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."
maintaining the servers, paying for bandwidth... Items are digital, a construct. IMHO its silly to quibble about who owns a series of bytes.
This is not a viral sig. Copy it at your peril.
Hell no. Thats like claiming as a Slashdot subscriber that you "own" your comments, and Slashdot is liable if they delete them.
You pay your monthly fee to be allowed to play with their toys in their sandbox. They have some rules to make it fun, including letting the toy solider you play with "own" toy swords.
Still their toys.
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
Your bank account it a series of bytes.
Tell that to the MAFIAA
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
ah yes, let us talk about proprietary code. Because clearly, it is just as cut and dried as you make it.
It's like that old story about someone killing someone else in the "real world" [patent pending] over a dispute about a magic sword or something in an MMO. Insane.
After all folks, it's just a game.
If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
Furthering on from my rushed comment earlier:
I used to pay a monthly fee to a chess club I was a member of.
I was never under the delusion that the pieces were "mine".
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
Careful there...you're about to make a non-car analogy about intrinsic value of said property and it's redeemable worth in corporeal markets. Aren't you?
Even if your imaginary property is your livelihood, we don't believe in it.
THL phish sticks
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.
A report out of China tells the story of a 41-year-old man who stabbed an acquaintance who stole his "Dragon Saber" in the MMO Legend of Mir III and sold it for approximately $1,000. Initially, the injured individual sought the assistance of the police, but was told that the theft was not a crime, since virtual property is not covered as a protectable asset. Thereafter, the individual attacked the alleged thief at his residence.
Ha Ha! What the lawmakers really need to do is make meatspace vigilante justice legal! It would sure cut down on 10 year old punk kids raiding that wimpy fort with the unarmed priest(who happens to be a karate master in real life)!
If you play games, you may not have a problem. If you have no job but play games for 4 hours a day, you have a problem. If you pay more than 50-60 bucks at a time for anything to do with gaming, you're just an idiot.
Ownership of online content of this is not clear-cut, like ownership of your chair or computer might be. You don't really own your character; the game company does--your character is subject to the alterations and whims of the company as needed, and access is even based upon whether they let you or not. They can kick you off if you are selling gold, selling your account, being a jerk, or because they simply don't like you.
Some of you may have an entitlement complex going on--"But it's mine! I am paying for it!" No, you are paying to RENT it, to have access based on their terms. Remember, they're the one making the game, without the company you couldn't have a game in the first place.
I think user agreement on MMOs are particularly important. If you don't like the terms of ownership or the rules, then don't play. They make no real guarantees. They make no guarantees that the in-game economy will remain just as stable, that they won't nerf rogues in a future patch, or that your character won't receive a huge revamp for balance.
Too often, I think, consumers fist-pound over their rights when they are the ones who signed the contract conceding the terms in the first place.
Can you imagine people suing Blizzard for devaluing their online property because Blizzard nerfed a certain set piece, or introduced better items?
People seriously want to bring the government into this? If you don't like the terms, don't play. You aren't owed. You do not have a special right; you agreed to the transaction upon signing up. You pay to play a game, and nothing beyond that unless you agree otherwise.
For the games companies, this one is a nightmare. Think about some of the points that need addressing: (And I admit I have not RTFA)
If you own the virtual items, things like a rollback causes you loss. You can demand they be returned.
If you own an item, and the developers decide that it is too powerful, and they nerf it. Do you need to be compensated? Should you be?
If you can buy and sell items ingame legally as your own items you are actually selling something that is beyond your control. You are selling data, but in reality you are selling a virtual item - really messy around IP with that from a legal aspect.
If you own the goods in your characters inventory what happens when you find out that the game is really old, no-one plays it and it's going to be scrapped? Do they fax you a printout?
If it's items you own, what about your character itself? What about ingame houses and real estate?
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Since there is significantly less currency existing than there is money represented in bank computers by series of bytes, what are those goods and actual assets exactly?
Even though I've created a purely browser based online game (Game! - The Witty Online RPG), I'm on the fence on this matter.
On one hand, many people put a lot of real life time into earning said virtual property, and in many cases it clearly holds actual monetary value in the real world.
On the other hand, should I be liable if I accidentally delete a player's data in Game!? I don't think that's realistic, especially when you keep in mind that Game! is completely free of cost. So does that mean they really own the things they've earned, or no? I'm not sure.
Do I own this Slashdot comment? Slashdot says I do, and they don't claim any responsibility for it, but what happens if Slashdot deletes it on me? I've lost something I own, and there's nothing I can do about it. That doesn't seem right.
Ultimately, I think we'll see that virtual property is legally blessed to have real life monetary value, in much the same way that software is.
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
Ownership is less clear-cut than you are making it, because virtual worlds introduce the idea of virtual labor. In some ways, it is as if you were being paid in factory scrip. Virtual worlds have introduced a new category of activity: play-labor, which acts a lot like regular labor, even though it occurs in the context of leisure. That's why there's markets for virtual-world currency.
China has generally decided that you have first dibs on the rights of the product of your labor, even if its virtual labor in a virtual world. There are limits to the rights you can give up even in a contractual setting: you can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't legally work for less than minimum wage. Blizzard wants the Chinese markets, so they, too, have to agree to the terms to "play" there.
For one thing, you aren't paying for the items, you're paying to play the game and to pay the company's bills, and hopefully they will use some of the left over profits to make new content for you to play, so you will keep subscribed and pay them more money.
Technically, your items are nothing more than records in a database, owned by the company. All MMORPG companies likely can legally do whatever they want with this "property", from giving their employee game accounts every "super-rare" item for free, and lots of money for nothing, to messing with random players' items and stats to deleting random accounts to the whole database. Of course these would all upset players, leading to less money income as players leave. It's all about the money, so for now they will protect your virtual goods for you because it's in their best interest... but they're not really yours.
At least, that answers your question of who else could own them. I suppose it's still a matter of perspective, and EULAs.
However can you really "own" something that has no context whatsoever outside of that company's property (the game servers)? The database records in question would just be a bunch of strings and integers. Useless to you on their own without the game giving them context and meaning.
Other examples that come to mind... I can say I own the files on my computer because I own the computer, plus they still are useful when removed from my computer to other computers (note what this says about DRM). I can say that documents I create with Google Docs I own, because although I don't own the servers I created them on, it's trivial for me to print them out or download them in formats I can use locally.
