Law and Virtual Worlds 283
Greg Lastowka writes "In light of yesterday's spirited discussion of the Shadowbane hack, I thought folks might be interested in this forthcoming article about the laws of virtual worlds. The article has three parts: 1) a history of virtual worlds (e.g. Space War --> MMORPGs), 2) a theoretical analysis of whether virtual world "property" can/should be treated as legal property, and 3) an analysis of whether virtual worlds can/should give rise to any other legal rights, i.e. rights of avatars -- an idea first floated by Raph Koster. I realize there are plenty of strongly-held and divergent opinions on this, so hopefully this might add to the ongoing conversation. Also, we're revising this for publication over the summer, so we will be reading the comments for any corrections/insights/humor that we can incorporate into our revisions."
Jesus fucking tapdancing christ (Score:5, Insightful)
Listen.
Your virtual house in the Sims is worth nothing. No more than if I kicked in your sandcastle at the beach, or knocked over your chess board in the park.
I can be charged with mischief, or maybe even assault if I threatened you as I knock all your checkers into the sewer grate.
No more zany computer laws!
Two things (Score:5, Insightful)
I have particular concern for those who use published tools (like NWN's Aurora toolset) to create persistent online worlds. Rarely do these individuals seem to have a firm grasp on what they're getting themselves into.. least of all on issues of virtual rights that may or may not present themselves.
Most places I have worked had agreements with builders that virtual property created for the game would become the property of the game and its administrators. As for actual items in the game, it's ludicrous to expect (in spite of the incessant everquest ebay activity) those items to be protected legally. Game administrators need to know their rights, however, to keep the few litigious individuals at bay. (How bored and obsessed do you have to be to sue because the server crashed and you lost your vorpal sword of owning +2?).
It's a thankless job running an online game.
*blinks* (Score:5, Insightful)
Why complicate matters further?
Further, damages (in terms of $$$) are easy to calculate...how many hours/months/billable time increments did it take a person to achieve what was destroyed? How much can be got back? Total it out, it's simple math. Perhaps not enough compensation for some basement loser who plays such things 80+ hrs/wk (like my roommate =P), but I think those folks are in the very small minority anyway.
Virtual property is worth something (Score:5, Insightful)
Your values are not my values, but value is in the eye of the purchaser (or in cases of extortion, the vendor...?)
Having said that, I think it's nuts that people exchange money for this sort of thing.
Re:Amazing amounts of (Score:5, Insightful)
If you take your salary at an hourly rate, why watch TV, why play with the kids, why sleep, why read a book?
Its a game, its about enjoying yourself, relaxing, exercising your mind in a different way. Just try to avoid crawling into your basement and shunning human contact for days at a time.
Re:Civil law? I think not (Score:1, Insightful)
I took a class as an undergrad where we discussed this very issue. A character in a RPG was raped by another character and the "raped" player attempted to file a real-world civil suit against the latter. To the best of my recollection, the suit was thrown out of court. I remember no one in our discussion siding with the plaintiff.
Virtual society... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps it makes sense to regulate offline actions affecting in game actions -- such as hacking into the game. But on the other hand, I have no problem with selling in-game items for real world money. Why not? It's not like the in-game items were manufactured out of nothing. Someone had to go through the work. Who cares if money changed hands in the game or in real life? And besides, people who do that are likely to do it both ways, so the economy of the game is likely to balance out.
The point is, aside from outside problems like hacking, things like murder and theft within the game must be controlled by the virtual society -- if you get mugged in the game, next time, you'll make sure to travel in a group. Or maybe you and your friends will get together and form a police force. And so on.
The same societal forces apply to the game as to the real world, because the same minds control both. But it's okay if your game persona gets killed from time to time or goes to jail or whatever. That's what makes the game different from real life and what makes it a useful diversion. If people stick with it, some form of order will eventually emerge, just like it does in any other group.
One major problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
At the very heart of role-playing, you act (in-game) in accordance with how your character should. That may well include "Kill the wimpy newb and take its stuff".
The main idea of this thread would effectively kill the entire idea of an RPG - Basically, a player couldn't do anything except stroll along the bunny-grounds holding hands and singing kumba-ya.
And let's not overlook when PETA and the like get into the act. Plan to level? Better not kill any of the game's "indigenous" life, or end up whacked with a virtual-cruelty-to-animals charge. Want to solve a quest and get some powerful ancient weapon? Oops, distubing an archaological site has some hefty fines to go along with it.
Grow up, people. This topic deals with GAMES. Games, games, games, games, games. NOT the real world. If you have trouble telling them apart, and in-game losses "hurt" you IRL, you need to jack-out right now and go interact with other humans, in a real, live, actual physycal setting.
