Sword Art Online - "Real-World" and Legal Implications [Speculation, NO Spoilers]

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Adigard

Don't forget... there are no pictures of the conflict. There are no scenes of the tragedy to keep things fresh in people's minds. There are no war torn streets or affected civilians living in SAO who cry when the military bombs their houses.

Most US soldier deaths in Iraq are reported on without showing the actual violent moment of death, at least from what I can recall.

With soldier casualties as well as with SAO deaths, all you need to do is show pictures or videos of the casualties/victims from when they were still active and alive in the real world, and that'll bring the situation home to many viewers.

Sure, people will feel very detached from what's going on in a VR MMO, but people also tend to feel very detached from something going on half-a-world away.

I understand what you're saying, and I think the heavy weight of all those kids trapped in coma's would be kept present in people's minds... but comparing the future of a nation and all it's inhabitants to 10,000 kids stuck in a death game... is a tad bit off.

That's not the comparison I was making.

I'm not saying that the SAO situation is exactly the same as the war in Iraq, in every respect. Of course it's not. What I am saying is that the Japanese would continue to feel it in a way similar to how the Americans felt the war in Iraq. That's the limits of my comparison. Anything beyond that would indeed be off, if not way off.

[Krono]

Originally Posted by lightsenshi

Non-consensual usually involves "flagging up" or actively switching to a mode that allows you to attack (and be attacked by) other players. Both are obviously premeditated....

PvP/PKing in SAO doesn't require any mode changing. You merely have to be outside of a no crime area and attack someone. That's why fighting in SAO involves a lot of switching off, to avoid getting in each other's way, and to avoid friendly fire. Deliberately attacking someone that isn't a criminal will get you flagged as a criminal, giving you an orange cursor that serves as a warn off even if you don't PK them.

Which brings up another thing that muddles the issue. One player can attack another to frighten them into giving up their items, without intending to kill them. If the victim is then killed by monsters, or accidentally killed due to underestimating the level difference you can't really charge the culprit with premeditated murder.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Krono

Which brings up another thing that muddles the issue. One player can attack another to frighten them into giving up their items, without intending to kill them. If the victim is then killed by monsters, or accidentally killed due to underestimating the level difference you can't really charge the culprit with premeditated murder.

in the US would get you charge with Murder - Robbery resulting in death.

[Krono]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

in the US would get you charge with Murder - Robbery resulting in death.

Yes, but do you then start trying to prosecute all the people that only committed robbery in game?

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

in the US would get you charge with Murder - Robbery resulting in death.

I guess you'd better let the rest of the US know then, 'cause we haven't realized that you've rewritten the law.

Originally Posted by Krono

Yes, but do you then start trying to prosecute all the people that only committed robbery in game?

Theft, scam, pk etc. all happen on a daily basis across a multitude of MMOs or other online games, if virtual items are treated as real properties, you'd probably have to multiply the size of the criminal justice system by 100x just to deal with the sheer number of claims.

It'd also shut down the entire online gaming world down overnight, as no company can afford to even think about their liability.

[Alucard24]

Excuse me but I think it's Akihiko Kayaba, the creator of SAO, who should be in jail before anyone else.

[lightsenshi]

Originally Posted by Krono

PvP/PKing in SAO doesn't require any mode changing. You merely have to be outside of a no crime area and attack someone. That's why fighting in SAO involves a lot of switching off, to avoid getting in each other's way, and to avoid friendly fire. Deliberately attacking someone that isn't a criminal will get you flagged as a criminal, giving you an orange cursor that serves as a warn off even if you don't PK them.

Which brings up another thing that muddles the issue. One player can attack another to frighten them into giving up their items, without intending to kill them. If the victim is then killed by monsters, or accidentally killed due to underestimating the level difference you can't really charge the culprit with premeditated murder.

Because I don't read LNs, I can only go by what I've seen in the anime. As I said before, SAO seems to be oriented toward duels (consensual pvp).