It would sure cut down on 10 year old punk kids raiding that wimpy fort with the unarmed priest(who happens to be a karate master in real life)!
Watching Kung-Fu films does not make you a Karate Master in real-life. But your priest is wimpy. Bitter and wimpy.
Exactly, with fiat currency, the numbers in the bank only mean something because enough people say so. Just as the bytes in a game server represent an asset because the people playing the game say so.
Property - the mapping of resources to individuals, and more recently, to organizations and groups - is just a story: a virtual mapping that most everyone is told and most everyone agrees to. It is an extremely useful story we've come up with that has roots in both biological nature (territory, mating, food gathering) and in legal and social precedent (commerce, deeds, titles, etc). . . and to date there are no other means of organizing scarce resources that reduce conflict more effectively than property. Property makes clear which person or group has control over a thing and most everyone agrees with the story. Modern societies have also extended the concept of property to information in a few ways, and those have worked pretty well too: those IP protections motivate and reward creative expression.
However, when it comes to organizations and companies creating information things that are simulations of physical things, (just database rows existing in virtual environments) - it is not so clear that the benefits of the property story outweigh the costs. Simply put, within virtual worlds, the reason to also have the property story on virtual items is usually to artificially maintain scarcity - so some virtual items have more value to the people who want them, and to make the virtual world have characteristics like the physical world, and not because the virtual "items" are in any real sense scarce.
This disconnect is where the conflict will truly emerge. Even people who understand why we need property in the real world may still not accept or acknowledge or follow the ideas of property regarding virtual items if there is no compelling reason to need the property mapping/story to allocate scarce resources or to motivate and reward creative expression.
Can you imagine people suing Blizzard for devaluing their online property because Blizzard nerfed a certain set piece, or introduced better items?
I can and obviously you have never browsed the online WoW forums. There were plenty of kids who were pissed off when Blizzard devalued the level 60 epic mount training. I'm sure there will be plenty more when they devalue the level 70 epic flying mount training after WotLK has been out for awhile.[1]
Not to mention the fact that all the folks who are now strutting around in top tier level 70 purples will have their entire wardrobe made obsolete in a couple of weeks.
Of course, if you take the constant deluge of whining on the online forum as anything like a group consensus, you're missing the point.
There has to be some middle ground here. The lock in to WoW is "I've invested all this time to get the stuff I've gotten, might as well keep playing ...". They have to provide at least the illusion that a player's stuff is his or hers.
[1] It's a pity they cannot have a realistic achievement associated with that. My first level 70 character had to borrow gold for each of successive higher levels of riding training (all paid back, with interest). My second level 70 did not and I'm kind of proud of that. Of course, by the time I first got to level 60, the riding training cost had already been nerfed ...
I think most MMO companies have a EULA stating that the items in the game are owned by the company, however, most people who "sell" those items don't really sell them at all. The sellers disclaimer mostly states that the customer is simply paying for a service. The customer is paying them for the time it took to obtain that item, and they're simply transferring the item to the customer's account.
The down side to owning stuff is the TAX part and under IRS rules you may still have to pay even if you just keep it in game.
Also that will more load on the game back end to log all that stuff as well as having a roll back log.
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".
The medium is a bit retro perhaps, but the message is the same. Money rules because we believe in the accounts. Or at least that ATM dispenses stuff that people believe in, and will probably continue to do so until 1 loaf of bread = 1 wheelbarrow of dollars.
My WoW bank and characters are very real to me for several hours most days.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
There are limits to the rights you can give up even in a contractual setting: you can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't legally work for less than minimum wage.
You don't get out much, do you? That's maybe how it works in rich countries, but not in the rest of the world.
(Using an example I have plenty of experience with ...)
In the Philippines it is the norm to pay (as a legal bribe) your first two months salary for the privilege of getting an overseas job. It is also the norm that the paycheck sticks to the fingers of the agency involved on the way through, so what is a minimum (or subminimum) wage in the target country, turns out to be much less for the poor sap doing the work. Since it's still better than living with nothing, people line up for the "opportunity".
Since the article mentions China, it ought to be noted that most of the people of China are even poorer than in the Philippines.
If it came down to, do you let your children (or younger brothers, sisters, parents) starve or sell yourself into slavery if you can ensure their existence I know which one I would choose. Sadly, that is the choice many people are offered. Even today.
The reason for the prohibition on sales of in-game assets is not entirely to keep the gold spammers out (although I find that laudable personally) but to keep the governmental authorities from closely examining the financial transactions that go on in a game. If you buy in-game gold with real-world dollars -- and subsequently sell items you acquire with that in-game gold for real-world valuta, there is a compelling argument for examining such transactions as to whether or not they are a mechanism for laundering money. The EULA prohibitions are to keep any such enquiries from the tax and legal authorities off the game hosting company's back.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Valid points however "other persistent environments" is mentioned. Like Second Life for example were the issue isn't so simple.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Then I hope you don't mind when your virtual "property" becomes a taxable asset.
You mad
Yeah, whenever someone complains about losing an account because they were banned for hacking, and how they should sue the company for the money they lost. I always have to ask them if they plan on declaring all the gold they earned(in terms of real money) on their taxes.
You mad
The gamemaker makes the rules. They could...
1. Have the game admins deal with theft such as that.
2. Permit stealing in the games, within the boundary of the game. No hacking of other people's accounts allowed.
It takes place over communication lines, which are federally regulated, and therefore you'd be taxed for it.
However.. They could only tax you if it's data traveled over the net. If you threw it into storage and never even looked at the storage box you put it in, you could not be taxed for it during that time.
Defective Logic
"The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way."
CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
Actually, I have browsed the WoW forums; I used to play the game. People whined constantly there but no one has actually sued--the statement I made was actually based on the whining and all the tears I saw there.
Anyway, no, there is no middle ground, at least not legally, and probably shouldn't be. You choose to play in the first place. It's a game.
It's not quite that simple. When you join a chess club you get access to the pieces but they are not yours to take away, but when you join a pottery club you get access to clay and it *is* yours to take away after you're done with it. Granted, you can also make original creations out of chess pieces but you're not supposed to, at least in any chess club I know of. Coming back to virtual realities, if a game provides the digital equivalent of clay which players can utilize to implement their own creative works, then arguably they should own whatever rights there are to those works. Even games that don't directly support creative activities can be used to produce truly original new content like machinima.
I knew the left-wing philosophy would pop in here.
