Материал: disser_arhipov

283

The example, which clearly explains the difference between this case and the previous ones, was presented by the author earlier on the illustration of World of Warcraft:

«Let us say the players... have agreed on a certain option for the distribution of the loot that resulted from the victory over the dragon Deathwing. The raid leader refused to distribute the loot in this way and took it all for himself. The players went to a court of law demanding that the raid leader be compelled to distribute the loot in accordance with the original agreement, stating that it (the agreement) is an untitled civil contract».516

The evaluation of the example from the point of view of the concept of the semantic limits of law, however, may change if the conditions returning the situation in question to the context of the previous examples change accordingly – this depends both on the emergence of certain ERVs in the system of relations and on which specific subject of relations we highlight in terms of its compliance with the relations already regulated by law.

The second example relates to an area that has already been the subject of high-level discussion in the EU. The example also refers to the “borderline area” of legal interpretation.

Example No. 2. Extending the legislation on gambling to lootboxes. In the videogame industry, the term “loot box” means game mechanics that involves a connection to real money and hazard in a broad sense. The user acquires a “chest” or other functionally similar object for real money, opening which she gets a random in-game object, usually of random value. The user can get either a very valuable object and a very cheap.

Lootbox as an artifact of social communication is like virtual property in this case as an object of turnover for real money. Accordingly, it also represents the ERV of money as a GSM. Thus, the subject is “serious”, and it is no longer absurd to apply law to it.

516 Arkhipov V.V. Virtual Property: Pervasive Legal Problems in the Context of Computer Games Industry Development // Zakon. 2014. No. 9. P. 77.

284

To which extent the object, however, is “real”? In this case, the assessment of the functional adequacy of the object involves comparing it not with property or assets, but with a rather specific (based on the provisions of the Russian law) object relating to the “core” of the norms of legislation on gambling – with bet. Bet implies the possibility of accidental receiving of one property due to the risk of loss of another property. In such circumstances, we can assume that the object of relations in this case is still of fantasy nature.

Thus, the possibility of applying gambling legislation to the relationships that lootboxes are subject to depends on the conclusions based on the weighting of values in a particular society and situation.517 Notably, Belgium and the Netherlands have introduced separate restrictions on the mechanics of lootboxes and the provision of information to players on such mechanics518 – slightly adjusted for point differences in the definition of gambling in these countries and in the Russian Federation, however, we believe this confirms the evolving approach.

The third example’s scenarios involve a legal assessment of the prohibitions on the dissemination of information on the Internet (and similar areas of application of the law, also in the context of “borderline situations” of interpretation) in the case of Minecraft, which has already been mentioned several times on the pages of this paper. Let us focus only on brief characteristics, since the detailed logic of applying the concept of the semantic limits of law in this case is given in Annex 2 to this study as one of the most obvious examples.

517“Weighing” or “balancing” in itself is accepted for the purposes of this work in the generally known understanding in jurisprudence (taking into account, of course, possible discrepancies in the interpretation of individual issues), but their development is not part of the subject of this study and is obviously not required to achieve the goals and objectives of this study – it is a separate subject of academic analysis

518The situation is described quite exhaustively (and with references to official positions and documents) in the following source: Belgium Joins the Netherlands in Ruling that Declares Some Loot Boxes Illegal [Electronic resource] // IGN. 25 Apr. 2018. – [Site]. – URL: https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/04/25/belgium-joins-the-netherlands-in-ruling-that-declares- some-loot-boxes-illegal (accessed: 25.02.2019). In contrast, the UK, for example, did not consider that the lootboxes complied with the concepts of gambling law.

285

Example No. 3 (Scenario A). Blocking a game resource containing a recipe for dynamite (fictional recipe, entertainment game). In this case, the fantasy recipe is also devoid of functional adequacy, since dynamite cannot be made out of it, and it is not seen as an ERV/GSM in the sense that it is implicit in the anti-terrorist legislation. We are dealing with pure fiction and entertainment, so it would be absurd to apply the law in this situation.

Example No. 3 (Scenario B). Blocking a game resource containing a recipe for dynamite (real recipe, entertainment game). Since the game embodies entertainment, we do not see an unambiguous ERV/GSM. At the same time, in this variant the recipe is not fantasized – its functionality is adequate to the real recipe. To apply the law in such a situation will not be absurd anymore, but depends on the balancing of constitutional legal values – the classical political-legal collision between freedom [of speech] and security.

Example No. 3 (Scenario C). Blocking a game resource containing a recipe for dynamite (real recipe, the game is used as terrorists’ propaganda instrument). In this variant the recipe is also not of fantasy nature – its functionality is adequate to the real recipe. At the same time, for the purposes of theoretical modeling, we change one of the actual circumstances – let us imagine that the previously “innocent” Minecraft game is now used as an ideological tool for terrorists (perhaps, such a fate may befall not the game as a whole, but a separate add-on to it). In this case, it is not only not absurd to apply the law, but also there is no necessity to apply any special balancing of values, if one follows the logic of the developed concept of the semantic limits of law – the situation is strictly within such semantic limits.