The difference between murder and manslaughter is premeditation. In the case you refer to, if someone frightened another player into giving up items which resulted in their death; it's going to depend on where it took place. If it's the middle of the dungeon, you're looking at murder (as I've taken steps that I know will result in your death). If it's in town, that's another story.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I guess you'd better let the rest of the US know then, 'cause we haven't realized that you've rewritten the law.

i pretty sure in most states in the US there is law on the books where during the course of a crime and someone dies as a result of it (intentional or not) the person(s) who committed the crime can charge for the death.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

i pretty sure in most states in the US there is law on the books where during the course of a crime and someone dies as a result of it (intentional or not) the person(s) who committed the crime can charge for the death.

I'm pretty sure in no state in the US are virtual game items treated as real property. You can' steal something that doesn't exist.

TBH, if you really want, go study a bit about the CJ system and how laws and statutes are actually applied IRL, this is really basic stuff.

Originally Posted by lightsenshi

Because I don't read LNs, I can only go by what I've seen in the anime. As I said before, SAO seems to be oriented toward duels (consensual pvp).

Actually, SAO is primarily non-consensual PVP, with duels added on top of it. The vast majority of the world is open to PVP with no restriction.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I'm pretty sure in no state in the US are virtual game items treated as real property. You can' steal something that doesn't exist.

i think the law is vague on the subject of virtual property and crime, mostly because the laws haven't caught up the tech. If the issue is important enough and Murder is important, that type of question would end in front of the Supreme Court.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

i think the law is vague on the subject of virtual property and crime, mostly because the laws haven't caught up the tech. If the issue is important enough and Murder is important, that type of question would end in front of the Supreme Court.

It's not that the law is vague on the subject, there IS NO LAW on the subject. You can't just go charge someone with a crime that doesn't exist by using a statute that does not cover the act in question. You try to sue someone for stealing your virtual sword in a MMO, and the judge will roundhouse kick your case into your face so hard in the preliminary hearing that you'd think he was Chuck Norris.

And no, the Supreme Court does not make new laws, it can only interpret and rule on existing ones. Anything that would govern virtual items in the future is going to have to come from the Legislature.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by kyp275

It's not that the law is vague on the subject, there IS NO LAW on the subject. You can't just go charge someone with a crime that doesn't exist by using a statute that does not cover the act in question. You try to sue someone for stealing your virtual sword in a MMO, and the judge will roundhouse kick your case into your face so hard in the preliminary hearing that you'd think he was Chuck Norris.

I think our difference is that you are looking at the problem form a pure law perceptive. I otoh is look at form political pov, if there is a massive out cry regarding PK there is going to be a lot of pressure on the prosecutor to charge the PKer with some sort of crime. The prosecutor if so incline will stretch any law or statue so think you can see through to cover those charges.

And no, the Supreme Court does not make new laws, it can only interpret and rule on existing ones. Anything that would govern virtual items in the future is going to have to come from the Legislature.

and the Supreme Court can interpret those laws anyway they want including covering Virtual property as real property.

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I'm pretty sure in no state in the US are virtual game items treated as real property. You can' steal something that doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by kyp275

It's not that the law is vague on the subject, there IS NO LAW on the subject. You can't just go charge someone with a crime that doesn't exist by using a statute that does not cover the act in question. You try to sue someone for stealing your virtual sword in a MMO, and the judge will roundhouse kick your case into your face so hard in the preliminary hearing that you'd think he was Chuck Norris.

I think you're getting a bit too hung up on what the laws are today, as opposed to the hypothetical question of what they should be in this circumstance. This is a fictional story that takes place in the future and is a unique circumstance. It's clear that no laws exist today in the real world that address this unique situation, and I suppose it's likely (but we don't know for sure -- it's fiction!) that the laws even in this hypothetical universe aren't sufficient either. But the question is, given the circumstances, should laws that would apply in the real world apply to this virtual world, based on the circumstance they found themselves in? Again, we can only talk about "should" because the whole thing is fictitious anyway. Or, to put it another way, what precedents should this situation set for any future such occurrences.

Otherwise, if you're just going to go around in circles on this "there aren't any laws about this", there won't really be anything to discuss. It's not like anyone's actually going to court here. We can only really talk about what we think the laws should be.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

How is it a no?

