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

[Matt Mihaly]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Crosbie Fitch wrote:
> From: Matt Mihaly

>> No, it does not make sense. We're talking about whether or not an
>> avatar can own something under the law. It cannot because it is
>> not given personhood by the courts and as has been said about 5
>> times on this thread so far, only entities with personhood can
>> own things. The law could recognize an avatar as having
>> personhood but I believe that's an extremely far-fetched
>> possibility in the forseeable future. It serves no wide-spread
>> public purpose, unlike corporate personhood. (Yes yes, any
>> WTO-protestor types out there can complain that corporate
>> personhood is detrimental to society but the law has definitively
>> decided otherwise, for good reasons.)

> 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".]

*rolls his eyes*

You're totally welcome to feel that way and I may even agree with
you if we were discussing epistemology rather than the laws of the
physical world.

> It really doesn't hold water.

No, it doesn't hold water, but that's because your beliefs on
whether what is commonly called the physical universe is "real" or
not are utterly irrelevant. The law recognizes it as real and we're
talking about the law here. I know you have a difficulty with the
concept of "I wish" vs. "It is" but c'mon.

> 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"?

Your avatar isn't stealing anything just like your avatar in a MMO
is not killing anything. It's called "fiction." I gotta say, if you
really believe that actions in MMOs are real, you're pretty sick if
you actually play anything involving pretend killing.

In any case, You can call it whatever you want. Avatars quite
patently do not own things under the law. There's no dispute there
really. I don't know how many times something has to be repeated to
you before you understand: Only entities with personhood may own
property under the law.  An avatar can no more own something in the
physical world under the law than the couch I'm sitting on can or
the first paragraph of a Word document can.

> By your reckoning we should change the language such that we have
> 'rown' which means 'really own or have real legal title to as
> really recognised by one or more real nations on the real planet
> Earth, in the really real universe', and another word say 'vown'
> which means 'virtually own or have pretend legal title to as
> pretendedly recognised by one or more pretend jurisdictions in the
> pretend virtual world'.

I'm not giving you an opinion here. I'm just telling you what the
law recognizes in terms of ownership, at least as I understand
it. If you're aware of case law that gives personhood to database
entries then please, by all means, enlighten us.

> 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, 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. Obviously there are problems if people start
> believing that the two jurisdictions can interact, e.g. that a
> player can own a virtual item, or that a virtual avatar could own
> the player's car (yikes!).

The real world isn't isolated at all from a virtual world. A virtual
world is completely contained within the larger real world. And if
players can't own virtual items there is no issue here. Indeed, the
issue only arises when it IS a player claiming to own a virtual
item. Avatars have no rights, can't sue, etc, because they don't
have personhood.

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