Slashdot Mirror
Bartle Addresses Pitfalls Of Virtual Property
Thanks to GameSpot for its 'Spot On' feature discussing some of the problems inherent in today's MMORPG property-owning systems. It references a paper [PDF link] written by original MUD co-creator Richard Bartle, which "addresses some of the trickier, if not darker, sides of virtual-property ownership." The basic premise of the argument is that "increase in commodification, gamers and the industry... are fast moving toward a breaking point that will likely involve the real-world legal system to sort out the conflicts", citing recent Chinese lawsuits about the loss of virtual items. Bartle concludes, gloomily: "Professors at Yale and Harvard looking into cyber-law, as they call it, are prepared. Unfortunately, they aren't the people who will be approached. The people who will be approached will be the judge... someplace that's never heard of virtual worlds. Working with the unknown, while perhaps exciting for those who enjoy gambling, is nevertheless on the whole bad for business."
Joe Schmoe works at Pizza Hut, he makes pizzas. Joe Schmoe does not own the pizzas he makes, Pizza Hut does, until someone pays for it, transfering ownership.
If you expend your own efforts and make something with SOMEONE ELSES PROPERTY then the end product does not magically become yours.
If you "make" something in an online world out of "online world property" (read: a bunch of 1's and 0's on the server the company owns) Then you don't own shit unless the company transfers ownership to you.
You can no more "disclaim" your right to own property than you can "disclaim" your right to be alive
There is precidence to signing away your rights to intellectual property that you create.
When you work for a company in an engineering/scientist capacity, you typically sign paperwork stating that all inventions, ideas, derived from your work is the property of the company. Also, work for hire situations typically have you sign away rights to the property before you have created it.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
The significance that virtual objects hold are purely social...
;-) ) but I've never traded for cash anything but the ones and zeroes drawn by my mouse/clicked by my fingers either. Just felt like participating in a good innocent argument here, after a couple of Gunesses! ;-)
One can make the same argument about art, fancy clothing and diamonds, to name a few. Taken to the limit, everything which can not be bartered for the consumable necessities is "purely social".
Paul B.
P.S. No, I've never played MMORPGs (maybe I should start?
I think I have to disagree here. It seems that the ownership has to remain with the company in the case of MMO's. They make this clear in their EULA's.
If the user 'owns' the item, that means the company would be liable for the 'cost' thereof if the item were lost due to a system crash, terrorist attack, whatever. Granted they should have backups of everything, but they should not legally be required to make backups.
If it comes to a legal battle, then the game should never officially go out of beta. Clearly, if I were a 'paying tester' (and don't tell me people wouldn't be willing to pay to be a beta tester...see World of Warcraft), the company could do a system reset (oops! Everyone's back at level one!). Response: "Sorry people, we're still in the testing phase you know." Might lose a lot of players that way, but at least they won't be sued if someone loses their Hackmaster +12 which EBay bidders had decided was worth US$200.
As for the fact that you are paying to play rather than the company paying you, that's exactly the point. You are paying to 'PLAY', not to earn a living. If you decide to try to earn a living, that's your call and your risk. In the meantime, you are paying the company for the privilege to PLAY the game, and keep your stuff around so you can continue to play in the future, but they don't keep it around because they are obligated to by law. They keep it around because otherwise they would quickly lose their player base.
Now, for the real discussion, consider 'Second Life', where their whole system is built around the agreement that the users DO own what they create. Now, there's potential for legal disaster!
"The people who will be approached will be the judge... someplace that's never heard of virtual worlds." Even if the judge doesn't know much about virtual worlds. There are these people called ...um, lawyers who present the case. They explain their arguments and present evidence. Yeah, judges don't generally issue opinions based on whim anymore.