The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I didn't say this would be easy! The courts have already determined that

emotional distress can be inflicted by others

, so they don't agree that you alone are responsible for your own emotional well being. We already have at least one cyber-bullying case that's hit the courts, that of

Lori Drew

.

---

The courts have only recently, decided that emotional distress can be inflicted by others, and I personally think that the courts have erred to have decided this.  It is an offshoot along the path of abdicating personal responsibility, and spawns from that well-spring.   This is the opposite direction of what we as a society should be doing.  Instead of holding other people responsible, even partially, we should be taking the responsibility upon ourselves.   We should be responsible for our own physical health, mental health, sexual health & responsiveness, and our lives in general. 

The Lori Drew/Megan Meier case is a sad one, but Drew was acquitted in the courts.  The unfortunate young girl who committed suicide had emotional problems, and was already clinically depressed, and on antidepressants.  There is no way to determine what caused the emotional problems or brought the girl to the act of suicide.  (I think we can both agree that Lori Drew is a lousy human being, and there is no excuse for her deplorable behavior. But, I do not think, and the courts did not think, that she was responsible for the suicide) 

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Given the hunger of personal injury lawyers (and perhaps similarly hungry medical professionals), it might be only a matter of time before a virtual world is the medium through which someone claims to suffer sufficient damage at the hands of another to take a case to court. I'd be surprised by success, but not by an attempt. I think I'd be about as skeptical a juror as one could find, even though I'm very well aware of the emotional power that can be conveyed through SL. But you know they won't pick me for such a jury, I know too much.

---

It would be hard enough to prove that emotional damage has happened to someone in RL, let alone the hypothetical damage that is claimed by interacting online with anonymous strangers.

 

 

[Dana Hickman]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

So then an Avatar that copybots can't be held legally accountable (I'm talking RL Law here, not the TOS) because the Avatar is a "fictitious construct?"

Will "I was just role playing a thief" hold up in a Court of Law?

---

What you talk of is a completely different issue and context. He was talking about making binding verbal statements and contracts and asking about whether those can hold up to RL legal scrutiny. Copybotting is a DMCA issue, for which there are certain protections already in place.

[Argus Collingwood]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Syo Emerald wrote:

Its just....what role do they actually play? None. They don't think about her charakters background, they don't think about their characters opinions, feelings, characters knowledge or anything else that leads to imagination. And those people even talk about their real life! They don't make a cut and state out that they now speaking out of character...no you can directly ask them what they had for lunch today.......

They are playing around with others, thats all. This is less roleplay than a couple do when she gets some short nurse dess on and they pretend that hes her patient....:catembarrassed:

 

---

 I had chicken for dinner last night in RL.  Can a SL chicken avatar have me prosecuted for "cannibikenism"?

Please take note of the neologism.  

---

 

Bird!!

[Pussycat Catnap]

In a question of harm I think it comes down to;

- are you harming someone in a 'game like way' that is part of the 'play experience', or are you harming the person playing that 'character' you encounter on the screen.

That's why nobody's going to care much outside of the SL TOS if you grief somebody's build. But if you steal from their IP - then its a viable lawsuit.

- Mind you, violating a corporation's TOS is now a federal felony crime in the US, giving corporations the unique power to make criminal law without being elected officials...

So... having pixel sex on a G rated lot can now land you in a federal penitentiary if LLs decides to report it to the justice department.

 

Side rant:

And not to Godwin... but the dictionary definition of Facism is a marriage of corporate and military/police powers as the instrument of the state... So, technically, the US is now a facist nation, unless that law gets overturned.

 

If you think "no rational prosecutor would ever take that case," consider that there is a man serving life without the possibility of parole for stealing 3 children's video cassettes - and his crime is more severe than a few of the others, but just happens to be the one on which '3 strikes' was upheld in the courts. His second strike was not a felony - but a misdemeanor that was elevated after the fact into a strike, in order to allow the cassettes to become the third strike (a very common procedure - many 3rd strikers actually only have one real prior felony).