Ownership is less clear-cut than you are making it, because virtual worlds introduce the idea of virtual labor. In some ways, it is as if you were being paid in factory scrip. Virtual worlds have introduced a new category of activity: play-labor, which acts a lot like regular labor, even though it occurs in the context of leisure. That's why there's markets for virtual-world currency.
China has generally decided that you have first dibs on the rights of the product of your labor, even if its virtual labor in a virtual world. ...So? Doesn't mean it makes sense, or that it's right. Never thought I'd see "argumentum ad China" but here it is.
There are limits to the rights you can give up even in a contractual setting: you can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't legally work for less than minimum wage. Blizzard wants the Chinese markets, so they, too, have to agree to the terms to "play" there.
Again, so? Doesn't make it right; doesn't mean it makes sense. You state simple facts but that's beside the greater point of whether the Chinese government should actually do that. China also forces, I believe, play time restrictions on these games, is that right, are you going to stand up for that ridiculous imposition too?
I find this talk of "labor" and such silly in an online game. Just as with what job you get, so too do you choose what games to play based on your own benefit. Your concern isn't with the success of the company you play for just like their concern isn't immediately or necessarily your fun, but for their own profit--the two, however, are linked, obviously.
Even doing away with the simple economical self-interest labor is based on.... IT'S A FRIGGIN' GAME! A game that would not exist had Blizzard not decided to make it and run it under their rules!
What next? Are people going to be advocating communism in MMOs next as well? We going to have MMO welfare where Blizzard will be forced to give a monthly stipend of gold to MMO players somehow physically (or mentally) incapable of making as much gold as other players...?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that these overseas jobs would not employ there if they couldn't get away with that practice. I assume you'd be OK with the locals starving instead, because at least there would be no "unfair" employment practices in play. Am I correct?
While effort is a renewable resource. A given effort over time can't be reclaimed for another purpose. e.g. leisure. Also effort scales poorly. e.g. Barter. And last effort can't be stored for future use. e.g. Like in a bank. And since the majority want to enjoy the advantages being a society brings. Money (however it's backed) is the best representation we have for overcoming these disadvantages. Money rules because it's in everyone's best interest to preserve their effort for their use.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
You can post without paying. The subscription is for other things
This is just like a golf membership. The main difference is that as part of that membership, the golf-club supplies the clubs you can use. In other words, you don't *own* the clubs. But you can still beat the crap out of another golfer to get their borrowed clubs. If you actually owned the clubs, doing that might be considered a felony or something...
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
In WoW, Apolyon, the Soul-Render is Blizzard's IP, and they let you use it if your raid kills the big boss dude. Perhaps it's like being able use the coolest chess set if you're the best in the club.
If a player creates something cool in Second Life, it would be their IP.
I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
2. Permit stealing in the games, within the boundary of the game. No hacking of other people's accounts allowed.
I would rather eat my own eyes than have to read this game's forums.
I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
Yes we have this confusion, don't we? One thing to keep in mind is that it takes "effort" to acquire/create property. That applies not only to physical property but virtual as well. The scarcity comes from the fact that effort is a scarce resource. The fact that others can make infinite copies of said property doesn't make the effort any less spent.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
"It" is your property? What do you mean by it? Do you mean a complex of rights defined by the game developers that you agreed to via EULA?
Is "it" an emotional thing you feel that deserves governmental protection (i.e., protection financed by tax dollars)?
What is "property" in your scheme? A bit arrangement on someone else's computer? Do you have rights in their computer? From what do your rights derive?
To address this question you need to address (a) your society's conception of property; and (b) your own conception of property. Fuzzy thinking is not helpful here.
I don't think that my tax dollars should be spent enforcing property structures in vapid computer games. If people in the games really care about such stupid shit, then they ought to create virtual legislatures, virtual police, virtual courts, etc. (i.e., virtual dispute resolution). If people want to dork about in computer games equipped with virtual police, lawyers, and judges, more power to them. Just don't use my tax dollars to police your fantasy.
I assume you'd be OK with the locals starving instead, because at least there would be no "unfair" employment practices in play. Am I correct?
Are you addressing me, or the guy I responded to? If me, you completely missed my point.
My sympathies are firmly with the locals and if ever I am in a position to do so, I will open an outsourcing shop on Mindanao, hire as many locals as I can, train them as necessary and pay them as much as is profitable. Or my sons will do so if they follow in Dad's footsteps.
Shh, don't tell anyone - I rtfa..
One level down from tfa: In November 2007, a teenager in Amsterdam was arrested for stealing Habbo Hotel furniture valued at approximately $5,500:
Ok, given that real money has changed hands, the thief should be prosecuted in real life.
It occurs to me that there's been another crime though. When people are paying thousands for virtual furniture, their weaknesses are being exploited and whoever runs the virtual world should be prosecuted. Where do I sign to get this action started?
Requiem for the American Dream
Why virtual game property is never "owned"
1. Virtual property doesn't exist: that's why it is called virtual. Saying that you own a sword in World of Warcraft is as non-sensical as saying that James Earl Jones owns the death star.
2. You never buy a "thing," and you never get a copyright. You're paying for the potential for access to copyrighted material on a server somewhere. That you have to further play a game to get access has no bearing on the fact that you were never actually transferred a copyright.
3. Game makers have structured the interaction carefully to allow themselves freedom to maintain a healthy game experience. If the value of all items within a game needed to remain fixed for sake of a stable economy, no positive balance changes would be possible and the game experience would crumble.
4. If you did "own" virtual propery, you would need to pay american dollar taxes on virtual transactions. If you happened to fight and slave and earn an Amani Warbear, for example, you'd be owe an additional 45 dollars in capital gains taxes.
The ______ Agenda
All owner rights start and end when vgremove command is introduced into the story.
You don't really own your character; the game company does--your character is subject to the alterations and whims of the company as needed, and access is even based upon whether they let you or not. They can kick you off if you are selling gold, selling your account, being a jerk, or because they simply don't like you.
Very true. At least assuming that's what the terms and conditions say. But it's really not that simple. Real people don't base concepts such as ownership on abstruse legal documents. It's a factor, but it actually comes down to a more abstract set of social conventions. My email address belongs to yahoo. Yet I just called it "my email address". My car actually belongs to a finance company. If someone stole it I'd treat it as theft of my own property, as would most other people (possibly even the finance company). Many people "own" a house that strictly speaking belongs to a bank.
