Of Metaverses and Justice

Mankind has always aggregated in areas together. Before the Iron Age, this usually meant a nomadic life - following hunting game and seasonal fruits. Different groups wandered, meeting occasionally to trade or war over scarce resources. Agriculture, the ability to grow crops, changed things. Cultivated crops could support larger populations, and required people to take care of them. Large cities were made possible in this way, and formerly nomadic peoples grouped together - building homes, taking areas of land as their own, and coming to agreements with their neighbors if not enforced by some authority larger than an individual.

This happened all over the world. It didn't all happen at the same time, but within a few centuries it happened around the world except in a few places where it didn't seem necessary to people - such as the Amerindians and the Aborigines of Australia. During that time, lines were drawn where there were none before, and some created new lines in the form of Empire Building. The point is that lines became evident where none existed before. To date many of these lines follow natural landmarks, demonstrating that surveying wasn't as important an aspect as it is these days - had it happened today, there would probably be square States in the United States, and perhaps some states wouldn't be larger than others. But with every line on the map today, there is a history. The Middle East is a brilliant example of this which I commented on here in the context of a conceptual Caliphate. Africa was divided in much the same way; South America fell under the pen of Pope Alexander VI in the Treaty of Tordesillas.

Lines. And these lines served as borders for geography, politics, religion, language, economy, Law and all manner of human interest. The lines came to represent divisions in these human interest. Contrasts across borders varied more with time and intellectual inbreeding. Lines shifted through violence, through treaty, through the fall of Empires... but those shifts in lines were rarely, if ever, a democratic process. Lines shifted for reasons varying between whim and perceived need. People who did not like how they were forced to live left to find greener pastures.

During all of this, mankind had created all manner of transportation to get from point A to point B - even while Martin Behaim finished his globe, the Erdapfel, Christopher Columbus convinced a broke King and Queen of Spain to fund his journey which would later be taught in some places as some proof that the Earth was round (how did Behaim know?). Later, the Wright Brothers put wings to humanity. Henry Ford was encouraged by Thomas Edison to commercially produce the internal combustion engine, though later Edison never owned a car since they 'made the air smell funny'¹.

And even then another interesting thing happened; Nikola Tesla won the War of the Currents when Niagara Falls began to generate electricity through his inventions - allowing power to cross miles along wires using alternating current. He brought us the radio (no, Marconi didn't). And he wrote of communicating and transmitting energy without wires - laying the foundation for much of what would be used later on to do something extraordinary. We'll get back to that.

Technology empowered man to live further away from resources than before. Economies prospered, but not very equally. Lines shifted again, wars were fought. People migrated some more, all over the world, for one reason or the other. In August 13, 1961, some people decided to build a wall which would begin being chipped away on November 9, 1989. It wasn't until October 3, 1990 that the Berlin Wall was actually down. The Wall was never the issue, and during the months between November, 1989 and October, 1990, the Wall was still there - a physical line separating people - but it was not supported by anything but itself.

This accelerated the world in a lot of ways, opening trade which had not been open before. Trade which had been closed because of lines. In essence, the weight of the lines softened; the divisions allowed for lines to be more permeable.

The history of transmitting information across distances was linked to these imaginary lines. And the ability to transmit that information made leaps over the centuries, particularly the last century.

The Internet showed up and really softened some lines. Collaborative works prospered - we all know what these works are because they are still here in 2007, despite groups and even governments which defended trade interests with everything from bullets to the worst: treaties. Governments had less influence over their populations as voices echoed across the internet, powered by Tesla's invention of alternating current as well as radio, also coupled with Isaac Newton's formative work in 'Optiks'.

The Internet, the Metaverse, The New World.

But there are other lines that haven't softened as much. These are different imaginary lines, lines dividing people into geopolitical areas of Law which are largely ignored. Some use the argument that 'its too hard' when it comes to finding agreements in these Laws around the world. So hard! Perhaps we should all give up, throw our hands in the air and weep for what could have been.

So hard. In the context of what has passed before, it certainly doesn't look too hard. Difficult, yes. Problematic? Yes. But during all phases of change through the centuries of recorded history that we have, there have been people saying "its too hard!".

In this context, this new context of Law as related to the Internet, we find all manner of idiocy being done with Laws that simply don't make sense in the modern context.

Cold Water, Ripe Bananas

There is a story of a group of apes under study. There were 5 apes in a controlled environment, and they created a pecking order. Some ripe and fragrant bananas were placed at the top of some stairs - the leader went to get the bananas, but was doused with ice water. Thwarted, he eyed the bananas. The next day, the same thing was done. He tried again, and again he was doused with ice water.

This continued until, eventually, he stopped going for the bananas. Anyone who tried to go up the stairs was beaten by the leader, and later by the entire group until not one of them would react to the bananas on the stairs. They took one ape out and placed a new one in. The new ape started up the stairs, but was beaten by the apes. That ape no longer went up the stairs. Over a period of time, all of the apes were replaced - and these apes would not go up the stairs for the bananas though not one of them had been doused with cold water.

