Making the Case That Virtual Property Is a Bad Idea

pacergh writes "Many legal commentaries on virtual property argue that it should exist. Others argue why it can exist. None seem to explicitly spell out what virtual property will look like or how it will affect online worlds. Lost in the technology love-fest are the problems virtual property might bring. The Virtual Property Problem lays out a model for what virtual property might look like and then applies it to various scenarios. This highlights the problems of carving virtual property out of a game developer's rights in his creation. From the abstract: '"Virtual property" is a solution looking for a problem.' The article explains the 'failure of property rights to benefit the users, developers, and virtual resources of virtual worlds.'"

Comments

Re:It's Already Legally Governed, Drop It

[genner]

Slashdot says I own my comments. Star Wars Galaxies' Terms of Service says Sony owns my items and characters.

Personally, I find the entire concept of someone saying they own your stuff to be strange. Or, indeed, someone else saying they don't own your stuff.

It's called a rental. Why do you think you have to send them money on a monthly basis.

Why Virtual Property is a bad idea

[Locke2005]

Any time you have good that is infinitely reproducible at negligible cost, it inevitably leads to a bubble, followed by a meltdown. The global economic meltdown just demonstrated that this principle was true for Credit Default Swaps; it was just as true for the Tulip Bubble and Internet Bubble. Any attempt to monetize virtual property will inevitably result in this same boom/bust cycle. That's good if your one of the first to cash out, but very bad if you wait until later in the cycle...

Re:Virtual Property is an old concept

[avandesande]

The simplest example of this is money or check, which is virtual in the sense that it represents a promise.