Online users have a similar claim to some form of ownership. They have put considerable effort into creating their character and a lot of work improving his stats and acquiring valuable items. Say what you want about the legal rights. People are going to be understandably pissed off if all that work goes to waste, and pointing at the T&C's isn't going to make it seem much less unfair.
Well, how about a virtual right to your virtual property in the virtual world of your choice?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
There were plenty of kids who were pissed off when Blizzard devalued the level 60 epic mount training. I'm sure there will be plenty more when they devalue the level 70 epic flying mount training after WotLK has been out for awhile.[1]
...". They have to provide at least the illusion that a player's stuff is his or hers.
that's unfortunate but there's not really a strong grounds for complaint. It's like the people who buy an iPod the day before a price drop.
There has to be some middle ground here. The lock in to WoW is "I've invested all this time to get the stuff I've gotten, might as well keep playing
Quite true. Of course, if you let people think they own something then it shgouldn;t come as a surprise if they think they own it.
Ancient Anguish (anguish.org) has had this for 14 years.
Lately, all of the bitching related to theft has been that theft has been nerfed TOO MUCH, even by people who don't play rogues.
Actually, sadly enough, I can easily imagine that. One constant in my MUD days was that there'd _always_ be at least one idiot threatening to sue over some imaginary rights that he either made up or grossly misunderstood. We even had a stereotype of the "my dad is a lawyer and I'm gonna sue you" kid.
Favourite imaginary or mis-understood rights to sue over were:
- First amendment. If he can't shout insults and obscenities at everyone, you're censoring his free speech, ya know. He'll take you all the way to the ninth circle over it. That he doesn't even understand that it's a private server, and freedom of the press actually applies to whoever _owns_ the press (or the forum, as a digital age equivalent), seems to be the norm.
- freedom to act like a fucktard. If you don't let him be a griefer, you're
A) making role-play impossible at all (and here I was thinking there were a gazillion roles to play that don't involve screaming "I FUK UR MOM, NOOB! LEARN TO PLAY TEH GAME!" as you bury their equipment), and apparently role-playing an out-of-character fucktard is a basic human right.
B) some form of slavery. Why, having to play nice or abide by your common courtesy rules while on your property, is nothing short of a nazi dictatorship and denying him his basic dignity as a human.
The fact that nobody's forcing him to be there, if he doesn't like the rules, or that being on someone's private property is a privilege not a right, are beyond his comprehension skills.
- property rights. If his treasured Sword Of Ganking +5 got broken for lack of repairs, or worse yet _nerfed_, why, you messed with his private property. He'll see you in court for it.
Etc.
And while most didn't actually follow through, I remember offhand someone who _did_ sue Second Life because, get this: his business plan was abusing a bug in the program to buy virtual plots of land for a dollar, and resell them closer to their real value. And apparetly he thought he had some kind of basic human right to do that. And if Linden Labs banned his account for it, why, they're cutting off his money making scheme. And by Jove he has a right to make money. Heh.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
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.
Hell no. Thats like claiming as a Slashdot subscriber that you "own" your comments, and Slashdot is liable if they delete them.
You pay your monthly fee to be allowed to play with their toys in their sandbox. They have some rules to make it fun, including letting the toy solider you play with "own" toy swords.
Still their toys.
Slashdot owns the tools we use to create our comments, and at least to some degree, the space those comments inhabit. Does that mean it owns our opinions?
Taking it away from the net, ownership of a text is a major topic in contemporary Literary Criticism and Philosophy. Examples of ideas that are touted around are: If I read a Shakespeare play, and form my own images of the characters, does Shakespeare own the characters, or do I? Shakespear's dead, does he still own the play? The play is public domain, do we all own it, or is it still connected to Shakespeare, as he wrote it initially? What about the history, culture, and linguistic building blocks, that allowed Shakespeare to write? Don't those count as tools, owned by others, required for Shakespeare, to write his plays?
To move the discussion closer to Slashdot, consider the number of people who collaborate in order to put on a Shakespeare play. Someone posting a Slashdot comment, is similar to an actor in the play. The actor didn't write or direct anything, but does bring something of himself to it, which nobody else can do. In my opinion, he owns part of the play he is in, and has contributed something to the body of work we call Shakespeare.
You wrote it, you own it. Slashdot owns the machine you used to write it, but now you kinda do too.
Furthering on from my rushed comment earlier:
I used to pay a monthly fee to a chess club I was a member of.
I was never under the delusion that the pieces were "mine".
What if someone paid you to take over one of your games in mid-play? It's an unusual consideration, but theoretically possible. It's analogous to selling a character in an MMORPG.
--
Two Rooks for a Queen? Any takers?
How is a fancy sword in WoW different from a hotel on Broadway in Monopoly?
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
"It" is your property? What do you mean by it? Do you mean a complex of rights defined by the game developers that you agreed to via EULA?
Is "it" an emotional thing you feel that deserves governmental protection (i.e., protection financed by tax dollars)?
What is "property" in your scheme? A bit arrangement on someone else's computer? Do you have rights in their computer? From what do your rights derive?
To address this question you need to address (a) your society's conception of property; and (b) your own conception of property. Fuzzy thinking is not helpful here.
It's intellectual property.
I don't think that my tax dollars should be spent enforcing property structures in vapid computer games. If people in the games really care about such stupid shit, then they ought to create virtual legislatures, virtual police, virtual courts, etc. (i.e., virtual dispute resolution). If people want to dork about in computer games equipped with virtual police, lawyers, and judges, more power to them. Just don't use my tax dollars to police your fantasy.
You do make it sound like a steady move towards Ludocracy, but it's much simpler than that.
1) Grant gamers the right to virtual property.
2) If they want to engage in any real-world transaction with that property, they pay a reasonable (we hope) fee on top of their monthly subscription. It covers the legal/taxation side of it, just like RL businesspeople have to deal with. No, the bureaucrats aren't VR, but may have appendages that occur in VR.
You don't really own your character; the game company does--your character is subject to the alterations and whims of the company as needed, and access is even based upon whether they let you or not.
Some of you may have an entitlement complex going on--"But it's mine! I am paying for it!" No, you are paying to RENT it, to have access based on their terms.
That's my beef with the current legal state of affairs. The government is already in it, supporting the companies rights; that's status quo. A player contributes to a game. The player should be entitled to vproperty. Gamers invest a great deal of time and emotion, to the games they play. That's real time, and real emotion, and should be represented by a real dollar value.
