Governments shouldn’t interfere with the internal regulations of virtual worlds. The value of a virtual world is the fact that it exists, in an imaginary sense, outside the bounds of the real world. We visit virtual worlds to escape the real world.1 Dr. Richard Bartle wrote about this intrusion of the real world into the […]
I written multiple times about the difference between rivalrous and non-rivalrous things. The basic difference is that only one person can ‘possess’ somethiing that is rivalrous; whereas more than one person can possess something non-rivalrous. Madisonian.net has a post by Jacqui Lipton that links to an illustrated music video that helps explain this concept. It […]
Author’s Note: This an excerpt from an early draft of a paper I am currently writing. I. Introduction Applying property rights to virtual resources is often justified by arguing that property rights will allow consumers and users to better protect their interests online and in online games. Garrett Ledgerwood, in Virtually Liable, argues “[a] court’s […]
. . .
Carving virtual worlds out of the general jurisdiction of law is a mistake. Laws govern what occurs in virtual worlds to the extent that those actions fall under a law’s regulation. Just as a contract may be formed over the phone, so to can it be formed in a virtual worlds.
. . .
Similarly, actions constituting Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress can occur in a virtual world just as they might in the real world.