That Was Fast: Woman Arrested For Virtual Murder Of Virtual Husband

Legal Issues

from the fantastic dept

Earlier this week, in writing about some kids convicted of theft in the real world, I jokingly asked if we’d soon hear of someone arrested for “murder” for killing a virtual character. Who knew it would happen so fast? Okay, actually, it’s not that extreme, but a woman in Japan has been arrested (in real life) for “killing” the avatar of her virtual husband, who had apparently “virtually” divorced her. The charges are not for murder (phew), but illegally accessing his computer. She basically logged in to his account and killed off the character. Of course, you might argue that she didn’t do anything illegal, since the guy had given her his password in “happier times” and hadn’t changed it. Also, again, this certainly seems like the sort of thing that could (and should) have been taken care of directly in the world. The folks who run the world could easily revive the guy, and kick the woman out of the world. Case closed.

Filed Under: japan, laws, murder, virtual worlds

Dutch Kids Convicted For Stealing Virtual Magic Amulet

Legal Issues

from the are-you-kidding-me? dept

It’s been over five years ago since we pointed out how silly the world would be if we started bringing real world justice into virtual worlds. It sets up a ridiculous situation, since the way any virtual world works is based on how it’s programmed. If there’s a problem with an action, it should be up to whoever controls the game to fix the problem, rather than the real world police. If you start setting a precedent where the “theft” of a virtual item in a video game is considered theft, then how do you deal with online worlds where theft is a part of the game? If the game allows it, then it should be a part of the game.

Even with plenty of people warning about how ridiculous it would be for police to get involved in searching for a stolen magic sword, it seems that hasn’t stopped people from going to the police. In the past, the lawsuits have usually been for other crimes besides theft, though. We had one for illegal computer access, after a woman logged into a boyfriend’s account and deleted his virtual objects. In another case, someone was charged with copyright infringement for “copying” weapons.

However, now we have a case of an actual theft charge in the Netherlands. Two kids have been convicted of theft of a (I kid you not) “virtual amulet and a virtual mask” in the game Runescape. The details are pretty scarce, but apparently the two kids “coerced” another kid to hand over the items, and to the court that’s as good as theft:

“These virtual goods are goods (under Dutch law), so this is theft.”

I have to admit I don’t know much about Runescape, but a quick look at the website mentions that it can involve “fights to the death.” Does that mean we’ll soon have murder charges stemming from the game? Update: Some folks in the comments have helpfully filled in some of the details that were lacking from the original article. The two kids in this case apparently beat up and threatened at knifepoint (in real life) the other kid in order to get him to give them the virtual amulet. As others in the comments point out, it sounds like they should have been charged with assault and battery, but still not theft.

Filed Under: laws, netherlands, runescape, stealing, theft, virtual goods, virtual worlds

Google's Lively Seems Lifeless; Joins A Big List Of 3D Chat Providers

Overhype

from the not-quite-a-virtual-world dept

We’re running a little experiment here with our discussion on Google’s new Lively offering. Two of us at Techdirt, Mike Masnick and Mike Ho, reacted quite differently to the announcement, so we’re each posting our own take (after sharing them with each other) and we’ll let everyone has out their thoughts in the comments. We’re hoping to work on a few more “debates” like this one in the near future. This is Mike Masnick’s post. Mike Ho’s post is here.

Google’s latest product launch, Google Lively is a 3D chat room offering that has plenty of people comparing it to Second Life, though in its initial version, it seems a lot closer to IMVU, a popular 3D chat solution that is apparently growing like mad. It’s really no different than your everyday chat room other than the fact that your text chat takes place in a 3D animated room with avatars who can do a few different pre-designated actions. The Google version requires a software download, but after that apparently will appear in a browser, meaning that it can be included as parts of any site. It’s still not clear what the actual advantage of such an offering is beyond traditional chat — or what sort of advantage Google may have in providing a similar solution to what’s already out there, beyond just the Google brand name. Perhaps there’s more to this offering, but at a first pass, this seems like a me-too effort by Google without any significant advantage (yet).

