Slashdot Mirror
Rights To Virtual Property In Games?
With the rise of MMOs and other persistent environments over the last decade, the trafficking of virtual game property has become a multi-billion dollar industry. Regardless of whether the buying and trading goes on with the blessing of the content provider (or, in many cases, the owner of the account in question), the question of players' rights to virtual goods is coming to the forefront. The Escapist Magazine takes a look at how some companies are structuring their EULA in this regard, and what some countries, such as China, are doing to handle the issue.
"... the differences between China and the West in this case have more to do with scale than cultural norms. So many people play online games in Asia — and play them so intensely — that social problems in meatspace society inevitably emerge in virtual worlds as well. ... The general consensus, therefore, is that paradigm shifts like the ones that have already occurred in Asia will inevitably come to the West, and with them, the need for legislative scaffolding that keeps us all from killing each other."
Indeed. However those are a representation of assets, not your actual assets. Granted the "score keeping" is done digitally, but it is directly related to your estate. The goods are not data.
This is not a viral sig. Copy it at your peril.
Exactly, with fiat currency, the numbers in the bank only mean something because enough people say so.
Inside the crown of one of the kingdoms in the Society for Creative Anachronism (http://www.sca.org/)is the inscription "You rule because they believe".
Yes, from political power to the shoes on our feet, it's a matter of agreement. Now, the value and ownership of virtual items, is a facinating phenomenon.
Consider that people who play in virtual realities, online, in the SCA, in tabletop RPGs, or otherwise, do play within a set of rules. The players know what everyone owns, and have ideas as to the value of said items, irregardless of whether any meatspace value in currency is assigned to them.
If my Paladin has a +5 longsword, he'd better still have it the next day, save if the party's Rougue stole it, fair and square, within the rules of the game. I certainly place value on that longsword, as something useful to me in-game, and it does effect me personally in some manner, which is not described within the game. The game may describe how my character feels about the +5 longsword, but not me.
Selling the item for meatspace currency, is simply a translation of that understanding, into a market-value. I feel an emotional attachment to the sword; others share a similar attachment. This attachment occurs in RL, and is not in-game. It is appropriate that RL currency be assigned to an RL emotion.
--
Elvish grove for sale.