Ok, so you bought the game, don't want to accept the agreement. What do you do next? Stores love trampling on the rights of consumers here. "Oh, sorry, we don't take returns on opened computer games or software." Which equates into "Because there are some people out there who like copy the discs and return them for a refund, we believe everyone does this". So what are you left with? It depends. If the store gives you credit, you at the very least have that (although the store keeps their money regardless. However, if you can't even get that, you're stuck with a $50 coaster.
So really, its not particularly as simple as "if you don't like, don't accept the agreement". So my question remains, after not accepting the agreement, what do you do next?
In Second Life you own the ip rights to your creations. You agree to a limited use license on their servers though. Key thing is in games where you pay real cash, things can be valued a good bit. But, all that virtual wealth is non-taxable as the exchange rates from the virtual to the real fluctuate. Much like stocks, you don't pay taxes on it till you cash out and have real assets in the cash. Games like WoW and EVE where the buying of things for real world money is against the rules, the game company owns everything meaning you pay to play on the servers with the understanding you really own none of the virtual goods your characters posses. The games with the pay to buy perks are iffy, as is sony with their markets for EQ
Gamers invest a great deal of time and emotion, to the games they play. That's real time, and real emotion, and should be represented by a real dollar value.
I play football in my spare time, investing time and emotion. Are you going to pay me "real dollar" for that?
There's me thinking all along that the pleasure, and hence the value, was in playing the game.
God: An invisible friend for grown-ups.
My opponent may/may not be pissed off. It wouldn't affect the ownership of the chess set. It certainly wouldn't affect the ability of the chess club to kick everyone out at closing time.
It *might* mean they are breaking some TOS, if we hired the board for the hour - but it certainly wouldn't be a situation where they were required to compensate me for my valuable position.
Presumably I could write down the position (would have already using game notation). Theres nothing stopping you from screenshotting your Wanglock holding the Great Wang of Wangzar either, or telling people about your epic beating of the Wangs of Wangzar when you received it.
Blizzard is completely able to say "Hey guys, you can't play with our toys anymore, we're shutting down the realm".
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
True. And that's one reason I don't play these games.
Done deal :)
All the same, I think you're missing the point being made in TFA. The author cites a case of one gamer who stabbed someone he knew because of a theft in-game. The aggrieved party did try and involve the police and handle the dispute in a civilised manner, but there had been no law broken, and so nothing the police could do. The consequence was (again, according to TFA) that the man, lacking an non-violent recourse, resorted to violence and lethal force.
So the argument is that if there were property laws for in-game objects, then this sort of murder would be less likely to happen, much as physical property laws reduce the occurrence of neighbours murdering one another over land disputes.
The question as I see it is whether the case cited in TFA is an isolated occurrence, or an early indicator of an emerging trend. Either way, the question of entitlement is a bit of a red herring.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
To apply RL concepts on virtual property is silly.
You cannot "OWN" virtual property.
You can only "VIRTUALLY OWN" virtual property.
(in other words, YOU do not own anything. Your character/avatar in the game owns it.)
Related Quote - "Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no spoon."
http://overlawyered.com/2003/12/chinese-court-orders-virtual-goods-returned-to-gamer/
not blizzard, and not in the US... but it has happened....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
as long ago as 2003
http://old.nyls.edu/pdfs/hunter_lastowka.pdf
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Best summary evar!!!11eleven
I would rather eat my own eyes than have to read this game's forums.
In that case don't go anywhere near Eve Online...
Oh, and we don't like people to do something to their own eyes, as we need the tearducts intact.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
I take it you have never read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page?
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2008 SourceForge, Inc.
Conversely, most MMO EULA's have a clause somewhere stating that the company running the game servers own any and all objects within the game world.
Whether either are enforceable is a matter of debate, but you can get the developer's view on the matter simply by reading the EULA.
I'm really shocked at the tone and direction the "5" folks at alashdot have taken on this. Why? They are basically saying that you as a user/consumer have no rights shut up!
This is part of why I don't play those types of games. If I create a character, back story, personalize it, and level it up, and collect some items for it, that's mine! That's my personally created content that I and every user own their own copy right over. Depending on the character editing UI, I can make my character look exactly like a paper D&D character of mine. I own that character. Now do I care if any given company has their own version of gold, potions, ether, or status curing stuff? Not really. I learn their naming system and pick up the needed crap asap.
I also own the damn account although some slashdot posts are right that you don't really own it, but are renting it.
That's like the saying that there is no property ownership in the US because of property taxes the various government bodies only allow you to rent property from them.
Here is something to really think about though. The game creators own most of the copy right on various items and things in those games and can change them at their whims. If you are using default short sword from game company, then don't expect to be surprised if they change the design or effects of it.
They shouldn't be allowed to do is delete any items or change effects of those items that a player has "earned," though they can always have a given uses or such that automatically makes even the most awesome stuff useless by next month to encourage the players to scrape those items that you'd really like to get out of the game.
I'm surprised that slashdot's modded response to this topic is that you don't own crap it all belongs to the company. My favorite post was about owning slashdot comments... Here is a big surprise yes every slashdotter does own the copy right on their own comments. Slashdot doesn't own your comments; you do. If I want to make a book or something out of all my slashdot comments, the only thing slowing me down is that I'd need to upgrade my account to a paid account.
I meant in the U.S; it's not inconceivable that some where, some court ordered any given stupid thing.
I would prefer to own virtual property. So when I get a real life divorce, I lose half my virtual stuff.
1. Marry into virtual wealth
2. Divorce
3. ?
4. Virtual profit!
Disclaimer: I am not god.
We may not be created equal
But we can be treated equal.
This is pretty obvious. Read the EULA/TOS for most games, and they will most likely state that all the data is owned by the company that owns the game. Unless there is some specific agreement that you own specific pieces of data (i.e. your character(s), their items/equipment, or their gold/platinum/whatever), then it is probably safe to assume that you are simply paying for access to the MMO server/database and do not actually own anything on it.
I know that most companies claim ownership of all data. One argument against currency selling/eBaying is simply that you are selling something that doesn't belong to you.
