Digital Property Law [was RE: [MUD-Dev] Selling training]

[Joe Andrieu]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu
> [mailto:mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu]On Behalf Of
> the_logos at www.achaea.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 3:22 AM
> To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> Subject: Re: [MUD-Dev] Selling training


> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Frank Crowell wrote:
>> the_logos at www.achaea.com wrote:

>>> Is this sort of thing common? I mean, this guy is going to be
>>> earning a few thousand dollars, minimum, in the near future from
>>> basically acting like a coach for other players. That's COOL.

>> I agree, this is great.  Your children are going to be drifting in
>> and out of virtual world 24x7 and wonder what all the > fuss was
>> about in the ancient days of pre-2005 when people made a
>> distinction between real and virtual worlds.

> Yes, absolutely. The massive distinction seems unwarranted to
> me. There are differences obviously, but I don't view them as
> fundamental.

This is spot on in the long view--VR will be just another playground
to experience. There's no disagreement there.

But there is fundamental difference in that we have not yet
established defendable legal jurisdiction (and hence rights, torts,
crimes, and process) of cyberspace. In fact, I suggest this is
actually a common thread to many of the criticisms of current MPOGs.
(If a good "legal system" could be put in place, many problems, IMNSHO
would pretty much go away.)


To be more specific, if, in real-life someone attacks you and takes
your stuff, that's a violent crime, stiffly punished.  If it happens
in a game, it's "just part of the game." No big deal.

What if I paid for that stuff with real money?  Probably not a big
deal if I got it from another player on the black-market--there's very
little grounds for liability if the transaction is "unauthorized".
Just as I can't go to the cops when the loss in the mugging was
contraband.

But what if that "stuff" is sanctioned by the game, possibly bought at
a shop owned by the game company, and for all extents and purposes
treated as if it were property? (Clear title, transferability, the
right to exclusive use, etc.)

Further, what if the "mugging" took place in a manner that was not
intended by the designers, e.g., the thief took advantage of a bug in
the software to trap the victim and commit the crime.

At what point does the virtual mugging become a bonafide theft?  At
some point it does.

Now, with training, this may not be as big a deal because it may be
hard to be denied the right to use your skills (they can't be stolen).
But for digital objects, it is a huge deal.


Consider a more obvious, but no less virtual crime:

I pay a developer to build a website for me. I have them create
several key pieces of software (javascript, html, cgi, etc.) custom
designed for me, and to keep things clear, I did it on a work-for-hire
basis--I own the software. I paid cash and put it up on my web site.
Some smart hacker type comes along, copies the html and javascript and
even breaks into my crappily secured off-the-shelf Red Hat server and
steals my cgi code.  Then he takes *my* software and resells it or
uses it himself.

This is clearly theft.  But it really is no different from the PKer on
EQ who cracks the system and takes my stuff that I paid another player
for, that player having "developed" the objects by playing the game
until he got them.  And one could argue it doesn't matter if the
player or the hacker "cracked" the security.  Theft of copyright,
trademark, or intellectual property does not require the information
to be well-guarded (only trade secrets require that).


There is a difference of course. Verant has gone to great lengths to
prevent such transactions, so they are pretty much liability proof.
In the RedHat server example, I only have myself to blame.

This difference gets hairy when the MPOG service starts to treat
digital objects like property. Sooner or later the courts are going to
decide that it *is* property. At which point the service soon becomes
liable, just as Disneyland could easily find itself liable in a
lawsuit if some installation or ride systematically enabled theft or
other crimes.


This line is already being tested in the courts. The best defense is
to outlaw it (the TOS defense) and do everything you can as a service
to prevent users from treating digital goods as property (see eBay and
Yahoo's support of Verant's attempts to shut down the black-market in
digital goods). And that is precisely what is happening with the big
players. Which makes sense because they have the most to lose. Small
MUDs don't have the cash to bother with a lawsuit. EA does. Sony does.
Microsoft certainly does.


The best long term solution is to figure out the right way to treat
digital objects as property--with clear delineation as to the nature,
scope, rights, and responsibilities of the property owner, as well as
a civil and/or criminal procedure for backing up those rights and
responsibilities--and to implement such a legal system within the game
robustly enough so that a real-world court would find the service
sufficient in its duty to protect the property of those using its
service.

That's a tall order. But I'm betting someone will figure it out sooner
or later...


-j

--
Joe Andrieu
Realtime Drama

joe at andrieu.net
+1 (626) 395-1011

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