I locked a bomb into you, knowing full well that it can (and probably will) kill you, even if it depends solely on your action. How am I not responsible if you really turned up dead?

"Ohh, how stupid. I told him not to do that. Now look at the mess he left behind!"

Edit: btw to be clear, that's in the context of Rakshasha's latest example.

As for what happened in SAO...I'd say PKers are responsible of the deaths of those they murder, and not necessarily Kayaba. Though I see how it would be difficult to impossible in bringing them to justice. Unless there is a physical evidence like a data in the servers recording the players or event logs.

Funny how you can:
- disagree with me on the fact it's obvious in one breath
- claim Kayaba is responsible isn't in the next
- and then turn around and say he isn't in the last.
Which brings me back to: it's not obvious.

At least, it's possible PKing would be murder but Kayabe wouldn't be the one charged with it.

[Adigard]

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

I think you're getting a bit too hung up on what the laws are today, as opposed to the hypothetical question of what they should be in this circumstance. This is a fictional story that takes place in the future and is a unique circumstance. It's clear that no laws exist today in the real world that address this unique situation, and I suppose it's likely (but we don't know for sure -- it's fiction!) that the laws even in this hypothetical universe aren't sufficient either.

Odds are fairly good the laws in the SAO real world don't cover the situation either. It's both the first VR MMO, and the first time anyone (likely) was ever trapped in a death game of it's sort. I'd imagine most people on the outside would assume 100% of the comatose patients deaths would be from legitimately playing the game and trying to free one another... not being PK'ed over a few virtual pixels.

Odds are fairly good that if the game was cleared and everyone was let go all at once (as Kayaba's tutorial in ep1 suggests) then there would need to be some very, very frantic discussions very fast when the truth came to light.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Adigard

Odds are fairly good the laws in the SAO real world don't cover the situation either. It's both the first VR MMO, and the first time anyone (likely) was ever trapped in a death game of it's sort. I'd imagine most people on the outside would assume 100% of the comatose patients deaths would be from legitimately playing the game and trying to free one another... not being PK'ed over a few virtual pixels.

Odds are fairly good that if the game was cleared and everyone was let go all at once (as Kayaba's tutorial in ep1 suggests) then there would need to be some very, very frantic discussions very fast when the truth came to light.

this is where the Server logs comes in, if they exist and are retrievable by the investigators.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

I think our difference is that you are looking at the problem form a pure law perceptive. I otoh is look at form political pov, if there is a massive out cry regarding PK there is going to be a lot of pressure on the prosecutor to charge the PKer with some sort of crime. The prosecutor if so incline will stretch any law or statue so think you can see through to cover those charges.

That I am, as this is a thread about legal implications

And yes, the prosecutor may very well be pressured into filing charges by stretching existing statutes, but it's something they don't really like to do, as those tends to blow up in their face as the court just goes and then

Take the case of Megan Meier for example. There was no cyber-bullying laws in the state at the time, but the prosecutor was obviously under tremendous pressure to charge the adult perpetrator, so he went after her with computer fraud instead, and it was thrown out in the end. The court is not just there to mete out justice and punishment, but they're also there to follow and protect the rule of law, even if doing so means justice may not be served in a particular case.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

and the Supreme Court can interpret those laws anyway they want including covering Virtual property as real property.

the SCOTUS tends to defer to the legislature in matters like these. TBH, this isn't something that the SCOTUS will even bother to look at, unless there is widespread disagreement amongst the lower courts.

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

I think you're getting a bit too hung up on what the laws are today, as opposed to the hypothetical question of what they should be in this circumstance. This is a fictional story that takes place in the future and is a unique circumstance. It's clear that no laws exist today in the real world that address this unique situation, and I suppose it's likely (but we don't know for sure -- it's fiction!) that the laws even in this hypothetical universe aren't sufficient either. But the question is, given the circumstances, should laws that would apply in the real world apply to this virtual world, based on the circumstance they found themselves in? Again, we can only talk about "should" because the whole thing is fictitious anyway. Or, to put it another way, what precedents should this situation set for any future such occurrences.

