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

[Marian Griffith]

In <URL:/archives/meow?group+local.muddev> on Tue 16 Sep, Matt Mihaly wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Crosbie Fitch wrote:
>> From: Matt Mihaly

>>> Avatars own nothing under any country's legal code that I'm
>>> aware of. Only legal entities may own things, and a collection
>>> of database entries is most definitely not a legal entity.

>> Ah. I'm talking two universes, two jurisdictions, here.
>> E.g. MiddleEarthOnline: Bilbo owns his hobbit-hole (until someone
>> else, say Frodo, inherits it). If the player John Doe is
>> controlling the avatar Bilbo, then the player doesn't own the
>> hobbit-hole, the avatar does. Real-world law should apply to the
>> player, not the player's avatar. Hobbiton's jurisdiction caters
>> for that quite nicely.

> Well, what happens in the fictional universe is largely
> irrelevant. It's the real-world implications we're discussing and
> in the real world, avatars don't own things as they are not
> persons under the law.

It is not a fictional universe but a game, and the principle does
make a lot of sense actually, if you think about it.  Suppose you
are playing monopoly and you buy 'main street'.  Do you own that
street? Yes and no. You own it only within the context of the game
only. You could even argue that your 'avatar' owns the street.  You
most assuredly are not allowed to cut the street out of the game
board and take it with you.

Or, consider games like quake or counterstrike.  If you would not
accept that the laws of the game apply to the avatars only, you
would, in effect, proclaim the players murderers, since they have
killed hundreds if not thousands of other 'players'.  Within the
laws of those games murder is not a crime. It is even encouraged.

It is quite reasonable to claim that game objects are owned by game
characters, not by the players who control them. In the same the
player does not 'own' the character, it merely is the token with
which he or she plays the game. The game company provides to the
players a game board, and stores the state of characters when they
are not used, much the same way a host stores the game state of
correspondence monopoly. Granted muds have a much larger game, and
much more flexibility in their game actions.  The fact that I can go
anywhere I want instead of the number of places forward my dice roll
indicates does not change the essential similarity.  The player has
a contract with the game company (or admin for non profit games),
that allows her to play his character in the game.  The character
must respect the rules (laws) of the game(world) of course, but in
the end it is only a game piece that exists only until such time the
player choses not to renew the contract.

> I can't see this having much legal weight. I'm in control of a
> rented car while I've rented it but I certainly don't have
> ownership over it. I'm not a lawyer though.

Which leads to an interesting point if you break a law using that
car, which would lead to it being impounded if you were the owner of
that car...  Demonstration of ownership is only important if no
clear ownership has been established before. By renting the car, and
signing the contract, you effectively accept that somebody else owns
the car and that you are merely buying the use of it, not the object
itself.

marian
--
Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
will there be loneliness ...

Rolan Choosing Talia,
Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev