Several years ago, I took my kid to see Disney’s animated film Ralph Breaks the Internet, which tells the story of Ralph, the protagonist of an arcade game who discovers a Wi-Fi router in the arcade that leads him into a game-jumping adventure across arcade machines within the cyberworld.
At the time, I thought the plot was overly dramatic and too removed from reality. Surprisingly, just a few years later, high-tech giants such as Microsoft and Google are one after another devoting resources to “metaverse” technology.
Last month, Facebook even changed its name to Meta Platforms, or Meta for short, while leading sports brands, such as Nike, are rushing to enter the domain, as they forecast the dawn of a new “metaverse era.”
While the development potential of metaverse technology is exciting, there are concerns about possible legal disputes that could arise from such technology, and questions as to whether domestic laws could deal with them. In terms of civil lawsuits, the judicial system could be faced with several problems as the metaverse era nears.
First, the metaverse is a 3D virtual world where space constraints among different online platforms are broken down. As the metaverse grows and barriers are removed, the number of global users in the 3D virtual world is expected to rise. Thus, the metaverse can be thought of as a platform for exchange and interaction that gathers a massive number of users.
This raises the question: If victims of cyberfraud or cyberattacks claim compensation, how would the judiciary be able to confirm their virtual identity? Furthermore, which countries’ laws would apply?
Earlier this month, Microsoft chief executive officer Satya Nadella said in an interview with Bloomberg TV that he once used the company’s own metaverse to visit a COVID-19 ward in a UK hospital, a Toyota manufacturing plant and even the International Space Station.
If a lawsuit involved people traveling virtually through cyberspace, how should we define judicial powers and criminal jurisdiction?
Second, the metaverse is becoming popular because of the huge business opportunities behind the technology. Naturally, a monetary system will emerge to support its operations. Would transactions made inside the metaverse be viewed as securities, merchandise or money? If transactions occur outside of the fiat money system, would they enjoy “legal tender” status?
Finally, a characteristic of decentralized “blockchain” technology is that it allows all participants within a blockchain network to collaborate and share; therefore, blockchain technology is expected to become a key foundation of the metaverse.
For example, transaction data of a cryptocurrency such as bitcoin are recorded in a series of “blocks,” without a central server responsible for recordkeeping. Instead, bitcoin “miners” on the computer network can add new blocks of transaction data to the blockchain once they successfully verify the legitimacy of the transactions. Thus, the miners serve as “packers” of transaction data, while a copy of the ledger is stored at each and every “node” of the network.
As it would likely be difficult to have blockchain users in the metaverse register using their real identities, who would be in a position to provide evidence to establish “burden of proof” in a transactional dispute? Would Article 344 and subsequent articles of the Code of Civil Procedure (民事訴訟法) — which pertains to duties and the inspection of documentary evidence by an involved party or third person — be sufficient in such a dispute?
If the arrival of the metaverse era is inevitable, the legal principles of “non-retroactivity” and the “principle of legality” might hamper judicial oversight of the metaverse. As a member of the judiciary wedded to the centrality of the rule of law, I hope that lawmakers will tackle the issue head-on and promptly develop the necessary legislation.
Chen Wan-yu is a Chiayi District Court judge.
Translated by Eddy Chang
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS