It’s pretty ironic that Prof. Randazza posted the material re. multiplayer games today. Right before his post, I read THIS ARTICLE that discusses an upcoming series of films called “Whorecraft” in which the culture of “World of Warcraft” is turned into a porn flick. So, not only can you stay ass-planted in your chair 24/7 and stay emerged in your fantasy world of elves and swordsmith guilds, you can also watch some porn in the same genre. Nothing like consistency in one’s life.
But, on to the issues presented in Prof’s post. Regulating the Internets has been an issue ever since Al Gore first connected the series of tubes and started it up. One of the first books to discuss the issues in depth was “CODE” by Lawrence Lessig (I know, we’re all getting tired of that name). There was a chapter in CODE that addressed the very issue that Mr. Walters addresses. In the old days, a “MUD” was a text-based chat area where people could chat, play fantasy games, and generally never see the light of day. Someone in a MUD room engaged in a “virtual rape” and was chastised by the community. This story gave rise to the question of whether the Internet is susceptible to offline governance, or if the norms within Internet communities could self-regulate their members. In effect, this is a cyberlibertarian view of the Internet. Lessig has since updated his book, and “Code 2.0″ is available for free. HERE is a link to the section that discusses virtual communities and how the government can govern cyberspace by enacting legislation that affects the actual code (1’s and 0’s) of the Internet.
Is the Internet subject to exceptionalism? Is it its own entity apart from offline laws? Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act seems to suggest the answer in the affirmative, at least in part. If the New York Times posts defamatory content about you, you can sue them. If that same content is posted on the New York Times web site, then they are most likely immune. Why? Congress wanted to immunize “interactive service providers” from liability for content posted by its users. The statute has since been interpreted as a huge grant of immunity for bascially anyone who uses a computer. For a thorough explanation of the origins of Section 230, see me for a draft of an article Professor Holland is writing.
So, in the defamation context, the Internet seems to have its own rule apart from the typical offline publisher/distributor rules for liability.
Regarding virtual property in these online games, what would happen when conflict arises? Apparently there is one case seeking the answer. Also, eBay has recently addressed virtual property, in effect telling the “owners” of these virtual artifacts that they do not own them. As such, since the sellers of the virtual goods don’t own the rights to the virtual intellectual property, they are in violation of eBay’s terms of use. The EULA’s on these games say that all game IP belongs to the game manufacturer. In this case, it seems that the government may try to get a foot in the door. Certainly there is tax revenue to be had.
And then there are those affected socially by the addictive nature of the games. Even with the devestation it may cause families (akin to the porn-addicted father/husband?), should the government somehow regulate? Of course not. (I can’t help but notice that the article was written by a “Janelle Randazza” - we hope that the subject of the article was not Professor Randazza.) If anything, game addiction has created a niche market for psychologists and family therapists. Game addition also spawned the BEST SOUTH PARK EVER (no longer on YouTube).
Personally, I think regulating online communities is inevitible. Whether it is snuck in via taxation issues, child protection measures, or some other theory, I think it will happen. However, I think it’s dangerous to do so. If the regulation is done at the center of the Internet - the code that makes it up, then Congress can effectively control the entire network. They are already trying to do this with anti-net neutrality laws. Regulation should come at the ends of the network - via tools provided to end users for blocking or accepting content of their own choosing. While I don’t believe the Internet should have its own set of rules (thus I don’t consider myself a cyberlibertarian), I do think that our existing offline rules should/can be better adapted to the Internet. This can happen with better education for legislators and judges. Many tech-heavy statutes and judicial opinions turn out to be bad law because of ignorance of the underlying principles and consequences to the network as a whole.
UPDATE: After I originally posted this, I found this article. Toyota is selling virtual Scion cars in the game “Second Life.” Second Life has become like MySpace in that retailers and other businesses are trying to establish a presence to cater to the “hip” crowd that lives a second life in Second Life. There have been virtual law lectures by Judge Posner(!), and Harvard Law is offering a class partially inside of the Second Life virtual world! The world is a hell of a lot bigger than it seems. It’s overwhelming!
