The time was bound to come eventually, I suppose. With the growth and acceptance of virtual worlds, and the many predictions that some kind of virtual reality like Second Life will be Net 3.0, Congress was bound to take an interest in it. Reported in New World Notes:
What I am curious about is what kind of questions they will ask Philip, and what will result from this hearing. While I see the need for some kind of legal standard in world, the very international — or even trans-national — nature of a globally accessible virtual world, along with the peculiar way that things work in world, makes writing good laws a delicate, tricky operation. While it’s all too easy to write law, good law is another creature altogether.
(I’m not sure if I can express this in a way that is clear and unambiguous; so I’ll just plow ahead, and hope that I can clarify in comments as necessary.)
I fear any plan to actually enact a binding tax on SL income — one thing that is likely to come whether we will or no, Neal Stephenson’s dreams of the First Distributed Republic notwithstanding. But what I fear most is an attempt to restrict the in-world environment and culture to some narrow, politically driven standard of morality. Mistake me not; I wouldn’t mind seeing what porn palaces and dangling dildos exist in world to make a noise like a hoop and roll away, to borrow from Dorothy L. Sayers. At the same time, in the privacy of one’s virtual home, between adults, what goes on is their business.
If any kind of community standard is to be set, it is best to restrict it to no more than the set of internationally agreed-upon standards of social behavior with the broadest amount of personal latitude. When lawmakers get hold of something like this, though, it becomes a political football; witness the ongoing battles in America over polarizing concepts of “morality” in RL, such as abortion or the ever-popular “family values.” And any laws made in America concerning an internationally accessible virtual world will have some sort of international effect as well, the example being our restrictions on Net gambling that resulted in the Grid gambling ban. At the risk of invoking a much abused argument, I would contend that much of the law already in existence is sufficient to the cause as it is, and does not need to be amplified except to adapt it to the peculiar situation of in world.
I don’t say that we need to be paranoid and start worrying about what will come from these hearings. What I do say is that we need to pay attention, as any good citizen should, to the legislative process, and make our voices heard should the need arise.
Rosedale’s testimony will be streamed, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time (6:30 SLT). Open the stream from the Committee’s schedule page. (Windows Media required; an archive will be posted of the hearing as well.)
I agree with you that people need to pay more attention. There’s more at stake than just virtual worlds. Save the Internet.
Thanks for the link. I’ve bookmarked it for closer reading of the comments when I have more time (am hovering between breakfast and flapping about before work right now), but I suspect this has more to do with the taxman finally realising he’s missing out on some SL income than anything else.
As to “any policy issues raised by virtual worlds that may need to be addressed or monitored,” it strikes me as another case of Authority assuming that The Internet can be monitored and policed. There is *always* a way around Authority online, no matter what the illegal or unsavoury shenanigans.
Back to the taxman issues, and the possibility of some laws regarded as sacrosanct in one country and yet a violation of civil liberties in another, it probably *is* possible in some ways to limit for the majority of honest users (those just connecting from their home PC who don’t know a thing about proxy servers and suchlike) to be ‘policed’ via their IP address. It already happens to us users in the UK, who have to pay VAT on our purchases of L$. UK users get 17.5% less L$ for their (equivalent) US$ than other users do, and I’m presuming that’s all decided on by IP address.
Apologies for the rambling. It’s 4:30am, which is no time for a decent person to be up and trying to apply their brain to such thoughts ;)
I don’t know what this hearing is about really,but you give me the opportunity to write my opinion about something i don’t think it’s completely irrellevant.I’ll do that in the simplest way,as you personally know Harper,my english vocabulary is limited,so forgive me if this seems too simplified.I have wondered many times in the past,how exactly the international virtual world called Second Life, is connected to the LL origine country politics and eventually external politics,that is US of course.I have personally confronted certain issues here,trying to resolve them in direct communication with Linden Labs.Unfortunately,as much as the persons as persons are willing to help,i was left with a bitter taste ,that certain political interference wouldn’t allow them to help further.I wouldn’t like to say more here,because this is a rather complicated issue.If you want specific details,i would be glad to provide them to you in-world.
Conclusion,even if your post is more about the laws that would effect Second Life,my complaint still is why do the external politics of a certain country enter SL at first place.
Thank you.
All > It’s actually the Internet Subcommittee, I’ve learned (a touch of amplification).
Lunette > There has been some mention of net neutrality in the hearing, but it hasn’t been explored deeply to this point.
Mar > Actually, to this point (I’m watching/listening to the hearing as I’m writing this), there’s been nothing mentioned about taxes to this point. There has been noting of how much commerce goes on in SL, but that’s the limit. Admittedly, that could be used as grist for the mill eventually, but only time will tell.
Chrisy > (sigh) If American politics is intruding into SL, it’s because some politicians will find something that they can turn into a platform to make them look good — what we refer to as a “hobby horse.” They’ll ride the horse, and it looks so fun that many other people want to ride it, too, and they build support (and good press) for themselves that way. Sometimes their agenda makes it into law, or at least into enough public pressure that a company will bow to it for public relations, if no other reason.
Virtual worlds may be globally reachable, but, obviously, they are subject to the laws of the country their servers reside in. If you’ve had problems because of this, that’s the short answer. I can’t say if that was the case, of course, but….
Thank you,Harper!You’ve expressed quite exactly what i wanted to say …except in good english!Well…”hobby horse” is not an american “privilege” of course,but a global way of politicians of …and “bowing” for pr reasons or other, a usual international companies’ pratique …
I still believe though that the certain issue i had to fight for (and lost)should be a subject of international laws and not national.So, i am still sad:Why an international game would ignore international laws,and to be more specific United Nations Laws?(but i suppose you alreayd answered my question,the country’s laws the servers reside in overrule).Well,it is a lost battle for me (to be honest not only for me,but for a large, active and productive sl community).Anyway.Thanks Harper :)