Otherwise, if you're just going to go around in circles on this "there aren't any laws about this", there won't really be anything to discuss. It's not like anyone's actually going to court here. We can only really talk about what we think the laws should be.

Well, the way the question was original framed was what would happen if this happened for real

as the passage of laws are generally reactionary, combined with ex post facto, there's really no plausible scenario where SAO players would get charged for what happened in-game (among other reasons).

Post SAO however, there will be some fun days in many nation's legislative bodies about what to do with future incidents should something similar occurs, but simply trying to apply RL world laws in SAO would open up so many loopholes and would have such broad implications across so many fields that it could never be seriously considered.

[erneiz_hyde]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Funny how you can:
- disagree with me on the fact it's obvious in one breath
- claim Kayaba is responsible isn't in the next
- and then turn around and say he isn't in the last.
Which brings me back to: it's not obvious.

At least, it's possible PKing would be murder but Kayabe wouldn't be the one charged with it.

I did say that they're of different concepts. Rakshasa's latest example is different from what happens in SAO.

Originally Posted by Rakshasa

If Kayaba had locked up 100 people in a large cavern with enough food, water and facilities to survive, and some unclear objective that was required to reach in order to be released. Each has a couple of devices around their neck and affixed to their right hand, the former kills them if they fail some task on the way to clearing the objective, or just at random if they don't do anything, and the latter is a gun of some sort.

They cannot remove either without losing their heads.

He mentioned

Originally Posted by Rakshasa

Now it is obvious that Kayaba would be criminally responsible for every single death no matter what, however what would happen if someone started using the gun to shoot other people?

With that last part of the sentence, I assume the first part means every single death that isn't caused by someone shooting someone else (as in, it results as someone throwing off their guns or being idle too much). This is like our rl situation where the hostage must do what their captors say or risk being killed.

This is clearly different from what happens in SAO, so I differentiate them.

In SAO, I think what Kayaba could clearly be responsible for is for tricking the users unknowingly into a death game. He's responsible for not mentioning it in the User Agreement. Even then, this would be shaky I guess. Laws are strange like that.

[Jinx999]

There are three questions here. I'll assume that Kayaba was not lying about death in SAO leading to real death.

1) Is PKing in SAO morally equivalent to murder?

It's fairly clear that it is. Some PKers seem to like to claim that they don't believe that dying in the game means dying in real life, but it seems likely that this is an excuse.

2) Is PKing in SAO legally equivalent to murder?

This is a trickier question. Normally, PKing is equivalent to beating someone in a tennis match. In this case Kayaba has done the equivalent of saying that he will kill anyone who looses a match, and here, have some rackets and balls. Who's legally responsible for people dying would require someone who knows more law than I do.

3) How practical is it to prosecute PKers?

There are a number of significant difficulties involved in trials. Firstly, there is no physical evidence and there is no reason to believe that there would be reliable logs. Secondly, the eye witness testimony would have to be taken significantly after the event in the real world - by which time the witnesses would have had plenty of time to concoct stories if they want (in RL they'd be tripped up by physical evidence if they lie). It would be fairly easy to pretend that you don't believe you really killed them. None of these would make it impossible to secure a conviction, but a good defence attourney has lots of openings.

In addition, there are other problems. Let's say that the Titan's Hand Guild did not surrender and Kirito ended up killing some. (He can't really argue that he was acting to defend Scilla, as he'd fairly deliberately used her as bait to draw them out.) Kirigaya Kazuto is not a policeman. He is not an agent of a government. Legally, he's a self appointed vigilante/bounty hunter who's just lynched people who can't effectively fight back.

[Utsuro no Hako]

Originally Posted by Jinx999

2) Is PKing in SAO legally equivalent to murder?

This is a trickier question. Normally, PKing is equivalent to beating someone in a tennis match. In this case Kayaba has done the equivalent of saying that he will kill anyone who looses a match, and here, have some rackets and balls. Who's legally responsible for people dying would require someone who knows more law than I do.

Except that Kayaba didn't do that -- nothing about the world he set up requires players to PK each other. That's something they do of their own volition, knowing that full well that at least part of Kayaba's threat must be true and therefore the wisest move is to take the whole thing seriously.