Where's The Border For Real World Laws In A Virtual World?
from the tough-questions dept
Last month when everyone was making a big deal over the news that the online game Second Life had decided that players own any intellectual property they create in the game, I said it was a bad idea, since it basically took all of the problems of our intellectual property system and moved them into the virtual world - where it was likely to get more confusing. Over at LawMeme, James Grimmelmann, has been thinking a lot about that very idea and has written an insanely long - but absolutely worth reading - discussion about intellectual property issues as it relates to games. It's impossible to summarize his points, but he explores many of the issues in-depth and appears to have thought about these issues in much more detail than the designers of the various games. What it really seems to come down to is the question of whether or not in-game actions are simply covered by the End User License Agreement (which basically becomes the Constitution for that game) or if real laws in the real world should apply.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Overreaction?
As long as everyone recognizes that "it's just a game", then none of it matters. He does not really address the thesis that if some deluded people think that there is some kind of real-world value in the game, then that is their problem.
Grimmelmann does address this question, but not in enough depth. At one point he suggests that the fact that people actually can buy and sell virtual artifacts for real-world money "is like a beacon, inviting judges to cut through the fog of claims that 'it's just a game.'" This is not well thought-out, for many reasons.
Perhaps more telling is the phrase "if your game is so trivial and so boring that no one attaches any significance to what happens there". This suggests that Grimmelmann has dismissed out-of-hand the notion that those involved should understand that "it's just a game". Personally, I find this a bit scary, at least in the given context of EverQuest et al. These is no significance to what happens there, and anyone who attaches significance to it needs to get a grip. 's point of view is that it is actually unreasonable for people to consider any interesting game to be "just a game".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Overreaction?
Perhaps more telling is the phrase: "if your game is so trivial and so boring that no one attaches any significance to what happens there". This suggests that Grimmelmann has dismissed out-of-hand the notion that those involved should be expected to understand that "it's just a game". Personally, I find this a bit scary, at least in the given context of EverQuest et al. There is no significance to what happens there, and anyone who attaches significance to it needs to get a grip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Overreaction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]