What a headline- "Woman jailed after 'killing' virtual husband!"

Since millions of individuals play online games, and many virtual characters are killed daily it’s hard to image exactly how someone could really be found guilty of killing a virtual character. However, apparently this news story from Japan indicates that the defendant was so angry with her Maple Story online husband that she killed his digital persona. Actually according to the story the defendant found that she was divorced without warning and so she logged into the virtual Maple Story world using her ex-husband’s ID and password to kill him.

How can one kill a virtual person?

This seems a little goofy except that Maple Story and all online virtual worlds, including Second Life, require all users to agree to terms of service (TOS). So it’s not much of a surprise that the TOS restrict what users can do…but neither Maple Story nor Second Life have TOS that even mention killing or murder. So that‘s why the Japanese authorities are charging the defendant with illegally accessing a computer which is a crime in most states and countries.

Where are we going with virtual law?

As mentioned in an earlier blog, the American Bar Association published a book entitled Virtual Law in which Chapter 10 is entitled “Criminal Law and Virtual Worlds” and states that the most common virtual law crimes include money laundering, fraud, gambling, and stalking/harassment. As well, some virtual worlds have tried to deal with sexual behavior which is pretty difficult to regulate. But it seems appropriate that the virtual worlds try to protect children from sexual behavior, so all TOS generally do not permit anyone younger than 18 from participating. However, as my favor New Yorker cartoon indicates with one dog sitting in front of a computer talking to another dog and says “on the Internet no one knows you’re dog.” No one really has a clue who is users really are. But defining pornography is not so easy, even when the US Supreme Court tried to define pornography Justice Potter Stewart’s famous statement in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964) was that he could not define it, ‘but he knew it when he saw it.’ So how can pornography in virtual worlds be regulated?
 

Virtual Law in Virtual Worlds?

It’s hardly a passing fancy, virtual worlds abound. Second Life boasts virtual property owned by IBM, Dell, and Manpower. Gaming giants Sony and Microsoft have announced virtual gaming communities where avatars will compete but using their specialized equipment rather than just personal computers. Since law is the glue that holds society together, it’s no wonder that there are unique laws in the virtual worlds and a number of lawyers. As a matter of fact, the American Bar Association recently published a book entitled Virtual Law. Also there was Virtual Law Conference was held concurrently with the Virtual Worlds Conference in New York. Even US District Judge Richard A. Posner made an appearance as an avatar in Second Life.

Modern Day SciFi?

It’s hard to tell whether Virtual Worlds are a form of SciFi computer-Internet recreation. That is, living through avatars in an imaginary Internet world. Not being much of a SciFi reader I vividly I remember reading 1984 when I was in the 8th grade and was pleased with the year 1984 came and went without Big Brother running our world. Also I remember reading Robert Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land in 1972 while in graduate school studying computer science and being impacted.

Lawyers Abound in Virtual Worlds

There must be a connection point that interests thousands of individuals since Second Life and other virtual worlds operate in a number of languages around our earth. Virtual residents own property and conduct commerce, so lawyers naturally have a role. Nonetheless when Linden Labs took some property away from a Second Life resident, the litigation ended up in federal court Pennsylvania. Linden Labs was unsuccessful in moving the dispute to California because the judge acknowledged when Second Life founder Philip Rosendale’s Avatar held a “town hall” meeting in Second Life and residents from Pennsylvania were invited and attended, and so the defendants should have known that they could been dragged into court in Pennsylvania.