Scientific American: Law in Virtual Worlds/SL

Article in the July 2009 "Scientific American" magazine. The article is about legal issues in virtual worlds.

Second Life is talked about in the article also.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=avatar-acts

The article doesn't state any virtual problems that are not already covered by statutory or common law. When digital property is recognized as property, it can be treated just like any other property that can be destroyed or stolen. Other laws cover the effects of what happen in a virtual world to the real world (as in the divorce example; virtual sex may not be adultery, but spending time online with a stranger rather than one's real spouse constitutes neglect). I don't see a case made for a need for regulation.

Well how about the case where virtual theft of property was not seen as a crime, even though it was valued at 800 real dollars?

There do seem to be some improvements that could be made.

The main point of the article was not that laws do not cover it but they are not being applied.

That doesn't need new law, just a legal professional to rub two brain cells together to make a case. It's data theft, just like any other data theft. People get caught up on the "virtual" and "game" aspect, but it's a red herring. Stealing the virtual sword is really no different than stealing and selling a client list in a file, for example.

(The virtual sword case wouldn't be theft, it would be conversion.)

As with most frontiers someone has to (have the sack to) start.

Lawyers will be hesitant to do so, unless/until someone sees a case that can net (heh) them money or fame. Right now it's an uphill battle because surprisingly many people harbor prejudice toward anything online, let alone virtual worlds or games. Most would utter a few harsh/derogatory words, along the lines of "loser(s) deserved it" or "so what".

Until public climate changes no one gives a fig about what happens to people within a virtual construct is what it boils down to.

I agree with you that these cases could easily be made, but we're not harboring prejudice or ignorance (same thing) against online activity.

Sooner or later (and hopefully sooner because technology is moving forward rapidly and web content is becoming more and more valuable, in any context) a Lawyer with those two brain cells and then some, is going to take it on, realizing the implications for the future of business.

I sort of played devil's advocate on the other thread about stealing/using a trademarked name....because the idea of dragging someone to court over that 'would' indeed seem a waste of time unless it could be proven that there is real $$$ value attached to that theft.

The reality is that once value is proven........once virtual business dealings start to become more main stream, meshing with RL business......then the law is going to HAVE to recognize the value and step up to the plate. We're all on the wide swing into the curve.....this is a baby technology......but it WILL become a grown up one day.....just as computers have....cell phones....microwaves......we WILL round the curve and come tearing out the other side.....and then we'll watch the hot shot lawyers scrambling to take on the cases

If lawyers could make a buck out of it, I'm sure they would.

The problem is that the amounts involved are usually (not always) relatively small and not worth going through the trouble. I mean if you have to pay a $2000 legal fee to recover an $800 stolen item, is it really worth it to anyone bu the laywer?

The other issue is the amount of effort that has to be gone through to get the identity of the RL person behind the avatar - not everyone gives their real info, so even requiring LL to give out what information they have is not necessarily going to be productive.

Unless the virtual sword and "loot" exists in a game like WoW or CoH where the EULA clearly states that anything and everything in the game belongs to the company, not the players, and all your subscription fee buys is the right to access the server and play. The EULA of such games also typically makes it a bannable offense to trade game loot for real money.

I don't see how data theft applies. Doesn't data theft refer to stealing proprietary information, such as customer lists or trade secrets? I suppose stealing a password could be data theft in some cases, but we do have newer laws covering illegal access to computer systems. Those laws were necessary because the password itself may not have a discernible value and the existing laws of trespass were difficult to apply successfully. That's the real point of the article. There may be legal theories that apply, but because this is new ground, the costs of actually applying them may be too high to justify, for either consumers or district attorneys. (From what I can tell, conversion has its own set of technical problems with successfully arguing that case. A DA isn't likely to take on such a case.)

Here's a better article on the subject: http://www.thelenreid.com/resources/documents/060209_IPL360.pdf . It mentions that South Korea and Taiwan have enacted different virtual property laws:

LL has a very different attitude from most MMORPGs, because it actively encourages the aftermarket in intellectual property. It seems plausible to argue that we own transferable licenses in SL artifacts, and those license rights can be stolen. But in the case of that virtual sword, exactly what property do you think was illegally converted or stolen? A license? A copyright?

That's what small claims court is for, no?

The court costs aren't the real problem. The problem is that it could still take significant legal research to prove that you actually have property rights. Most people can't do that sort of research without paying a lawyer many thousands of dollars. Plus, small claims courts are notoriously reluctant to break new ground.

On the other hand, cases in small claims court are held in the claimant's jurisdiction. If the defendant doesn't show up, how strong a claim do you need to get a default judgement against them?

Ah, but then how do you collect?

I don't know about you but I'd start by googling "small claims judgement collection".

Actually, no. You have to file the case in the defendant's jurisdiction in order for the court to serve them. This is the first stumbling block for many who get done wrong by someone online. Who's going to spend $1000 on travel expenses to cross the country to sue someone over an eBay transaction gone bad or stole WoW game loot?

No one seems to realise that small claims judgments are not enforceable.

Ever try collecting on one?

Exactly - that's the issue - the costs would be in tracking down the person you want to take to court. That won't be free, I would imagine, and would be significantly more expensive than the court case itself.