Some people call it "virtual rape," but it strikes me as so far removed from the real thing that even including the adjective "virtual" leaves the phrase with a misleading connotation. In any case, Wired commentator Regina Lynn reports:
Last month, two Belgian publications reported that the Brussels police have begun an investigation into a citizen's allegations of rape — in Second Life....
Can anyone who speaks Dutch tell us more about these accounts (here and here)? I'd like to know whether they seem real or jokes (a possibility the Wired item flags), and also precisely what laws were allegedly violated.
I should note:
One can easily imagine a game in which such behavior is cause for expulsion, or breach of a player's contract; but I take it that this wouldn't make it a criminal violation.
The speech might also be punishable as a threat if it is reasonably perceived as a threat against the real person whose avatar is involved, for instance, if it appears that the speaker knows who the avatar's real-world user is, and in context the statements are reasonably understood are threatening the user. But this would be unlikely if there's no reason to think that the user's identity is known. (Note also that under U.S. law, it's possible that for the speech to be a threat there must also be evidence that the speaker intends it to be perceived as a threat; I can't speak to Belgian law.)
Sufficiently explicit talk of sex might be seen as punishable pornography, depending on the country's laws. It's conceivable that it would even qualify as unprotected and criminally punishable obscenity in the U.S. (and the targeting of the statement to an unconsenting player might help support this position, if the "prurient interest" and "patent[] offensive[ness]" prongs are seen as considering the context of the speech as well as the content); but it would have to be pretty explicit for that to happen, I think.
In any event, I'm curious what exactly the legal theory is in the Belgian investigations, if there really are investigations and there really is a legal theory.
Thanks to John Rayburn for the pointer.
UPDATE: Many thanks to Dutch-speaking reader James Wallmann, who writes:
The two news items are virtually identical. Here are the translations:First link:
Federal Computer Crime Unit Patrols in Second Life* Note use of diminutive suffix (-etje), which I didn’t translate, suggesting this is something trivial or for kids....The Brussels Public Prosecutor’s Office has asked investigators of the Federal Computer Crime Unit to patrol in Second Life.
In the virtual world of the computer game[*] a personality was recently “raped.” Following the virtual rape the Brussels police opened a file. “It is the intent to determine whether punishable acts have been committed,” according to the federal police. The Public Prosecutor’s Office was also alarmed. At the vice section acting officer Verlinden opened an informational investigation into the details.
Second link:
Brussels Police to Patrol in Second Life* Note use of diminutive suffix (-etje), which I didn’t translate, suggesting this is something trivial or for kids.The Brussels Public Prosecutor’s Office has asked investigators of the Federal Computer Crime Unit to patrol in Second Life. This according to De Morgen. In the virtual world of the computer game[*] a personality was recently “raped.” Following the virtual rape the Brussels police opened a file. “It is the intent to determine whether punishable acts have been committed,” according to the federal police. The Public Prosecutor’s Office was also alarmed. At the vice section acting officer Verlinden opened an informational investigation into the details.
Real or jokes? Your guess is as good as mine. I suspect that the anonymous reporter thinks this investigation is a bit silly, but perhaps just the facts are being reported. As you see from the translations, nothing is said about what laws may have been violated.
Three of the comments in the first link were amusing: "Will the perpetrator receive a virtual punishment?" and "For heaven's sake, what's going on here? Normally citizens have to move heaven and earth to get the police involved in something. Gentlemen, this is virtual! Perhaps the Public Prosecutor's Office doesn't know what this means." and "Ah, that lovely feeling you get when you hear that your tax dollars are being wisely spent." The commentators certainly took the article at face value, not as a joke.
If they're talking about what I think they're talking about, virtual "rape" in an MMORPG, then I can think of a few fixes: /ignore, /petition, /report.
What in H... is an Avatar? Seriously. Do I need to know what or who it/they are? Is this knowledge important. Is asking the question worthwhile? Seriously, I have NO idea what an Avatar is. Let me know please.
Unfortunately, there's not enough information in any of the articles I could read about what actually happened, but I know that the interface of Second Life allows sex between characters, and it wouldn't be too far of a stretch for me to imagine a hack of some kind that, if nothing else, immobilizes somebody's character while the player watches the other character rape her.
I also did read briefly about a year ago about an independent project for an MMO that allowed basically every crime imaginable to be committed on other characters, including murder and rape.
Belgian police patrols Second Life to prevent rape.
Also see here.
Of old an avatar is the physical manifestation/incarnation of a Hindu Deity.
In more recent times, it can refer to the electronic-image manifestation of a real person in games, etc.
For more, see Wikipedia
"Tania Derveaux, leading candidate for senate of the NEE party in Belgium goes completely naked for the party's campaign and for Belgium’s most popular men’s magazine. Their official campaign involves billboards featuring her in all her naked glory with a very seductive look and the text "I promise you 400.000 jobs" above her."
You can see one of her of her billboard ads here. Better than Hillary.
A Hindu word that was used to describe the physical manifestations of the various gods/goddesses.
It was adapted by various science fiction authors (I think Neal Stephenson was one of the first in Snow Crash) to describe the graphical representations people chose for themselves in the virtual/cyber/internet/computer-based worlds.
It should be investigated by the virtual police, and punished with virtual imprisonment.
