virtual worlds
for a list of resources on this topic, see the technology policy bibliography
by Eric Su
I. BACKGROUND AND SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE
Virtual worlds are immersive virtual "places" where people go to meet, interact, and play. In more simple terms, a virtual world is a video game - the kind of massive multiplayer online environments popularized by games like World of Warcraft, Sims Online, and Second Life. Popular virtual world Second Life is aptly named. The emergence of virtual worlds is really creating a kind of "second life", with a whole new emergent society built on top of the Internet. More and more people now have two identities: one for the physical world and one for the virtual world. This paper examines some of the issues implicated by virtual worlds and then deals specifically with the issue of virtual property.
To understand the issues behind virtual worlds, it is important to have a basic understanding of how they work. Because many kinds of virtual worlds exist, this introduction will use the common characteristics of some of the most popular ones-World of Warcraft, Sims Online, and Second Life - as the primary model for virtual worlds. First, players interact via 3-D digital avatars, which are their representational proxies in the virtual world. To encourage rich social interaction, people can heavily customize their avatars with a variety of hairstyles, names, clothing, and skin colors, reflecting the diversity of appearances within our physical worlds. [i] Virtual worlds commonly depict a world similar to the real world. They are bounded by the same scarcity of resources and physical laws.[ii] Users engage in many of the same, mundane activities as they do in their real lives. In Sims Online, for example, "playing" means working, developing hobbies, accumulating money, and socializing. In fantasy world World of Warcraft, working might mean defeating monsters and accumulating weapons, potions, and gold. There are no U.S. laws that explicitly govern virtual worlds to date. Instead, game developers are often the main legal authorities. Whether your avatar can fly, enter into another person's building, or steal another player's goods - all these kinds of activities are determined by what the developers allow. As author and Professor Larry Lessig reminds us, code is law in cyberspace.[iii] If disputes arise, developers can unilaterally change what players can and cannot do. They have the power to resolve disputes, expel members, levy taxes, and engage in many other kinds of governmental activities. These broad powers are often articulated in a virtual world's community standards, End User License Agreements, and Terms of Service.
Virtual worlds are now a development impossible to ignore. First, KWorld, a virtual world consultancy, estimates that there are now 173.6 million registered users on virtual worlds.[iv] Within this population, many people spend hours at a time playing and even claim primary residency within these virtual worlds.[v] This volume is only expected to increase as virtual worlds gain in popularity. Second, virtual worlds are now used for an expanding variety of purposes besides just recreation. Wal-Mart, American Express, and Intel are all using Second Life as a forum for collaboration.[vi] These companies have used Second Life for meetings, product development, and designing simulated services. Denver University is looking to enhance its science curriculums by incorporating virtual world 3D tools.[vii] Many companies, like American Apparel, own virtual storefronts in Second Life either for marketing or to actually sell virtual items.[viii] John Edwards became the first president to set up shop within Second Life for his 2008 presidential campaign.[ix] One can see the ways in which virtual worlds are already beginning to make an impact on business, social, and political life. Players trade $880 million worth of virtual goods each year through third party sites like eBay.[x] Third, virtual worlds are an important part of the Internet's architecture. MIT Technology Review writer Wade Roush believes that "The World Wide Web will soon be absorbed into the World Wide Sim." Surfing the Internet will no longer be about jumping from Website to Website, but rather from one virtual environment to another.3
Aside from its significant economic, social, and political impacts, virtual worlds should also be of interest for academic and legal purposes. First, the economic boundaries between the physical and virtual worlds are blurred. Virtual money often has real, tangible monetary value. As of March 20th, 2008, Linden Dollars from Second Life can be exchanged for real US dollars at the rate of 264 to 1.[xi] Therefore, real world interests are at stake in all the transactions and activity that takes place. Third, virtual worlds are an amazing experiment in law making. After all, "law regulates actions within a social system", and virtual worlds are huge social systems that engage millions of people.[xii] Players are willing and ideal guinea pigs because, as Professor Ethan Katsh notes, those who come to virtual worlds are usually interested in experimentation to begin with. Scholars can gain a lot of insight into how norms emerge in social systems by examining virtual worlds.[xiii] Given their increasing relevance and presence in our society, virtual worlds are clearly an important area of public policy. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. First, an overview of some of the key public policy issues will be presented. The paper will then delve more deeply into the issue of virtual property. Next, the paper will discuss implicated legal issues by examining some of the relevant statutes and litigation that currently exist. Then the paper will summarize and review relevant research. The paper will then conclude with a discussion on future implications and relationships to other policy issues.
