Charles walker

What has this class meant for me?

Exploration into the possibilities of the future

People living through cyberspace

2nd life – earning money, having relationships, cheating on wife

New legal, ethical implications – man cheating on his wife

Grieifing? Ethical behavior? Should our current legal standards be imposed? Or should there be something new?

Will imposig legal standards close down the openness that is so revered

RIAA – copyright, file sharing

What adjudication can be like online – replace small claims court?

Do people still feel like they had their part in the process; perhaps can be used to resolve inssues tribunals whre people need to be heard in order to be satisfied – world human rights dilemmas

Were we too close minded in thinking of this just as a tool to hold a trial?

Maybe we should have thought of other ways to use cyberspace – inform the public, build supports, change current views, hold debates, forums, meeting places for people who want to converse on the issue

I still feel like some of the personal elements, emotional are lost, playing to the jury would be lot less effective, objections etc.

What to do in future semesters –

Use the class as a platform for the students to pick a cause – what we could have done with the poker issue

What the semester could look like

Trials in Second Life

Seminar Paper

Chuck Walker

Introduction

This class has truly been an experience unlike any other that I have had at the law school, and for that matter, unlike any experience I have had ever. It has introduced me to a world of cyberspace of which I was previously unaware. I have learned that cyberspace holds great promise for the future of solving disputes. I have genuinely enjoyed numerous aspects of the course. I have also noticed places where the course could be improved upon.

Introduction to Cyberspace

Before this course, I was almost entirely ignorant to the possibility of people “living” in cyberspace. But then we explored Second Life and I learned how some people spend great deals of time as their avatar in a created universe. I learned that people can make real life money in cyberspace through selling cyber products. We also discussed issues of people having relationships in Second Life. So much so, that a real marriage was ending because of the husbands cyber relationship in this cyber world.

What does this all mean? I think it means that the world is beginning to change. People are using cyberspace to change the way we once thought the world and life should be. I believe that at some point in the future, people will give up their real lives for their avatars. People will make enough money in cyberspace to support themselves. The will no longer need to get real world jobs nor bother themselves with real world interactions. While the possibility of such a world is stunning, I also see it as quite frightening. What as a society have we done to drive people to no longer want to be a part of daily interactions and instead, spend their time in cyberspace, hiding behind fictional avatars? The greatest moments in life come through interactions with people. The things that stand out about my greatest memories are not the things that I received, or the even the activities I accomplished, rather the people that I shared those experiences with. Can cyberspace replace the feeling of a handshake of a proud father, or the embrace of a lover? I tend to believe that no matter how advanced the cyber world gets, these things will never be effectively replaced.

Now this does not mean I think the developments in the cyber world are wrong, or even headed down the wrong path. What I have learned from this class is that the cyber environment presents great opportunity for the future. We explored one opportunity, namely trials being held in a virtual environment. What a fascinating concept. People from all over the world can come together in one virtual space to adjudicate their disputes. It really changes what a jury pool could look like when you are no longer trapped by geographic boundaries or the costs of transportation.

Old Issues Raised Anew in Cyberspace and the RIAA Debate

We spent quite some time in class discussing if the rules of the real world should apply in Secondlife. Should griefing be some sort of crime? Could schools be liable for things that happen in a cyber environment? What type of ethics and moral should be applied in a virtual world. We may be able to actually observe answers to these questions evolve over the next few months and years. But perhaps it would be wise for us to take a hand in shaping what the answers should look like.

I certainly believe people there are certain ethics and morals people should follow whether in cyberspace or in the real world. One that I feel very strongly about is that people should not steal. This ties directly in with the RIAA case we discussed. I think property should not be stolen whether its in real life or in cyberspace. Just because something is just bits, doesn’t mean it wasn’t created by someone’s sweat and hard work. I gave the example in class about what if a fellow student types his 3L paper and then I take it and turn it in for credit and he gets none. Certainly something seems wrong with that proposition, yet I hear all the time that people should be able to take music on the internet in just the same way. The musician who created the song, worked just as hard as the student who wrote the 3L paper. Certainly they both have some right in what they have created.

Just because technology has advanced to the point where it is possible to steal someone else’s hard work for free without being caught, does not mean it is the right thing to do. If technology advanced to the point where a person could kill another without ever being detected or caught, we would still say that murder is wrong. In fact, we would strive to develop techniques to catch the murderer and prevent him from killing again. Yet when the RIAA does the same thing, try to stop the person committing the crime and prevent them from doing it again in the future, people are up in arms that the RIAA is evil and wrong. Their position is one that I have a hard time getting my head around.