It still kind of baffles me that anyone would be willing to pay real money for fake money/items, especially given that you're already paying a monthly fee for an MMO. You're essentially paying someone to play for you, and if you don't have the time for an MMO, why are you subscribing in the first place? Not to mention that any stuff you acquire is going to be obsolete when the next expansion comes out. It's like a rich kid buying a sandbox, and then hiring a poor kid to play in the sandbox for him.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Read your EULA. You signed a contract that explicitly states that it is _not_ your property.
I find being offended by me offensive.
There is no ownership. You signed it away. If you want ownership stop playing and make changing it a requirement to start playing again.
From a major MMO EULA
3. Ownership.
A. All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Game and all copies thereof (including without limitation any titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialog, catch phrases, locations, concepts, artwork, character inventories, structural or landscape designs, animations, sounds, musical compositions and recordings, audio-visual effects, storylines, character likenesses, methods of operation, moral rights, and any related documentation) are owned or licensed by Blizzard. The Game is protected by the copyright laws of the United States, international treaties and conventions, and other laws. The Game may contain materials licensed by third parties, and the licensors of those materials may enforce their rights in the event of any violation of this License Agreement.
I find being offended by me offensive.
I say let's talk about Taxes and Taxing virtual sundries, this is where this is all heading anyway.
cart
You can't possibly believe that, just because you spend time on something, you're entitled to a paycheck, can you?
Let me tell you, there are LOTS of things people do, and few things people get paid for. I'll leave the mapping as an exercise for the class.
If I invite you into my home for dinner, you don't get to keep the place setting. Or the chair.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
If you happened to fight and slave and earn an Amani Warbear, for example, you'd be owe an additional 45 dollars in capital gains taxes.
How about just taxing it when you sell the item using real money? That sidesteps all the accounting problems.
You own the copyright of your own comments. While /. can delete it, as they can decline to publish them. You can sue people for copying the comment elsewhere.
Now let's see you withdraw your 'Sword of a 1000 Truths' from an ATM.
The idea that the companies owe you nothing and can do whatever they like is ridiculous. When you purchase World of Warcraft at your local store, you are entering into a contract with reasonable expectations out of both the purchaser and the company making the game. If you were to buy WoW for $50, take it home and load it on your computer only to be told "Sorry, we're no going to let you play because we don't like you," then you've just been defrauded out of $50. Blizzard has broken the undestood contract they've made on the box cover of the game you purchased.
So Blizzard can't, in practice, just ban you for whatever reason they feel like. By selling the game they have obligated themselves to deliver on certain reasonable expectations (i.e. that they're not going to just arbitrarily prevent you from playing and realizing the value of your purchase for no good reason).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Since there is significantly less currency existing than there is money represented in bank computers by series of bytes, what are those goods and actual assets exactly?
The data represents a claim on the bank to be repaid in physical currency. If the computers say you have $100 in your account, you can come in to the bank and withdraw that amount in a marketable form unconnected with the bank itself. Currently that form (barely) retains its value only as a result of stringent anti-counterfeiting laws and the issuer's fears of hyperinflation, but not so long ago it took the shape of high-quality scarce resources deemed valuable in their own right -- and not just for trade.
The amount of currency in existence includes that held in bank accounts, because if there ever was a run on the banks the FDIC is committed to provide nearly the full amount in the form of Federal Reserve Notes. This would imply massive production of new paper currency, but if the reserve requirements were increased accordingly it need not mean massive inflation. Prices already take bank balances into account; trading those balances for paper currency would make little difference, so long as it didn't increase the amount banks can create via loans.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
I know you are both wrong.
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything."
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.
While pretty much true, it's not exactly how it works. Banking has, and likely always will be, an investment in itself. Much like the stock market.
When banking, you agree to give the bank your money for a big 'ol IOU sticker (these days a digital one). The bank takes your money and invests it. They don't just keep it in their vault until you want it back while it magically grows more money (interest rates).
Surprisingly, this should be well enough known today, what with all the banking crisis talks and all. The fact that there's banks collapsing today with people loosing the money they had in said bank (unless the Government steps up to insure it). I think this might have happened in the saving-in-loan crises but I'm not particularly familiar with it.
Though, A scene I remember that might also help others is the film "A Wonderful Life". There, George Bailey's S&L bank has a money rush where, in a panic, all the clients of the bank come storming in, demanding their money back, while the S&L doesn't keep enough cash on hand. This is where Bailey explains to his clients how a S&L works, by reinvesting.
So, yes and no. The account isn't just a score-card that represents actual assets. It is, in many ways, a fictional representation of assets that are only worth what the bank you use is worth. Should said bank go under, you could very well loose everything (like some people who invested in Iceland banks are experiencing). This is why the government banks savings accounts up to $100,000 (in the US). To insure people that banking is safe and get people to continue to invest in banks, who turn it around and give loans to businesses and for mortgages (at a higher interest rate).
Though, I'm no expert, so everything I say is only based on my general understanding of the system and should be taken with a grain of salt. No doubt I don't have a complete or accurate understanding of something as complex as the financial markets.
"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
Shadowbane allowed (allows?) you to do just that; it has a thief class which is capable of stealing items right out of another player's inventory. It resulted in several... amusing situations, although I only played it briefly a while ago when it first came out. I had one group with three thieves, among some other players, and all three of us kept rampantly stealing from all the other players (of course, the thieves all knew this because we could peek into each other's inventories), and trying to see who could place the blame most effectively on the other thieves, or occasionally convincing them that, no, you didn't ACTUALLY win that item at all. It was pretty hilarious.
Frankly this whole thread is a null issue and should never have been posted.
You're making point 2 more complex than it needs to be. It's very simple and has a long history of precedent.
You're paying for a service.
When you go to a movie theater no one assumes they own the movie afterward.
When you play a game of ultrazone (or some other laser tag type game) no one assumes they own the packs or the arena.
When you go to the zoo no one assumes your entry fee buys you the animals.
I find being offended by me offensive.
I take a lot of time to read and respond to posts in Shashdot. I even can sometimes get really emotional when people say they like vi over emacs. Where is my paycheck?
Professional football players make a considerable amount of money.
Football players don't really create any discrete items in-game, that could be sold off. At best you might be able to auction off your position. The analogy doesn't work.
But the prize you may have won for playing chess most certainly were yours, yes?
You can't possibly believe that, just because you spend time on something, you're entitled to a paycheck, can you?
Let me tell you, there are LOTS of things people do, and few things people get paid for. I'll leave the mapping as an exercise for the class.