II. THE CONFLICTING POSITIONS: ECONOMIC, DEONTOLOGICAL, AND RELATIONAL
The Issues At Large
The rising popularity of virtual worlds raises tricky public policy dilemmas about property rights, avatar rights, governance, consumer protection, terrorism, privacy, child safety, and even addiction. The focus of this public policy paper is virtual property. Virtual worlds have given birth to an economy based on virtual assets that often have real-world values attached to them. Millions of dollars worth of virtual goods are transacted on Second Life and eBay, and some Second Lifers have even reaped real-world fortunes from this trade. The difficulties are whether virtual property is a meaningful concept, and if so, how it should be allocated and regulated. These issues are more closely examined in the next section.
Virtual worlds have also introduced a new area of debate for avatars. In My Tiny Life, author Julian Dibbell describes an incident of rape in early virtual world LambdaMOO, where an avatar named Mr. Bungle seized control of two female avatars and then provided textual descriptions of their sexual self-mutilation. Although the incident did not involve physical contact, the psychological trauma experienced by the two female users was real.[xiv] Given these harms, do avatars deserve the same legal protection as real people? Some scholars argue that avatar rights should not exist because avatars are not alive - they are merely evanescent bits of data in a database. Dan Hunter argues that avatars are manifestations of actual people and act as projections of a person's identity. Just as a bionic arm is still part of oneself, an avatar is also part of oneself. Hunter argues that avatars are both fiscally and psychologically important.[xv]
In 2007, a virtual "bank" promising interest rates of over 40% disappeared from Second Life with $75,00 in real world money. Second Life responded by banning virtual banks altogether.[xvi] In late July 2007, a user hacked into a Second Life stock exchange, made false deposits, and then disappeared with an estimated $10,000.[xvii] These incidents of fraud have brought to light some of the shortcomings of virtual worlds, with many pundits likening virtual worlds to the lawless Wild West. Not only is fraud an issue to itself, these incidents have also raised questions about the anonymous nature of user activity. Many people are drawn to virtual worlds precisely because of their anonymous quality, which encourages people to use their imaginations and carry out their fantasies. Therefore, some argue that anonymity should be protected because they are important for the flourishing of the game. However, those against user privacy cite the harms and risks associated with anonymous social interactions. Last year a British newspaper suggested that Islamic terrorists were infiltrating Second Life, using their avatars as covers to recruit new terrorists and to practice surveillance and reconnaissance methods. The newspaper also claims that Islamic terrorists were using Second Life to transact money.[xviii] Users also purportedly use virtual worlds to sexually prey on children. Given the kinds of sinister activities that may take place in virtual worlds, such as fraud, terrorism, and rape, many scholars believe virtual worlds should not be as anonymous as they are.
All these incidents have raised new issues about government oversight, spurring the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee to host its first hearing on virtual worlds within Second Life on April Fools Day 2008.14 This issue of government oversight has been part of a larger debate about regulating cyberspace. Some legal scholars are for government oversight because real world interests are involved and real-world laws are already attached to virtual objects. [xix] Many legal scholars are against government oversight because it raises more questions that it answers. First, punishment and deterrence mechanisms already exist within virtual worlds. As James Grimmelmann writes in Virtual World as Comparative Law, "to prevent violence, annoyance, and non-cooperation, players can engage in violence, annoyance, or non-cooperation."[xx] Retaliation is an effective means of justice in a virtual world. Second, virtual worlds play havoc on geographic boundaries that define federal and state laws. Conflicting jurisdictions arise in cyberspace. No geographical localized set of people has a stronger claim to regulate the web. In addition, physical geography simply does not exist where Internet transmission speeds are independent of location.[xxi] Third, experience also suggests that developers and virtual world users are very capable of self-regulation. Second Life is effectively self-policed by a community of interested users. Lambda MOO, one of the earliest virtual worlds, developed effective dispute resolution mechanisms such as creating human arbitrator characters.[xxii] Many believe that just as a domain name governance system was effectively created from decisions made by engineers, virtual worlds will develop their own methods of governance through technical protocols.[xxiii]
Virtual Property
Virtual property is an explosive legal dilemma for those involved in virtual worlds. Its existence possibly activities real-world property laws and changes the experience of virtual world. Virtual property is an asset collected within a virtual world that is used, traded, or sold to increase the status of a user's avatar. Examples include virtual money, real estate, or weapons.