Re:Jesus fucking tapdancing christ (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it worth nothing? Lets take a look at a progression here.
If I were to build a house in Missouri, would you deny that it has value?
If I were to spend hours building bird houses, would you deny that they have value?
If I were to spend hours making paper roses to sell on a street corner, would you deny that they have value?
- Now that we have identified that objects I produce have value, regardless of the triviality, lets move on.
If I were an author and wrote a book, would you deny that it has value?
If I wrote a book and sold it on a street corner, would you deny that it has value?
If I wrote a book and sold it online, would you deny that it has value?
If I wrote a book and only sold it online, would you deny that it has value?
If I wrote a book and only sold it online, in an electronic format which you downloaded, would you deny that it has value? (in case you're not understanding, this book has no physical manifestation aside from a series of bits in various places.)
-- If you've said No so far, then we've established that lack of a physical manifestation of what I have produced does not prevent it from having value. So, one last question:
If I build a house online, would you deny it has value? If so, why?
Now, lets assume that you said that you denied me my value. At what point was that? Was it the roses? (I have seen a number of nonprofits that employ blind or otherwise handicapped people to produce and sell these or other small trinkets) Was it the electronic version of the book? Even if you did not receive a physical object with "bookness", you obtained the output of many days of the labor of multiple people (the author, the editor(s), and so on...).
Re:*blinks* (Score:2, Insightful)
OTOH, the cracker might see $0.50 x 5,000 to 25,000 (players) disappear out of his pocket, in addition to criminal penalties. Personally, I think that's the way to do it--you don't really give people cash for being obsessive about a game and having it ruined for a day, but the people trying to compromise other people's systems get it in the shorts (as they well should).
Re:Bits are already protected by law (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no difference. That is the point of a fiat currency - it is only as valuable as the confidence people put in it.
If people decide to stop taking your dollars you cannot go to the Federal Reserver and get gold instead. You are screwed.
You can argue around it all you want but ultimately the value of your cash is based on confidence, not a secured asset.
Anything goes in the Virtual worlds (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a HUGE problem of 'perspective' (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, some others use the internet as a supplement to their life. They utilize it to keep in contact with their real-life friends and have few, if any, online aquaintances. Some others are in the middle. ( I am excluding those who do not use the internet at all or only use it for communication for their jobs. i.e. email.)
There are several layers of "immersion" that people undergo. I am reminded of a story my "democracy and technology" class discussed a few years ago. Here is a reference to the story [ascusc.org]. Essentially, some college kids 'hacked' a chat program; the kind where each person has a visible avatar. They used some commands to make unsuspecting chatters "rape" each other or do other "naughty" acts to each other. If I remember correctly, it was only via text that this occured. (The visual avatars did not animate).
The question posed, was this illegal? Was it virtual rape and assult? On one hand, if the abused person was very immersed in his or her 'virtual reality', the incident would indeed be traumatic (to some degree at least). If the immersion was low, the abused would likely become annoyed and go on with his/her life.
The same thing goes for MMORPG's. Some people spend incredible amounts of time ammassing items and power in these games. It's an ivestment of time, money, and energy to them, so if someone hacks their account, they stand to lose quite a bit. How could you not say that a crime hasn't been committed if someone loses something that they worked so hard for. However, let's be realistic. It's digital information. It's 1's and 0's on a computer server far far away... or is it?
Right now, the arguements are using two sets of facts. One side is deeply immersed in the 'bodyless' virtual reality and to them, there is little difference between an avatar and the person controlling it. Thus, the person's rights should carry into the avatar's world.
The other side says that a virtual crime is not a crime at all. That people need to seriously reconsider their priorities and realize what exactly constitutes their reality. Yadda Yadda Yadda...
At this present time, with so many people of varying degrees of immersion into this new world without rules, there can be NO law that will satisfy everyone. In fact, I don't believe any law can even come close to addressing the widely chasmatic viewpoints that people hold regarding this topic. But who knows.
-John
Many years of MUCKing- (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Ownership. The person who 'owns' a MUCK, MOO, MUD, MUX, or MMRPG, is the person who owns the physical machine hosting it. It's just that simple. They can turn it on, and they can turn it off. Your 'avatar' is nothing but a collection of 1's and 0's that reside on/in the owner's hardware. Of course, paid susbscriptions would fall under contract law I'd imagine, but outside of that, the owner could simply turn off/move/disconnect/wipe the machine and that's that.
Next level is the wizcore/admin/staff/whatever. Generally speaking, they are given administrative domain of those 1's and 0's on the machine, and as such, have some limited legal responsibility. Hence why servers carry AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies), most of which basically say 'As someone physically owns this machine and can be held responsible for it's contents, you WILL play by these rules or you will be removed from this server. We're just following the rules of CYA. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.'
