The Lawbringer: Know your (legal) lore

Last week, I promised we'd examine European contract law. Silly me, I was thinking that this would be a matter of snooping through Wikipedia, checking a few books out from the local law library, and banging out a short sweet informative column.
Remember that feeling when you first leave Northshire Abbey or Red Cloud Mesa and you realize there's a whole wide World of Warcraft out there? That has been this week's experience in learning about European contract law. While I would love to explain all the cool things I've learned, that would take a book, not a 1200 word column. I'll cut this material down to manageable chunks. This week, we'll be limiting ourselves to a discussion of how the two systems of law impact how WoW will be treated under each one.
Systems of Law
The 195 countries on the planet can be sorted by their legal system into categories: common law countries, civil law countries, tribal/religious countries, and communist/socialist law countries. We'll generally ignore the latter two categories, as theocracies, kingdoms, and dictatorships aren't exactly known for their brilliant, influential, or even fair jurisprudence. If you want to know how to win a lawsuit in North Korea, Saudi Arabia, or Iran, I can only suggest prayer and/or bribery.
Civil Law
We'll begin our examination by discussing civil law, but here we run into our first pitfall. American law is traditionally divided into administrative, criminal, and civil law, the last being identified as law regulating citizen to citizen interaction. A civil law system is not that, and I'll refer to those citizen/citizen interactions as "private law" to minimize confusion. As used in an international context, a civil law system refers to a system of law that comes from a code or legislation, as opposed to law created by judges.
"Civil law" is so named because it traces its roots to the Corpus Iuris Civiles, or Body of Civil Jurisprudence. (In the Latin alphabet, Jehovah begins with an I. Because Latin has no J. Why there's a J on the floor, only Spielberg knows.) This body of work was ordered by Emperor J/Iustinian I from 529-534 CE, and it's a compilation of the Roman principles regarding interactions between citizens. (While Roman private law was well developed, Roman criminal law was very haphazard, with governors possessing immense power and few rules. The Biblical trial and execution of Jesus is typical of the due process of a Roman criminal trial.)
While Roman law fell out of favor after the fall of the Empire, it was studied by scholars during the Middle Ages. During the Enlightenment (1700s), countries such as France, Prussia, and Austria began crafting comprehensive law codes, based on the Roman private law but reflecting the Germanic influence of the Middle Ages. The first modern law code was ordered by Napoleon I, and it was designed to deal with all the relationships between citizens and the state. This code was instituted in every French colony and conquest and inspired other systematic law codes, including the highly technical German code that has been adapted across the world, including the People's Republic of China.
At this point, a civil law system is the most common form of legal system. If you don't live in a theocracy, dictatorship, or a former English colony, odds are you are under a civil law system. This includes Louisiana and Quebec. Civil law codes in common law countries just make life more interesting.
Civil law countries have distinct characteristics, though given the diversity of the countries involved, I have to speak in generalities. First and foremost is the power of the judge – he is normally not a lawyer but is specifically trained as a judge. She acts as fact finder in an inquisitorial system, not as a referee between two adversarial lawyers. Juries are not as important and consequently evidence does not have to be as restricted. Oftentimes, civil law countries have divided court systems, in which criminal matters are heard and appealed to separate courts from those hearing private matters.
Common Law
Common law is the peculiar system found in former English colonies. Common law as we might now recognize it began under the reign of Henry II who sent out judges to rural England to decide cases and who would then return to London to discuss their cases. These cases would then be precedents that all the judges were constrained to follow.
As an example of how this works, we'll look at burglary. You may be thinking, "Oh, burglary, like when Horace and Jasper dognap the puppies in 101 Dalmations." But why is that burglary? A long line of cases held that burglary could only happen at night – during the day it would have been housebreaking. Jasper had to push open the door and enter – being invited in and then stealing the puppies would have been mere robbery. They had to invade a home – had they broken into a shed, it would have been theft. And finally, the two henchmen had to have entered with the intention of committing another felony, in this case theft – entering without such an intention would have been merely the separate crime of breaking and entering. No law was written to define burglary as breaking and entering a home at night with the intention of committing a felony; rather judges had to deal with cases in which some of these elements were present and determine the differences between these crimes. Now, imagine this same process for every facet of the law, and you'll have an idea of the complexity of the common law system.
In addition to this complexity, the other hallmarks of the common law system include adversarial lawyers acting as advocates while a judge is a referee. The judge decides issues of law while the fact finding is left to a jury that is protected from information that might unfairly sway their opinions. Judges are bound by the precedents of higher courts while being free to create new precedents for new legal questions, and judges on the highest courts are bound only by their respect for tradition from changing the precedents. (This being what the politicos refer to as activist judges.)