The main point of contention is whether virtual property exists, and if so, who owns it. The main argument is that "property rights should inhere in virtual assets" because virtual property shares many qualities with real world property and satisfies the major theories of property.[xxiv] Their arguments also suggest that users have legitimate claims to ownership of this virtual property.
First, the economic boundaries between "real" and "unreal" are blurred. Virtual property attracts real-world values. If a user possesses a valuable asset in the virtual world, like a powerful sword, he can list the asset on eBay for an auction. The auction occurs, denominated in real world dollars. Virtual property should therefore exist because they extend real personal property in certain circumstances. Economic arguments also support why users, rather than developers, should have ownership of virtual property. Efficient markets are fostered by concepts of personal property and stability of ownership, just like in the real world. It is imperative to recognize a user's virtual property to foster virtual world trade and activity.
The moral arguments for user ownership begin with the philosophical labor theories that justify real property. The Lockean theory of labor goes "whatsoever man removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and hereby makes it his property."[xxv] Virtual property can be justified through this labor theory. Virtual goods are created and obtained when the user invests time and effort to create, and this personal investment establishes the user's ownership over that property. Hegel's personality theories of property also justify virtual property. The personality theory states that property interests foster human needs such as self-reliance and liberty, and these effects are not different simply because the property is virtual. People feel connected to their virtual property as an extension of self.
Relationally, there are practical reasons for recognizing virtual property. Users will assume ownership of virtual property rights whether one seeks to recognize them or not. Even after Sony outlawed trade in Everquest assets, virtual assets continued to trade, and auctions simply moved from eBay to other sites.[xxvi] These viewpoints not only articulate why virtual property rights exist but also give strong arguments for why virtual property ought to belong to the user.
On the opposite side of the debate, some scholars argue that virtual property does not exist and that they really belong to the developers as intellectual property. In his paper Pitfalls of Virtual Property, Dr. Richard Bartle provides economic, moral, and relational reasons as to why claims to virtual property are dubious and why any kind of ownership should be allocated to developers as copyright.
On economic grounds, a user's claim to virtual property rights may destroy the dynamism that makes virtual worlds so valuable. In virtual worlds, every item's value is contingent on interactions with other virtual items. Introducing a new item, such as a magic healing antidote, affects the desirability of other items, like a magical poison whose effects are cancelled out by the newly introduced antidote. If virtual property has real world value, there are several issues that arise which will put an undue economic burden on developers. One, are developers now obligated to ensure that the worth of virtual objects will not substantially change? This implication means that it is impossible for developers to grow and evolve their virtual worlds by introducing new items, since these new items may distort the supply and demand and thus value of existing items. Two, do developers now have an obligation to run virtual worlds in perpetuity, regardless of profitability? If a user can treat his virtual property as real property, it will be impossible to close down a virtual world because it will mean destroying all of a user's dependent virtual assets. Even if players can dispose their assets before shut down, someone, probably the developer, will still have to buy the assets. And buying all these virtual assets still does not recompense the social capital of friends and reputation that are lost by shutdown. If virtual property was controlled entirely by developers instead, many of these difficult questions would be resolved because there would not be a need to reconcile the property claims of millions of users.
On moral grounds, Dr. Bartle also rejects the Lockean labor theories and he believes that "the means to produce" idea is being stretched too far. He compares the activities of users in virtual worlds to kids rearranging the Lego blocks in a play area for children. Just as rearranging those Lego blocks does not entitle a child to claim the blocks as his own property, a user cannot make claims to virtual property because he is merely rearranging the code that was put in by the creators in the first place. The creators are the ones who created the virtual world and all its movable pieces, so they should own the virtual world as a form of intellectual property.
Relationally, many scholars argue against a user's claim to virtual property because it destroys the gaming experience. Virtual worlds are often leveled, meaning that a user must go through many obstacles and levels to attain a certain status. With this journey comes bragging rights and status. If virtual property exists, and thus users can buy and trade their virtual property at will, the "achievement hierarchy" of games will be destroyed. A user can simply buy a leveled up character without having to acquire it through hard work. The experience of game players would be cheapened.17
III. LEGAL ISSUES AND LAW ON POINT
To date, a legal theory of virtual property has not emerged. Virtual worlds are still young, and as a result, litigations are just beginning to cross over into real world courts.