2. The ownership of 'areas.' I've seen this issue wrangled over before and have the following to say: -PLAYERS- make an area, not just the physical setting. Someone may have developed the background, feel, and descriptions of an area, but once you let players run amok in an area, it becomes a collective work-in-progress between everyone involved. You may have designed the area and 'own' that design (more on this later), but you do not own an area AS IT IS NOW.
3. You can always disconnect. I hear tales of character rape, abuse, any number of things where people make the claim 'I was forced to do X.' Bullshit. At any time, you can disconnect from the machine, or even turn off your computer. You can say 'Sorry, nope, not gonna be a part of this,' get out of the situation, and report it. Where your 'avatar' may be a collection of 1's and 0's bound by the laws of the server programming, YOU are not. IMNSHO, if someone can manipulate you mentally/emotionally that easily, you shouldn't be on the 'net to begin with. For the most part, yes, in character actions have in character consequences (ie. you killed someone and the local authorities are gonna execute you for it), but if there are things not in accordance with the AUP (ie. someone's got psionic control over you, drags you off into a dark alley and is going to rape you), you DON'T have to RP it out. Staying pretty much equals consent, as 99.99% of the time you can EASILY get out of it through out of character means.
4. Develop areas/characters/items -outside- of a game first. If you ever want to use a character/area/whatever outside of a game (ie. a novel), make sure you develop it -outside- of a game before moving it into the game, so you have at least some form of 'prior art' available to you.
Most of all, remember, it's only a game. If you make real-world contracts for the transfer of characters/property, that's all well and fine, you have a real-world contract. If you play on a server with an AUP, the administration has full rights to boot you for non-compliance.
In conclusion, most of the time the administration -wants- to keep the players happy. Wether it's a pay service or the 'reward' for the staff is simply the game itself, a server is nothing without a player base. There many more servers out there, if you don't like how one is going, you can always pick up all your marbles and go play somewhere else...
Re:Games changing sense of reality == bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do people continue to believe that the things they arguably "create" online have a value equivalent to the amount of time and money they put into producing them?
There's also a real-world term called "replacement cost" which is often used in place of fair market value when one is talking about the worth of something.
Inasmuch as it would take a huge ammount of someone's time to replicate their character without violating the rules of the game system (such as getting an admin to re-create a character to some specification) it has a high value when you're talking about replacement cost. As for fair market value, that's another question... either way, I fear that you have missed the distinction between replacement cost (often used by insurance companies as an excuse to charge you more for your policy if you want it) vs. fair market value (often used by insurance companies in order to give you less when you file a claim ;-) )
reality check? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Avatars, the user-controlled entities that interact with virtual worlds, are a persistent extension of their human users, and users identify with them so closely that the human-avatar being can be thought of as a cyborg. We examine the issue of cyborg rights within virtual worlds and whether they may have real world significance."
A cell phone is a user-controlled entity that interacts with the provided communications netwrok, is a persistent extension of its human user, and users identify with them so closely (custom ringtones, faceplates, voice-dialing, etc.) that the human-cell phone being can be thought of as a cyborg.
So my cell phone needs civil rights?
Re:Amazing amounts of (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it is worth more to me than the approprate salary payment would be.
Seriously. I'd work less hours at my job if I could, but the money is worth it to me. I won't work more because I have enough and the other activites are worth more to me.
Re:Before the "it's just a game, losers" start up (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Jesus fucking tapdancing christ (Score:3, Insightful)
During the Spanish crusades, the Spaniards raided the Mayan civilisation for Gold. When the Chinese leaders learned of this they laughed, as Gold has no value to the ancient Chinese, whereas Jade can buy a thousand palaces. What value does a Pentium IV have to a starving Ethiopean with no electricity? Why do we pay so much for them then?
Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here (Score:2, Insightful)
I want to point out that there is a very important distinction between the real world and the virtual ones. The basic rules and assumptions differ. If you enter the virtual world, you abandon some of your rights. For example, in many online games you can be murdered or robbed by humans or AI agents. This means that you should not have any reasonable expectations of personal safety (or safety of your property) in the virtual world.
Hence, unless you play a simulation of Legalotopia, you accept the possibility of being killed/robbed/raped/whatever in the virtual world. There might be some law enforcement inside the game, like cops, guards, gods, GMs, etc., but you should not expect outside protection of your life, property or reputation. Players are not responsible in reality for what they do inside a virtual world.
Of course, if you hack a server, cheat, steal a password, break the agreement with the game company, etc., you can be held responsible for these action. But the punishment (if any) must not be related to the in-game results of your actions.
I don't necessarily like being categorical, but this is the only possible and rational way to resolve these problems. Anything else is (at this stage) simply nonsense.