However, just as Mencken said that "for every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong," this description of a common law system skips over large parts of the legal system that actually exists in England, Canada, the United States, Australian, and fellow Commonwealth countries. While large parts of private law remain case based and judge driven, much of the criminal and administrative law has been codified. While a judge in South Carolina, which still uses common law precedent for its criminal law, can modify the definition of the crime, judges in Texas and California, for example, are constrained by the code drafted by the legislature. The common law systems currently used are generally a combination of the "pure" systems, mixing codes and precedents where necessary.
Legal Systems and WoW
So, we've slogged through history, geography and legal theory in the last 1200 words. But what does all this mean, especially in the context of the World of Warcraft?
One of the fundamental divisions between common law systems and civil law systems is that a common law system, since it's bound far more by precedent instead of statute, is able to adjust more rapidly to changing legal conditions. Whether or not Germany can recognize virtual property has to be decided by statute, while the US could recognize it if anyone convinced five justices of the Supreme Court to do so. On the flip side, civil law countries generally place a higher value on having judges educated more deeply in their subject areas. So while trying to convince the US to adopt virtual property as valid property may only require five votes, it means convincing five people who have very little technical background (or at least convincing their law clerks, who were busy studying at Harvard and Yale instead of playing WoW).
Frankly, I think the civil law system will do better a better job dealing with the challenges that arise with MMORPGs; however, Blizzard will remain located in the United States for the foreseeable future.
Now that I've laid out a framework for understand these two systems, next week we'll get to European contract law. Promise.
The Lawbringer is provided for your entertainment and enlightenment and is not legal advice. If you have a personal legal issue, get a personal lawyer. If you have a general question about the law, email lawbringerjd at aol dot com or tweet @wowlawbringer. Replies are subject to my time constraints – I'm in law school, after all.
Filed under: The Lawbringer






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Jay Mar 1st 2010 10:13PM
Regarding a sort of common law issue and how it can adapt Australia recently had a copyright case where the major film studios sued a major Internet provider in this country for the facilitating the copyright violations of their users by not passing on infringement notices and terminating people's connections.
Three strikes, as the film industry wanted and hoped to get through the court case was blown out of the water and ISPs were protected against action by rights holders for the abuse by their clients.
IANAL for forgive any naive use of terms.
http://www.copyright.org.au/news/news_items/cases-news/2010-cases/roadshow-films-pty-ltd-v-iinet-limited
I
Eskarel Mar 2nd 2010 10:10AM
Actually, to a certain extent that case is actually not an example of what you're saying.
I've read the ruling(most everyone did it's not often the media companies get their hats handed to them like that). Essentially the judgement was made based on the letter of the law(as opposed to interpretation of it). The judge determined that there is no legal obligation for one party to protect the intellectual property of another, which is in fact true within the context of current Australian law.
There's a little bit of adaptation when it comes to authorizing users to do something, but mostly it's saying "the law says this isn't iiNet's problem, if you have an issue with the actions of one of their customers take it up with the customer", which is an equally valid decision in pretty much any country which hasn't codified such an obligation.
MightyBurebista Mar 2nd 2010 12:26PM
Those sleazy profiteers really are at the end of their rope there. The bloated corpse of the music and film industries is rotting from within and they ain't doing much to boost either their popular or legal support.
Gamer am I Mar 1st 2010 10:14PM
Interesting and informative as always, and I loved the Indiana Jones reference.
"If you want to know how to win a lawsuit in North Korea, Saudi Arabia, or Iran, I can only suggest prayer and/or bribery."
It's rare that a text-based joke makes me laugh; this was one of those rare cases.
Hoggersbud Mar 1st 2010 10:43PM
There is only one response to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itmNiTwHOsM
PeeWee Mar 2nd 2010 6:22AM
Highly underestimated movie, I love it.
Until Jedge Dredd removes his helmet. *sad panda face*
MightyBurebista Mar 2nd 2010 12:29PM
There's at lest three Paladin sets (Battlegear of Infinite Justice, the most recent Arena set and the shoulders from Alliance's lv60 PVP gear) that borrow at least in part from Judge Dredd.
MightyBurebista Mar 2nd 2010 12:52PM
Also...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercity_%28Judge_Dredd%29
...coincidence? You be the "judge".
