Why Virtual Property Doesn't Make Sense
from the bingo dept
I've long had trouble with the idea that "property rights" make sense in virtual worlds. After all, the entire purpose of property rights is to efficiently allocate resources in the presence of scarcity. If there's no scarcity, there's no question of efficient allocation (everyone can get as many copies as they want). However, for whatever reason, there's been a big push to create "property rights" within virtual worlds. Slashdot points us to an excellent paper that goes through the arguments for assigning property rights in virtual worlds, and even models out some scenarios based on them. In the end, it finds no compelling reason for assigning property rights in virtual worlds. Here's just a snippet, from a look at whether or not property rights make markets more efficient in a virtual world:Extending property rights to virtual resources does not make more efficient markets for those resources. The qualified approach to virtual resource property rights provides no reductions in the search costs of a buyer since the legal rights and attributes of those resources mirror those granted by the virtual world's code-based regulations. Worse, a carte-blanche approach will increase search costs by requiring a buyer to determine where the code-based rights and attributes of a resource deviate from its legal rights and attributes.
Therefore, the efficient market justifications for virtual resource property rights can not be satisfied under either the carte-blanche or qualified approach to virtual resource property rights. The only way this justification may be satisfied is if legislatures and courts reach into the virtual worlds and mandate what specific rights and attributes virtual resources can take.
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: economics, property, virtual property, virtual worlds
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
who would want to run a virtual world?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Should never happen
It just would never make sense. They would need a million little exceptions and stipulations on the laws dictating this junk, and then I still guarantee you people would have ways around it.
They (being government and lawyers) need to just stay out of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Definition fail
Uh...not so much. The efficient allocation of resources in the presence of scarcity would be the purpose of markets. The concept of property and the purpose of property rights is, in part, the necessary backbone that allow markets to exist. Efficient allocation of resources is certainly not the "entire purpose" of property rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@Killer_Tofu
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This will be pushed for by Big Content
It's ALL virtual. None of it exists in a real sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This isn't to say traditional property laws can apply, but that the issue is far from a black-and-white consideration of 'infitite' versus 'finite' goods.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Definition fail
Of course it is. Otherwise, we'd all still be living off the land like primitive cultures. Nobody would care because everyone could make houses in a matter of weeks with some help from their friends and could easily feed their family all the time. Since you wouldn't need anything else, you wouldn't care.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This will be pushed for by Big Content
Instead, try to realize the truth....there is no spoon....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Definition fail
Ergo, my friend, property rights may be involved in allocation of resources, it is not their "entire" purpose.
Mike should know this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Britney
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/08/britney-spears-facebook-gift.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Definition fail
Attempting to artificially separate "control" from "allocation" is folly. The two go hand in hand -- each necessary for the other. Property allocates resources by granting control, and control is granted by allocating resources.
Property theory deals with this duality as far back as Grotius and Puffendorf. Grotius argued against the allocation of property rights in the high seas because they could not be controlled and were, in his time, infinite in nature.
As for markets, they do nothing for the 'allocation' of resources. Markets are merely a representation of resource transfers. Markets themselves do nothing -- they only present data.
Rather, the policies (such as laws, regulations) involved in those markets allocate resources. Property law is one of the classic, and potentially the first, policies that affect how markets allocate resources. (Contract is another oldie but goodie.)
Finally, 'virtual property' is a problematic term that is inexact and captures other resources already regulated by law. This includes patents and copyrights. The 'virtual property' here is the carving out of a virtual world rights in the items represented in that world -- the 'virtual real estate,' the 'virtual swords,' and the 'virtual characters.'
These 'properties' would be independent of the underlying hardware and intellectual property rights of the developer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Britney
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Britney
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Britney
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2008/12/virtual-gifts/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: who would want to run a virtual world?
I'd guess that giving all players maximum stats and making all in-game items available in in-game stores for free, even a couple of hours before the "death" of the game, would cover you legally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Game Rules, not Gov't Laws
To some extent civil lawsuits might make sense in such a game if players see hundreds or thousands of hours of their time wasted by someone cheating at the game. But again a good game system could address that much better than the courts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Virtual lawsuits, virtual courts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Virtual Real Estate and Economy
In Dreamworld you can own your own virtual property for a low monthly cost and use it to be creative, check it out at http://www.virtualworld.sl
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Taxes
If someone hacks a game and steals your sword, they should be charged under appropriate hacking laws. If they steal your sword within the rules of the game, you're out of luck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]