- If its on the books and possible to do, it will be done by someone looking for a promotion at the expense of a free country...

[Storm Clarence]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

It would be hard enough to prove that emotional damage has happened to someone in RL, let alone the hypothetical damage that is claimed by interacting online with anonymous strangers.

 

 

---

You just hurt my feelings.  I'm upset and I am going to speak to the moderators to have you banned.  I will also sue you for $1,000,000 in damages... because my feelings are worth that much, aren't they!   Yes, I could have logged off.  Yes, I know I should not place my personal details in my posts, but MY FEELINGS ARE HURT!

 

 ETA I made this post on SL because I have no one to talk to about my feelings being hurt in RL. 

 

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

It would be hard enough to prove that emotional damage has happened to someone in RL, let alone the hypothetical damage that is claimed by interacting online with anonymous strangers.

 

 

---

You just hurt my feelings.  I'm upset and I am going to speak to the moderators to have you banned.  I will also sue you for $1,000,000 in damages... because my feelings are worth that much, aren't they!   Yes, I could have logged off.  Yes, I know I should not place my personal details in my posts, but MY FEELINGS ARE HURT!

 ETA I made this post on SL because I have no one to talk to about my feelings being hurt in RL. 

---

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

It would be hard enough to prove that emotional damage has happened to someone in RL, let alone the hypothetical damage that is claimed by interacting online with anonymous strangers.

---

Right. But before Liebeck v. McDonald's who would have thought a spilled cup of hot coffee could get jurors to award $2.86 million (which was knocked down to $640,000 by the judge and settled out of court for less than that)?

I'm not agreeing with any of this, I'm simply allowing for the possibility. If Kurzweil's singularity is fast approaching (I don't think it is) society is gonna face some interesting questions and we're gonna be rolling our eyes over some (hopefully not most) of the answers.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

It would be hard enough to prove that emotional damage has happened to someone in RL, let alone the hypothetical damage that is claimed by interacting online with anonymous strangers.

---

Right. But before Liebeck v. McDonald's who would have thought a spilled cup of hot coffee could get jurors to award $2.86 million (which was knocked down to $640,000 by the judge and settled out of court for less than that)?

I'm not agreeing with any of this, I'm simply allowing for the possibility. If Kurzweil's singularity is fast approaching (I don't think it is) society is gonna face some interesting questions and we're gonna be rolling our eyes over some (hopefully not most) of the answers.

---

I, too, would be pretty emotional if a near boiling hot cup of coffee spilled in my lap.  

Your assumption the singularity (when and if it comes anytime soon) will produce outcomes valued by humans is misplaced; especially when it comes to the emotional.   Toward this end, there is very little reason to think that it will.  

[Perrie Juran]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

A griefer crashing a sim with a self-replicating spammer prim, yeah, we can

see

what caused the harm.   But, if someone tells me that my singing sounds like a cat with it's tail caught in the door, do I get upset?  Well, I wouldn't..because whether I can sing or not is a subjective matter of opinion. (plus anyone who has been exposed to

my

singing should be cut some slack as...well, you'd have to hear me sing to know...lol )

 

---

Well, I know that I sound like a cross between Bob Dylan and a dieing dog when I sing so I am kind enough not to subject my friends to this torture.

However, in the shower by myself........................

[Perrie Juran]

---

Dana Hickman wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

So then an Avatar that copybots can't be held legally accountable (I'm talking RL Law here, not the TOS) because the Avatar is a "fictitious construct?"

Will "I was just role playing a thief" hold up in a Court of Law?

---

What you talk of is a

completely different

issue and context. He was talking about making binding verbal statements and contracts and asking about whether those can hold up to RL legal scrutiny. Copybotting is a DMCA issue, for which there are certain protections already in place.

---

Exactly. 

What is at issue here is the validity and enforceability of an electronic contract.

