Slashdot Mirror
Law and Virtual Worlds
Greg Lastowka writes "In light of yesterday's spirited discussion of the Shadowbane hack, I thought folks might be interested in this forthcoming article about the laws of virtual worlds. The article has three parts: 1) a history of virtual worlds (e.g. Space War --> MMORPGs), 2) a theoretical analysis of whether virtual world "property" can/should be treated as legal property, and 3) an analysis of whether virtual worlds can/should give rise to any other legal rights, i.e. rights of avatars -- an idea first floated by Raph Koster. I realize there are plenty of strongly-held and divergent opinions on this, so hopefully this might add to the ongoing conversation. Also, we're revising this for publication over the summer, so we will be reading the comments for any corrections/insights/humor that we can incorporate into our revisions."
money can be found on people selling their DAOC, EverQuest, and even Ultima Online characters.
Sometimes I wonder... why not just buy a character and spend the rest of your time doing something more productive. After all, if you take your salary at an hourly rate, you're really losing money by playing games all day/night/forever.
--------
Free your mind.
Thats all we need, another tangled mess of laws to do with frigging online chatrooms and shit.
Listen.
Your virtual house in the Sims is worth nothing. No more than if I kicked in your sandcastle at the beach, or knocked over your chess board in the park.
I can be charged with mischief, or maybe even assault if I threatened you as I knock all your checkers into the sewer grate.
No more zany computer laws!
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
For those who don't know...
A bit of relevant history! Social justice, if you will.
DISCUSS!
-Professor B.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
If something malicious done in-game causes damages in the outside world, then that should be treated as any other crime would and punished accordingly. This really only applies to server and software hacks, not duping the new guy into giving you all his gold. If you use a hack to alter the gamestate to say give yourself an item or take an item from someone else, this should be prosecuted because it is deriving other players the game that they are most likely paying for.
kc
MMORPG's and their ilk are beginning to tread into a world that has long been known to text-based mudders. As a nerd who worked in development on various text muds on and off for the past 10 years, I can see clearly the failures of those who administrate these online communities. By and large, the folks running the games of today are not the ones who have years and years of experience doing it (as most people who played text games still do as a matter of preference).
I have particular concern for those who use published tools (like NWN's Aurora toolset) to create persistent online worlds. Rarely do these individuals seem to have a firm grasp on what they're getting themselves into.. least of all on issues of virtual rights that may or may not present themselves.
Most places I have worked had agreements with builders that virtual property created for the game would become the property of the game and its administrators. As for actual items in the game, it's ludicrous to expect (in spite of the incessant everquest ebay activity) those items to be protected legally. Game administrators need to know their rights, however, to keep the few litigious individuals at bay. (How bored and obsessed do you have to be to sue because the server crashed and you lost your vorpal sword of owning +2?).
It's a thankless job running an online game.
Will sell my Slashdot "avatar" for no less than $5000.
Many Insightful and Funny posts, not many Informative ones though. Currently one Moderator point left.
I can't wait until my virtual character files a virtual lawsuit which somehow nets me cold hard cash IRL. Go gray areas!
I cast level 9 flame bait argument
You block with level 10 slashdot shielding
I cast Level 1 Alt F4
Poof your gone!
Ave Molech Setting
Now people can play lawyers on MMORPGs instead of Slashdot!
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Avatars have rights in the virtual world as dictated by the creators of said world. No more, no less. The same goes for the principles of property.
The real world laws do not (and should not) cross over into the real of virtual worlds.
the blood has stopped pumping, and he's left to decay
the me that you know is now made up of wires
karma, moderators, meta moderators, trolls, oh my!
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Tiny little virtual violins.
Eh, I'm not sure we need any new legalese to deal with this. If you crack a system, you can be liable if that system belongs to someone else. This could easily be construed to include server-side cheats in addition to the time-honored tactic of rooting the server and changing the database (which I had been known to do in Phantasia and a few MUDs/BBSs back in the early '90s, sad to say.)
Why complicate matters further?
Further, damages (in terms of $$$) are easy to calculate...how many hours/months/billable time increments did it take a person to achieve what was destroyed? How much can be got back? Total it out, it's simple math. Perhaps not enough compensation for some basement loser who plays such things 80+ hrs/wk (like my roommate =P), but I think those folks are in the very small minority anyway.
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
I think there is precedent for virtual property in the patent business.
What you register, when you register a patent, is an idea - intellectual property, if you like (even if it describes a device - IANAL though so maybe these are very different concepts in law). The patent documentation serves as written proof of this - a certificate that your creativity is recognised as unique and non-copyable.
Thus if someone has a character, or other online 'item' that they have created, doesn't it make sense that as long as that character or item is documented in some way (code on the server?) then that character/item is 'owned' by its creater?
One obvious difference here would be that people don't typically sell their patents, though I'm sure it's not unheard of. Perhaps a better analogy would be domain-names?
Mod early, mod often.
As for civil law? I can't see this happening. Sexual harassment lawsuits against avatars? Gender and disabled rights in a pre-industrial or post-apocalyptic online world? Right to trial by jury? These are fantasy worlds people, c'mon...
Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.
Would you like be sitting on the chair for being a PK? Or even fragging an opponent? It's intentional murder, after all (well, that's what some lawyers say at least).
Now, do you still want physical laws applying in MMORPG or other games?
sure enoug. that's how the BiG guise doo it over at felonIE.con.troll.
way to goo. the creator is...?
"Halliburton Co. said on Friday it has agreed to pay $6 million to settle some class-action lawsuits that concerned accounting practices during Vice President Dick Cheney's tenure as chief executive."
buy golly J., we sure do look like fauxking idiot/mugs to the rest of the wwworld. sure enough. vote with your wallet. consult with yOUR creator.
These are only virtual realities. They are not, and shouldn't be protected in the same way as physical properties.
However, if you view the value of things as how many man-hours go into it, then yes, there is some kind of value, and right associated with these characters, and products. However, just because there is time involved, does not inherently imply value, or even many rights.
The company has a say in this more than the Gov't, or the gamer. The company runs the server, the company saves your profiles. If this company were to go under, they have no reason to hold onto those profiles, as they are simply another part of their business, which they own. You have no say, no matter what you think. However, a nice company may do something like transfer their servers, code, or other necessary info to open source, and thus preserving the environment. This does not mean individual properties are saved, which is what people would want to save, most of all.
Really, if your life is so consumed by the internet as to make it a pseudo-physical part of your life, then you need to think about something else for a while. Go into a rehab facillity, something. Please get some sunshine and a tan, we all need it (me especially...).
... if people are willing to exchange it for money (and evidently this is the case).
Your values are not my values, but value is in the eye of the purchaser (or in cases of extortion, the vendor...?)
Having said that, I think it's nuts that people exchange money for this sort of thing.
Mod early, mod often.
no, not really
Is that free spaces such as the internet cannot be allowed. Both sides [democrats and republicans] seem to feel that the internet needs to be regulated "we had burn the village to save it" style.
It's gone far, too far out of hand and sadly there are no viable [I know about the libertarians and the greens--note that I said 'viable'] alternatives available.
In other words, someone who makes the internet a pseudo-physical part of their life is ready for the virtual betty ford clinic. At least, IMHO.
Sure - if it is not specifically contractually prevented by the terms the user agreed to in joining the community responsible for the game, and the transfer of said information does not violate anyone else's copyrights.
an analysis of whether virtual worlds can/should give rise to any other legal rights
Sure - if the community agreed-upon terms under which the game is conducted accomodates such rights.
