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

[Amanda Walker]

On Sunday, September 21, 2003, at 04:04  PM, Crosbie Fitch wrote:

> By your definition then, that virtual characters cannot own
> anything, I can legally take anything I want, because anytime
> someone says "Hey! You can't take that car. I own that car!" I can
> come up with the following retort "Ah, but you see, it is my
> contention that we're currently living within a virtual universe -
> obviously undetectable by ourselves - and that therefore all
> notions of ownership within this world are null and void because
> in the super-universe - the 'truly real universe' - virtual
> constructs do not have 'personhood' and thus any notion we have
> that we own things is purely illusory - only super-beings are able
> to own things".

> It really doesn't hold water.

That's because you're mixing levels of abstraction.

Avatars are the interface point between a person in the physical
world and a character in a virtual world.  Within the context of the
virtual world, your character can own, use, create, and destroy all
sorts of things.  However, that character does not have any property
rights in the physical world, any more than he can throw a fireball
at your neigbor's pesky dog.

The position being argued is not that virtual characters cannot own
anything, but that they can neither own anything in the context of
the physical world, nor draw upon its resources for recourse.  They
can draw upon all the in-game recourse that they want--form up a
posse, declare someone KOS, whatever.

Character context and player context are different.

> Avatars patently do own things, otherwise Grand Theft Auto
> couldn't work, because how can your avatar steal anything if it's
> impossible for it to be owned anyway? Should we rename it "Grand
> Pretend Theft Auto"?

Why not?  In the context of the physical world, that's precisely
what it is.

> However, I expect misunderstand arises because some people operate
> on the premise that the real world is 100% isolated from the
> virtual world and vice versa,

Not isolated--just at different levels of abstraction (or, for a
more mystical way to frame it, "on different planes of reality").

>  and that therefore, any use of language > implying something
>  determined by law is governed by the respective > jurisdiction,
>  i.e. if you talk about an avatar owning something in > the
>  virtual world, it's governed by the virtual jurisdiction, >
>  whereas if you talk about a player owning something in the real >
>  world, it's goverened by the real jurisdiction.

Yes, bingo.

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