I would go further to say the academia has a responsibility to teach students, from an early age to respect others intellectual property. We already do in some respects. Most universities will expel a student who plagiarizes. Universities seem very interested in protecting the intellectual property of their professors. I would guess that if I turned in an essay by a professor at the law school as my own work, I would be in sever trouble. So obviously the university respects the idea of intellectual property when it belongs to one of their own. But why then do they not feel the same way when the intellectual property belongs to a music corporation? It seems slightly, no hugely, hypocritical to me.

I do believe however that the intellectual property and copyright system needs to evolve. And I think incentives can be laid down to make corporations such as the music industry adapt, but I do not think it is right to change the law on the company overnight and say that copyrights are no longer protected. Imagine if government decided overnight that all education would be free, completely free, paid for by no one, not even the government. Professors would throw a fit if they thought they were no longer going to be paid for their work. I would guess many wouldn’t even show up to class to teach the next day. Yet professors are arguing to impose the same situation on the record companies. That overnight, they can no longer be paid for the service they provide and the skills and investments they have made are useless.

I think the way to handle the situation would be to impose a deadline and force the industry to adapt by a certain date. Pass a law that says in 5 years, it will no longer be a crime to file share copyrighted material, so you guys in the industry better come up with a new way to do things by then. But in the meanwhile, you have to enforce the current laws. The industry can’t advance if they have to put all of their resources into stopping the bleeding and all we do is keep ripping out the stitches.

To get back to the moral and ethical issue, cyberspace is a new tool; one that can be used for both good and bad. It has the potential change the world, but also the potential to do great harm. It would be irresponsible for academia to teach students about the this new tool and show them ways to use it without exploring the moral and ethical aspects and issues that are particular to the tool. You wouldn’t meticulously teach someone how to use a gun and preach about its great power and ability without making sure you first taught the person how to use the gun safely. Also, you would be sure the person either already knew or that you taught them that it was wrong to shoot people with the gun; to refuse to do so would be irresponsible and in poor judgment.

Trials in SecondLife

Our trials thus far in the semester have struck me as preliminary steps in determining the adjudicating abilities of cyberspace. One advantage it presents is the audience. People from all over the country were present for our burning man trial. What better way to get allow people to feel like part of the judicial system then opening the viewing of these trials to anyone in the county. It lends validity to the entire system when you can open the doors and tell the people, “here, come on in, take a look for yourself.” The same opportunity, on the same scale, is just not feasible with a brick and mortar courtroom.

Another great thing about the trial in cyberspace was the real time feedback you can get from the jurors and observers. It was great listening to their jury deliberations and really having the opportunity to get inside their head and see how the decision was reached. It shocked me that so many people seemed ready to convict in the burning man trial. What surprised me even more was the reason. The jurors were really giving great deference to the law. Even though KB made a great emotional and artistic appeal to the people, the jurors really stuck to the letter of the law. I think searching for someone acquit through jury nullification would really be quite unlikely, much more so than I originally thought.

Finally, cyberspace lets lawyers adapt and change their personalities to fit different cases much more easily in real life. Once you have a real life reputation whether as a thoughtful, kind lawyer or as a real son-of-a-b#%$@, it can be very difficult to shake the reputation. In cyberspace, you can just change your appearance or name or even avatar to start anew. You don’t have to worry about if a judge or another attorney is harboring a grudge, because you can change your avatar and they wouldn’t even know it was you.

Unfortunately, the online trials also brought some difficulties. One was keeping order. People were saying and doing things that they wouldn’t dream of doing in the confines of a real courtroom. As long as the idea of cyber courts are still novel, I think there will be a lack of respect for the system as a whole that will manifest itself in these cyber court outbursts. To our credit, when we decided to that we would have a more serious trial, we were able to tone down the extracurricular activity and stick to a fairly serious trial. This problem though may be a signal of a deeper one, whether people will really buy into the idea of cyber dispute resolution. If the people don’t buy into it, they will never respect it.

One issue that I really struggled with was the lack of personal interaction in the online trials. It makes it impossible to look at a witness and decide if he is lying. So much of how we judge whether another is telling the truth comes from subtle facial cues, that most of the time we don’t even realize we are noticing. This element was completed eliminated during an online trial. It really makes a he said/she said case very difficult to resolve.

Also, the effectiveness of objections was severely limited. First, it was hard to time an objection. The lag time of typing an objection and sending it into cyberspace usually meant the line of questioning had already passed the objection. But also, I felt like the jury wasn’t engaged by the objection. It was very impersonal. There was no drama or emotion. You couldn’t emphasize importance of an issue or objection or the fact that the witness was lying. Being able to alter voice tones and catch the jury members eyes are all subtle parts of the trial which thus far seem lost in cyberspace.

