Ponderous Pontifications

"The flourishing trade of virtual items for real life money suggests that virtual worlds will sometimes welcome the intervention of real life law." First off, why the use of "sometimes"? Is the author not sure of this point? If that is the case then why make it? Secondly, how is this jump in assumption made so easily? Yes, the author goes on to say in the article that there must be a  conversation between one world and the other (virtual and reality for lack of better terms) but to say that the use of money welcomes real life intervention is hotly contested. I understand that to use real money is to utilize real life law, but when this is one of the only available means to make money (with which we don't have a choice whether we want to or not in order to have a fufilling life in North America), then why does the author assume that using real life money welcomes real life law? That is a huge jump to me and warrants a debate.

2.) Grimmelman is arguing for the potential re-appropriation of laws in order to better suit virtual and "real" worlds. Is there any problem with this? That is, why don't we look at better re-appropriating laws themselves in an increasingly shrinking world. The global economy and global village; the glocal is becoming more and more present. Why must be hampered with traditional ideas of law while and continuing to struggle with them in their application to virtual worlds and real worlds? Technology is evolving at an exponential rate, and law seems to be almosts static in comparison. Is this suitable focus, or should technology be held the reins for law to catch up?