For instance, you negotiate a price with an Escort in SL for certain services, pay them the agreed price and then they don't perform their end of the deal.  Would you have a legal standing to take them to court to recoup your Lindens?

We are entering into a whole new legal area that is still being hashed out but oral contracts (incorrectly called 'verbal') and electronic contracts are enforceable under law.

 

"There are two broad categories of electronic contracts.  First, those contracts that trade with physical goods or services. Second, those contracts that trade with electronic materials (software, images, e-delivered texts, etc).   In addition to the basic commerce/contractual rules, each contract within any of these two categories may be subject to other set of specific regulatory policy.   For instance, contracts on tobacco products, liquor, and firearms are subject to further and strict government regulations; and contracts on Internet telecommunication services and internet service providers may also be subject to domestic telecommunication laws and regulations.  The following set of laws only refer to the basic contractual rules any electronic contract must follow to be binding on and enforceable by the parties."   (my bolding)

http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?id=1913&s=latestnews

See also:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/electronic-signatures-online-contracts-29495.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

- Mind you, violating a corporation's TOS is now a federal felony crime in the US, giving corporations the unique power to make criminal law without being elected officials...

---

Chapter and verse?  While this was part of SOPA it was also one of the biggest reasons people objected to SOPA.

Unless you are aware of another law on the books that does this.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

It would be hard enough to prove that emotional damage has happened to someone in RL, let alone the hypothetical damage that is claimed by interacting online with anonymous strangers.

---

Right. But before Liebeck v. McDonald's who would have thought a spilled cup of hot coffee could get jurors to award $2.86 million (which was knocked down to $640,000 by the judge and settled out of court for less than that)?

---

Well, first you are bringing up an entirely different type of case and damages Maddy.  A case where real physical damage was done to someone VS hypothetical emotional damage.   But, since you have leaped to a different comparison, I will address it.

I worked on the Burn Unit at Riley Hospital for Children when the Liebeck v. McDonald case was decided in court.  At work we discussed it at length.  McDonald's held their coffee at a scalding temperature, despite knowing that it caused severe burns.  McDonald's had a file that showed hundreds of people being scalded by their dangerously high-temperature coffee, yet they still refused to lower the temperature.  

The temperature was so high that a third degree burn could occur in mere seconds, and McDonalds acknowledged that they knew the coffee was too hot to drink. 

Stella Liebeck received third degree burns on her legs, inner thighs, and genitalia  She had to undergo painful skin grafts, and burn treatments.  A third degree burn is one that goes through all layers of skin, fat, and into muscle tissue.  You are quite literally having your flesh burned away.  (read the case details on the link below)

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

http://www.chw.org/display/PPF/DocID/21911/router.asp

Many people use that case as an example of some trivial court case, but that is because they are not aware of the facts.

So, Liebeck v. McDonald was not just a case about a spilled cup of coffee.  The case was about a company ignoring the history of physical damage their product's dangerously high temperature caused.  It does not surprise me that this case went with high $$ amount being awarded for damages.

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I'm not agreeing with any of this, I'm simply allowing for the possibility. If Kurzweil's singularity is fast approaching (I don't think it is) society is gonna face some interesting questions and we're gonna be rolling our eyes over some (hopefully not most) of the answers.

---

I also agree that Kurzweil's singularity is not fast approaching, and I personally doubt it will happen at all.  

Oh, did I tell you that I met one of the Cornell AI developers that works with the famous talking chat-bots?  He was in the StellaNova sim checking it out.   He said that the AI chat-bot conversation was not programed, and it was completely at random.  Too funny! 

 

[Dillon Levenque]

You're right about one thing: lots of people considered that case trivial, including this one. I'd never tried McDonald's coffee so I just figured the coffee was about as hot as the coffee I make: hot but by no means dangerously so. If the facts in that 'Lectric Law article are as stated it's no wonder McDonald's lost the case.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

It would be hard enough to prove that emotional damage has happened to someone in RL, let alone the hypothetical damage that is claimed by interacting online with anonymous strangers.

