Thanks To The Lori Drew Case, I Can Make Each Of You A Criminal

from the oh,-the-power... dept

We've already talked about how the Lori Drew case represents a dangerous slippery slope, in that it effectively turns just about everyone into an internet criminal who can face years in jail for "criminal computer fraud," simply because they disobeyed a website's terms of service -- even if they didn't read the terms or even approve them. With the initial verdict in, Orin Kerr -- who is involved with the case as a part of Drew's legal team -- demonstrates how awful this case is by changing the terms of service on the blog he writes for in order to demonstrate how easy it is for any website to turn pretty much everyone into a criminal:

New Terms of Use for the Volokh Conspiracy: In light of the verdict in the Lori Drew case, I have decided to promulgate new Terms of Use for the Volokh Conspiracy. You are only permitted to visit the Volokh Conspiracy if you are in compliance with the Terms of Use. Any accessing the Volokh Conspiracy in a way that violates these terms is unauthorized, and according to the Justice Department is a federal crime that can lead to your arrest and imprisonment for up to one year for every visit to the blog.

By visiting this blog, you promise that:

1. You will not post comments that are abusive, profane, or irrelevant. Civil and relevant comments only, as indicated by our comment policy.
2. You are not an employee of the U.S. government. Yes, that includes postal service employees, law clerks, judges, and interns. We're a libertarian-leaning blog, and we're for the private sector only. Government types, keep out.
3. Your middle name is not "Ralph." I've always thought Ralph was a funny name, and even odder as a middle name. No one with the middle name "Ralph" is welcome here.
4. You're super nice. We have strict civility rules here, and this blog is only for people who are super nice. If you are not super nice, as judged by me, your visit to this blog is unauthorized.
5. You have never visited Alaska. Okay, this one is totally arbitrary, but it's our blog and we can keep out who we want. Alaska visitors are out, too.

If you post an abusive comment; you are an employee of the U.S. government; your middle name is Ralph; you're not super nice, as judged by me; or you have visited Alaska, I have kinda bad news for you: You are a criminal, as you have just violated 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(C) by accessing the Volokh Conspiracy's service without authorization or in excess of authorization. You are only authorized to visit the blog in compliance with the Terms of Use, and by violating these terms you have become a criminal by essentially "hacking in" to the Volokh Conspiracy.

85 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Do Real World Laws Apply In Virtual Worlds?

from the in-most-cases,-no dept

Back in 2003 people began realizing that the growth of various "virtual worlds" was going to raise certain questions about how real world laws applied to virtual worlds. However, there's been little effort by the legal community to take a serious look at the question. So, we've had story after story after story after story after story of upset users within virtual worlds trying to make use of real world laws against those that upset them.

In many cases, this is quite problematic. While it might seem fair to charge someone with "theft" for taking a virtual good in a virtual world (especially if that virtual item can be exchanged for real money), it's not that easy at all. For example, what if stealing is a part of the game setup in that virtual world? At some point, you almost have to assume that anything allowable in the world is "within the rules," or you run into some trouble. At the very least, it's the owners and managers of these virtual worlds who have to act as the government and "law enforcement" within those worlds, using their terms of service and EULAs as de facto "constitutions."

Fortunately, it appears that legal scholars agree on this. Eric Goldman points us to a paper by Orin Kerr that looks at these questions and concludes that the answers are similar to what we suggested: the law, in most cases, pertains only to physical acts, not virtual ones. Thus, virtual theft, virtual murder and virtual rape are quite different under the law than real theft, murder and rape -- no matter how upset it makes the "victim." In most cases, Kerr concludes, the real world law would not be applicable. Furthermore, he suggests that, despite this, it makes little sense for politicians to create new laws to cover virtual worlds. Instead, he notes that this is part of the responsibility of those who create and manage the game. By the very nature of creating the game, they become the de facto "government" and justice system, and there shouldn't be a need to get the real world justice system involved at all.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..