These are simply collective works of fiction. The core legality arises from copyright law, nothing more. Everything else is contractual agreement and community agreed-upon terms (I'm sure some will protest that companies running a show does not a community make, but when you click "I Agree That You Are the Master and I am the Minion, Oh Great Corporate Overlords," you give up the right to that gripe.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Why after reading this post am I getting visions of REAL police officers going after REAL people who's VIRTUAL characters are thiefs who, by definition, are going to be stealing VIRTUAL property from VIRTUAL people?
I mean, obviously in this case the thieving action would be expected within the context of the virtual environment, but for some reason I don't have faith that real life politicians would word whatever laws they come up with to take that into account.
So true...I play Asheron's Call and found that the worst parts of the game were the tedious things like shopping for magic supplies and running from place to place (commuting). Over time the game designers have eased the pain of shopping and added more portals and other ways to jump quickly from place to place, allowing players to spend more time killing stuff. :-)
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
...scientists have shown that as people get hooked up with girlfriends, they become less concerned with this shit.
If you purchased a virtual thing for "real" money off of ebay or whatever, then it has a "real" value.
So if you can put it into either of these 2 categories, then yes you have a right. JMHO
If you let kill-joy technocrats put laws around your games. Although it would be funny if you kill another player's character and your superbadass wizard in Diablo and a little virtual cop car rolls up and gives him life in prison.
Even the story of this game being hacked. It's really cheap... bad sportsmanship... but in the end you've gotta laugh that someone was able to do that. If this game was a subscription service I think the company in charge should have a backup policy in place to prevent this from ruining what you've really paid for... Otherwise... it's a game, lighten up.
If Virtual Property in videogames can be sold, bought, stolen, arrested for stealing, and jailed for,
then I will be suing nintendo for the countless times in the middle of a long game with no save built into the cartidge that it decided to reboot.
Furthermore!
If I play a mud that I DO NOT pay for, but do spend time on, and the server is taken down, I will sue for my property. It must at least be copied to me in usable form!
And frankly, This post right here...
This post..
I want access to this post for the rest of my lifetime.
And I will sue you if you mod me down, and thus limit others from viewing my post, as it is virtual property, and it will be like littering on my lawn.
My lawn, My rules.
(Ignore the fact that I don't actually own the servers! or the code created! or the bandwidth, or the etc.)
http://use.perl.org
...laws to pretty imaginary property and imaginary people. Just what we need
Unless some kind of actual, recognizable harm is done in the real world the law shouldn't be involved at all. Anything else is the purview of the person who runs the server and the game. That is, if they say virtual theft in their world is okay, then either you deal with this fact or you move on to some other game and some other world. That is the sole extent of your choices and anything claim to further 'rights' is nothing more than childish whining.
By definition a virtual world isn't real. Therefore real-world laws have no place in *any* virtual world. And the only rights you have in such a world are those afforded to you be the creators/owners - nothing more.
I can imagine the howls of protest coming down the line by the typical Evercrack addict and his MMORPG brethren. Confusing the virtual and the real seems to be inherent for many of these folks. But if you think you need legal protections for your virtual activities, all this really says is that you're in desperate need of extensive, ongoing therapy - or a life.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
imagine, you create some kind of Ueber-universal Avatar, that you use everywhere: in games, but also in places like /., other forums...
Some people build up quite a reputation in several fields, through hard work, searching studying,...teaching things online.
Let's imagine, I'm using this avatar 'Mr. Smith' (Yea...,) widely recognized in certain semi-pro forums, et.c. If somebody hacked into my ueber-avatar-account and start posting spurious things in my name, or go on a rampage in some games, using hacks,... my Avatar would lose a lot of it's 'worth,' however virtual it may seem, but i would be really pissed off, for the so-called virtual money-worth-karma-acceptance et.c. is, or could be, in fact very important to me for my work, research, et.c.
I just didn't really feel all that motivated by the whole idea of Avatars being extensions of persons. If anything, copyright is a better analysis of them. For example, while I realize that having the same name for your avatar as someone else is restricted for logistical reasons, I know I would be bugged that someone would steal what I considered my *idea* by using the same avatar name as me. The whole avatar to me just seems like an idea, and perhaps a copyrightable one. If anything makes them property, I guess that would be it. I am sure the affinity and identification a player feels with an avatar is not too different from what an author feels with one of his/her characters.
Where the paper introduces the "Personality theories of property", it gets a little wobbly in my opinion. For example, a person can feel a close affinity to the character created by someone else (like some Star Wars fanboy who wishes he could be Anakin). That character does not become his property.
Boom Shanka
Here's an excerpt from the Declaration of the Rights of Avatars: "That avatars are the manifestation of actual people in an online medium, and that their utterances, actions, thoughts, and emotions should be considered to be as valid as the utterances, actions, thoughts, and emotions of people in any other forum, venue, location, or space."
Well I certainly wouldn't play RPGs if I had to worry about being charged with criminal assault for starting a brawl in a Greyhawk tavern as Zorgo the Rogue. The whole point of RPGs is to ESCAPE from reality into different worlds with their own rules. Let's not drag the real world into it, PUH-LEEEEEEEASE!!!
This really should belong to the companies/organization running the virtual world. If they state, "we own all virtual property, blah blah" then that's that. And honestly, every single MUD/MMORPG/etc. should have that in the agreement...
People make claims about how they put time and money into building characters and amassing equipment in these games. People need to realize you're paying for the right/time/resources for you to _have fun_ while doing this. You paid to be allowed to spend your time playing a game.
It's like an arcade; you don't own the game or anything when you put in a quarter (or dollar, as is becomming common), you are just paying for the right to play the game for a while.
If you don't like those rules... don't give them your money to play!
Perhaps it makes sense to regulate offline actions affecting in game actions -- such as hacking into the game. But on the other hand, I have no problem with selling in-game items for real world money. Why not? It's not like the in-game items were manufactured out of nothing. Someone had to go through the work. Who cares if money changed hands in the game or in real life? And besides, people who do that are likely to do it both ways, so the economy of the game is likely to balance out.
The point is, aside from outside problems like hacking, things like murder and theft within the game must be controlled by the virtual society -- if you get mugged in the game, next time, you'll make sure to travel in a group. Or maybe you and your friends will get together and form a police force. And so on.
The same societal forces apply to the game as to the real world, because the same minds control both. But it's okay if your game persona gets killed from time to time or goes to jail or whatever. That's what makes the game different from real life and what makes it a useful diversion. If people stick with it, some form of order will eventually emerge, just like it does in any other group.
yesterday's spirited discussion
How long are things posted in the members only section of slashdot?
That article was dated Wednesday May 28, @10:58AM
I am little confused here. I mean animal rights, property rights, rights of corperations, the rights of national sovernty, and now virtual avatar rights??
Perhaps we should get civil and human rights first and worry about all this other crap later.
Of course the world works exactly oppposite to this idea but a guy can dream.
So yes there is already a longstanding protection of virtual assets in our economy. Everquest assets should be no different.
In an RPG, you can choose to play an "evil" character. A "lawless" or "chaotic" character.
At the very heart of role-playing, you act (in-game) in accordance with how your character should. That may well include "Kill the wimpy newb and take its stuff".
The main idea of this thread would effectively kill the entire idea of an RPG - Basically, a player couldn't do anything except stroll along the bunny-grounds holding hands and singing kumba-ya.
