Sorting Through The Legal Questions Of Property Rights In Virtual Worlds
from the layers-and-layers dept
We've discussed the many questions raised about property rights in all of these new virtual game worlds. Do the laws of the outside world apply? If so, what country's laws apply? What about the end user license agreement? If that rules who owns property in the game, then (effectively) that makes the company law enforcement. So what happens when law enforcement in the community violates the laws of the nation? Obviously, these aren't easy questions and eventually they'll end up in courts. John has submitted a story about a case in China where someone is suing an online game company for deleting a weapon he bought in the game. Apparently, the seller had "duplicated" the weapon in the game, which was against the rules. He then sold the duplicate to the guy suing - and the company deleted it once they realized it was a duplicate. The guy is suing, saying that he worked hard to make the virtual cash to buy the virtual sword, and it's unfair for the game to simply delete it. The company claims that the rules are clear that dupes aren't allowed - but, only the seller knows it's a dupe. So, when you unravel it, this is a fairly complex legal question involving different layers of intellectual property. First, you have the problems of the "duplicates," which could be seen as infringement on its own. Then, the guy sold the unauthorized copy for profit (admittedly within the game, for virtual currency) and kept the "original". The buyer paid with virtual money and received the "illegal" copy of the virtual sword which was then deleted. So, who's really at fault? It certainly sounds like the guy who created the dupe and sold it is the most reasonable target, but how do you deal with the situation where the guy then sells the "real" virtual sword to someone else? Who gets to keep it? The simple answer - of course - is both of them. It is virtual property after all, and can be reproduced at will by the powers that be. However, the company claims this will destabilize the game. Meanwhile, the guy who's suing only really has a claim if the virtual property he bought with virtual money is considered his to own. The gaming company will, most likely, claim that it's really theirs. It seems like we'll be seeing plenty of more related lawsuits.
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
Can NASA sue the pornolizer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
the thing is that right now, its the buyer (who as Mike pointed out, has NO way of knowing if he's buying a duplicate) who is being punished.
If anything, the buyer should keep the item, and the seller's original (original and duplicate being meaningless in bits and bytes...except maybe as a coding issue) should be deleted.
I don't see why the online company didn't just do that. Sure, they are afraid every cheater will just claim innocence, but seriously, there's no reason that stuff can't be tracked.
Also, there's no reason why the bug could be fixed that allows duplication in the first place.
As for game destabilization by keep both objects, its obvious Mike that you haven't played MMORPGs much (Its better for your real life anyway to not play too much LOL)...but I've seen it happen in EQ when I used to play way back...basically if a powerful weapon that USED to take a LOT of work to acquire suddenly becomes too available too easily, next thing you know, everyone has it and the game is much harder to keep balanced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Boo hoo ...
IT'S A GAME PEOPLE !
Delete & forbid access to the the seller of artificial goods.
Give the schlub ( buyer ) back his " virtual money " for his " virtual fake sword " and have him buy a " virtual " life ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
It is a game that people pay good money to play...so there is an investment of money and time into it (like ANY other hobby) so when something like this happens, people will get upset.
Going to court seems a touch much in this case IMHO, but it could have been avoided if the company had dealt with this fairly in this case (instead of punishing the innocent scammee)
I don't think just saying "get a life" is an answer really.
(For what its worth, I think all those games SHOULD have mandated time outs to go to the big blue room...but thats because I know how addictive they can be...which is why I stay the hell away from them)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IT'S A GAME PEOPLE !
Delete & forbid access to the the seller of artificial goods.
Give the schlub ( buyer ) back his " virtual money " for his " virtual fake sword " and have him buy a " virtual " life ..."
Yea, it is a game that he spend "Real" hours playing. He should get compensation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Football, tenis or golf are games, too.
And it's a matter of millions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]