're free to be whatever we want. And while I just do not understand it, I have to acknowledge that what many people want is control over others - whether as king, nanny or scold. LL's Orwellian "trust" policy gives a blessing to the nannies and scolds to act as its vigilante enforcers, a development that deeply worries me. I haven't come across the would-be kings. That's been intentional on my part, but with the growing threats to my simple ability to live my life in peace, I may not be able to afford that luxury much longer.

Thanks for engaging with me on this - I appreciate the time and thought that went into your answer.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Prokofy on September 30, 2007 at 6:51pm

I'm not interested in having any world government get started in the Metaverse and take over "from there" because it will be a small, cultic, totalitarian-style type of group, posting under the guise of licentiosness, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, cybercommunism, or some other ism, that will not represent freedom of speech and assembly and the free flow of goods, services, and ideas across frontiers.

I don't want any "self-governing" entity to emerge because it will be automatically illegitimate from birth by being sectarian and biased, like Ted Castronova's illegitimate junta in Illinois spawned from Ludium.

Rather, I think real-life law has to apply to those aspects of virtual worlds that in fact are real: this would include issues like copyright theft. You have plenty of established law in real countries; use them.

I'm not for restrictive notions of speech to take hold, the Chinese or British variant of libel or "insult" rather than the American. So American companies shouldn't allow those standards to sink to their lowest common denominators, and forego opening in those countries until they upgrade their standards.

Inworld, I think various committees of correspondence, social movements, even parliaments with factions will get started, and already exist, to resolve issues that pertain only to the virtual world itself, which can range from relations between game-gods/software engineering companies that create and maintain these worlds, to relations between residents that exist only within the virtual, i.e. "you've built an eyesore that is devaluing my property".

I'd love to get a good class-action suit going against ad-farmers in SL who devalue others' lands, but I think it's unrealistic, so only through boycott campaigns, neighbourhood zoning associations, etc. could one hope to mitigate these unpleasant features of virtual worlds.

Nobody is working overseas for another country called "cyberspace"; as we can see from Linden Lab's recent announcement to collect VAT, you are working for an American company that decides to comply with EU laws.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alex Fedotov on September 30, 2007 at 7:11pm

I'm very sorry to say this, Catherine, but... who was asking YOU (personaly) what kind of a government you (personaly) are 'interested in' and what you 'are not' (as usually), may I ask? :)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Prokofy on September 30, 2007 at 7:24pm

Um, I'm expressing my opinion, Alex, about what I'd like to see. I think others would share these concerns. Government rests on consent of the governed. The governed are made up of individuals, not corporate interests of the type that apparently you believe yourself to represent.

I'm not at all for faking a purported and putative public interest as others might do in this discussion, and claim they are speaking for the good of the public, when in fact they are speaking for their own narrow, corporate coders' interests.

For example, when Jack writes, "new governing board should be created to specifically address a
trans national, internet based world economy." Uh...who gets to create that board. Who gets to be on it? You and your friends? Why?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alex Fedotov on September 30, 2007 at 7:32pm

Then, you should have start your 'conversation' with : 'I'd like to see... '. I'm leaving the rest of your post unread, sorry. :)

As to the FACT, that Metaverse is governed and will be governed for a long time by RL law it is so obvious and trivial that it doesn't require ANY polemics between grown ups.

Also, as to the class-actions, I would like to file a couple too. :) But, it would be too much fun for years, there would be no time for work. :)

See you at the Conference, you still need to explain to me why you used obscene language in your communications with me.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Prokofy on September 30, 2007 at 7:31pm

Also let me point out some of the things that really spell trouble with this sort of comment, all too typical of these types of discussions:

Take a look at what you wrote:

"I'm very sorry to say this, Catherine, but... who was asking YOU (personaly) what kind of a government you (personaly) are 'interested in' and what you 'are not' (as usually), may I ask? :)"

1. Use of a RL name that I prefer not to use, as a means of goading and harassment. My avatar's name is Prokofy Neva, and that's the name I prefer to use in virtual worlds and discussions -- just like any other people on this list using only avatar names. And that's their right, and my right. If you happen to Google witch-hunt me, and happen to pick up the fact that I link my avatar and RL name willingly for legitimate real-life media (as distinct from harassers on forums), then use of that in a context where I am *not* using it is just plain harassment. Stop it. It's not necessary, and you don't get points for doing that.

2. Faux polite speech, always a marker of actual hostility, "I'm terribly sorry blah blah".

3. Nasty and vindictive needling of the type "who asked YOU?" when in fact it's an open-ended question and forum. A person using the form "I'd like to see X," isn't speaking in some totally personal parochial form on a *public forum on the Internet" but expressing what they believe to be the public good. A person in good faith in a debate concedes that.

4. That curious belief that because someone expresses their own opinion, just because it is at odds with yours
that they are "forcing it" on you or "imposing it on the collective will". I *do* hope you can accept that there will be some very strong differences of opinion expressed on how the Metaverse, which looks to have incredible influence on people and countries, and include incredible business windfalls for some and losses for others, get so be run?

So, do stop it, Alex. Please don't let this forum degenerate as so many others do, with this type of nasty, impolite, and vindictive type of speech. I'm sure others will agree.

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2
• 3