Has it been settled whether a player actually has a property right to any online items collected? The EULA's of virtually all MMO's include disclaimers that all characters, items, etc. belong to the publisher, not the player. Is the word still out on whether those "shrinkwrapped" EULA's form a binding contract?
This whole topic seems silly to me. In most MMORPGs, nothing another player does can actually change my character without my permission. They can't even fight me without my agreement. About the worst they can do is hang around me and say rude things... which /ignore quickly takes care of.
I can see why a simulated rape is obnoxious behavior which should be reported to a GM, and may even get the perpetrator suspended from the game. But to even kind-of-sort-of-vaguely consider this as something with real world consequences or real world legal punishment is beyond absurd to me.
(I say the same thing regarding taxing virtual income. Show me what real world goods virtual currency can get me, and then we can talk about tax. Or if you insist, I'll pay my tax in the same currency I earned in. Have fun with your virtual gold pieces).
This topic just shows that some people are very, very confused about the difference between reality and a gaming simulation.
Go look on ebay. Selling virtual goods for real money is a cottage industry (quite literally- there are entire companies devoted to nothing more than "farming" virtual resources and selling them to people too lazy to earn it themselves in the game).
Not that I think you should have to pay a tax on it.
billb, thanks for that reminder. I knew some out there were devoid of that clause, couldn't remember offhand if SL was or not.
Step 1: Virtual money can be exchanged for virtual goods and services.
Step 2: Virtual goods and services can be exchanged for real money.
Step 3: Real money can be exchanged for real goods and services.
A week or two ago, a female World Of Warcraft player sold a real life sexual act as performed by herself in exchange for ~5000 gold coins in game (with which she intended to purchase her epic mount, which led to all sorts of word play amongst forum-goers.)
And if you are curious about the value of virtual currency and property, there is information here and here on Second life's actual and possible potential.
Well, yes, you can sell virtual currency for real currency. (This is strictly against the terms of games I've played, and people get banned for it, but it certainly goes on).
But then you've sold something for a concrete currency. You have real life income. There is already plenty of legal infrastructure around to tax real income, and it would apply to that sale.
If, however, everything remains in the virtual world, nothing concrete has been produced or earned, and thus nothing should be taxed.
I'm grasping for a good analogy and failing, so forgive the short comings of this one: Suppose you play a video basketball game with your best friend, and further you've (perhaps illegally) agreed to gamble and pay each other $5 when the other one wins a game.
Would it make sense to then say that making a virtual basket earning you a virtual 2 points should be taxed as real income? So that every fake swish costs you $.05 or whatever? Even to the million 9 year olds playing solo basketball who have no gambling deal and no income from it?
Or does it make sense to say that you've earned $5 of real gambling income, which is taxable income?
I have to say the latter. 'Virtual' money only becomes real when you find someone willing to buy it with real currency, and that real currency is indeed taxable income to you.
The same is true for "real" money. These little slips of cloth paper with ink on them have very little real value, but quite a lot of ascribed virtual value dependent upon how the ink is arranged on it.
There are people who put a lot of effort into acruing various Virtual (capital V to represent the digital non-real world) possessions and wealth. And the old truism, "Time is money" is holding still holding true with regard to people's opinions of the time they have put into that work. Many people have sold the information to access high level, well-equipped MMORPG characters (in violation of EULAs and without actually passing ownership since most game companies own the actual characters as someone mentioned already.)
As time goes by and more and more people get involved in metaverses, those metaverses will stabilize and an exchange rate will become established between the real and virtual worlds. Approximately 1% of the world's population plays World of Warcraft, and there is already a pretty well defined rate of exchange for $ -> gold coins and $ -> in-game value of a character's level and equipment.
I have to agree with everything you wrote :-)
My only point is that it doesn't make sense to tax virtual currency/items in the virtual world. It only makes sense to tax the real income, made in the real world, that one gets from selling virtual items. And taxing real income is something we're already pretty good at doing.
It was the subject of a very famous article by Julian Dibell, here. The incident has been studied in a number of academic disciplines, as it presents fairly fascinating legal, sexual, political, social, and ontological questions.
Forgive me if someone has already posted this article on the thread, I may not have read carefully enough.
And third, virtual rape is, in any reasonable sense, impossible, since one can always leave: walk away, teleport away, or simply exit the SL client.
It's bad enough to be addicted to video and role playing games. To have a whole new virtual world to exist in (and that people obviously take very seriously) seems like an open invitation to perpetual adolescence and escapism.
Like a small town the hits the big time, I imagine that if I went back to SL now after having been gone for two years, it would look a lot different. I had fun exploring the geography, the architecture, some G-rated amusements. What turned me off to the place was that I couldn't seem to find an area to socialize where people would refrain from trying to "give me items" including penises and sex clothing. So after a while, "lone wolf" exploration got boring. I got more out of the Myst series than I did from SL.
Homer(sifting through couch cushions): Twenty dollars? I wanted a peanut.
Homer's Brain: Twenty dollars can buy many peanuts.
Homer: Explain how.
Homer's Brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services.
Homer: Woo-hoo!
My research through relevant Dutch texts on the web seems to indicate that this suffix designates a generic computer game, rather than something specifically for kids. Dutch is famously prone to use this diminutive ending across the board (and for the purists - it's close enough to Flemish, with most differences mainly phonetic). This is also not the first time a Dutch language source reports on Brussels' desire to clamp down on violent computer games. See for instance here