Lawsuit Over 'Theft' Of Digital Items In Second Life Shows Up In First Life Court
from the what-happens-in-second-life,-doesn't-stay-in-second-life dept
It's been almost exactly four years since Linden Lab announced that the digital goods anyone created within Second Life were owned by whoever created them -- effectively bringing the outside world's laws into the virtual world. While this move received cheers from those who thought it was better than the company that ran the game owning everything, we felt that it was only going to lead to some serious problems. Specifically, our concern was that this was effectively bringing existing problematic laws, such as copyright, into this new world -- or, rather, pulling those issues out of this world and throwing them onto the US justice system. It appears that's coming true.A new lawsuit has been filed by a woman who uses Second Life, claiming that another member of Second Life was "stealing" the computer code used to build products that she sold in the virtual world. Of course, that's not all that surprising, as digital goods are easily copied -- and in the past we've even pointed out systems like copybot that made that process quite easy. In the end, it does come back to the same basic economics that we discuss around here all the time. If you're betting your livelihood on selling digital goods that are easily copied with zero marginal cost, you're going to have to deal with people copying your products sooner or later no matter what. It's just not a very good business to be in. While it may feel like "theft" to some, it's hard to justify that as being theft since no one is missing anything. In other words, the economics at play in the virtual world are entirely different than those in the real world -- and yet, we're now going to expect the real world laws to handle a lawsuit involving digital world economics. It doesn't make for a good combination.
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
Filed Under: digital goods, second life, theft
Companies: linden labs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Feelings
oh wait, she should have made it free.
Well my prophet fellas, here you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First off, I would agree that illegally making a copy of a digital good -- Second Life code, mp3, movie, etc -- isn't stealing in the traditional sense. But I've always questioned the "no one is missing anything" logic. If you make an illegal copy of my song, I still have access to the song. I can play the song all that I want, so I'm not missing the song. OK, so far so good. But, through an illegal act, what I have is now worth less than what it was before the copy. From a legal standpoint, this may not be theft, but when an illegal action on another person's part decreases your total assets, you can see where the average person might call this theft.
For example, say you hire someone to work on your research project and make them sign a nondisclosure agreement. They work there for a while and then blab your trade secrets to your competitors. You still have all of the knowledge that makes up your trade secrets. They're just worth a whole lot less now that your competitors know them too.
Again, I would agree that decreasing the value of someone else'e property isn't theft. But given the lack of a common word to describe this scenario in combination with the fact that in both "theft" and "illegal copying" cases, you have less value than what you started with, you can see why there's some confusion for the average person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Agreed. If you're caught with a song that costs 99 cents, at most you've deprived the owner of the song 99 cents. However, there are punitive damages too. If you busted stealing a 99 cent candy bar from the shop, you don't just pay the shopkeeper a buck and go on your merry way. You're guilty of theft. So I can see where the punishment would be more than the cost, but I'm with you, I don't see how the current punishments make sense. (If anything "theft of value" should have a punishment less than actual theft.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Indeed.
OK, so every song in the world is worth $1. The law decides any "theft of value" must be paid back 10-fold. So, Billy pirates eight of his favorite tunes. The law finds out and charges Billy $80. In the long run, everyone in the world starts pirating because getting caught is not that bad. Obviously, it would have been cheaper to just buy the song legitimately, but people seem willing to take that risk. The RIAA complains that the penalty is not strong enough to send the message, so in the name of "waking up the public", the penalty is raised to 100-fold. Even then, paying a $100 fine is quite tolerable. The RIAA continues to whine and complain that people still go along their marry way (despite the RIAA making a ridiculous profit) since "the pirates didn't learn their lesson". So, now the penalty is 10,000-fold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Indeed.
You're talking about an exceptionally dangerous slope here. As soon as you make "theft of value" a crime you've outlawed a ton of businesses. When Ford came out with the Model T, he made the horse-drawn carriage a lot "less valuable." When I open up a pizza shop next to a deli, I've made the sandwiches there "less valuable." Many people would call "theft of value" competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Indeed.
Mike, I think there's a critical distinction between an illegal act which decreases the value of someone else's property ("theft of value") and a legal act which does the same thing. Ford's innovation of the Model T was legal. Copying an artist's song is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Indeed.
I think you just made his point for him. Ford's innovation of the Model T was legal, as was that of Ford's competetors through the years, so we now have our shiny new Mercedes-Benzes to drive around. The world is a better place because it was perfectly legal to lower the value of another product. Restricting innovation only hurts society. It helps some people get rich, though.