Black Snow Interactive v. Mythic Interactive was the first lawsuit to address a virtual world property dispute. Black Snow Interactive was a small business that made a profitable business from operating a virtual world "sweatshop". The company rented offices in Tijuana, Mexico and hired three shifts of unskilled Mexican laborers to spend several hours playing Dark Age of Camelot and Ultima Online, two popular virtual worlds. The workers would acquire skills and gold for their avatars, and Black Snow would then sell these leveled up characters and assets on eBay to other players. Mythic Interactive, the producers of Dark Age of Camelot, banned Black Snow's virtual world account and de-listed all of its eBay listings, suing for intellectual property infringement. Black Snow filed a countersuit claiming that Mythic was engaging in unfair business practices. They introduced an innovative argument in favor of their activities, stating that the company did not sell the virtual objects per se but rather the time spent in acquiring them, and Mythic had no ownership over a user's time.[xxvii]
This case was important in that it finally made the issue of virtual property relevant to the real-world legal system. Unfortunately, no ruling would take place. The case was dropped because Black Snow Interactive failed to pay its lawyers.
In 2007, a virtual world sweatshop would be the center of another lawsuit, Hernandez v. IGE. In this case, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Antonio Hernandez against Interactive Gaming Entertainment (IGE). IGE operated a business that hired workers in third world countries to spend hours playing World of Warcraft, acquiring virtual gold, and then selling the gold on eBay, a practice known as "gold farming". The central issue of this lawsuit was over unfair trade practices and third party beneficiary contract claims. The plaintiff argued that IGE breached Blizzard Entertainment's Terms of Use, and that the plaintiff suffered harms as a third party beneficiary because of this breach. These harms included a devaluated currency and lost time. Their core claim, verbatim, states, "IGE made a calculated decision to reap profits by knowingly interfering with the intended use and enjoyment associated with consumer agreements between Blizzard and subscribers to its virtual world." IGE, the defendant, argued that their company was never in any agreement with Blizzard and was not a party to the End User License Agreement. Currently, no verdict has been reached and the case is still pending. Currently, a flourishing secondary market exists, built on the businesses of currency farmers. This case is closely watched because it could deal a blow to the trade on these markets and lead to the demise of gold farming business models.[xxviii]
End User License Agreements (EULA) and Terms of Service are legal contracts that are immensely important for virtual worlds developers and their authority. Bragg v. Linden Research would challenge the enforceability of these legal agreements. End User License Agreements are agreements between developers and the users of computer software that outline the parameters of use granted to the user.[xxix] In this case, a Second Life user and lawyer named Mark Bragg allegedly accessed an auction page for virtual property that had not yet been released. Bragg then acquired that land below Linden Lab's cost for that land and sold parts of it to other residents. Linden Labs suspended and then closed Marc Bragg's account for violating the Terms of Service. Bragg filed suit in 2006 claiming that Linden Labs unfairly terminated his account and asked for damages between $4000 and $6000 USD for losses from his virtual business venture. Linden filed motions to dismiss the suit and compel Bragg to arbitrate his claims out of court, as outlined in their Terms of Service. The issue here is the enforceability of a virtual world's Terms of Service and EULA. A Pennsylvania judge would find that Second Life's Terms of Service are not legally binding because of the principle, "Terms of Adhesion", and that Second Life's Arbitration Clause was unconscionable.[xxx] The lawsuit was settled in October 2007 and Marc Bragg's second life account was re-instated. Second Life would then alter their Terms of Service. The case is important because it departs from the judicial tendency to enforce these contracts, but for those interested in virtual property, the case still does not address the bigger and more interesting question of whether the virtual assets are real property or not.
Chaoyang District People's Court in Beijing vs. Arctic Ice Technology would be the first virtual world lawsuit in China. Li Hong Chen, a player of Chinese virtual world "Red Moon", sued Arctic Ice Technology Development Company, the developer of the virtual world, for security holes when his game winnings was stolen by a hacker in February. Chen held the company liable for theft of Hong Chen's hard earned games and status. Arctic Ice's counter-argument was that virtual properties were simply "piles of data" that had no real world value. The court would rule in favor of Hong Chen and held the company liable.[xxxi] This case is significant because it puts increasing responsibility on developers for financial harms, and demonstrates the growing international scope of virtual worlds.