And let's not overlook when PETA and the like get into the act. Plan to level? Better not kill any of the game's "indigenous" life, or end up whacked with a virtual-cruelty-to-animals charge. Want to solve a quest and get some powerful ancient weapon? Oops, distubing an archaological site has some hefty fines to go along with it.
Grow up, people. This topic deals with GAMES. Games, games, games, games, games. NOT the real world. If you have trouble telling them apart, and in-game losses "hurt" you IRL, you need to jack-out right now and go interact with other humans, in a real, live, actual physycal setting.
What really intrigued me in this paper was the talk about currency exchange between real-world currency and the game currency (pp 49-51). Right now, it's not much of a concern. However, considering the growth in on-line gaming, I can well imagine a world a few years from now, where several "virtual economies" combined would have the economic strength of a G-8 country, such as France or perhaps even Germany. In that case, you'll have a currency exchange market between several currencies that are regulated by central banks, and several currencies that are regulated by private companies. If the amount of virtual currency becomes signifficant, the unregulated currency exchange could possibly destabilize world currency markets. I am wondering whether this would result into governments taking control over MMORPGs or whether by that time the MMORPG providers will be economically powerful enough to force the governments into some kind of a compromise.
It is my belief that more laws (in any world) do more damage to the rights of people than good. By looking to a higher authority to settle dispute, we as individuals and communities thereby abdicate our right to settle the dispute ourselves. Now, I will couch this by saying that I believe there are certain laws that are universaly recognized, but they can be summed up rather succinctly in "Do no harm". What I am talking about is morally based law, and the idea that we can own things. If you dismiss the underlying assumption that we can own things (which is truly a large debate unto itself), and do away with morally based laws, and simply abide by "To each his own", then does the nature of conflict change within a society? I believe this is the true value of virtual worlds, as a testing ground for how societies behave and operate.
Of course there are worldly societies that have taken these questions to heart and seem to prove that the nature of conflict does indeed change, and that the quality of life in general goes up. We here in the US (mostly) have not allowed this level of enlightenment to take hold, and indeed seem to want to constrain the way people live according to some kind of repressed morality. So lawyers are thriving, prisons are huge moneymakers, and we end up worshipping material wealth because there is no true happiness or comfort.
Just as elegance in technology is accomplished through simplicity in design, elegance in society is accomplished through simplicity in governance. The technological revolution (so called) has seen repeatedly a development cycle where the first few generations of a technology are complex and inefficient. As the technology matures, it is optomized and made simpler, until the sheer simplicity of the widget is truly awe inspiring. Our energy generating technology is still in the infant stages where we are using complex and inefficient means to generate energy, but we are starting to see impressive, simple, elegant solutions in this arena and the next century should see a really nice change in how well we meet our power needs. So to, I think, is the fate of the legal codes. We will see that as people are more spiritually and emotionally cared for and supported in communities, their need for accumulating property will dissipate. Poor people already understand the meaningless nature of stuff, and are inherantly more generous than the rich. As a wise man once said, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to [live a happy life]. The argument over legal codes and property only serves to create a class of rich parasites like lawyers, insurance salesmen, etc at everyone elses expense. There is no inalienable right to own an SUV, a cloak of indifference, or a plasma tv. We should be more concerned with the right to pursue happiness, which should not require money but only good health, nutrition, and access to nature with that special someone. What can be better than walking to a secluded hot spring, and boning your honey for the afternoon?
This also has an extention into Everquest and other such MMORPG's. Some of the players of these games are better known IN THE GAME then in real life, they might have a online girlfriend, lots of gold, and be infinitally powerful, when in real life they are a 25 year old nerd living in their parent's basement. Is it right to defame these people's virtual characters when it might cause depression and even suicide (which has happened to EQ players) in real life? I would say it's quite wrong.
Surely a more appropriate solution is to apply 'virtual laws' to the virtual worlds?
It is absurd to suggest that one should be compensated for somebody nicking your Sim's stereo, in the Sims, for example - but not as absurd to suggest that the evil sod sim who nicked your sim's stereo that he bought with his hard earned simolians should get nicked.
In this manner you can maintain the contintuity of the world - it damages the overall world of Everquest, if you can demand trial by jury for player-killing the baker, for example.
I believe Star Wars Galaxies is at some point planning on introducing a legal system - player kill somebody within a town where this is forbidden, and expect a visit from the police force.
The question is whether this is a law, or a gameplay mechanic - most of the questyions of legality are real world issues, sexually harassing another player character should be covered by real-world law, as should hacking into somebody's account and stealing their character - stealing a player's items on the other hand, if dopne by in-game means, should be considered a matter of virtual law, to be dealt with (or not) by the adminstration of that particular world, whether that be a trial by jury, or just putting a bounty on the thief's head.
But then, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a cognitive scientist.
fortune -o
Seriously, just shut the fuck up. There is no Christ you little nitwit.
If someone gives me a dollar for no reason, then I have given them nothing in return. There was an exchange there, even though one half of that transaction was nothing. Does that mean that nothing is worth something?
If so, then every day I work, I lose something (nothing) by coming in to work when I could be at home doing nothing (something). Therefore, my employer is robbing me of something (nothing) for 40 hours a week! Instead of just paying me for working, they are also taking away my nothing. I did not agree to that when I took this job, so now I can sue them to oblivion! USA! USA!
At some point, someone has to draw the line on this stupid shit.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Joseph Smith was convicted of murdering of "Diana the Magnificent" with a two-handed sword yesterday in Texas. He will be executed by lethal injection tomorrow.
Diana has expressed her deep satisfaction with the verdict. She will appear in exclusive interview with David Letterman later this evening.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
ohh boy. That's gonna be ugly.
Many, many actions in GTA would be 'illegal' IRL. Do we now have whole new sets of laws, one for each game?
In this one, it's legal to carjack another player's virtual property, but in that one, you (and your real world persona) may get thrown in jail for 'stealing' virtual property
Talk about blurring the lines.
I've ran a MUSH for about 4 years and I've had some problems with people taking descs/stuff from website/theme stuff and I've had problems with people making all sorts of claims as to thier "rights" when it comes to monitoring situations to make sure there is no cheating/abuse.
What is "mine" what isn't, what rights to I have to keep my work under my control?
Might you be the "very open to discussion" fellow that has in the last hour or so gone through and systematically modded 5 of my posts down?
Why don't you go ahead and post non-AC?
I love how slashdot is supposed to be an open place, yet instead likes to hide behind AC's and quiet moderation to try and suppress folks with a differing view.
AC is truly a good term. Come now, its only karma. Show yourself.
From Princess Bride: And when I say you are a coward, that is only because you are the slimiest weakling ever to crawl the earth.
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
what the fuck? aren't you a few /. posts behind?
[obligatory Matrix reference follows]
Where is the line between intellectual and virtual property? If we go down the road of naturalizing the virtual worlds we invent and bring them up to status with 'consensual reality', then do we risk blurring the boundaries and losing ourselves in [nearly] inconsequential realities, bequeathing care of this reality to those enamoured with power?
Funny, this feels real, but perhaps it's just another level in a simulation [albeit a very good one]. Mind you, I do see the occasional unexplainable glitch.
Damn those pesky terrorists
just stop giving them more&more monIE.