I'll back off a bit here. It doesn't always equate to pay. The ethics of the matter continue to concern me.
If I invite you into my home for dinner, you don't get to keep the place setting. Or the chair.
How about if I came as a guest, and you gave me a series of very strict rules I had to follow, then on a whim, and without warning, you changed them? I'd be pissed, wouldn't anyone?
What if as a part of the evening entertainment, you led a knitting class? The guests had to pay for the materials; you provided the instruction. At the end of the evening, we weren't allowed to take our projects home.
--
Arguing this three ways to China.
Not that simple. Almost any property or rights that you acquire and could sell for real money can be taxed as income.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I doubt I am the norm, but I have always viewed my "ownership" of in game items as more akin to a rental than a lease/mortgage/etc. I rent the apartment I live in, and while in good standing I have exclusive rights to use that property within certain limitations agreed upon between myself and the owners. Were I to stop paying rent, I would be kicked out.
One of the options I had, at the time the agreement was made, was to enter into a second agreement to rent a refrigerator. Had I done so, I would not have expected to take said refrigerator with me when I left. I declined, and instead purchased my own, which I expect to take with me when I leave.
In-game "property" (Second Life's agreement not withstanding) is rented property. The fact that, in order to access it, I am required to operate within the rules of the game to obtain it is immaterial. It's the same as the 'fridge. Unlike my apartment; however, I am not allowed to bring my "equipment" into the virtual world (Second Life excepted again). Much as my apartment complex has units with already existing refrigerators, and renters of those units cannot replace them with their own (not sure how the rental cost on those worked).
MMO's are pretty much rental agreements. You are paying a monthly fee for access to their servers, the reason it's worth the money to so many people is that the servers these companies operate have a really fun set of toys to play with, and a good set of rules for making the game fun. Part of the rules is the persistence of game state from day to day.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
How about if I came as a guest, and you gave me a series of very strict rules I had to follow, then on a whim, and without warning, you changed them? I'd be pissed, wouldn't anyone?
And you wouldn't come back. But would you seriously sue?
What if as a part of the evening entertainment, you led a knitting class? The guests had to pay for the materials; you provided the instruction. At the end of the evening, we weren't allowed to take our projects home.
Or like going to a restaurant, and buying a bottle of wine... and then at the end of the evening not being allowed to take the 1/4 bottle that is left home? (Actually, to be fair, around here at least, I beleive you ARE allowed to have them cork it back up to take with you... but that's a relatively recent development.)
That said, if the rules for the course stated up front you couldn't keep your stuff, then what are you complaining about? You shouldn't have signed up for the course.
If you signed up, brought your stuff, and they changed the rules on you, that would be different. But can you name a virtual world where that's happened?
Oil futures are virtual too, very very rarely is an oil futures contract fulfilled.
Good-bye
FDIC does not commit to sending you paper currency, it commits to setting some bytes in a different computer...
But I don't see what any of that has to do with your checking account be a "a series of bytes" that it is worth quibbling about the ownership of.
Especially since there isn't enough physical currency (and never will be - because making there be would be retarded) to cover all of it and hence it is in a very real sense "just" a series of bytes.
The topic isn't the evils of banking, the wonderous goodness of the money multiplier, the gold standard, or any of those geek favourite topics - it's simple a question of whether "a series of bytes" might be worth quibbling over...
Of course there's a whole branch of discussion about the thing this isn't about, because I momentarily forgot that slashdot it home to ron paultards...
FDIC does not commit to sending you paper currency, it commits to setting some bytes in a different computer...
The FDIC commits to "insuring" your money against bank failures, which are typically recognized as the bank's inability to supply paper currency and coin in response to requests for withdrawals. I'll admit that the FDIC web site is remarkably short on details in this regard, but what exactly would "deposit insurance" mean if not a guarantee that you can withdraw your deposits?
But I don't see what any of that has to do with your checking account be a "a series of bytes" that it is worth quibbling about the ownership of.
Then you missed the whole point, which is that a bank account isn't just "a series of bytes", but rather a legal claim on the bank. Putting aside, as you suggested, the whole concept of credit multiplication, the system works as follows: I deposit $5 at the bank. In return, the bank enters into a legal obligation to repay me $5 on demand. As evidence of this obligation they enter data into their computer, and I get a receipt. The legal claim is the important part, not the data. Even if the data were lost this claim would still exist. I don't own the data in the bank's computers that says I have a claim for $5; I own the claim itself. (Whether I could prove that the claim exists is a different matter.) The bank "owns" the data in the only way data can be "owned": they own the computers on which the data exists.
The data for an online game looks a lot like the data for a bank account, but the legal agreement between the host and the players is nothing like that between a bank and its depositors.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
It means that when the bank fails - not just doesn't have enough currency on hand this minute - the FDIC will give you your money back.
But the FDIC will send you a check or more likely your account will end up at some other bank with the FDIC replacing the money in it.
They don't mail you $100,000 in cash :)
I didn't miss the whole point, we're just talking past each other. My point was there is nothing else but those bytes in the computer - there is no physical thing those bytes represent. The bytes themselves are the money.
I agree that in a bank the money is yours (and the bank is borrowing it from you), whereas in an online game the stuff is the companies and they could turn off the servers tomorrow with their only liability being to refund your unused but paid for game time (well I would hope they would have to refund that) - they certainly don't have to hand over your +5 sword of rabbit killing.
I'm just saying that there are cases where "a series of bytes" is in fact worth your concern and that series of bytes is really all their is in reality (I think I handle the actual currency for about 4% of my financial transaction, by value not count).
I say let's talk about Taxes and Taxing virtual sundries, this is where this is all heading anyway.
On a server in which country?
I'd agree that some government will want to tax it. But if your commands to the game server are encrypted, and the server is in another country, how are they going to even know that your virtual property is yours? How are they even going to know that it exists?
Actually, where this is headed is the other way: the creation of virtual worlds that are totally out of the control of any government, which generate items of real-world value, in markets that no government can tax.
Right now, in most internet commerce such as ebay and Amazon,where a person can sell a single object or two with modest overhead, the real-world id of the seller can be acquired with a subpoena. But when the server exists in a country that does not need to respond to subpoenas, a person can create wealth, sell it, and never be taxed.
The one park of the equation that does not exist right now is the conversion of that money into tangible assets like food clothing and shelter without leaving traces.