In Eros v. Simon, virtual interactions would once again make their way into our real world courts. Eros LLC was a virtual business that engaged in the sale of adult themed virtual objects in Second Life. Eros LLC claims that its products have built a reputation in Second Life for quality and are among the best-selling adult-orientated virtual objects in Second Life. Eros also asserts that it has filed for federal trademark and copyright registration for its products, and Second Life has specific provisions that allow users to retain intellectual property for digital content that they create. Thomas Simon is accused of peddling rip-off copies of Eros' products and has been using Eros' trademark without permission. Eros is asking for an injunction to stop Simon's actions, treble damages, attorney's fees, and other statutory damages. The issue is over intellectual property rights for products that aren't real. The case is still pending, but it represents one of the first instances where a user, rather than the developer, is taking a stand to protect intellectual property of virtual assets.[xxxii]
To date, no lawsuit has directly taken on the more complicated issue of virtual property as real property. Outside of the small body of existing litigation, there are a few institutions and statutes relevant to virtual worlds. Most disputes in virtual worlds have concerned micro-transactions settled outside of courts. However, some people have sought alternative dispute resolution options. The Portuguese Ministry of Second Life and the New University of Lisbon have created the e-Justice Center, one of the first legal institutions to deal with virtual world issues. Once users decide to arbitrate, they put money in an escrow account that is awarded to a winning party. Law professors, law students, and officials from the Ministry of Justice currently staff the center.[xxxiii]
There is currently no legislation directly regulating virtual worlds, but the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a legal prescription used by many virtual worlds to protect themselves in property disputes. The DMCA was passed in 1996 to increase the punishments and regulations on copyright infringement. Virtual worlds like Second Life, who grant users intellectual property over their digital content, avoid liability through DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. This section provides a process for a copyright owner to notify an online service provider about possible infringement. The DMCA also provides a number of safe harbor guidelines for copyright liability. If online service providers, for example, promptly take reasonable steps to block allegedly infringing material if they receive a notification from a copyright holder, then they are not held liable.[xxxiv]
IV. RELEVANT RESEARCH
Virtual worlds are a growing area of academic research, posing many new questions for economists, lawyers, sociologists, and more.
Sociologists and economists are both particularly interested in virtual worlds because they are microcosms for larger social systems. On the sociological side, Julian Dibbell's book, My Tiny Life, is considered the authoritative account of early virtual world LambdaMOO. The book is a presentation on the behaviors that occur in a virtual world, such as gossip, cybersex, crime, and rape. One noted scholar on virtual world economics is Edward Castronova, who has authored an important economic and sociological paper tiled "Virtual Words: A First-Hand Account of Market and Society on the Cyberian Front". Using Everquest as the basis of his observations, Castronova details the buying and selling mechanisms that occur in virtual worlds. For example, there are two markets for microeconomic transactions. There are avatar-to-avatar transactions that take on the price haggling characteristics of bazaars, and then there are avatar-to-biot transactions that model typical store purchases and feed limitless supplies of goods into the virtual world. Castronova then details some of the macroeconomic mechanisms of virtual worlds, describing ways to estimate macroeconomic statistics of virtual worlds, such as nominal wages and GNP per capita, as if virtual worlds were countries themselves. Building on this research, Castronova has also authored a book, "On Virtual Economies", to describe the likely market structures of virtual worlds and their implications for real-world macroeconomics. He argues that virtual worlds are unlikely to adopt a monopolistic market structure because of the diversity of tastes for virtual world experiences, congestion within the worlds and the costs of expanding them, high switching costs, and the tendency for fickle fashions and churn in artistic endeavors such as virtual worlds. Castronova also describes some macroeconomic implications, such as the consequences of labor being diverted away from property and into gaming.[xxxv]