.asps, what the future generates may not be what you wanted for US/them (yOUR kids).
they already have more than enough, most of the rest of US, do not.
it's not as simple as it sounds, but it is quite doable.
if you are a greed/fear based lifeform, you may choose not to participate.
consult with yOUR creator. don't take forever to do it, 'cause time is not on yOUR side at the momeNT. future generations would be grateful. if we don't get our heads out of our
there must be a line somewhere?
here's won: "Beware the industrial/military complex"
won of you knows who said that?
Yes, they're only games we're talking about here, virtual worlds. But is it any different from other pass times?
There is NO difference from someone spending time online in EQ than the average sports fan. Both can be viewed as wastes of time. And how many more people waste their time with sports? Sports are no more "real" than online worlds. I mean, both are just for fun...a way to spend time. That's it. Don't tell me about sports teaching teamwork and all that CRAP! GOD I hate that term. Who gives a damn! I'm not a team player!
But I digress...
Here's another example
Also, major sports fans and like....I don't know...Trekkies perhaps (Trekkers...whatever) are in fact the same exact type of person! Both go to special places (football stadiums and Star Trek conventions), they both dress up as they're favorite "character" (football jerseys, face paint, hats vs. uniforms and makeup), they both litter their homes with memorabilia. They talk all the time about both pass times with their friends..etc etc.
It's someone's hobby. It's someones interest. One mans passion is another mans target of ridicule. Who's right? Who's wrong? There is no right and wrong with these things.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
The whole point of participating in a virtual game is that anything goes. Dungeons and Dragons, Mechwarrior, Warhammer 40K are the predecessors to these virtual worlds, and the whole point of these games was to destroy your opponents and play with your teammates. It was like that because of the rules. If you did't like the rules, or the game master, you didn't play the game. So if Shadowbane can't control the game properly, whether it is because of bad programming that left a vulnerability, or for any other reason, don't both playing.
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
...When geeks go to law school!
....Bethanie....
(baaaad things can happen!)
The biggest issue here isn't simply "do avatars have rights online?". Some people live their lives almost exclusively online. Their dearest friends are found and interacted with in a digital sense. These people, in all honesty, are in fact their avatars. That is WHO THEY ARE.
On the other hand, some others use the internet as a supplement to their life. They utilize it to keep in contact with their real-life friends and have few, if any, online aquaintances. Some others are in the middle. ( I am excluding those who do not use the internet at all or only use it for communication for their jobs. i.e. email.)
There are several layers of "immersion" that people undergo. I am reminded of a story my "democracy and technology" class discussed a few years ago. Here is a reference to the story. Essentially, some college kids 'hacked' a chat program; the kind where each person has a visible avatar. They used some commands to make unsuspecting chatters "rape" each other or do other "naughty" acts to each other. If I remember correctly, it was only via text that this occured. (The visual avatars did not animate).
The question posed, was this illegal? Was it virtual rape and assult? On one hand, if the abused person was very immersed in his or her 'virtual reality', the incident would indeed be traumatic (to some degree at least). If the immersion was low, the abused would likely become annoyed and go on with his/her life.
The same thing goes for MMORPG's. Some people spend incredible amounts of time ammassing items and power in these games. It's an ivestment of time, money, and energy to them, so if someone hacks their account, they stand to lose quite a bit. How could you not say that a crime hasn't been committed if someone loses something that they worked so hard for. However, let's be realistic. It's digital information. It's 1's and 0's on a computer server far far away... or is it?
Right now, the arguements are using two sets of facts. One side is deeply immersed in the 'bodyless' virtual reality and to them, there is little difference between an avatar and the person controlling it. Thus, the person's rights should carry into the avatar's world.
The other side says that a virtual crime is not a crime at all. That people need to seriously reconsider their priorities and realize what exactly constitutes their reality. Yadda Yadda Yadda...
At this present time, with so many people of varying degrees of immersion into this new world without rules, there can be NO law that will satisfy everyone. In fact, I don't believe any law can even come close to addressing the widely chasmatic viewpoints that people hold regarding this topic. But who knows.
-John
"The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and hoping for different results"
While I admit, that I'd be upset if I spent time building a character only to have it destroyed by another player. However, if this is "outlawed", there will be no bad guys, and no fun. Who wants to play against the computer all the time -- that defeats the purpose of online gaming.
These laws aren't meant to restrict the way the game works itself, but rather the consequences from out-of-game actions.
For example, if I killed your character and stole your stuff according to the rules of the game, I'd be fine. If, however, I used some exploit or hacked into the game server, or committed some fraud to destroy that character and your items, then you'd be talking about a crime.
At least, that's how I read the originating articles.
-Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
In the real world, you can spend a lot of money and time producing something that is worth much less (if anything at all) than the resources you put into it.
Why do people continue to believe that the things they arguably "create" online have a value equivalent to the amount of time and money they put into producing them?
When OU was initially released, it had a realistic economic engine that ruined the game play. With todays economic engines, nearly everything you do betters your standing in the game. While this is good for promoting people doing things in the game, it has no bearing on the real world.
So if you spend months building up the character on your game of choice and a you have a contract indicating that someone is willing to buy your character at a price, you should have a case (under the normal pre-existing laws), but you shouldn't expect compensation for voluntary work should you find it worthless (lost, erased, destroyed) after-the-fact.
Disclaimer: Never played Ultima OnLine, but read interesting articles about online economic systems. Nor am I a lawyer, but if you think this is legal advice, I doubt a real lawyer could help in any way.
That's why there are pretend worlds and crap online, so you don't risk losing actual assetts. You play a car-racing GAME because you don't want to trash your ACTUAL car. If you crash your car in the game, do you cry and try to find someone to sue? No, because it's fairly obvious that it's PRETEND. You will not suffer REAL financial hardships because of this; you won't have to buy a new car. You won't have to shell out REAL money for repairs. You spend time in imaginary places to avoid real consequences. Now you want to get real compensation for imaginary losses? Okay, but how about if we then make a law that if your imaginary character dies, you must be killed too?
Sure, you want the good of reality, and the good of imaginary. You want to have your cake and eat it too. And you want to waste our time on this. Go blow a dog.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
1. Ownership. The person who 'owns' a MUCK, MOO, MUD, MUX, or MMRPG, is the person who owns the physical machine hosting it. It's just that simple. They can turn it on, and they can turn it off. Your 'avatar' is nothing but a collection of 1's and 0's that reside on/in the owner's hardware. Of course, paid susbscriptions would fall under contract law I'd imagine, but outside of that, the owner could simply turn off/move/disconnect/wipe the machine and that's that.
Next level is the wizcore/admin/staff/whatever. Generally speaking, they are given administrative domain of those 1's and 0's on the machine, and as such, have some limited legal responsibility. Hence why servers carry AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies), most of which basically say 'As someone physically owns this machine and can be held responsible for it's contents, you WILL play by these rules or you will be removed from this server. We're just following the rules of CYA. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.'
2. The ownership of 'areas.' I've seen this issue wrangled over before and have the following to say: -PLAYERS- make an area, not just the physical setting. Someone may have developed the background, feel, and descriptions of an area, but once you let players run amok in an area, it becomes a collective work-in-progress between everyone involved. You may have designed the area and 'own' that design (more on this later), but you do not own an area AS IT IS NOW.
