[MUD-Dev] BIZ: Who owns my sword?

[ceo]

Crosbie Fitch wrote:
> From: Matt Mihaly

>> I don't see that that eliminates the risk. If players own a
>> virtual sword then virtually every game design decision invites
>> lawsuits from players claiming that you've damaged the value of
>> their property. Changed the power of the sword? You screwed me!
>> Changed how hard monsters generally are? You screwed me! (Cause
>> my sword now has less effect on said monsters.) Etc.

> All you have to do is figure out what kind of toys the litigation
> kiddies bouncing around in the bouncy castle will want to play
> with.

> Then you have to ensure you can sell those toys on a 'sold as
> seen' basis, i.e. the second you've got the money, run like hell.

Unfortunately, few legal systems work like that (the UK certainly
doesn't). "Sold as seen" == "caveat emptor" which went out of
fashion this side of the atlantic many decades ago. The entirety of
consumer-protection acts are a solid bulwark to prevent that in most
situations. It is of course an ongoing debate in economics and
elsewhere: "Over-regulate or under-regulate?"...but you rarely get
to abbrogate responsbility as a vendor.

> For a comparison, consider just how hard it is for MS to litigate
> the developers of GNU/Linux. The best they can do is to make a
> golem to extort frail and gullible users.

Well, actually open source people often shoot themselves in the head
quite nicely with the GPL, and even the LGPL, which I recently heard
had been "semi-officially" explained as being equivalent to the GPL
for all java developers (due to the official interpretation of
"linking"; I saw it coming and had avoided putting LGPL inside
commercial java products for a while already...I was certainly not
alone, and MS doesn't need much help with enemies like
this). Sad. But that's a different conversation entirely... :)

> it? Whether IBM or the public owns the platform doesn't
> matter. The solution is separating the MMOG developer from
> providing the platform as well as the content.

If you own the platform, you own the (abstract) on-off switch, no?
Or is this part of your p2p argument - there is no-one who can do
this? (which surely only works if "there is *no* platform", so
there's nothing for us to be worrying about who owns it?)

> Sell the content en masse, on a one-shot basis, i.e. a company
> dedicated only to produce a particular piece of content. It
> disbands the second it gets paid.

Ah, so you recommend a game without a game-design (how else is it
going to be maintained, fixed, updated, upgraded and improved over
time. Those are not synonyms; they are all separate activities that
a good MMOG needs). A game with no rules but those the players make
from day to day?

> If any players subsequently feel like litigating, perhaps because
> they've decided it's too addictive, or makes them have nightmares,
> or offends their religion, etc. then tough tambourines. They can
> join the ranks of people suing McDonalds for making them eat too
> many delicious burgers.

Or just get an injunction and make it (temporarily) illegal for
anyone to play that game anywhere. Shrug. You can't just run away
from the legal system - it would be pretty pathetic if you could!

> Put the power back in the hands of the players, and let the
> artists get back to producing art. Virtual worlds belong to their
> denizens.

Great soundbite, but to me it sounds equally vacuous.

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