To date, there is a good quantity of papers about cyberspace regulation, and an emerging body of work addressing virtual worlds specifically. "Law and Borders - The Rise of Law in Cyberspace" was a significant paper that advanced the "Cyberspace as Place" thesis, which argues that cyber space ought to be treated as its own jurisdiction for legal purposes.19 Scholars believe the "Cyberspace as Place" thesis will apply to virtual worlds eventually, and virtual worlds will be regarded as their own place with their own set of laws. Gregory Latowka and Dan Hunter were early pioneers in examining virtual world public policy. Their widely cited paper, "The Laws of the Virtual Worlds", argues why virtual property and avatar rights should be given legal recognition. Hunter and Latowka examine the arguments and philosophies behind real-world property, and then draw parallels to virtual property. Subsequent papers have also examined this question about legal treatment of virtual worlds.22 James Grimmelmann, in his paper "Virtual Worlds as Comparative Law", insightfully examines the conceptual framework of "in-world laws". He argues, among many things, for the absence of contract laws in virtual worlds and the use of retaliation as the best mechanism for the administration of justice.[xxxvi] Pitfalls of Virtual Property, written by a developer of a virtual world, is a significant paper that challenges the notion of real-world ownership of virtual property. The paper challenges the concept of virtual property, explains the burden of responsibility virtual property would put on developers, and then explains the insufficiency of laws the commoditization of the game.17
V. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER TECHNOLOGY POLICY ISSUES AND FUTURE IMPLICATIONS
Virtual worlds draw from many technology policy areas. Online child protection and the broader phenomenon of avatar sex are both particularly relevant issues, given the risks of online child predators and recorded accounts of avatar rape in virtual worlds. To date, governments have not directly regulated virtual worlds because most of the harms have been small.14 Virtual worlds may no longer be able to skirt government oversight if virtual worlds become embroiled in criminal law, such as statutory rape or terrorism. In addition, the ambiguity of avatar rights means that there is currently no criminal law recourse for the traumas experienced by avatar rape. Future legislation is likely to expand the legal definitions of rape to include avatar rape. It is likely that as more and more people join virtual worlds, and spend larger amounts of time playing, people will become even more connected with their avatars. Society will increasingly accept the notion of avatars being extensions of selves and will take legal steps to protect them.
Hackers also present a relevant technology policy issues. Some of the financial harms that have occurred in Second Life have been caused by hackers who infiltrate the virtual world, steal money from other users, and then disappear anonymously. In Chaoyang District People's Court in Beijing vs. Arctic Ice Technology, the developer was held responsible for security vulnerabilities that led to another person's account being hacked. Given the arguments in favor of hacking, to what extent virtual worlds should tolerate hacking, and to what extent they should be held financially liable for harms that occur due to hacking, are also open questions.
Another technology policy issue presented by the Bragg v. Linden Research case has been End User License Agreements and Conditions of Use. The Bragg v. Linden Research case was controversial in that it struck down Second Life's EULA on terms of adhesion. This is an important precedent. Some pundits have argued that current EULAs create a feudal relationship between users and virtual world developers, where users are treated as serfs to these platform owners.[xxxvii] There are at least two possible outcomes from this issue. Either virtual worlds become even better at self-regulating through more refined license agreements and terms of use, or EULAs as legal tools will give way to something new in the future. There is likely to be a more equal power relationship between users and platform owners as EULAs diminish in their power.
Finally, open source software is an extremely important issue for virtual worlds. Some virtual worlds, like Second Life, are open source in that they provide developer kits that allow users to construct their own buildings, clothes, goods, etc. Open source is generally good because they make virtual worlds more dynamic. A future trend towards open virtual worlds is closely tied with conceptions of virtual property. Developers eager to asset ownership over their virtual world are less likely to pursue open-source because their justifications for ownership are weakened if users are the ones primarily responsible for creation.