3. You can always disconnect. I hear tales of character rape, abuse, any number of things where people make the claim 'I was forced to do X.' Bullshit. At any time, you can disconnect from the machine, or even turn off your computer. You can say 'Sorry, nope, not gonna be a part of this,' get out of the situation, and report it. Where your 'avatar' may be a collection of 1's and 0's bound by the laws of the server programming, YOU are not. IMNSHO, if someone can manipulate you mentally/emotionally that easily, you shouldn't be on the 'net to begin with. For the most part, yes, in character actions have in character consequences (ie. you killed someone and the local authorities are gonna execute you for it), but if there are things not in accordance with the AUP (ie. someone's got psionic control over you, drags you off into a dark alley and is going to rape you), you DON'T have to RP it out. Staying pretty much equals consent, as 99.99% of the time you can EASILY get out of it through out of character means.
4. Develop areas/characters/items -outside- of a game first. If you ever want to use a character/area/whatever outside of a game (ie. a novel), make sure you develop it -outside- of a game before moving it into the game, so you have at least some form of 'prior art' available to you.
Most of all, remember, it's only a game. If you make real-world contracts for the transfer of characters/property, that's all well and fine, you have a real-world contract. If you play on a server with an AUP, the administration has full rights to boot you for non-compliance.
In conclusion, most of the time the administration -wants- to keep the players happy. Wether it's a pay service or the 'reward' for the staff is simply the game itself, a server is nothing without a player base. There many more servers out there, if you don't like how one is going, you can always pick up all your marbles and go play somewhere else...
There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...
No, it's not Cocaine anymore.
Now I'm really looking forward to reading the whole thing!
PS: See page 53.
Second, we discuss whether avatars have enforceable legal and moral rights. Avatars, the user-controlled entities that interact with virtual worlds, are a persistent extension of their human users, and users identify with them so closely that the human-avatar being can be thought of as a cyborg. We examine the issue of cyborg rights within virtual worlds and whether they may have real world significance.
This reminds me of the Animatrix no. 1: The Second Renaissance: Part 1 since they bring up whether AI's have the rights of man, since they are created in our image and granted with our spark of knowledge. They are damn right that these will have real world signifigance.
The "genius" behind the idea that players would police themselves? The guy who said a PK switch was not possible in UO? The guy whose house was burned down by PK victims angry at his idiocy?
No thanks. I'll listen to people with IQs > 0.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
However introduces lawsuits to on line games should be tied to a spammer beaten to a pulp.
deserve's got nothing to do with it...
I remember playing a MUD, based out of Ohio State University, back in the early 90s. I found a loophole that allowed me to attack players even though playerkill was turned off. I would just summon a monster and order him to kill newbies who were in the town plaza, not expecting anything.
My friend was a fellow sysadmin at my school who played the MUD, too. He found out about what I did and he told our boss and tried to get me fired for what I did in this virtual world.
SimCourt anyone?
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
Well, I have been humbled. I had now idea that you would start quoting the Princess Bride. I know realize the errors of my ways.
I will not post logged in, because of my fear that you will moderate me down (rotflmao). No, actually, I don't have an account. No, I was not moderating you down.
You are stupid. You are lame. There is no god.
http://slashdot.org/~FroMan/freaks
Looks like you are loved.
...to NBC, Law And Order: Special Moderators Unit
Bailiff: All rise, the Honorable Cmdr Taco, presiding.
[...]
DA McCoy: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we will show beyond a reasonable doubt that on the evening of November 22nd, the defendant, Mr. H4x0rD00d, did knowingly and willfully employ an aimbot and an OpenGL wallhack during the commission of...
Defense Attorney: OMG, LOL! Objection!
Judge Taco: Overruled. STFU.
[...]
Judge Taco: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, how do you find the defendant?
Foreman: On the count of wallhacking in the first degree, we find the defendant guilty. On the count of using an aimbot with intent to 0wn, we find the defendant guilty. On the count of misdemeanor page-widening, we find the defendant not guilty. On the count of trolling with intent to flame, we find the defendant not guilty. On the count of felony sock-puppetry, we find the defenNO CARRIER
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
Get a clue nitwit... Jesus was just a Charlie Manson who got away with it.
Come on, this has got to be a joke.. none of this stuff is real.. its all imaginary.. how can there be *laws*..
get a life.. get out more..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
sonofa...I mean come on. What the hell is wrong with people and what makes em so stupid. I will have to shoot the first person who brings a lawsuit to court over a freaking flaming sword that got ganked in some mmorpg. Actually i will go one step beyond and stick a massive flaming sword up their ass then shoot em. Do us all a favor if you get ripped off in game and are going to sue someone jump off a freakin building cause you are a complete waste of life and no amount of virtual property is going to change that.
"At first, we thought it was just another snake cult."
"Avatars, the user-controlled entities that interact with virtual worlds, are a persistent extension of their human users, and users identify with them so closely that the human-avatar being can be thought of as a cyborg. We examine the issue of cyborg rights within virtual worlds and whether they may have real world significance."
A cell phone is a user-controlled entity that interacts with the provided communications netwrok, is a persistent extension of its human user, and users identify with them so closely (custom ringtones, faceplates, voice-dialing, etc.) that the human-cell phone being can be thought of as a cyborg.
So my cell phone needs civil rights?
Sometimes I wonder... why not just buy a character and spend the rest of your time doing something more productive. After all, if you take your salary at an hourly rate, you're really losing money by playing games all day/night/forever.
Sometimes I wonder.. why play mmogs at all? Whats the freaking point? There is no goal.. and the socialization people always seem to point to could, for the most part, be reached with better results in the real world.
I played mmogs from 97 till late 2002.. and you know what? I made some nice friends...... But, what did I give up to play? Why are we, as gamers, not looking at the hooks they are putting into these games and asking ourselves if this is a good thing..
I realize people get really attached to the virtual items and the avatars they have in game.. but isnt this pointing to a larger problem?
Um, letse see.
Charlie Manson: is in jail for conspiring to kill some folks
Jesus Christ: was crucified for claiming he was the son of God
Charlie Manson: had the Manson chicks wack some folks
Jesus Christ: had apostles who died for their service
Yes, I'd agree one of us is a nitwit. Either, me for responding to trolls, or you for your complete lack of knowledge. Tell me, what was Jesus' crime?
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
Face it, the lazy bum was a grifter.
Problem with most evil characters, it that they want to be 'above the law.' They go with the arguement 'Well, you -need- us evil types.' Remember though, the 'need' of the Hero can involve the DEATH of the evil character if the case is severe enough (ie. murder, rape).
I've found there are generally two viable types of evil characters: the re-spawner (when the heroes get pissed off enough and hunt you down and kill you, you simply start over with a new evil character, as nasty as you want to be because, hey, it's disposable) and the rare 'evil l337' (the character who's evil, the heroes -know- is evil, but doesn't do evil the heroes can actually prove, and is cool enough that the heroes don't mind being around, rubbing elbows or 'verbally fencing' with (most often, they tend to be 'lawful evil')).
If you want to be nasty, annoying, blood-thirsty, whathaveyou and a general 'buzz-kill' for others, and yet be ABOVE the law at the same time, you're just as misguided as those 'strolling around the bunny-grounds holding hands and singing kumba-ya.'
There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...
it was eisenhower. you truly are one of /.'s stranger creatures.
Like D&D at the local cardstore?
Banaaaana!
While it is fiction, it does seem to deal with a large chunk (and more) of this conversation.
Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.
No mention of Neverwinter Nights on AOL, nor of the current version, nor of Diablo---seems to skip straight from MUDs to Everquest.
