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

[geoffrey at yorku.ca]

rayzam wrote:

> Matt Mihaly wrote:

>> If courts treat stealing virtual objects as real crimes, then I
>> don't see any way they can avoid having to investigate and
>> prosecute the crimes themselves. I don't see this happening. It'd
>> be essentially impossible for them. I imagine a cop logging into
>> Achaea to investigate a crime. He'd get nowhere at all. Further,
>> given that there can be a _total_ lack of hard evidence in a mud, I
>> don't see how proof of guilt could be established.

Well - wouldn't the logs be considered pretty good hard evidence,
considering they would house an exact transcript of the crime?

> Unfortunately, since the people involved aren't likely to be in the
> same state, it would make it a federal issue. Which means they'd
> pull all the machines and code first, and search it later. Besides
> that, it may up to you to have all necessary logs, which may lead to
> obstruction or accessory charges. All this is *assuming* there's an
> actual legal issue here.

Well, I don't think there is an actual legal issue, but it's fun to
play with.

Hence...

If the police seized the servers, wouldn't they be performing an
illegal search and seizure of all of the 'innocent' players' property
stored on the server?  And would the server actually be considered to
house the property, or would it exist only within the game state?

And, considering that most game designers wouldn't take too kindly to
having their servers seized, wouldn't they just reprogram the game to
give the stolen items back to the offended party?  And then would the
charge be turned to attempted theft (if there is such a charge - as I
think it's just straight B&E if there is no theft)?

A theft, almost by definition, implies a forced change of physical
possession and/or location.  Well - does stealing someone's sword
within a game change either of those?  The 'item' is still sitting in
the computer in the corner of the same room, owned by the same people.

Before you could draw conclusions regarding whether or not a theft had
occurred, you would need to have - at least - some kind of working
definition of what *exactly* the item was, and where it was located.
And, I would argue that that definition would not state that the
virtual item was represented solely by its code within the database.
Which, in turn, means that the theft would have to be dealt with
within the context of the world - which it is already.

How about this line of argument...

I own a car.  Someone steals my car.  I file a complaint with the
police saying that someone stole my car.  I do not file a complaint
with the police saying that someone stole 1500 pounds of steel, 100
pounds of rubber, 3.5 yards of canvas straps, 5 square yards of
leather, etc.

I.e., the object is considered as a whole, based upon its perceived
and intended function.  If I was returned the material components of
the car in a form that no longer functioned as a car, no one would
claim that I got my car back.  The 'value' is a function of purpose.
Purpose is a function of context.  So, the only place in which the
code representing my sword has use is within the context of the vw -
so the only place there can claim to have been a theft is in the vw.
And the only place it could be rectified is in the vw.

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