---

Right. But before Liebeck v. McDonald's who would have thought a spilled cup of hot coffee could get jurors to award $2.86 million (which was knocked down to $640,000 by the judge and settled out of court for less than that)?

---

Well, first you are bringing up an entirely different type of case and damages Maddy.  A case where real physical damage was done to someone VS hypothetical emotional damage.   But, since you have leaped to a different comparison, I will address it.

I worked on the Burn Unit at Riley Hospital for Children when the Liebeck v. McDonald case was decided in court.  At work we discussed it at length.  McDonald's held their coffee at a scalding temperature, despite knowing that it caused severe burns.  McDonald's had a file that showed hundreds of people being scalded by their dangerously high-temperature coffee, yet they still refused to lower the temperature.  

The temperature was so high that a third degree burn could occur in mere seconds, and McDonalds acknowledged that they knew the coffee was too hot to drink. 

Stella Liebeck received third degree burns on her legs, inner thighs, and genitalia  She had to undergo painful skin grafts, and burn treatments.  A third degree burn is one that goes through all layers of skin, fat, and into muscle tissue.  You are quite literally having your flesh burned away.  (read the case details on the link below)

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

http://www.chw.org/display/PPF/DocID/21911/router.asp

Many people use that case as an example of some trivial court case, but that is because they are not aware of the facts.

So, Liebeck v. McDonald was not just a case about a spilled cup of coffee.  The case was about a company ignoring the history of physical damage their product's dangerously high temperature caused.  It does n

ot

surprise me that this case went with high $$ amount being awarded for damages.

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I'm not agreeing with any of this, I'm simply allowing for the possibility. If Kurzweil's singularity is fast approaching (I don't think it is) society is gonna face some interesting questions and we're gonna be rolling our eyes over some (hopefully not most) of the answers.

---

I also agree that Kurzweil's singularity is not fast approaching, and I personally doubt it will happen at all.  

Oh, did I tell you that I met one of the Cornell AI developers that works with the famous talking chat-bots?  He was in the StellaNova sim checking it out.   He said that the AI chat-bot conversation was not programed, and it was completely at random.  Too funny! 

 

---

I know the McDonald's case was physical harm. I also know the harm was real. The case is widely cited for the "excessive" punitive damages awarded by the jury. I used it as an example of the direction in which litigation seems to be heading. I really do expect that we'll see some cases before the courts pressing damage claims from "virtual" interactions that you and I might think nonsensical, but a jury might not. I've been on three juries over the years and it's seemed that the outcome is more the result of the quality of the acting by the lawyers than facts of the case. What I'm suggesting here is not that virtual worlds are a legal parallel to real life, but that someone besides us will eventually press that argument.

I'm waiting for lawsuits against game developers who use game psychologists to design the games to be addicting. I'm reading/hearing a lot about the common neurochemistry of addictive gameplay and drugs. Someone will make the leap.

You did mention the chat-bot developer. I think they're going to be too funny for a very long time!

[Melita Magic]

McD's coffee has always been like molten lava. My granny always burnt her tongue on it when she'd take us as kids to eat there. She'd dump ice cubes in it, wait, taste it and it would still be too hot. When I read about that lawsuit I believed it. I wondered why it had taken so long for someone to sue.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

You're right about one thing: lots of people considered that case trivial, including this one. I'd never tried McDonald's coffee so I just figured the coffee was about as hot as the coffee I make: hot but by no means dangerously so. If the facts in that 'Lectric Law article are as stated it's no wonder McDonald's lost the case.

---

And it may be no wonder when a case is lost on the way to the singularity because we didn't understand what happens to our minds on computers. Twenty or so years ago, I read an article about a young man who'd become addicted to a 3D video game that used virtual reality goggles. He spent virtually every waking hour with the goggles on and began to have hallucinatory flashbacks, which seemed to the medical professionals very much like LSD flashbacks.

