Second Lifers go to first life court

Recently a group of Second Lifers filed suit in federal court against against a Queens man who allegedly ripped off their virtual stuff.

For those who don't know, Second Life is an online virtual world where millions of people from across the world "exist" in a 3D virtual world. It's not really a game per se, at least not in the traditional sense. There is no object of the game, no way to win, and no plot. Rather, players simply do whatever they want, including run businesses and make money (over $1 million of real world money changes hands each day), subject to the social norms, the rules that the operator imposes upon the players, and in some cases real world laws.

In this case, a Second Lifer who goes by the name of Rase Kenso (or Thomas Simon in real life) allegedly copied a bunch of virtual objects from the plaintiffs. These objects are actually the wares that each plaintiff sells to other Second Lifers out of a virtual storefront, and the plaintiffs therefore lost on business. Normally, computer code prevents the unauthorized copying of objects in Second Life, but either through a computer glitch or hacking the code did not function properly.

Since the objects in question are virtual objects, the plaintiffs cannot go after the defendant based on claims of trespass or conversion. Rather, intellectual property rights come into play because of the graphical nature of the works.

I recently was engaged in a dialog with some folks at LinkedIn regarding ownership of property. I think that this case is interesting in this regard, since it shows that people can even enforce ownership rights over virtual property that exists only in a virtual reality.

A second interesting aspect is the fact that the defendant is considering enforcing his rights against the plaintiffs, who he alleges spied on him and took virtual photos of him and the stolen loot, some of which were taken in his virtual home. Personally, I think that his arguments are probably losers. First, he thinks that the 4th Amendment should step in at this point. However, the plaintiffs were the ones who took the photos, and the 4th Amendment only applies to government actions. Second, the plaintiffs probably have not even committed a trespass because there was no physical intrusion upon tangible property, therefore precluding his from bringing an action for trespass.

In any case, it's an interesting situation and I will definitely be following it.

Buyer Beware

I don't want to get into a rant here, but it really irks me when corporations blatantly try to capitalize on consumer's ignorance of the law regarding internet transactions.

Recently, a relative sent me an email advertising eFax's new e-Sign service. Here is the basic theory: You want to contract with me, but we are located in different areas. You send the contract to eFax, who forwards the contract to me via their software. I essentially type in my name and click a button, and we both receive a contract in PDF form that has been "legally and securely signed and executed."

To the untrained individual this may seem like a great way to get your contracts signed quickly and securely. However, the entire process is completely unnecessary. According to the federal e-Sign Act, any sort of mark, symbol, or action that is taken online and intended to serve as assent to contract is just as good as physically signing your name with a pen onto paper. So in other words, you can simply email me a contract and I could simply email you a reply that says, "I agree." Presto - we have legally entered into a contract.

This is but one example of how companies like eFax are trying to take money from people who are simply uninformed of the law. Unfortunately, there is really no one looking out for this type of behavior, so until someone steps forward, let the buyer beware.