I guess the real question here is whether there should be some established standards on the obligations of the company / entity which maintains the virtual world as opposed to the situation now where it's all handled by contract law (and possibly computer cracking / security laws)---since AOL wiped my Elven Champion-Wizard-12th level Master Thief (Dreamsmyth, an ``Elflord'' and founder and one-time Guildmaster of ``The Grey Company'' the private Elven guild, as well as his Girdle of Storm Giant Strength, Elfin Chainmail +3, +3 Frostbrand and a Cloak of Elvenkind and pair of +3 rings of protection) w/o even notifying me when they pulled the plug on Neverwinter Nights, and seriously damaged the viability of demi-human characters in the move from v1 to v2, I'd be inclined to agree.
Another failing in the paper is no mention of the matter of viable virtual property running afoul of gambling statutes---there was a really interesting story on this concept in _Dragon Magazine_ a couple of years ago, ``Catacomb'' I think it was called. Basically, if one pays money to get stuff in the game, can then leverage that to get more stuff which can be sold for real money (think cashing out your chips at a casino) that meets the prevailing legal definition of gambling which is at the least, highly regulated.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Seems somewhat simple to me. Every MMORPG is set up with rules, enforced by TOS and programming. If you intentionally violate those rules, you deserve an appropriate consequence (banning, loss of XP, computer crime charges, etc). If it's legal in game for me to take my Big Honkin' Sword +3 and brain you with it, then there's no consequence to me, since I'm abiding by the "laws" of the virtual world.
Our fine friends in SB didn't abide by either their TOS, or by RL computer crime laws. Are they liable? Hell yes. Not because they inconvenienced someone who needs more sunlight, but because they physically compromised a server not belonging to them.
Basically, apply the laws of the world they broke the law in. "Wallhacking" is illegal in the virtual world, you get a virtual punishment: loss of XP, banning, etc. Hacking servers is illegal in the real world, you get real world punishment.
Bunk.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
I thought I was the only one...I've told my boss that he can't afford my overtime hours. He laughed and I said,"For real boss, I won't work OT unless you tell me it is a MAJOR EMERGENCY, and IT BETTER BE, or you pay 5x my normal salary." Needless to say he's not really happy with me, but thanks to the wonderful new laws in California I am back on a timesheet and now have right of refusal on any OT :) 40 hours a week is exactly what the company pays me for, and since in the NEW economy, extra's perks and bonuses are gone, I don't OWE the company 1 second beyond my 40, and I feel no pain over it :)
:)
Mind over Matter...I don't mind because it does not Matter anymore
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
If you've spent a bunch of time and money building a character and someone hacks the server and you lose that work, it's unfortunate, but it shouldn't be illegal. This would be like me suing Sony if my memory card failed after 60 hours of playing Final Fantasy and I had to start over again (which has happened to me).
It sucks. Deal with it and move on.
bun-fhuinneog agam!
I'd be more inclined to believe damage to virtual goods could be sued for and that there was a real loss if before the loss, the people holding these assets did the following:
1. claimed the increase in these assets as "capital gains" or "other income" on their tax returns
2. included them in their list of assets they showed a bank when applying for a loan
3. paid property insurance premiums on them
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
I read the entire near 100 page abstract (yeah, it's a boring day at work) and found it very interesting.
He seems to base his thesis on two decent arguments: first, investing time into making something, even if this investment is in a virtual world, gives something inherent value. secondly, that because in game properties are being sold via ebay that there is some sort of real-world value to these objects. He even points out that people have made 'us dollar to everquest platinum' currency conversions, and you can pretty easily earn around 3.24$ US dollars an hour 'working' on everquest.
I think given this base, his entirely abstract was pretty worthless other than a very good history on the evolution from the start of gaming to MUDs (which I used to frequent and appreciated the reminiscing) all the way to the everquest (graphical MUD) phenomenon.
The premise that investing time and effort into something, even virtual, makes it valuable?? seems ridiculous to me when the end result of such efforts is (realistically) changes in 0's to 1's and vice versa on a remote computer system. It seems like the author is taking the psychological effect of these games as having some sort of value. Who should really care if someone becomes emotionally invested in what really isn't more than a series of pixels on a screen.
The selling of items is merely a fluke, and I think it's partially companies like Sony's fault for letting it happen --shouldn't they have the power to just randomly delete the objects from the characters doing the selling (with some checking for fairness) ? And I'm sorry but that reference to the company hiring poor mexicans to play dark ages full time just to sell items is a hilarious(?) abuse of mythic's systems.
I played MUDs for a couple years, racked up a character with 3000 hours. I know how addicting and psychologically investing these games can be. Yet on the same note, I always understood deep down that it was just a file on a remote system, and were it to be erased then it would just be "too bad."
The phrase "it's just a game" is very overused (esp on slashdot) and I think is inappropriate because that implies that just because some people view these games as trivial that we all should. The author mentioned that a large number of people (many 80+hr/wk players) have been recorded as saying they feel their 'real life' is just a meaningless support to their lives in everquest.
I think the author hits that psychological impact right on the money, but on the same note, this shouldn't have any real world meaning except maybe feeling sorry for those who are hurt and lose property in 'virtual worlds.'
About 7 years ago I played a MUD (DragonHeart if anyone has heard of it). There were some months that I'm sure I spent at least 10 hours playing the game.
The game had an interesting option, people could spend money to buy special (donor) equipment in the game. People in the game sent in a check for a specified amount per armor piece ($30 for a helm, $120 for a sword, etc.) along with a custom description of that piece of equipment. This equipment wasn't as good as the best gear in the game, however, it was second to the best.
This brought up an interesting concept. If the administrator shut down the game and brought it up, would those people have rights to their equipment? They did purchase the bit arrangement on a hard drive somewhere.
Not perfectly applicable to this situation, but it brings about a truth. All virtual worlds are actually something somewhere (bits on a drive).
Laws do apply to these virtual worlds, whereas a user agreement can bind a user into certain behaviors and actions.
Law in these games is however defined by code absolutely. Law is applied to our world from our perspective of it.
So there is a law in these "virtual worlds" as defined by the organization owning the world.
In terms of theft, vandalism, etc; ruining one's "actual bit pattern" can be considered illegal in that they re-arranged your data from how you wanted to without your permission.
Since data represents information, we don't tend to think of our "dual bladed axe" as a bit stream, but it is. Anyone that alters that bitstream illegally has altered the "bit stream" which represents the "dual bladed axe" and should be penalized under law.
Theft and vandalism occur with art. If someone were to say "the paint was just moved" on a painting, that wouldn't fly.
Maybe this is just a ramble (I do like to do that) but we can't think of these "virtual" worlds as they are in the virtual world, unless we want to prosecute in terms of that virtual world. We have to think of what that virtual world means in the "real" world to prosecute in terms of the real world.
Can/should virtual world "property" be treated as legal property?
Lets look at "intellectual property". (almost an oxymoron in itself)
To say that an idea could be treated as property has always amazed me.
Property can be destroyed - an idea cannot.
Property can be stolen - and idea cannot (although it can be copied)
Upon transferal of property, the original owner loses possession - not so with an idea
And so on.........
Seem more likely that lawyers got together and realized that the only way for them to "sell" the absurd notion that an intangible "intellectual item" was "entitled" to legal rights and protection similar to real possessions, was to make those items seem "tangible" to the common public. And to that end, the term "Intelectual Property" seems to have been born.
