There has been a lot of talk about governance in Virtual Worlds during the term. Whether or not there should be a governing body that dictates what goes on, on the internet, or not? With real-world commodification becoming more evident in virtual worlds the means for governance is obviously starting to enter real-life court. Issues such as these are typically stated in the TOS or EULA’s of games on where (which state or country) to handle them. A lot of games are based out of California and many users are directed to handle virtual world disputes in that state, but if a game is based out of Sweden should I have to travel all the way across the world to handle a dispute? And If I don’t want to deal with travelling, should I really just give up my rights and let it go? This is a huge injustice that gives more power to the developers and creators of these games. The following is my theory for a solution.
It is not foreign to us that issues have existed between governance that crosses geographical borders. War crimes, economical crimes, personal crimes etc. have all previously been committed overriding country borders. That is why organizations like the EU, UN, or NATO have come into existence. Not only have such crimes existed, but also, media crimes such as pirating films or p2p sharing of music. The organization Interpol exists for certain issues that pertain to these types of crimes. My point is clear here, issues of legality have previously been handled when it comes to crimes that go beyond geographical boundaries. Also issues that arise when there is no one particular means for governing these. A coalition or an organization is formed in order to handle such problems. Thus, an organization should be formed to govern the internet.
An organization like this would definitely have some issues considering everything we have examined throughout this course; particularly arguments in readings by authors Lastowka, Castronova, and Post/Johnson. The issue of virtual justice, governance, and jurisdiction are major issues. The answer is to form an organization that allows the freedom of the internet to remain fair, whilst handling issues that for example are too hard for either party involved addressing through courts in their particular area. This organization will also dictate what is legal or not. For example all things that currently exist: child pornography, fraud, theft etc. will obviously remain illegal while certain issues such as intellectual property will be handled by the organization. When governance of virtual worlds comes into mind this organization can see over the TOS’s and EULA’s to perfect any issues that can become iffy. The key here is to create a sort of mediator of all the things that can arise as an issue online or in virtual worlds, this way confusion would be eliminated. One may argue also, it is not even clear what should or should not be governed in real life. That is exactly what an organization such as this one will do.
An organization such as this would cause much controversy to arise about the freedom of the internet. With an imperfect world though there will always be imperfect answers or solutions. All we can do is to try and limit the amount of problems that currently exist or that will arise in the future. The internet is so broad no one person can know all of its capabilities, which is both a good and bad thing. All one can hope for is to allow us humans our freedom and to protect us against those trying to limit that freedom; which would be the main goal of an organization like this.
No comments:
Post a Comment