Your2ndPlace

Gwyneth Llewelyn has an interesting post which Ashcroft Burnham pointed to from a comment on VirtuallyBlind. Welcome to the Real Life! is a recommended read. For the most part, I agree with what Gwyneth wrote - but there is a little that I feel needs to be explored more given the nature of Second Life.

I'm talking about the international nature of virtual worlds, and by proxy, Second Life, which are at the least related to internet governance¹. If people feel this is not the case - disconnect from the internet and try using SecondLife².

Here's the main part of what Gwyneth wrote that I want to address:

The only real “unregulated” community in the world is the Internet — since no single entity or single country “owns” it — and in spite of many countries’ attempts to close it, filter it, or censor it (China being often quoted as the most successful example so far), it’s still “there”. There will always be a country where a silly law in another country is disregarded or disrespected, and you can set your own server there, and have the freedom to do whatever you wish.

Gambling Protest 002Alas, Second Life is not the “Internet” — not yet. Technically, from a legal point of view, it’s a service provided by a Californian company, even if well over 95% of its users are not in California. Still, since Linden Lab is bound to remain in San Francisco for quite a long time, they have no option but to comply with local, state, and federal laws.

Actually, the internet is regulated - though not democratically at this time. Setting up servers in foreign countries where the 'silly law' does not apply is decreasingly advisable; content from a server which enters another country has been shown on more than one occasion to be subject to the laws of the receiving country - in fact, what we call censorship in China is really an enforcement of Chinese Law/Government. The trouble isn't censorship in China. The trouble is the same as everywhere else: Who controls the flood gates. The seriousness of the issues of censorship, or the control of content, do not exist only in countries outside of the United States. Librarians and teachers within the United States itself often finds content blocked by a bureaucracy.

Thus, the issue becomes one of 'follow local laws or be censored'. Clearly, with a combined international user base which is larger than the United States user base, Second Life has to also follow laws to avoid being censored in the same manner that YouTube.com and other websites are. 'Censorship' is a word used to identify a symptom; why censorship exists is the disease - and it is a very subjective disease. Consider that some European commercials are considered too adventurous for American television.

There are also issues of privacy, where tort law around the world varies - and sometimes even conflicts with copyright law. There are a variety of ways at looking at these issues - and none of them are well defined.

The general point here - I plan to do a longer post at a later date with references - is that it's not just California Law involved. Not too long ago, Linden Lab issued a press release regarding a case in France where they wrote (emphasis mine):

...Linden Lab is pleased with the result, which confirms that evidence in Internet cases must be gathered in an objective fashion. The case also confirms that French law, and in particular the law of Confidence in the Digital Economy, should be applied to Second Life.

It's not just California Law. There are many contexts, especially considering that within SecondLife... the copyright of created works belongs to their creators...and it can be reasonably assumed that those copyrights exist where the people live - not in California. This applies to privacy, as well as many other things, and should never be forgotten- especially since we are all inadvertently ambassadors to each other.

The metaverse needs to be looked at from beyond a simple geopolitical ownership perspective. California is where Linden Lab is - but the content that exists within SecondLife comes from around the world. There are plenty of legal cases related to the internet which have been pursued internationally, and virtual worlds are really no different... though the waters on this remain untested.

So far.

That's really the only thing I wanted to discuss from Gwyneth's great article; it is important to realize the international nature of virtual worlds in many regards and be aware of these things when discussing laws and governance. Issues related to international law will begin cropping up sooner or later - and when they do, ignorance of internet governance and internet law probably won't be something which will win a lawsuit.

A company must comply with local laws - as Linden Lab has done. But either by market pressure or regulation (or both, with market pressure leading regulation), the international presence must be acknowledged when considering the legalities of virtual worlds.

¹Disclosure: I actually have been involved and continue to be involved in discussion related to internet governance as a member of Civil Society. Really.
² There are some people who should use Second Life only when disconnected from the internet, but there are many pre-existing posts about that within the SecondLife blogosphere.

Technorati Tags: Business Culture Miscellaneous SecondLife internet governance metaverse virtual world governance law international law Linden Lab censorship