This isn’t say it won’t get usage, but I’m having trouble figuring out what about this is really all that useful compared to other solutions out there. Google’s successes all seem to be about a new and different take on something out there that makes is significantly more useful: Google search made search better, faster and cleaner. Gmail massively increased storage while providing a much cleaner, faster and more useful interface. Google Maps took the tired interface of internet mapping and made it (again) cleaner, faster and more useful. It’s not clear that Lively really does any of that. It requires a download, and seems to merely copy what else is already out there without a significant advantage over any of them. Perhaps people will use this just because it’s from Google — but it still seems like it should be more compelling then just adding 3D avatars to chat.

As for Mike Ho’s claims that this follows the same path as Gmail and Google Maps, I disagree. Both of those were instant sensations that attracted instant attention and usage do their differentiation. I also disagree with the assertion that Google is doing this just to add in contextual ads. While that may happen, contextual ads on chat seem a much more difficult proposition than on email, where there’s a lot more content. Plus, it’s difficult to see how ads would fit unobtrusively into such a scenario. Despite what some assert, Google doesn’t try to stick ads everywhere, knowing that too many ads will often upset users. Finally, it’s difficult to see how ads stuck into a synchronous process such as chat ad value. It would seem like they do more to detract value.

Filed Under: 3d chat, lively, virtual worlds
Companies: google

Will Google Cultivate Its Virtual Worlds To Make Them Lively? Definitely

Predictions

from the me2.0 dept

We’re running a little experiment here with our discussion on Google’s new Lively offering. Two of us at Techdirt, Mike Masnick and Mike Ho, reacted quite differently to the announcement, so we’re each posting our own take (after sharing them with each other) and we’ll let everyone has out their thoughts in the comments. We’re hoping to work on a few more “debates” like this one in the near future. This is Mike Ho’s post. Mike Masnick’s post is here.

Google has been working on virtual world environments for about a year, and now they’ve announced Lively — which has an unfortunate moniker that could inspire lawsuits from Microsoft Live branding folks. The descriptions of Google’s new service have made Lively sound like a watered-down version of Second Life, aimed at people who can’t figure out how to install an application. I’m a Mac user, so I can’t even try it out — but I’ll take a stab at justifying Google’s “me-too” avatar project.

Obviously, the main difference between Lively and any other virtual chatroom is that Google has access to a nearly instant critical mass of global users. But that doesn’t mean Lively will be an sure-fire success. What will help ensure a Google hit is the consistent development of features that cater to users — and then some text analysis magic that will provide relevant virtual world advertisements based on the Lively chat discussions. This is basically the same game plan that Google has used for Google Maps and Gmail (and Gtalk, too) — start off with a sort of lackluster service and then add features that are compelling — while sneaking in ads to monetize the service.

I’m not really disagreeing that Lively seems a bit lame at its start, but I’m slightly more optimistic that Google will be able to cultivate Lively and bring contextual ads into the environment. It just has to be entertaining enough to attract people to use it — and I guess I don’t see extraordinarily high barriers to keeping a Web audience entertained (see Youtube). Additionally, Google can build upon Gmail and Google Maps and its other offerings to enhance Lively — which is something that Second Life and other virtual worlds can’t necessarily do. On the other hand, it is also entirely possible that Lively could follow Orkut — and miss out on the G-branding (why isn’t it called Glively? or Google Life?) and the popularity of Google’s more successful products. But I think Lively has a very good chance of tying together many Google services and reaching out to a younger audience.

In response to Mike Masnick, it’s mostly true that “you can’t just stick ads everywhere” if you don’t want to annoy your users. But several popular video games already incorporate subtle advertisements (and Second Life isn’t exactly devoid of advertising). In fact, a visual environment for chat only enhances the ads opportunities. I assume Google is smart enough to avoid the simplistic keyword-based ads that might present a user with annoying irrelevant ads that seem creepy and to be spying on your conversations (Google doesn’t seem to do that in Gmail, right?). I imagine that the contextual ads in Lively will be more attuned to automatically detecting demographics (eg. based on “OMG, LOLz” conversations) to present targeted, age-appropriate virtual billboards. That’s exactly the kind of unobtrusive, contextual advertising that Google is developing and gives it an edge.

Filed Under: 3d chat, lively, virtual worlds
Companies: google

Shockingly, Businesses Who Set Up Shop In Second Life Because It's 'Cool' Don't Fare So Well

Studies

from the who-woulda-thunk-it? dept

Over the last year or so, it seems like the halo around Second Life has worn off, especially for all the big companies who rushed in, believing it was the next big thing. A new report now notes that approximately 90% of companies who rushed into virtual worlds saw their projects fail. Not surprisingly, most of the failed projects involved companies who got involved because they thought it was “cool” or because a competitor was there. Apparently, not having a real business purpose or strategy pretty much guarantees that you’re not going to achieve very much of either.