But I digress...
Seems like virtual world property might actually be more "tangible" than "intellectual property".
Virtual world "property" exists (albeit in a virtual world), and its existence is governed by the programming/rules of that virtual world.
As such, that "property" (in the context of that virtual world) can:
Be stolen
Be destroyed
Be transferred (whereby the previous owner loses possession)
And so on...
(provided that the programming/rules permit these things).
And as such, it makes the prospect of virtual world "property" being treated as legal property even less ridiculous than "Intellectual Property"
When I play Warcraft3, C&C:Generals, or Homeworld 2, does this mean I'll have to pay a lawyer to defend myself for winning when I destroy "the other player's virtual fleet/army"?
Watch out all you online RTSers, if you win you'll be sued, so when you see me online, make sure you let me win!
The fallacy of your argument lies in your perception of the "Trivial" incrementation. Work done on physical objects is work that is measurable in terms of the Physical Value (cost of materials) plus the Perceived Value (cost a customer is willing to spend on it). Work done on Virutal Objects (something with no material state), can only be measured in terms of the Perceived Value of such a creation. Thus the argument does not give a 1:1 correlation between "Book" and "Virtual Book" even though the language definition seems to compare just the content.
The perceived value of the "Book" consists of the value of the materials(flat wood pulp covered in ink) combined with the perceived value of the ideas translated on those pages into text. The value of the "Virtual Book" however, corresponds to just those ideas. What value is perceived in the work of creating that "Virtual Book"? None -- the act of creating the content generates no value of it's own, as there was no physical representation there is no physical value. The only value your "Virtual Book" contains is that which the purchaser feels your ideas merit. Therefore, the value of any virtual item must be considered as the perceived value of the representation *only*. As there are no ways to acurately compute what the value of a virtually represented idea (ie, you cannot compute the value difference of a Mozart Symphony bitstream vs. that of a Britney Spears song) we must rely on "Intellectual Property" laws to force a value to be assigned to each.
The point is, there is no way to assign a definate physical value to a virtual idea short of a fake legal enforcement of such. Just because you did something, the universe does not owe you anything for doing it.
Would a good next job be one of those extra perks and bonuses that are gone? Not that your boss would have to give you a bad recomendation and risk you going after him. He just has to say something like "Archfeld was an excellent worker. He requested and was assigned 40 hours of work a week, and chose not to work overtime". All completely true and legal, you can't go after him for slandering you. But if I was ref checking on a potential hire and was told that, I'd wouldn't give you a second glance. I'd assume that you were there for your 40 and no more, and I can do a lot better than that in this job climate.
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
> By your logic, I guess its OK if I run a big magnet over your hard drive and erase it. After all - the drive is still there, same as the chess pieces you knocked over. I just rearranged the electrical charge of the platters.
There's a level of liability involved in the latter that does not extend from the former. The concept is financial loss. While it would be very difficult for me to show real financial loss at the ruining of my chess position, it is relatively easy to prove financial loss (in terms of actual data loss or recovery time/expense) for the ruining of my electron position. Therefore, while the same criminal lack-of-prosecution exists, I could easily charge you in a civil court for remuneration for wrecking my hard drive.
The reason this level of liability does not itself extend to an in-game persona is simply that the TOS for every game in existence specifically releases the company from said liability, so I sign away my right to financial recourse in the event of loss.
Virg
Ok, so these laws deal with interfering with the operation of a game by taking actions that disturb the game world itself without going through the set mechanics of the game. Well, "pursuit of happiness" is supposedly an inalienable right in this country (U.S), and if people enjoy building houses and selling them to people (capitalism says I can sell what I want to if people will pay for it) and someone interferes with this process in a way that is NOT an accepted risk/part of the process, then they are clearly interfering with the right to pursuit of happiness, so legal action is justified.
-insert a witty something-
Putting value on your Elf or your Sim-house is kind of like trying to put value on your place in line. Sure, some people will eagerly buy your spot (and the rest of us will call that a soft-cheat), but say you sit overnight waiting to buy tickets to a show and some guy (or girl - especially if she's got a cool vest ) comes along and kicks your ass, takes your place, and you don't get to buy tickets. You can sue for assault, but you're not going to get very far suing for compensation on the time you "invested" waiting in line or for the tickets the sob "stole" from you.
Our legal system is founded (rightly so, I think) on two concepts - ownership of property, and the contract. In-game exploits don't change either your contract status or your property ownership. If you get screwed repeatedly you might be able to go after the game company for failure to deliver the gaming environment you paid for, but that's it.
is accepted by 99 percent of the economics profession as the right way to talk about the importance of goods and services. It holds that items have value to the extent that individuals, interacting in markets, give them value. It is the answer to the diamond-water paradox: diamonds are useless and expensive, water is precious and cheap. Because value comes from the people, not the objects, diamonds really are more valuable than water. Therefore, Shadowbane assets have real value. It's not just a game. I recommend the Lastowka and Hunter paper. For the specific economic numbers, search 'castronova' at www.ssrn.com. Cheers, Edward Castronova
I own "shares" in a timeshare-like service (WorldMark the Club). I paid $6000 for enough shares to cover one really nice, week-long vacation every year, plus we have the advantage of staying at any club on short notice if we use a thing called "Bonus Time", at an extremely reasonable per-night rate. I also pay another $80 or so every quearter to as my share for them to maintain the facilities we enjoy.
Now, do I own anything? Well, I own shares in Worldmark. They aren't stock shares, but I can sell them, trade them, give them away, or default on them and not be able to use the benefits they convey if I fail to pay my quarterly fees. Assuredly, this is an asset. When we pay our taxes, we list the interest as interest on our second home.
Now, I don't have anything I can point to and say "I own that", except in the larger sense like I can point to a government building and say "I own that". I own a slice of time, at a location of my choosing.
If Worldmark went out of business, I could probably lose the benefits of membership as their assets are raffled off. I vote for management that I hope will not bring this to pass.
How is this so different from The Sims online, DAoC, Everquest, or Ultima Online? Really, the only difference is that I have some voting control over this service, where I have none in those games. Otherwise, yeah, the rug can be pulled out from under you at any time, but real life is like that too. I pay Worldmark so that I can spend time at the facilities I partly-own, and I pay other companies to maintain my characters in virtual worlds. I think eventually some smart company willwise up to this scenario and run online gaming more like time-share condos; set up a non-profit, owner-run maintenance company (like WorldMark), and a for-profit sales company (like TrendWest, their marketer) that drives further growth of the service through new sales. That could be both extremely profitable, and safely stable for the gamers since even if the marketer goes away, the non-profit maintenance corporation doesn't.
My 2 cents.
Matthew P. Barnson
I learn what I think when I read what I write
That's probably true for the Sims or whatever from the developers perspective but not from the gamers themselves.
p
There is a company called Mindark that made a game called Project Entropia in which game items have real dollar value. There is even currency in the game which is something like 10 PED = 1 US Dollar. They don't charge for the client or bandwidth, they are hoping that players will pay real money to buy the better equipment in the game.
http://www.project-entropia.com/default.as
I don't know if this will be successful or not but this does raise many questions on ownership of virtual items since the company designed the game this way. If I bought a set of weapons in the game do I actually own them or in reality does the company still own them?
The premise that investing time and effort into something, even virtual, makes it valuable?? seems ridiculous to me when the end result of such efforts is (realistically) changes in 0's to 1's and vice versa on a remote computer system. It seems like the author is taking the psychological effect of these games as having some sort of value. Who should really care if someone becomes emotionally invested in what really isn't more than a series of pixels on a screen.
