Court Ruling & Should We?

Yesterday all across the “blogdom” were post involving a Pennsylvania court ruling involving Linden Lab, particularly Philip Rosedale, in early legal maneuvers.

Tim Faulkner’s, of Valleywag, opening sentence was “Second Life may face a new threat, the need to apply and enforce real law in its virtual world.” While “The Second Life Herald” titled their post, “Unconscionable!” Court Blasts Linden Terms of Service, Holds that Philip can be target in Bragg Lawsuit. and “Virtually Blind” as lawyers do simply titled their post Bragg v. Linden Update: Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration Denied, with CNet News Blog’s title being ‘Second Life’ publisher must go to court in property case. All the blogs pretty much had the same thing to say… there is of course the excepting that Valleywag, who seems to have a grudge hatred dislike for Second Life , seems to be big time jumping the gun on what the court may eventually rule.

I took the time to check out the 46 page legal order, where the Honorable Eduardo C Robreno states:

“Plaintiff, March Bragg, Esq., claims an ownership interest in such virtual property. Bragg contends that Defendants, the operators of the virtual world,(Second Life) unlawfully confiscated his virtual property and denied him access to their virtual world.”

Now this is where the order got may attention when the judge stated: (still on page one by the way)

Ultimately at issue in this case are the novel questions of what rights and obligations grow out of the relationship between the owner and creator of a virtual world and its resident-customers. While the property and the world where it is found are “virtual,” the dispute is real.

Basically this order says that yes Philip Linden will remain named in this law suit, (although Benjamin Duranske, an intellectual property attorney, believes it is pretty easy to establish personal jurisdiction and there are still ways Rosedale can escape from the case) and the TOS (Terms Of Service) provision calling for all disagreements with Linden Lab to be forced to go to arbitration was not valid. In fact the judge called the TOS “unconscionable” because they give Linden Lab unilateral and unlimited ban rights.

According to Duranske, “There are a lot of issues raised by this Order, among them: the impact on the other provisions of the TOS, the possibility for special rights for participants in virtual spaces, and whether this will encourage other law suits.”

“Cyberspace” what is it? What should it be?

“Cyberspace” is not inside your computer, nor the computer of people you are interacting with. Is it really inside a server somewhere in between? Or is that server simply a device which allows us to enter into “Cyberspace” as would be some space ship which would allow our us to reach distant solar system?

“Cyberspace” is a truly a place, some say it is not exactly real (which can be neither proved nor disproved) that is really a destination. As much a destination as an alternative dimension, or another planet in outer space. This place is an earnest and serious place where millions of us enter and leave it everyday.

Some give “Cyberspace” considerable thought, write about it, negotiate over international implications, or regulate it. regulate it… regulate it… regulate it… regulate it… regulate it… regulate it…

Should “Cyberspace” be regulated by any government body? Would they also regulate inhabitants of some distant planet revolving around some distant star? Maybe the question should be … Would we put up with government’s from some inhabited planet to regulate Earth?

How much right do we as a community of humans really have trying to control regulate force our ideas onto any alternate universe, dimension, country, or state?