In conclusion, virtual worlds raise many difficult questions because current real world laws are inadequate in addressing these issues. The answers to these questions will only become more pressing as virtual worlds grow in size, depth, and potential. Therefore, the future is likely to include much more litigation among users, and also between users and developers as society attempts to iron out an understanding of these issues. The 2008 House panel hearing on virtual worlds is just the beginning of even more government inquiries into this development. At the end, a cohesive virtual world body of law will likely emerge, but until then, expect many contentious battles among users, developers, a
[i] Pg. 8 Gregory Lastowka & Dan Hunter, The Laws of the Virtual Worlds, 92 California L. Rev. 1 (2004)
[ii] Pg. 7 Edward Castronova, Virtual Worlds: A First-Hand Account of Market and Society on the Cyberian Front, CESIFO Working Paper No. 618 (2001)
[iii] Lawrence Lessig, Code and the Other Laws of Cyberspace (2000)
[iv] Virtual World Growth, available at http://www.kzero.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/virtual-world-growth.jpg
[v] Pg. 4 Edward Castronova, Virtual Worlds: A First-Hand Account of Market and Society on the Cyberian Front, CESIFO Working Paper No. 618 (2001)
[vi] Robert D. Hof, My Virtual Life, BusinessWeek, May 1, 2006, available at http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_18/b3982001.htm
[vii] Wade Roush, Second Earth, Technology Review, August 2007, available at https://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/18911/
[viii] Sorry, We're Closed, available at http://americanapparel.net/presscenter/secondlife/
[ix] Steve O' Hear, John Edwards' Campaign Enters Second Life, ZDNet, February 14, 2007, available at http://blogs.zdnet.com/social/?p=91
[x] Amy Kolz, Virtual IP Rights Rock Online Gaming World, The American Lawyer, December 6, 2004, available at http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1101738506769
[xi] LindeX Market Data, available at http://secondlife.com/whatis/economy-market.php
[xii] Pg. 11 Gregory Lastowka & Dan Hunter, The Laws of the Virtual Worlds, 92 California L. Rev. 1 (2004)
[xiii] Pg. 3 Ethan Katsh, Bringing Online Dispute Resolution to Virtual Worlds: Creating Processes Through Code, New York Law School L. Rev. (2004)
[xiv] Pg. 11-28 Julian Dibbell, My Tiny Life (1999)
[xv] Pg. 83-85 Gregory Lastowka & Dan Hunter, The Laws of the Virtual Worlds, 92 California L. Rev. 1 (2004)
[xvi] James Hohmann, House panel takes a whirl in virtual world, Los Angeles Times, April 2, 2008, available at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-virtual2apr02,1,4537293.story
[xvii] Jessica Holyoke, L$3 Million Bank Heist, The Second Life Herald, November 20, 2007, available at http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2007/11/was-the-griefin.html
[xviii] Chris Gourlay & Abul Taher, Virtual jihad hits Second Life website, Times Online, August 5, 2007, available at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2199193.ece
[xix] Richard A. Bartle, Pitfalls of Virtual Property, The Themis Group (2004)
[xx] Pg. 22 James Grimmelmann, Virtual Worlds as Comparative Law, 49 New York Law School L. Rev. (2004)
[xxi] David R. Johnson & David Post, Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 Stanford L. Rev. 1367 (1996)
[xxii] Pg, 11 Ethan Katsh, Bringing Online Dispute Resolution to Virtual Worlds: Creating Processes Through Code, New York Law School L. Rev. (2004)
[xxiii] Pg, 9-11 Ethan Katsh, Bringing Online Dispute Resolution to Virtual Worlds: Creating Processes Through Code, New York Law School L. Rev. (2004)
[xxiv] Pg. 69 Gregory Lastowka & Dan Hunter, The Laws of the Virtual Worlds, 92 California L. Rev. 1 (2004)
[xxv] Pg. 287-288 Peter Laslett, John Locke: Two Treatises of Government, 1988 edn (1988)
[xxvi] Gregory Lastowka & Dan Hunter, The Laws of the Virtual Worlds, 92 California L. Rev. 1 (2004)
[xxvii] Black Snow Interactive v. Mythic Interactive, Inc., No. 02-00112 (C.D. CA, 2002)
[xxviii] Hernandez v. Internet Gaming Entertainment Ltd., No. 07-21403 (S.D. Fla. 2007)
[xxix] Nikolaos Volanis, Legal and policy issues of virtual property, 3 International Journal of Web Based Communities 332-344 (2007)
[xxx] Mark Bragg v. Linden Research, No. 06-4925 (E.D. Pa. 2007)
[xxxi] Jay Lyman, Gamer Wins Lawsuit in Chinese Court Over Stolen Virtual Winnings, TechNewsWorld, December 19, 2003, available at http://www.technewsworld.com/story/32441.html?welcome=1207556187
[xxxii] Eros, LLC v. Thomas Simon, No. 07-04447 (E.D. N.Y., 2007)
[xxxiii] Chuleenan Svetvillas, Real Law in the Virtual World, California Lawyer Magazine, available at http://californialawyermagazine.com/story.cfm?eid=890855&evid=1
[xxxiv] Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (Oct. 28, 1998)
[xxxv] Edward Castronova, On Virtual Economics (2002)
[xxxvi] James Grimmelmann, Virtual Worlds as Comparative Law, 49 New York Law School L. Rev. (2004)
37 Bragg vs. Linden Lab: Interview with Bragg Attorney Jason Archinaco, available at http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2006/12/bragg_vs_linen_.html
|
