- Bowyer: Back to Monarchy in Land Rights?
- Parking Cash in European Telecoms
- Bargain Stocks: Nokia, Spectra, Incitex Pivot
- Sticker Shock: Fast Money's Inflation Special
- Our Favorite Inflation Trades
- Warren Buffett's Annual Stock Gift to Gates Foundation Worth $1.8B This Year
- That '70's Trade
- The Villain Of Our Story
- The Blame Game
- EU Opens Probe in BHP Billiton Bid for Rio Tinto
- Worse Car Sales Decline Expected in Western Europe
- Euro Banks Need to Raise $90-$140 Billion: Goldman
- BSkyB Mulls $4 Billion Bid for Spain's Digital Plus: FT
- On the Bright Side, Shopping Bargains Abound
- Euro Stocks Fall as Goldman Note Hits Banks
- Return of Asian Currency Crisis Is Unlikely: ADB
- European Shares Set to Open Flat as Holiday Shuts US
- Airbus to Sell Five A380s to Japan's ANA: Nikkei

An amorous entrepreneur who created a "virtual bed" featured in Second Life, a Web site in which users can build their own Internet lives, is suing an unknown user for allegedly "stealing" the bed for his or her own virtual sexual fantasies. The lawsuit for copyright infringement is "inappropriate and unfair," said Andrew Langsam, an intellectual property lawyer at Pryor Cashman. He joined "Power Lunch" to talk about the nature of cyber-play.
"The point of going onto a virtual fantasy world is to play out your fantasies," Langsam said. "I don't think anyone, including the accused defendant here -- wherever and whoever he may be, in another country for example -- joined that fantasy world with an expectation of being liable or having guilt or any recrimination."
Francis Taney, the unnamed plaintiff's attorney, believes the creator of the virtual bed -- who calls himself "the Hugh Hefner of the digital millennium" -- has a legitimate case, as the content was trademarked.
Taney said that when Second Life owner Linden Research launched the site in 2003, it made it clear that creators of virtual content for the site gain intellectual property rights to their materials.
As far as Langsam is concerned, however, this lawsuit should only belong "in a virtual court, before a virtual judge, with virtual attorneys rendering a virtual judgement," as the unknown user may be from another country where entirely different legislation may exist.