As a quick counter-example, what about broadcast television? It has an enormous value solely due to the labor spent on producing it, and all it is is a series of 1's and 0's flashing by on a screen.
The investment of time is the ultimate way to add value. Even when you're working on widgets and selling them, it's reasonable from an economic point of view to base value on the amount of time invested. Whether it was time spent gathering raw materials, shaping them, packaging them or shipping them, it's all about the human effort and time required to accomplish the task.
Next, you get into the concept of utility. You invest time in a product and create a certain amount of value. The value to you is worth at least as much as the utility of the time you could have spent doing something else. You set your price accordingly to include a little profit. Now, someone else comes up and has a certain utility value for your widget which is equal to the value of their time that would be spent creating that widget themselves. If their utility is greater than the price you've set, they buy your widget. They gain because they've gotten more utility for a lower price, and you gain because you've gotten a bigger price than the utility of the time you spent producing.
Even though it looks zero-sum, it's actually a win-win.
This also works when playing poker, it's just that there are no price tags on the hands (ie. hidden information).
Not A Sig
Even the value of gold fluctuates. I find it interesting that services like e-gold have "alchemy" clauses in their user agreements:
I would tend to agree with your assertion, that unless users are specifically denied the right to transfer ownership of their virtual property, then why not? But that doesn't address the reality that the virtual objects exist at the whim of the operator of the virtual world.
This is not like a governmental entity that merely interjects itself between the affairs of an already existing economy. The operator of the virtual world *is* the creator of it, and is able to control or alter the value, nay the existence even, of anything within. How can users claim the right to prevent him/her from doing so unless the terms of the virtual world are pre-arranged and the rights of property are granted by the operator?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Surely a lot of the "affect of VR actions in RL" debate is down to the flesh and blood person receving these responses...
As a regular IRCer I belong to several "communities" populated by people from all walks of life.. Some with mental "problems".. others without.. Someone abusing me in IRC blows over me like an ill wind leaving little but a generally pissy feeling.. others i know have been driven to distress by words.
Should any punishment be based on this distress? (ie The affect the VR actions have on RL) or on the action itself. Morphed into an RL situation... is the violent assault of a frail old lady necessarily worse than a like assault on a 23 year old quaterback?
bah!*@%!
I used to scam people in UO all the time... Scams that involved exploits were generally bannable, however "social engineering" scams were legal(except for a about a year... but they never caught me =). They only worked on idiots and 11 year olds who's mommy just bought them it off ebay, but those types of people were plentiful.
It's quite funny to sell somebody gold on ebay, and then two days later scam it from him. What's more funny is that sometimes they buy it from you again.
The value of an item is exactly what someone is willing to pay for it. If I produce something that turns out to be crap (in the opinion of potential buyers), it has a low value regardless of how much time I spent working on it.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Speaking of online game cheats, I used to have a foolproof strategy: create multiple users. I had quite a few accounts on a local BBS that I would use to play "Bordello". I would use the extra accounts to do my dirty work, attacking other players and such. All of the profits from the spare accounts were transferred to my main character. I'm sure it made the game less fun, and I'm sure other people did it, but you almost had to in order to get anywhere.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
In additon to being overly verbose, and I think deliberatly difficult to read, you can't rape someone online. Rape is a legal definition and that definiton is engaging in sexual intercourse with another person by forcible compulsion. You just can't do that online, you can't have sex online.
However, since some people argue that laws need to be adapted to cyberspace the real issue becomes the nature of rape and the critical factor being the lack of consent. A virtual world is something you can shut off at any time. If I am pissed at a game, I can simply kill its process and that is that. Or, supposing the game was overly agressive and took over my system, just unpower the computer. Instantly it is done. This isn't the Matrix, no jacking out is required. If the simulation bothers you, terminate it on the spot. It is the same as watching a distrubing movie or reading a distrubing book. Noone is forcing you to do it, and you can stop whenever you like.
So something like this voodoo doll abuse is a matter for the laws of the virtual world. If a person doesnt' like it, they need to petition the powers that be to stop it. If the powers that be agree it should be stopped, it will be. All online games I've ever played, and espically all commercial ones are dictatiorships. However if they decide it is acceptable behaviour in their universe, and you do not agree with it, simply leave their universe. You never need to deal with it again, just terminate your session and be done with it.
It is like when I played Everquest, I got in a situation repeatedly that was making me rather angry. The powers that be wouldn't do anything to help me. Well, the point of games is to have fun, and I am not having fun when I'm angry, so I logged off, terminated my account, and deleted the program. Done. I never had to put up with it any more. They can't force the game on me. I went about my bussiness and found other games to occupy my time.
The problem is that people become too attached to games and aren't willing to break it off. Well that is their problem, not that of the game provider. You want to play the game? Fine, you play in their world by their rules. Don't like their rules? Don't play.
Disclaimer: I've only read the abstract and the older article on Shadowbane.
I want to point out that there is a very important distinction between the real world and the virtual ones. The basic rules and assumptions differ. If you enter the virtual world, you abandon some of your rights. For example, in many online games you can be murdered or robbed by humans or AI agents. This means that you should not have any reasonable expectations of personal safety (or safety of your property) in the virtual world.
Hence, unless you play a simulation of Legalotopia, you accept the possibility of being killed/robbed/raped/whatever in the virtual world. There might be some law enforcement inside the game, like cops, guards, gods, GMs, etc., but you should not expect outside protection of your life, property or reputation. Players are not responsible in reality for what they do inside a virtual world.
Of course, if you hack a server, cheat, steal a password, break the agreement with the game company, etc., you can be held responsible for these action. But the punishment (if any) must not be related to the in-game results of your actions.
I don't necessarily like being categorical, but this is the only possible and rational way to resolve these problems. Anything else is (at this stage) simply nonsense.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
It's nutmeg- just saving everyone else from having to download the whole thing just to find out.
graspee
Mickey Mouse (TM Disney) is a fictional character (trademarked), and the renditions are copyrighted. The idea of a cartoon mouse is not subject to copyright, patent of trademark. So, while you're right (IMHO, IANAL) about virtual characters (your particular design is yours), you're playing fast and loose with the legal theory.
What you patent is a method, not an idea. Ideas are not patentable. That is a key component of patent law. Similarly with copyright and trademark law. It's a very important distinction that goes to the heart of the reason these laws were established, to encourage the dissemination of both ideas and means. The idea is free from the 'getgo', and the implementation/method/rendition will become free eventually.
See also Stallman, The Definition of Free Software, which has an interesting parallelism to this!. In my own career, originally software was unpatentable, because it was composed of algorithms, which are mathematical constructs, which are proprerties of the universe that are discovered, not invented.
Also, though I don't have numbers at hand, I believe that the vast majority of patents are owned by companies - one or more actual people have to the inventors, but in most cases the patents are immediately signed over to their employers pursuant to employment agreements. After that, many are sold or transferred.
Finally, I would think that your ownership depends strongly on the contract you agreed to when you joined the game. If the game contract says the game host (or whomever) retains all rights, you're out of luck. Again, IANAL...
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Just try to avoid crawling into your basement and shunning human contact for days at a time.
I'll let you know how it goes when I get back to college next semester.
If I wallhacked my way into being #1 on your CS server stats, would it have value?