It's a novel issue of first impression. There is no controlling statute or case law. The most we can do is make informed speculation at this point.
My guess is that at some point a court will find that property rights will extend to geo-spatial, virtual property boundaries. That is, you retain control of how your property appears in 'cyberspace.'
Are you positive there is no precedence? I can think of countless examples of manually augmented reality.
Let's say someone publishes a book of addresses or GPS coordinates. They claim these are hotbeds of paranormal activity. Or ley lines. Or something. People are going to visit these locations based on fictional claims. Possibly they might even get something they value out of visiting the location. (Information from the dead, positive energy vibrations, whatever.)
AR that claims to be authoritatively non-fictional has been done too. Think of a tourist guide book, saying what is worth visiting around town.
I don't see how "the app told me I would find something there" is different from "the book told me I would find something there".
Jesus, I hope that's false. Cyberspace isn't real. It's absolutely insane to suggest that one ought to have control over some abstract data just because there exists a vague correspondence between some part of that data and some piece of land they own in the real world. Should photographs of buildings be illegal? After all, it's just a virtual representation of the real property. In fact, it's a much closer representation than just "these fake coordinates vaguely resemble these real coordinates".
So let's say in some future everyone is always wearing AR. Now let's some someone somehow got derogatory terms to constantly float above your head. There are negative impacts from this: loss of job, harder to meet people, unable to get hire.
Because AR "isn't real", should you have no recourse against this? At the gut level, that doesn't feel right, so as much as some people want to pretend The Web is some wild west of freedom and lawlessness, it really makes sense (some times, with experts consulted) to have (some) regulations.
You're leaving essentially everything about this scenario underspecified, but no; it should not be illegal to say mean things about someone through technology. Do you really have to ask that question?
If somone followed someone else around all day and yelled obscenities at them, there are laws to punish the perpetrator. If someone followed you around everywhere you went on the internet and comment and messaged and posted obscenities at you, you'd want the same protection.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to speak freely, but somewhere out there is a line that crosses from exercising freedom of speech into harassment.
This comic [0] explains it nicely. Just because it's on the internet and "not real life" doesn't mean it doesn't affect your happiness or your life "offline."
> If someone followed you around everywhere you went on the internet and comment and messaged and posted obscenities at you, you'd want the same protection.
It's called a troll, and no I wouldn't, because I'm not a tremendous wanker. I'm an emotionally stable adult who can deal with someone calling me names.
I prioritize free speech over the feelings of people who can't take shit on the Internet. It's not that I've never felt bad after someone criticized me on the Internet; it's that I understand that life is full of positive and negative interactions and you have to deal with both. Crying and demanding that insulting you be made illegal is a puerile and unhealthy response.
> It's absolutely insane to suggest that one ought to have control over some abstract data
I was responding to that to say that it's not insane to govern the internet either by new laws or by applying and extending existing laws. My point was to illustrate a case that should without a doubt merit some governance when it's just "abstract data."
AR and its intersection with real property is a HUGE topic. Can people post ads on your building in AR? Can they write nasty things about you and your customers? Can they setup trap for drug dealers? There are literally hundreds of such questions. Do you have control over how Google maps depicts your properties, how about China Netcom? AR is the worlds biggest genie, and people are just starting to become aware of it. The idea of "Controlling AR" is ridiculous! Its going to come from a million places..
Yes, exactly, I am not talking about some random virtual world but specifically about AR and its connection to the real world.
I wonder what the military thinks about the Ingress portals and PokemonStops on their bases. In worst case that will results in some virtual ban zones around military compounds where AR is forbidden.
AR doesn't "intersect" with anything. It's virtual. It's pixels on a screen. What shows up on my screen has no connection to someone else's physical property.
Interesting sub-thread. But most commentary seems to be assuming that there is only one cyberspace - like in Snow Crash. That is not the case and I don't see it becoming the case. When I walk around in AR cyberspace, I'll not see things that others decide to show me. I'll see no ads. I'll see no obnoxious graffiti. Why would I. It's my cyberspace - I'll see and interact with things of my own choosing.
When you "browse the internet" you are going to someone else's space. When I use my computer, I'm in my own space until I choose not to be. AR will be no different, or no one is going to use it.
You sound very sure about that, but then 25 years ago people probably would have thought it unthinkable for all of their photos, connections, and personal posts on a single platform (facebook, etc.).
Paying $200 for someone else's AR device that "just works" vs. rolling your own and maintaining it? What do you thin the average consumer is going to pick.
Google Maps has my property's location and image on Google's database.
Yelp has my property's location and image on Yelp's database.
Pokemon Go has my property's location and image on Niantic's database.
I don't like how my property is portrayed on Google or Yelp. I have no recourse. Why is Pokemon Go different?
Do you think such a decision would apply to "cyberspaces" like this one:
-75,40,28
That's a (chosen) coordinate pair and an (invented) observation about something at the coordinate pair. Will the property owner be able to force me to delete my 28?
Point a megapixel b&w camera at something (maybe your triplet written on a napkin) and when you press the shutter button it will choose a single coordinate in a million-dimensional space. No annotation needed!
Theoretically, people who purchased complain to their state attorney general or report the manufacturers to the FTC. There might be some recompense under consumer fraud laws. If enough people had bought them, there might be enough people to form a class action (doubtful though).
The problem is that amount of $ involved here is just not something anyone is likely to get up in arms about. It's $5. Most people will just write it off and never think about it again. No lawyer would bother either unless there were 10,000s of consumers willing to come forward and complain.
Just one of those shitty situations. Caveat emptor.
It's $5 for the cable, but you could potentially damage the USB C port on a laptop, and some rather expensive fruit branded laptops now charge solely via the USB C port, which you could argue destroyed the value of the laptop. That sounds like it might make a small-claims-court case sensible to me.
I was thinking the same thing. And some of these guys would not be able to capably defend very many small claims suits at one time. I always wondered what would happen in that case.
Very likely they're not even going to be around under that name by the time you file your suit, but instead operating under a different name. Good luck finding them in Shenzhen in order to collect.
Having legal shit done correctly for start-up businesses is a lot like having insurance. You'd prefer not to have to pay for insurance and you'll likely never need it. But when you need insurance, you're glad you have it.
Same thing is true for having your legal ducks in a row. You hope you never get sued or embroiled in a lawsuit, but if you do, you'll be glad you had lawyers involved at the beginning.