Perhaps a good place to start would be to try replacing small claims court with a cyber court. The stakes would be smaller. People usually go to small claims court because they don’t expect a full legal experience with all the amenities in an exchange for saving costs. Cyber courts could even further reduce costs, yet possibly add back some of the legal amenities that are missing from small claims court.

In order to get the ball rolling you would need to find two parties who are in dispute to agree to resolving their dispute in a cyber court. Then you would need to publicize the hearing. Perhaps if the cyber court was successful in resolving the dispute, it would get the ball rolling and more people would look to the cyber court as a means for resolving issues and the whole thing could just snowball.

Expanding our Notion of Trials in SecondLife

Perhaps we were too narrow in our exploration of using cyberspace. It seems like it might be a much more effective tool if not limited to a court type system. I think cyberspace could be very effective for a type of alternative dispute resolution system. It could be a much cheaper alternative to what is already available. People could come together to resolve disputes and get the input of others observing the process. Also, we would no longer be limited within the confines that a court type system imposes. I mean, we are the first to try a case in cyberspace. We have the opportunity to do anything we could possibly imagine. And the first thing we decide is the hold the case in a cyber COURTROOM. Talk about limiting yourself to the confines of the real world. I think we might be better served to design a dispute resolution system from scratch, that doesn’t confine us to all the red tape and needless ritual that exist in real life.

One interesting aspect of a cyber world dispute resolution system is that you could get real time feedback during the resolution. The “observers” could, every couple minutes, update what they are thinking and vote for who they think is in the right. The two parties could see this and gauge the strength of their case and change their strategy or own position as necessary. I think real time feedback could be invaluable when probing different paths of different arguments.

Another interesting aspect is that it presents a cheap means for people to be heard. In many resolutions, there is a physiological need to be heard. Studies have found that even when people get the result they want, if they don’t have the chance to participate and have their story heard in process, they aren’t happy with the resolution. Imagine the possibility that exists for warring tribes of people. Usually agreements to solve the dispute fail because the members don’t buy into the solution and don’t thing they had the opportunity to express their interest. In cyberspace, everyone could have the chance to have their story heard in a worldwide forum or tribunal.

Future Possibilities for Trials in SecondLife

I have some recommendations and ideas for future semesters of this course. One is to adapt the course to use it explore different methods of dispute resolution. We have started to accomplish this in the current semester, with having a mock congressional hearing as opposed to a trial.

But how cool would it be to take one issue through all different types of resolution devices. Take the dispute of poker as an example. You could start the course with a trial of whether poker is a game of skill. You could then have an appellate type argument, where maybe just one or two judges are asking questions to both parties. Next, the students could adopt legislation to implement their proposed changes. Then you could conduct a legislative hearing on proposed legislation. You could also have public debates, where the students are split in half to represent each side of the argument and the general public gets to come into cyber berkman island and ask questions. In fact, perhaps the course should be more focused on an attempt to affect public opinion. We have already proven that the harvard law name can bring media exposure to what the students are doing. Maybe you can design a course where the students decide on a cause to get behind and see if they can impact public opinion over the course of the semester through all of the tools and means discussed. That would seem like an actual, rewarding experience for students. It would also be quite refreshing to have a goal of actually making something happen. So much of academia is spent in thought and discussion that it might be nice to actually try and do something. And Cyberspace presents the students with a relatively new means of accomplishing these goals, a means that is far from being fully explored and that has yet to be utilized to its full effect.

Conclusion

One thing I really enjoyed about this course was the level of discussion we were able to delve into. And we discussed real issues, not hypothetical and theories as in most law school courses. We were then able to take our discussions and frame legal arguments from them that we used in cyberspace. The beer was a nice touch too.

I am thankful for the introduction the course gave me into the world of cyberspace. I was very unaware of what we could do with current technology that is widely available and accessible. I was also quite unaware of some of the issues confronting people in cyberspace. It will be interesting to see how the world evolves and will present a real life case study to see how rules and norms evolve. My guess is market forces will play a large role in dictating the outcomes to some of these issues. For instance, if enough people don’t like griefing, they will band together and create their own world/island/cyberspace where such an activity is not allowed. And if other people agree with them, they will pay to join such a world. If it is not worth it to those people, than that one non-griefing world will either stay really small or will die off completely.

I also think cyberspace will give professors the opportunities to test theories and hypothesis in self contained cyber worlds. I think a lot of professors in the soft arts will finally be able to test the theories they write about and say they observe in real life. I am interest to see how many of them will actually have the guts to put their money where their mouth is and test relationships between people and environments.