It means that when the bank fails - not just doesn't have enough currency on hand this minute - the FDIC will give you your money back. ... But the FDIC will send you a check or more likely your account will end up at some other bank with the FDIC replacing the money in it.
I realize they don't agree to unlimited, immediate withdrawals, but there is a time limit -- 30 days, I believe. After that point the bank must return your deposit or be declared insolvent. In practice the FDIC always steps in well before the bank is actually refusing ordinary withdrawals so as not to give the appearance of failure, sparking a run on the bank. As for shifting the payment to another bank, by check or electronic transfer -- that presumes that there are other banks available. If whatever bank they move the deposit to is itself insolvent then they haven't resolved the issue. In the event of a general run on the banks either the FDIC must come up with sufficient physical currency to cover the insured deposits, or it must fail in its purpose. Supposedly it's backed by "the full faith and credit" of the U.S. government, which would include the Treasury, but I'll admit they could simply allow it to fail -- in which case no one would place their trust in that "full faith and credit" ever again.
My point was there is nothing else but those bytes in the computer - there is no physical thing those bytes represent.
I disagree that there is no physical thing represented; those bytes represent a claim for a specific number of Federal Reserve Notes, whether or not sufficient Notes exist to repay all the existing claims.
The bytes themselves are the money. ... I agree that in a bank the money is yours (and the bank is borrowing it from you) ...
You aren't agreeing, because that's the opposite of what I said. If you define the money as data in computers, then I don't own it; the bank does, because it owns the computers. What I own is a claim on the bank for $5 in Federal Reserve Notes, payable "on demand" (within a fixed time). I couldn't care less what data is in their computers, provided they meet the legal obligations they accepted along with my deposit.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
The one park of the equation that does not exist right now is the conversion of that money into tangible assets like food clothing and shelter without leaving traces.
You mean something like this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4953620.stm
At least a start I think.
I think the real point is that "players" invest both time and money in the virtual characters and property they have in MMOGs. That alone gives them an interest in those characters and property, and will eventually bulldoze all obstacles to them exercising all normal rights in property. It matters not at all whether real bank accounts are legal claims or whether real banking substitutes bits and bytes for paper currency and coin. If someone spends hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours building skills in a character and/or earning in-game money and buying in-game property, that someone has an interest in those things that will sooner or later have to be recognized and dealt with as with other types of property.
Look at the bright side: there's always seppuku.
Ownership of online content of this is not clear-cut, like ownership of your chair or computer might be.
In fact it is, depending on your countries law system, ofc. Do you really believe my shares of Apple and Sun belong to (are owned by) the bank/online stock trading company that is hosting my "account"?
You don't really own your character; the game company does--your character is subject to the alterations and whims of the company as needed, and access is even based upon whether they let you or not. They can kick you off if you are selling gold, selling your account, being a jerk, or because they simply don't like you.
Most of the lawyers in my country completely disagree. I pay for computing power, for noting else. What I use the computing power for is: my business
Some of you may have an entitlement complex going on--"But it's mine! I am paying for it!" No, you are paying to RENT it, to have access based on their terms. Remember, they're the one making the game, without the company you couldn't have a game in the first place.
In most european countries there is a believing that a contract needs to be "equal" on terms for both parties. In other words a company may/should not use their power to overpower the user/customer.
I think user agreement on MMOs are particularly important. ... or not?
That exactly is the difference in Europe vs. America. In the USA your contract is basically above the "lower limits" the law dictates. In fact you can contract/EULA everything. In europe the law is above anything you might define in a contract. So EULAs, e.g. the one of Blizzard regarding playing WoW are most of the time completely void in Europe.
If you don't like the terms of ownership or the rules, then don't play.
It is my freedom as a citizen to play what ever I want
They make no real guarantees. They make no guarantees that the in-game economy will remain just as stable, that they won't nerf rogues in a future patch, or that your character won't receive a huge revamp for balance. ... regardless of my religion, nation, gender, skin. In WoW I can not go to a certain instance if I'm not attuned ... the result is I only can go there if I'm in the über guild of this server ... face it: I pay for "content" that I can not access.
This ofc is a different issue, but I'm pretty sure it sooner or later will be tackled as well.
Imagine: in Europe I can settle in every countly I want
Too often, I think, consumers fist-pound over their rights when they are the ones who signed the contract conceding the terms in the first place. Because it is unfair that the other side of the contract says: take it or leave it?
Can you imagine people suing Blizzard for devaluing their online property because Blizzard nerfed a certain set piece, or introduced better items?
Yes I can. I'm certain this will happen soon.
People seriously want to bring the government into this? If you don't like the terms, don't play. You aren't owed. You do not have a special right; you agreed to the transaction upon signing up. You pay to play a game, and nothing beyond that unless you agree otherwise. ... muhuhuhuhuhuha!" ... the EULA would be void. Same for the tickets to the cinema. After all it is just a virtual right, stamped on paper
I don't have special rights. But I have the same rights as everyone else. In my country we have laws that give the disabled proper chances in the economy, in jobs, in access to stuff that makes live interesting. Do you need a contract to sign if you are sitting in a wheel chair for "free access" to a cinema? No, the law dictates the cinema has to have entrances, elevators etc. so you can "access" any movie you want. For that you don't need to contract a cinema. If a cinema had an EULA stating: "either you can manage to get up the stairs, or you can't
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And has that clause been supported by case law? What court has seen it?
The question first is "do you believe it is yours?", then "are you willing to fight over it?".
If a group sets out to create "agents" in the game, rack them with "tools", "points" and what not, then sell that "agent" for real money outside the game. And make REAL money, they could then look at taking the company to court and suing them for "restrain of trade" or pushing the EULA is "unconciousable" breaking it and all other EULA like it.
Yup. 7th Circuit. ProCD v Zeidenberg.
The word I think you mean is "unconscionable." It's impossible for a game EULA to be unconscionable. The game is a pure luxury item and you can simply decline the EULA and receive a refund. Please see Blizzard v bnetd.
I find being offended by me offensive.
under constitutional laws they can't tax you if you don't acquire it using something owned by the U.S. government. Or with the use of bank notes from the Federal Reserve, as the Federal Reserve can demand the tax for use of it's property. An example would be a telescope given to you in exchange for setting up the person's over-done home theater system. None of the items involved are owned by the government, and money wasn't used. You can't be taxed for the telescope thanks to the Declaration of Independence, and the 9th and 10th amendments.
Defective Logic