It was once thought that LSD flashbacks might be the result of latent LSD in the brain. Now we know that what actually happened is that when under the influence of a hallucinogenic drug, the brain rewires to make sense of it all. When the drug is gone, the new (wierd) wiring remains. I expect the same things will happen when we start augmenting our perception with virtual input. We'll get unexpected results, some of which might be worthy of a court case.

Microsoft employs game designers and pyschologists on the Office team, with the purpose of getting people to spend more hours at their tools. They do this by designing the interface, not to make you work more efficiently, but to ping your pleasure centers. (The article in which this was claimed may have exaggerated, I don't know, caveat reader). If the systems we engage are being designed in this way, I don't think it would take Perry Mason to get a jury riled up over big corporations trying to warp our minds with nefarious subliminal "worms".

And I think the potential for odd judgments and large punitive damage awards will escalate as the computerized systems we deal with become more sophisticated, and therefore less penetrable by the average juror. The damages awarded by the McDonald's coffee jury was as much or more about sending a message to McDonalds as ameloriating the victim's pain. McDonalds might have been nefarious, but the coffee was just damned hot. Imagine when Facebook is seen as nefarious and their products are too.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I know the McDonald's case was physical harm. I also know the harm was real. The case is widely cited for the "excessive" punitive damages awarded by the jury. I used it as an example of the direction in which litigation seems to be heading.

---

It's sometimes cited by people who don't know the details of the case, or don't understand what punitive damages are. (I don't mean you)

" Punitive damages or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit."

The purpose is not to compensate the plaintiff, but to get the defendant to change the behavior/actions that caused the damage.  

Many people cite it as an example of misunderstood punitive damages, as again, most people don't understand the case or the purpose of the punitive damages.  

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/79371

Whether the punitive damages are considered excessive is a matter of opinion, but the fact remains that there was real documented severe physical damage to a 79 yr old woman. 

Which is a very far leap to any comparisons with emotional distress someone might claim happened in an online game or virtual world. 

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I really do expect that we'll see some cases before the courts pressing damage claims from "virtual" interactions that you and I might think nonsensical, but a jury might not. I've been on three juries over the years and it's seemed that the outcome is more the result of the quality of the acting by the lawyers than facts of the case. What I'm suggesting here is not that virtual worlds are a legal parallel to real life, but that someone besides us will eventually press the argument.

---

Oh, I agree.  But, I maintain that even though there will be people who want to go down that path, that it will be a wrong path to take. 

When I can log off to end an interaction or choose to not read what someone else wrote, then to cast blame onto another for a perceived emotional distress that hypothetically would befall me by not doing those things, seems to be willful abdication of responsibility.

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I'm waiting for lawsuits against game developers who use game psychologists to design the games to be addicting. I'm reading/hearing a lot about the common neurochemistry of addictive gameplay and drugs. Someone will make the leap.

You did mention the chat-bot developer. I think they're going to be too funny for a very long time!

---

Oh, yes.  It's only a matter of time.  But, if the good coffee and chocolate makers can't be held responsible for creating an addictive substance, I don't know about game makers taking a hit.  

 

 

[Jesica Dragovar]

I've mentioned before that my  SL me is pretty much RL me, or rather a more idealized version of RL me, I don't really create characters, even my fantasy avatars are not much more than RL Me If I was X (vampire, furry, mermaid whatever)

[Dana Hickman]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Exactly. 

What is at issue here is the validity and enforceability of an electronic contract.

For instance, you negotiate a price with an Escort in SL for certain services, pay them the agreed price and then they don't perform their end of the deal.  Would you have a legal standing to take them to court to recoup your Lindens?

