We try to keep up to speed with developments in online worlds, out of interest in the legal issues as well as to keep monitoring the viability of having an IMPACT presence in those worlds.
Unfortunately, rather than high-brow legal issues such as the implications of patents for virtual worlds, as discussed by Electro Mate's Ferendo Barrio at GIKII, the main legal issues in Second Life appear to be spats over "land" and IP infringement through stealing sex toys.
As with the last Second Life case we reported on, the latest legal action has been brought by Eros LLC. This time, reports Technllama, it's to do with unauthorised use of Eros' SEXGEN trade mark.
In the mid-1990s, cynical technology commentators would regularly bemoan the world wide web for being just a high-tech way for the sex industry to peddle its wares to punters. Is Second Life in the same state now as the web was then?
It would appear that you didn't bother to dig any deeper than the post to which you linked, and are therefore unaware that Eros LLC is but one of a *group* of SL businesses filing suit against the named individual... and it is, iirc, the *only* one dealing exclusively in virtual sex toys.
I suppose not getting all the facts explains why "the main legal issues in Second Life appear to be spats over "land" and IP infringement through stealing sex toys."
I would suggest subscribing to the Virtually Blind blog ( http://virtuallyblind.com/ ) if you want to follow legal news concerning virtual worlds. You'll likely get more information and get it in a more timely fashion. You can start with the relevant post, http://virtuallyblind.com/2007/10/27/content-creators-sue-rase-kenzo/ :
"The allegedly infringing items represent nearly every type of product for sale in Second Life including avatar clothing, skins and shapes, scripted objects, furniture, and more."
As better input usually facilitates better decision making, perhaps being more fully and correctly informed will influence IMPACT's decision as to whether or not it should grace virtual communities with its presence.
Posted by: csven | 08 November 2007 at 02:44 PM
Ouch.
Many thanks for the input, and for making the point about the diversity of (virtual) products alleged to have been infringed in this case. That said, it does still appear that of the four reported legal actions arising from Second Life so far, two have been brought by Eros (the virtual sex toy maker) and two are disputes over land. Within the remit of my comment, the sex toy / land elements are I think statistically significant, and my point stands (for what it is worth).
We will be keeping tabs on this case as it progresses and more details become available, and hope we can continue to count on your thorough monitoring of our reportage to keep us focussed.
Thanks for the recommendation of Virtually Blind - I am already a subscriber, but the commendation will be welcome.
Posted by: Alex | 08 November 2007 at 03:20 PM
Harsh? Sure. But, let's face it, most everyone complains about MSM's inability to refrain from trumpeting the salacious bits of a story, however insignificant those elements are and however skewed the remaining information becomes, just to get our precious attention. So it's a bit disappointing to see something similar - even if unintended - in this professional space which isn't subject to the same forces which drive their questionable behavior.
And c'mon, I'm no statistician, but I know that there is no statistical significance when the dataset is too small. Right now, by virtue of the new ground being broken, it's easily too small.
There *are* other disputes... and they *don't* involve virtual sex toys or land. They just haven't graduated to the level of RL action, and thus are not on most outside observers' radar. Thus, I'd suggest you bypass the filters and "see" what's happening firsthand. There's nothing like watching something up close and personal, especially something as interesting as what's going on in this arena.
When you decide to do that, I'll very much look forward to reading your entries here.
Posted by: csven | 08 November 2007 at 10:10 PM