Filed Under: businesses, second life, virtual worlds
Companies: linden lab

Do Real World Laws Apply In Virtual Worlds?

Legal Issues

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 <a href=”https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050818/1014246_F.shtml 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.

Filed Under: laws, orin kerr, virtual worlds

Second Life Lawsuit Over Copied Goods Settled

Legal Issues

from the just-like-that dept

Just after we discussed yet another bad situation involving bringing real world laws into virtual worlds involving World of Warcraft, it looks like there’s an update on another such case we discussed last year. In this case, it was a dispute between two members of Second Life, one of whom had “copied” items made by another and started selling them. This seemed perfectly ridiculous, since being a virtual world where there is no scarcity, nothing was being stolen. Indeed, it looks like the participants in the lawsuit more or less came to the same conclusion. They’ve “settled” the case, but by settling, it sounds like they really meant giving up the case. No money is exchanging hands and no one is admitting to any guilt. That sounds a lot more like they’re just dropping the case.

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits, second life, virtual worlds

Government Continues To Search Virtual Worlds For Terrorists

Overhype

from the anyone-look-on-America's-Army? dept

A few weeks back, we pointed to a ridiculous report from the federal government’s Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity, claiming that places like Second Life could be breeding grounds for terrorists. Why Second Life as opposed to any standard web chat room? That’s not at all clear. Salon has gone through and thoroughly debunked the notion that terrorists are likely to use Second Life, noting that the so-called “experts” who made the claims clearly had never used Second Life. Yet, don’t think that means the government won’t keep up its fear-mongering over the issue. Wired is reporting that the U.S. intelligence community is working on software to detect terrorists infiltrating World of Warcraft. Initially, the program will focus on just profiling the behavior of people in such virtual worlds, but down the road they hope that it will automatically identify those likely to be terrorists. I wonder if they’ll use similar programs in the Army’s own America’s Army online video game?

Filed Under: second life, terrorism, virtual worlds, world of warcraft

Gov't Says Second Life + Online Anonymity = Terrorism

Overhype

from the oh-really? dept

Just as our courts on continually pointing out that anonymity is protected free speech, it appears that the federal government is trying to do away with anonymity entirely. We’ve already pointed out that National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has been saying that the government should be able to monitor all internet communications. Now, the government’s Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity has come out with a fear mongering report trying to suggest that online anonymity in 3D worlds leads to terrorism. It highlights things like Second Life as a breeding ground for terrorism. It’s all quite scary if it weren’t for the fact that it’s totally baseless. There’s no evidence at all that this kind of activity is happening in world’s like Second Life. In fact, the report buries a quote from an anonymous (ha!) intelligence official admitting that there’s no evidence whatsoever that any such activity is happening at all. As the EFF points out in the link above, private communications online are nothing new. The fact that they might take place in a 3D virtual is totally meaningless — other than to suggest that there are folks involved in national “intelligence” who aren’t that intelligent at all.

Filed Under: anonymity, online anonymity, security, terrorism, virtual worlds

More Evidence Of Why Virtual World Economies Are Risky

Overhype

from the inflation-inherent-in-the-system dept

We’ve already discussed the inherent dangers of basing a business model on the economics of virtual worlds. While there definitely is quite a bit of trade in virtual goods (often for lots of money), it’s mostly based on ideas of artificial scarcity on goods that are effectively infinite. To drive that point home, Josh sent in an interesting story about a lawsuit between two founders of one such virtual world, where part of the complaint was that one of the guys effectively handed over the company to a third guy — who planned to make money by selling the game world’s currency, noting that once he controlled the company, he could just create an “infinite” amount of money in “a few minutes” and sell it at “below market” prices. While this suggests the folks in question had little sense of how basic economics works, it also highlights a pretty serious risk in these virtual worlds. At the same time that we’re seeing Ben Bernanke struggling with managing the monetary policy of the US economy, for virtual worlds where there really is no scarcity at all, the temptation to simply flood the market without recognizing the consequences is just too great.

Filed Under: economics, inflation, virtual worlds