As the fourth example, let us consider a situation that seems absurd enough without further explanation, but can also serve the purpose of demonstrating the functionality of the concept of the semantic limits of law.

286

Example No. 4. “Murder” of a computer game character. An event in a “virtual world” (a computer simulation mediated by software code) that happened to a player’s avatar whose character “died”. It should be emphasized that this is a generalized example of a “moderate” degree of “violence” (as in the case of Dota 2 or League of Legends cybersports disciplines, for example). As part of the approach taken in this study between violence in truly violent computer games (e.g. the Manhunt series), some functional adequacy, at least in virtual representation or its perception, is present.519 Is the legal interpretation of the phrase “intentionally causing another person’s death” admissible so that the disposition of the rule of law includes “murder” in a computer game? It explores the “socio-currency value” of an event in the virtual world from the perspective of the prohibition of murder (rather than on the propaganda of violence as such), with the GSM being rather health (and life) in S. Abrutyn’s terminology. The ERV is apparently a character in a computer game. At this stage, it becomes clear that the GSM does not coincide here. There is no functional adequacy of the event in the “virtual world” (expression) of violence in the real world, interpreted as a phenomenon of social reality (violence in the real world is not only a fact, but also a part of subjective-objective social reality). At the same time, it is in this perspective that there is no “socio-currency value” of the special object of relations (see, by analogy, the example of blocking the resource with the recipe for making “dynamite” in the game Minecraft – Annex 2).

As the fifth example with several options, we will present some situations directly related to the challenges of the development of legislation in the digital economy. The application of the concept of the semantic limits of law at a high level, corresponding to the situation of law-making, rather than a “borderline situation” in the interpretation of

519 Strictly speaking, we do not compare real violence and statements about [virtual] violence, but statements about real violence and statements about [virtual] violence. From the point of view of the theoretical and sociological approach, this is justified by the fact that social reality (for which the application of the concept under development is considered) is subjectively objective – it is formed and supported through.

287

law, is somewhat simpler – we only need to establish the existence of a ERV corresponding to a certain GSM. The conclusion can only contain a fundamental conclusion about the presence or absence of fundamental absurdity in the creation of new legal norms, but the law-making situation with the need to balance values, because there is nothing yet to assess in terms of the functional adequacy.

Example No. 5 (Scenario А). Development of special legal norms aimed at regulating relations regarding legal liability for actions committed by robots. In today’s environment, robotic objects are already becoming a source of harm, which is the subject of empirical examples, and such cases are the subject of legal research.520 The damage is caused, among other things, to the property, respectively, and there is an ERV corresponding to the GSM – money. Development of such special legal norms will not be absurd. The specific content of the new rules should be determined using balancing mechanisms or similar.

Example No. 5 (Scenario B). Development of special legal norms aimed at regulating relations regarding the circulation of big data. At the current stage of development of relations within the digital economy, the turnover of big data is a fact. In this case, it is also obvious that this turnover is of a property-money nature and that the relevant legal and economic prerequisites are in place,521 and we are again confronted with the obvious ERV and the well-known GSM. The development of such special legal norms would not be absurd, but, as in the past, would require the use of balancing tools.

520See: Robotics Regulation: Introduction to “Robolaw”. Legal Aspects of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence Technologies Development / V.V. Arkhipov [et al.]. Edited by A.V. Neznamov. – M.: Infotropics Media, 2018. – PP. 137–166; Arkhipov V.V., Naumov V.B. Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Devices in Legal Context: on Development of the First Russian Law on Robotics // Proceedings of SPIIRAN. 2017. Issue. 6 (55). P. 46–62; Arkhipov V.V., Naumov, V.B. Informational and Legal Aspects of Designing Robotics Legislation // Information Law. 2017. No. 1. P. 19–27.

521See: Arkhipov V.V. Personal Data as Non-Material Values (or There is Nothing More Practical Than a Good Theory) // Zakon. 2018. No. 2. P. 52–68; Arkhipov V.V., Naumov V.B. A Concept of Personal Data: the Interpretation Under the Development of Informational and Telecommunication Technologies // Russian Law Journal. Ekaterinburg, 2016. No. 2. P. 186–196; Arkhipov V., Naumov V., The Legal Definition of Personal Data in the Regulatory Environment of the Russian Federation: Between Formal Certainty and Technological Development // Computer Law and Security Review. Dorchester (UK), 2016. – Volume 32. – Issue 6. PP. – 868–887.