Don't get me wrong, I believe people should be payed for their work. I do not, however, believe that people should be prevented from improving the world because someone else has already executed their idea poorly.
Finally, in the examples you gave above, you mentioned things like an employee giving information to competetors. You should note that there is nothing illegal about that. He can be sued for breach of contract because he signed a non-compete agreement, but those rarely hold up in court because of issues with consideration and other requirements to have a binding contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Disclaimer: IANAL, YMMV, WWJD, etc.
But, through an illegal act, what I have is now worth less than what it was before the copy.
that only really works if what's important is the scarcity of your property or information. that's not true at all for most** copyrighted works; they're usually contributions to culture, and as such, they have a tendency to gain value as they proliferate. that's why theres a separate set of laws for things that would otherwise be secret: patents.
in both "theft" and "illegal copying" cases, you have less value than what you started with
you seem to be implying that if persons A and B have legal copies of some copyrighted good, and person C has an illegal copy of it, that person C is devaluing person A's copy in some intangible way that person B is not. you're gonna have a tough time proving that one. in fact, i can think up a pre-emptive counter argument.
let's say the theoretical copyrighted good is some online video game. aside from the probability that pirates will be team-killing losers, having more people to play with/against is going to be considered a good thing, in nearly all cases.
finally,
you can see why there's some confusion for the average person.
considering the fact that a growing percentage of the population is actively infringing someone's copyright, and has been since the commercialization of the VCR, i'm inclined to think that the average person isn't confused at all. i'd say they just flat out don't agree with most corporations on whether or not infringement is theft.
**i try to avoid saying "all", "always", "every", etc., but in this case, i really wanted to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: #4
Easy: To get one song you used to have to buy the whole CD. Singles notwithstanding (let's pretend somebody doesn't want to pay $7 for one song, its extended version, two mediocre remixes, and a forgettable B side), the price of a CD is creeping towards $20 if it's not there already. So you have one person who has "stolen" $20. Then he "created a situation" in which 30 other people were "allowed" to download pieces of the album from his computer. We are now up to $600 in lost revenue. Those 30 people also allowed each other to download pieces from each other, so we better multiply by 30 again! Plus the other five people who downloaded the torrent halfway through the process; we're well over $18,000, so as you can see, the RIAAQ is actually quite generous!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: #4
either way, its retarded though. leaving a window open should not be illegal. unless someone is ACTIVELY sharing (ie, telling people where to get music, advertising what songs they have, etc.), they should not be charged beyond the initial cost of downloading the song plus punitive damages similar to stealing 1 cd from a store.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: #4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MSM Doesn't Get It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does the price of technology really go down?
There was a fad of $100-$200 PC's earlier in the decade, but now the cheap models cost at least $300.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does the price of technology really go down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kinda like... Music...? :)
Interesting to see what happens in court. They can't decide against the copyright holder in this case, and decide for the copyright holders in music can they?
Well - without being Hypocritical?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank gawd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #10 & #11
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...it's hard to justify that as being theft since no one is missing anything."
By that logic, I should be able to go into the long term parking lot at the airport and take any car in the lot for the day as long as I replace the gas I use. The owner is out of town. They won't miss it.
The fundamental idea of property is about being able to control it.
Selling easily reproduced digital goods [b]is[/b] a lousy business to be in and it's only going to get worse. However, the ease with which they can be reproduced doesn't negate the fact that stealing them is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2) even if you take the car for one day, one hour,... there is wear and tear, you have slightly decreased the remaining life-expectancy of the car. With digital goods, you do not.
3) the argument was used with regard to copying something, not taking the original...it's very hard to believe you conveniently failed to realize that...one would think the level of debility required for that would prevent you from writing any comprehensible sentences
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By that logic, I should be able to go into the long term parking lot at the airport and take any car in the lot for the day as long as I replace the gas I use. The owner is out of town. They won't miss it.
Not so. The car itself is missing, plus wear and tear, plus the chance for an accident... It's a tangible good getting used up, not a copy.
The fundamental idea of property is about being able to control it.
Indeed. But we're not talking about "property" here. We're talking about ones and zeroes. And no one is saying you can't control it. What's happening here is that people are trying to stop others from *copying* that property. That's not theft of property at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2nd life court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Play the game all the way
Keep everything involved in the Second Life World inside that World. Now that would be interesting. You know what would be really cool is Second Life Executions where your digital life is permanently deleted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
theft and rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]