So it is, sometimes, with people who reside in certain states of mind.

Maybe It Is Too Hard

If people actually tried to find a way to coordinate Law across these imaginary lines - some geopolitical, some trade, all lines - Law would become more homogenous and perhaps even more fair in an international sense. Opposing that is simple - for example, one could have simply not participated or stonewalled at the World Summit on Information Society. Authors on Law could easily ignore the international problems, instead selling books with their countries ideas alone throughout the world. People writing of virtual worlds and the metaverse could easily ignore the fact that less than 20% of the world is on the internet and that international legal issues now are the tip of the iceberg; by dismissing international legal issues and propagating their single nation perspective perhaps they hope that these issues will go away.

Consider the crux of the recent issue with Israel, where:

...Michael Carlton, CEO of online sportsbook Victor Chandler, was arrested in Israel. An Israeli court asserted jurisdiction over Carlton, a foreign citizen, and stated that as long as a portion of the illegal activity (here, gambling) occurred in Israel, there is no need for universal jurisdiction, and the website operator is subjected to the Israeli law (State v. Carlton, Hebrew decision). The court stated that it was in Victor Chandler’s responsibility to bar all communication from Israel since the activity they offer is illegal for Israeli citizens to participate in...

Have we forgotten 'Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56; 210 CLR 575; 194 ALR 433; 77 ALJR 255 (10 December 2002)'? Is it not fair to say that if someone in another country has their legal rights tread upon, they should be afforded recourse which does not add further injury to them? It would seem ethical. It would seem that a person should have some rights which are at the least economically feasible, else the Law becomes a whore to the highest bidder².

Is what Israel did agreeable? In a sense, yes. Did it go overboard? Perhaps. Could it have been avoided? Most certainly, yes. Why wasn't it avoided? The bananas on the stairs; the inability to think beyond the hard lines of yesteryear. One of the many strengths of Law is that it is empowered by precedent; it evolves. This is also its greatest shortcoming when it comes to change; the eyes of legal scholars ever look backward... and rarely look forward, and when those eyes do cast toward the future they come with the weight of history.

And if you invade a place, by all means- rewrite the laws to maintain the status quo.

The Status Quo Has Changed, But It Hasn't

Internet Governance resolution has lagged - mainly because of inflexible bureaucracy combined with economic interest. The WTO is a magnet for criticism, TRIPs has been viewed as a tool to cause less strong economies to fall in line when it comes to copyright, patent and trademark law. Any virtual world, despite talk otherwise, is a part of the internet - be that part of the internet closed or open. To get there, people traverse the internet. Law of virtual worlds, then, is tied to Law related to the internet. And all of these Laws come with high costs of litigation... and what these synthetic worlds really are at this time are simply testing grounds for Law and Economics.

Despite what is said to the contrary, real money crosses international boundaries. You can call it fictional or barter, it doesn't matter. The net result is that real money crosses those lines created through centuries of social and anti-social development of society. The lines have softened, but apparently not enough - and the people, organizations and governments who could affect change are still entrenched in maintaining a status quo that is representative of only those with internet access - less than 20% of the world.

So maybe approaching a virtual world as a micronation makes sense, but micronations are (almost by definition) not taken seriously. Self-determination would make sense, if people were cooperative. The scale of cost of litigation has to go down for international disputes as long as there are international disputes - but making virtual worlds geopolitical extensions work against the very strength of virtual worlds: SMEs. What is needed is an international platform of trade and commerce, and laws that regulate it. That is what the internet was supposed to be, and what the 'metaverse' is being spoken of as... is a band aid over the real issues. Its a different brand of snake oil until the rationale for economics beats Law into submission, and that will not happen if synthetic worlds carry a nationalist bias. Considering that the future of any linkage of virtual worlds will be international, that will just create more red tape and administrative effort whereas consolidation of Law makes more sense.

Should it be done by a virtual world owner? It cannot be done that way; contracts involve two parties and may not always be considered legitimate by different governments. The answer is where it always has been: creating a set of laws which governments can abide. This is why Internet Governance itself must entail such laws... and in the process, it should empower netizens while assuring rights along the lines of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Until that is done, anything remotely like a metaverse will be limited to a set of Laws which are a mockery of the users own Rights. If someone being arrested in Israel hasn't woken people up to this, nothing will.

The future is in human society - all of human history demonstrates that. The future is in consolidation - everything in the last 100 years has demonstrated that. The future is also in empowering groups of people from around the world to collaborate and do business with minimal oversight - the last 10 years have demonstrated that. The future requires Law, but it requires Law which scales appropriately for SMEs operating in synthetic spaces: The last 2 years shows that.

Maybe when global internet penetration hits 80% scholars will have an epiphany.

¹ Edison: A Biography, Matthew Josephson, 1992.
² Some say that this has already happened.