We are entering into a whole new legal area that is still being hashed out but oral contracts (incorrectly called 'verbal') and electronic contracts are enforceable under law

---

 

Yes, but I hadn't referred to anything that involved measurable loss on the part of the victim, which is really the only characteristic of such a "deal" that would make such a thing actionable by law. I was only talking about the verbal (ie- lying, misrepresentation, etc.. like talk found in the OPs hypothetical example of roleplay dialog), not about things that amount to theft, fraud, etc.. that causes some kind of loss (ie- copybotting). I never made that leap from mere talk over to where a lot of the rest of this discussion has gone with binding contracts because I was only commenting on the idea of holding RP talk liable, as was put forth early on by the OP.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Dana Hickman wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Exactly. 

What is at issue here is the validity and enforceability of an electronic contract.

For instance, you negotiate a price with an Escort in SL for certain services, pay them the agreed price and then they don't perform their end of the deal.  Would you have a legal standing to take them to court to recoup your Lindens?

We are entering into a whole new legal area that is still being hashed out but oral contracts (incorrectly called 'verbal') and electronic contracts are enforceable under law

---

 

Yes, but I hadn't referred to anything that involved measurable loss on the part of the victim, which is really the only characteristic of such a "deal" that would make such a thing actionable by law. I was

only

talking about the verbal (ie- lying, misrepresentation, etc.. like talk found in the OPs hypothetical example of roleplay dialog),

not

about things that amount to theft, fraud, etc.. that causes some kind of loss (ie- copybotting). I never made that leap from mere talk over to where a lot of the rest of this discussion has gone with binding contracts because I was only commenting on the idea of holding RP talk liable, as was put forth early on by the OP.

---

There perhaps is a small amount of ambiguity in the OP.

I would agree in a pure roleplay it would not be actionable.

But if I said I'd pay you 1000L to come roleplay with me that might be actionable.

I think he presents both scenarios in the OP.

My parents wanted me to be a lawyer.  It's probably a good thing I didn't go that route.  But I do enjoy the logic challenge sometimes.

 

[Dana Hickman]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

I would agree in a pure roleplay it would not be actionable.

But if I said I'd pay you 1000L to come roleplay with me that might be actionable.

---

 

Right. That's why I said that RP and RP characters are assumed unreliable sources (probably should've said presumed instead). It is known when people enter into RP that most, if not all of it is "fictious construct", and things said in it aren't binding because they are story. It's certainly a whole different thing when someones uses their AV as a legit agent of themself to make real binding agreements. That has as much weight as wording it out and signing it to a piece of paper in a lot of cases, just harder to enforce is all.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Pierre wrote:

But if I said I'd

pay you 1000L to come roleplay

with me that might be actionable.

---

1000L's?  All this time I must have been over-tipping.  

ETA for things...

[Perrie Juran]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Pierre wrote:

But if I said I'd

pay you 1000L to come roleplay

with me that might be actionable.

---

1000L's?  All this time I must have been over-tipping.  

ETA for things...

---

If you're really good you can get the women to pay you!  

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Nova Convair wrote:

There are 2 persons? No, just 2 avatars that have a deal about what? Virtual goods? In a (along many other things) game and roleplay environment.

You don't even know the other persons RL name! And want to claim there is a contract related to RL?

Thats simple. No case - not in my country - don't know about the weird american laws, but that wouldn't affect me in a case like that.

If you have a RL contract that involves SL - thats another story - only if you have proof of everything. But virtual goods are not subject to a case in my country. Only if there is hacking or deception involved there can be a case.

So keep in mind that SL has users of many countries, that will not make it easier.

---

You realize that you agreed to be held accountable under California and US laws when you agreed to the TOS, right?

 

12.2 The applicable law and venue for any non-arbitrated dispute is California.

You agree that this Agreement and the relationship between you and Linden Lab shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to conflict of law principles or the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods. Further, you and Linden Lab agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the courts located in the City and County of San Francisco, California, except as provided in Section 12.1 regarding optional arbitration. Notwithstanding this, either party shall still be allowed to apply for injunctive or other equitable relief to protect or enforce that party's Intellectual Property Rights in any court of competent jurisdiction where the other party resides or has its principal place of business.

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.