Omenemo Mar 1st 2010 10:47PM
The people at work asked what I was laughing at.
Then they laughed harder when I told them.
An engrossing and entertaining column as usual.
BaggyG Mar 1st 2010 11:34PM
Very interesting article. Can’t wait until the next instalment.
I am in Australia which has a version of the common law system.
An interesting thing to note is that under the Australian Constitution, all matters relating to trade and commerce (among other things) are the purview of the Federal Government lawmakers as opposed to the State legislature.
I would be curious to know if the trade in virtual property would be considered to fall under Federal Law. Indeed, the Copyright Act (Cth) which (obviously) contains copyright and Intellectual Property (IP) law is a Federal Law. Is the virtual property considered to be the IP of the software publisher or the individual player? I think that the general belief is that it belongs to the publisher but I don’t know if this has been tested in the courts. Either way the rulings would be made under the Act not on precedence where there is no ambiguity.
Then there is the interplay with the End User License Agreement. Does the EULA contain any clauses that conflict with the Copyright Act?
I’m not sure if this is where you are heading with your column but it seems to be a topic of conversation these days.
There is a really good whitepaper on MMORPGs from an Australian law firm that you might find interesting. Let me know if you want a look and I'll send you the link.
PS - I'm not a lawyer (or even a law student) but I do work with software contracts and deal with lawyers on a regular basis.
Stardusted Mar 2nd 2010 12:29AM
More importantly, how does the Code of Hammurabi figure into this?
I mean, some of it seems wow related -
"If anyone ensnares another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death."
"If anyone brings an accusation against a man, and the accused goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accused is not guilty, and he escapes unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser." ( a good way to deal with loot ninjas?)
Ok enough off topic fun and games from me, good article again!
Jay Mar 2nd 2010 2:52AM
I'm not sure if i should pity GMs who make mistakes being killed or giggle at the though of Monty Python. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
Crowqueen Mar 2nd 2010 4:59AM
Please - it's Britain, or the United Kingdom, not England. England is just one of the four constituent countries. While it is by far the largest, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all fall within the same political unit, therefore calling it "England" is wrong.
Keith Mar 2nd 2010 5:35AM
While, as a proud Welshman, I'd normally agree with you, it is correct to say it's the English legal system (although not correct to talk about "English colonies"). Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legal codes.
Tortious Mar 2nd 2010 6:57AM
Keith is correct. When one talks about English law, they are referring to the Laws of England and Wales. This is indeed different than the laws of either Scotland or Northern Ireland, especially after the 1998 Devolution Acts. As a final year law student, this distinction is key!
Also, in terms of political geography, "Britain" is really the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If you ask anyone in Britain, England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are all DIFFERENT countries, just under a loosely tied umbrella.
Great article, btw! If you need any help with English or EU contract law, I'm more than capable to help you out!
Crowqueen Mar 2nd 2010 10:40AM
I do agree with the comment that England has its own laws.
But to use the word English in terms of "former English colonies" is erroneous too - the Empire was most definitely "British".
Nathanyel Mar 2nd 2010 5:19AM
Blizzard, come to Germany. We have coo... er civil law :)
rodmin Mar 2nd 2010 5:21AM
Very nice column, and thanks for teaching us some neat stuff, Amy.
Although i play wow a lot, i end up not taking part in wow-related contests due to living in Portugal, where probably due to the law code there prevents me from taking part of contests, or even invite-a-friend option for lvling him faster and have fun (could have used the service with my 2 brothers, but saddly i could not...)
I just hope that, while you study the European law codes and find out about it, it would shed some light on this subject.
Again, kudos for your article ^^
Magefire Mar 2nd 2010 5:25AM
Crow has a point there, although if i'm being pedantic Northern Ireland isn't a part of "Britain" rather " the United Kindom" :-P
Actually the UK could make an interesting case study as, for example, devolved Scottish law is different in many aspects to English law.. Admittedly you probably don't have much space for that. ^^
As a scientist I have to know a little about IP (intellectual property) law and you might find out more information if you speak to the people at esp@ce- the european patent office. IIRC the EU has codified intellectual property laws to make it a lot easier for researchers to submit patents- instead of having to submit one to each country, they merely submit to esp@ce (www.espace.net i think) who then does all the hard work for them! I do remember that the EU isnt too keen on virtual IP though...
doofman Mar 2nd 2010 8:45AM
"Why there's a J on the floor, only Spielberg knows."
Shouldn't this be "Snoop Dogg" or "Willie Nelson" or "Tommy Chong." Just saying.