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."
That is an incredibly over-simplified analysis of the situation. The fact is that the basic premise of property ownership rights (which are supposed endowed by the Creator according to American legal thought, or, in other words, inalienable) is that you are entitled to that which you acquire or create throw your own effort ("sweat of the brow," or, in this case, the mouse finger.) Some would argue that you are merely manipulating 1's and 0's on the server, which the game company clearly owns or pays for. However, it seems equally clear that you are responsible for the unique configuration of 1's and 0's which you arranged through your gameplay. You can no more "disclaim" your right to own property than you can "disclaim" your right to be alive. Of course the EULA is an all-encompasing document, since it's akin to the corporation's opening position on the issue - their opening position in any kind of legal negotiation. They will, of course, take the strongest position possible. This does not mean that it is air-tight.
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.
A friend of mine had played EQ for several years, when his account got hacked. He found out that it was a real-life "friend" who did it, and he tracked him down and beat his ass, the way it should be. I know if I ever got a bug up my ass and blew $500 on virtual equipment and got scammed, I'd be making a road trip to beat some dweebs down
i use linux and windows oh god how can i have an opinion
Don't assume your local judge has never heard of MMORPGs. Why do you think they have laptops on the bench? Answer: Most trials are really boring.
I wonder why the MMO's don't spin off a virtual items divison, or at least an escrow. If the MMO was in charge of selling items revoked payments could have the affected items nullified. They could take the same % as paypal, and make a decent profit since they have most of the infastructure already. Users who wish to take part end up with a far more secure system.
Getting your ass kicked by some guy who just paid for a level whatever kickass barbarian may suck. But getting your ass kicked by someone who just didn't pay for a level whatever kickass barbarian sucks even more.
paul reinheimer
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, and, due to the fact that they do not actually exist, they serve no other function than be a drain on the economy. Without any physical form or function, a virtual object--some thing purely imaginary--cannot be made useful for directly (ie in a non-social way) aiding means and satisfying ends that might result in real human productivity and sustenance.
It is easy to get caught up in materialism, and, while anyone can admit the evils of materialism while not necessarily being inclined to forgo it, one can see clearly that whatever functional benefits that materialism might also provide are completely removed when the attitude is applied towards an object that is inherently immaterial.
In the case of games (which this post mainly refers to), we can agree that games serve no purpose other than to entertain us. Entertainment is only good for the moment; a game is entertaining while you are playing it, and it is therefore counterintuitive to place value on objects "held" in the game that would lose value outside of play (unless you are experiencing loss of sanity). While one might argue that the objects might enhance gameplay and pleasure derived from it, this can only be carried so far; being an experienced gamer myself, it is a long-proven fact that having more goodies in the game does not truly make it more fun to play. If these objects give the player a competetitive edge, they even decrease the value of gameplay (unless one is willing to derive pleasure solely from dominating social interaction--ie "owning" other people).
In summary, "so what"? You wasted time and money engaging in an activity designed to motivate others to waste more of their time and money in order to show you up in a market-stimulated contest to waste more time and money than anyone else (and therefore be the king of wasting time and money). Wasting on what? Oh--nothing. But it was fun, wasn't it? Wasn't it?
No, this behavior doesn't need to be insured, rewarded, or compensated in any way by the state. Am I saying that it's wrong or counterproductive? Not necessarily--I would not be so quick to deny that there are no possible real benefits, but in the end the affair is so trifling that it does not warrant the expenditure of more resources in order to be actively preserved by authoritative social institutions (ie the government). That would be counterproductive.
The best policy a government can adopt is no policy; the whole issue needs to be ignored. It is no place for the government to manage this sort of thing (and, being a bit of a leftist, I have a more liberal opinion on what government ought to manage). Whoever provides the virtual world makes the laws in it, and the management of virtual objects falls under their jurisdiction. If you get screwed, so be it--go cry. Just don't ask for society to make any adjustments on your behalf because you lost what meager virtual reward you got from expending resources engaging in virtual activity in a virtual world.
Yes, I know what it's like to lose something that I devoted a lot of time and effort to. It hurts a lot, but we have to be more discerning about what we devote ourselves to.
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.