You only live twice
Or so it seems.
One life for yourself
And one for your dreams.
—Leslie Bricusse
So sang Nancy Sinatra for the title theme of the James Bond film, You Only Live Twice. Leslie Bricusse’s lyrics seem particularly true when applied to the Internet phenomenon known as Second Life.
Second Life is, in the words of its Web site, “a 3-D virtual world entirely built and owned by its residents.” But describing Second Life in more detail is a little bit like describing the Matrix. Remember? “No one can tell you about the Matrix, you have to see it for yourself.” Even if you are not reading this article on line, you are probably near a computer with Internet access, so go ahead and look, but remember to come back: http://secondlife.com/whatis/.
In the March issue of the ABA Bar Journal, there was a very interesting article about Second Life and some of its nascent legal issues. The ABA article focused primarily on how real, already-existing law, might be applied to this virtual world. For instance, because Second Life allows its users to buy server space for virtual-land, there is already at least one lawsuit involving a virtual land-grab.
But if part of the attraction to Second Life is that it allows users to do things like challenge physics in order to fly, then why not allow users to challenge jurisprudence in order to experiment with different legal theories? In other words, how might Second Life be used as a laboratory for experimenting with law?
As of this writing, I do not know if anyone is creating worlds in Second Life with the specific purpose of testing alternate legal realities. So, I will have to speculate about how such legal simulations might play out. For instance, it might be interesting to create a world with practically no rules or laws at all, except perhaps a single rule — no one taking part in the simulation can destroy the simulation program. How would such a virtual society evolve?
Or, perhaps a simulation could explore what might happen if a particular ruling had been otherwise. For instance, the converse of the famous property case of Pierson v. Post: What if mere pursuit of an object or resource were enough for a person to exert ownership over their target?
Experimenting with these different scenarios in real life would likely lead to great complications, if not tragedy. In comparison, experimenting in this virtual world is relatively risk free. Of course, certain standards would need to be created to determine how closely these simulations would resemble what might happen in the real world. For instance, people behave differently in an anonymous world with no consequences than they do in the real world.
Despite the obvious shortcomings that Second Life has for reproducing real world situations in the virtual world, it does hold the possibility for great social, political, economic and legal experimentation without the mess of real world consequences. It also may become an invaluable tool for understanding how legal forces shape our First Life. Hopefully, Second Life will not be used solely as a mere extension or mirror of First Life. But, if that does become the case, then perhaps someone will invent Third Life.
