I have been thinking about the relationship of law to virtual worlds for a long time -- and here's one result.
So, one thing that law professors don't really get to do is speak plainly. That is what this "paper," or "speech," or whatever, is, in intellectualized form. It's a polite rant. So, a few things from the start:
(1) I don't know if I'm right. I do want to articulate a position that I think best describes the current and future relationships between law and virtual worlds.
(2) I don't think I'm righter than anyone else. There are a lot of really important reasons to create "law free" zones. Humans need frontiers. Virtual worlds have been our frontier for a long time. But a sad thing happens to frontiers -- I mean, is Kansas City still the Wild, Wild West? Not so much.
For those who don't want to click through, the basic idea is this: Law already governs every aspect of virtual worlds -- from the contract law invoked by EULAs, to tort laws premised on various theories of consent, to tax law, to criminal law. But that does not mean that we must give up everything that makes virtual worlds special. The common law has had a long practice of deferring to industry or community customs and practices. There is no reason for courts to stop now. The debate, thus, should be shifted from whether law does (it does) or should (ok, more debatable) affect virtual worlds to what mechanisms we should adopt for sussing out what norms are emerging within virtual worlds, and which of those norms ought to be plugged into the socket in the law that courts reserve for community norms.
Let me know what you think.
