[MUD-Dev] paying volunteers

[Sellers]

Nicholas Daley wrote:
> Matthew Mihaly wrote:

>> Alright, now here is an interesting question. Achaea has a currency
>> that is both in-game and out of game. You can buy it from other
>> players, in-game, with gold, or with whatever currency the other
>> player will accept. You can buy it out-of-game with real money.

>> We pay our Guides in credits. Since paying the Guides in credits
>> doesn't cost us money (though it does cost us potential money from
>> those players), it seems that we could pay the Guides minimum wage
>> in credits, (which is still 6x what they get now, as what they get
>> now is a token thank you) and not run afoul of the law if these OSI
>> and AOL wankers win their suit.  It's not actually an expense, as
>> they cost nothing to produce.

>> Any comments on this? Seems a potentially good strategy for other
>> companies.

I'm chiming in late, so this may already have been covered.  One point
of exposure I see evolving from the current lawsuits is the
recognition of in-game credits, objects, characters, etc., as actually
being real-world goods with real-world value.  If I can sell the Gem
of Babe-Getting on EBay for $100, it has real value.  So, if, in the
game, I kill your character and steal this Gem, I have committed
theft: I've stolen something from you that has real-world value, and
deprived you of getting those dollars.  Moreover, if a buddy and I
plan this out and steal it from you so we can sell it on Ebay before
you do, we're probably guilty of conspiracy as well.

And this is all over something that doesn't "really" exist except as
in-game data.  The fact that there exists a real-world market for this
data makes it less easy to say "hey it's just a game."

To my knowledge, no one has confronted this in real legal terms yet.
But given the current UO suit, I think it's just a matter of time
before someone sues someone else (and maybe the game company) for
selling on EBay an item stolen in the game.  The only real protection
that I see for the game companies is for them to claim 'common
carrier' status, as the phone company does with obscene phone calls.
Essentially, the game companies need to be able to say "we just put
the objects in the world, we don't control how the players use them."

Matt, in your case, I wouldn't start to worry until someone starts
*selling* their credits for real dollars.  That's when the loop is
closed and the in-game data now has marketable real-world value.

> This would be the equivalent of being aid in kind (e.g. given
> vegetables for work at a grocers), and I'm fairly certain that
> employees (i.e.  people being paid for their work, which is what
> you'd be turning your guides into) are legally entitled to be paid
> with cash, not in kind.

AFAIK, payment in kind is perfectly legitimate if both parties have
the ability to agree and do so (that is, neither is under duress).
And of course, paying people does not necessarily make them employees.
Different countries have different tests for what an employee is.  In
general, the less you direct their work (like, *don't* tell them they
have to be online for certain specific hours and make them submit time
cards!), the less likely they are to be considered employees.

Mike Sellers


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev