Skip to main content

Metaverse and its legal implications

 Metaverse and its legal implications


The future of the internet is here, as we see it. Remember a decade ago, when video calls on a

handheld device seemed too far-fetched to contemplate? Well, it just got more real than ever. Now

we are looking at virtual spaces to conduct our meetings or family gatherings, playing yourself a

match inside fortnite rather than mouse-clicking your character around, all through the comfort of

your homes.

Metaverse: What's the Catch?

The future of Internet lies at the footholds of Metaverse, as it is called, being conceptualized by

Facebook, now rebranded as Meta. So what is it, exactly? Metaverse, is an online, 3D universe, that

combines multiple different virtual worlds. You can think of it as a future iteration of the Internet. If

you replace the word metaverse with cyberspace, its meaning won't change significantly.

In more simple terms, think of metaverse as the Internet and different virtual worlds as analogue to

the websites in the Internet. These various virtual worlds offer 3-D virtual spaces to the users using

advanced computerized hardware systems, to feel, smell and touch as you would do in Real World.

The name was coined in the 1992 novel "Snow Crash". It described a virtual reality people could

explore through their avatars.

Metaverse was, sure thing, conceptualized by facebook first. But there are other techno-giants

working, developing their own virtual worlds. They have their own impetuses as to what metaverse

could turn out to be, with facebook wanting as a space for family or social Interactions, while

Microsoft brands it as space for virtual Workrooms for its employees attending from their homes.


This is important, as the recent Covid-19 Outbreak pushes for Social life being realized virtually. We

need to be extravagant while using this advanced form of approach to the world wide web. Whether

metaverse will really turn out to be the silicon valley's next big thing remains to be seen. These

virtual worlds offer services as analogue to in the real world. Adidas, among others, set out to

virtually raise consumer awareness and bought digital land on The Sandbox, a virtual world. At the

beginning of this year.

The Economist reported soaring virtual-property prices in SuperWorld, another virtual reality.

Brands now focus on establishing their presence in the virtual world. Recently, world's first

metaverse mansion, Hampton Hall, goes on sale at $40 Million. Whoever buys the house in real life

will be offered its digital copyrighted blueprint in the form of an NFT.

While this is understandably excitingly new and unique, it comes with its own shortcomings. With

such a world taking form, it becomes increasingly hard to regulate it.

Undefined financially

The metaverse have its own digital financial system cropping up. With the absence of physical

money, cryptocurrency and NFT's would prove to be popular in the metaverse. Now, this kind of

transactions are done with the aid of a blockchain platform. These systems are highly unregulated. A

Non-Fungible Token, is a unique digital asset: it could be an image, a piece of music, a video, a 3D

art, etc.


Ownership in the real world is twofold. One, the ownership is of the intellectual property of the

particular artwork and second, a fair use license to reproduce and share the artwork. Now what

could it mean in the metaverse when you buy a digital art? International Reed Smith has said that

"ownership" in the metaverse is nothing more than a licensing, or provision of services. In such cases

true ownership resides with the owner. The buyer cannot sell the art without the permission from

the owner.

The metaverse may highly be susceptible to hosting unwanted marketplaces such as the 'Silk Road'

which was a dark web marketplace dealing in illegal drugs, weapons and, allegedly, 'murder for hire'.

What laws could be put in place to safeguard against these kinds of activities? It would be ideal to

have regulatory authority over metaverse.

Interactions between different users in this virtual world could also have some vague repercussions.

This world assigns a virtual avatar to a user, which would enable you to move around and feel things

with the help of haptic vests and gloves. Since you can buy property with real money, who is to

define or bring justice to the aggrieved when a user trespasses or inflicts damage to another user's

property? Such altercations equate to breaking the law in the real world. Such incidents could be in

breach of tort law (which covers civil claims such as negligence or nuisance) or criminal law.

Imagine one user assaults another. Could we apply the laws of criminal or civil law to this situation?

Proving 'actual bodily harm' here becomes extremely difficult. It would also mean that we need to

attribute a legal persona to the avatar, giving them rights and duties within a legal system; allowing

them to sue or be sued. Already, reports of groping in the metaverse has surfaced even when the

metaverse isn't fully conceptualized.

All of these issues must be addressed before parting ways with the internet onto something

Majestic. Something like the Metaverse has all the potential which would embolden Immoral

activities, which the primitive and modern society alike has always despised, and so it becomes

extremely necessary to draw a line.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more