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

[Crosbie Fitch]

From: Matt Mihaly

> 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.

So surely, from an avatar's perspective, one would realise that
avatars truly believe they're talking about their 'physical' world,
and that when they talk about 'ownership' they discount similarly
epistemological arguments, e.g. if I could get my Frodo avatar to
tell Bilbo that "Pah. You don't own this hobbit hole, because there
is a certain extra-universal being who disputes that you have
person-hood, ipso facto you can't possibly own it.", no doubt Bilbo
would reply "I don't know what mushrooms you've been eating Frodo,
but I think you'll find that in this physical world of ours called
Middle Earth, I do have person-hood and moreover, have all the
necessary legal documents to prove my title to this hobbit hole. I
certainly don't want to waste my time on discussions concerning
epistemology.".

>> 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.

Quite. I think we can agree that the real world is real. Even as
denizens of the virtual world believe that their world is real.

More important is whether the virtual universe is 'real' or not.

This is the key. If you believe the virtual world is real, and
similarly subject to our laws, then disputes about whether avatars
can own things are plainly understandable.

> The law recognizes it as real and we're talking about the law
> here.

Does the law recognise the virtual world as real though?

>> 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.

I think it's pretty clear that I stand with those who contend that
what occurs in a fantasy world is not real, and therefore not
subject to real world laws.

You, on the other hand, appear to believe that what occurs in a
fantasy world is, albeit fictional, nevertheless subject to real
world law - or at least, would be if one isn't vigilant in expunging
all language implying property or crime, etc.

Indeed, your solution appears to be to invalidate all verbs having
avatar as object, e.g. "No, avatars don't own anything", "Avatars
can't steal anything", "Avatars can't kill anything". Eventually,
you'll end up determining that "Avatars can't actually do anything
at all". This is the pragmatic viewpoint; that there is no such
thing as a virtual world, that it would be invalid to discuss things
within the context of such, that all there is is a computer, a
database, and entertaining pictures.

That is a solution, but it's probably not one that players will find
amenable. To them, they see the virtual world, they do not see
abstract pixels on their monitor. They have suspended disbelief. The
problem is that the courts may also suspend disbelief and fail to
share our view that the virtual world is a fiction.

> 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.

However, you did dispute the ability for Bilbo to own his hobbit
hole. You said:

  "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 precisely what happens in the fictional universe (exchange of
swords), and the change of ownership of such virtual items belonging
to avatars that we're discussing.

I contend that avatars own things (virtual ownership of virtual
things in the virtual world), and that the virtual world (along with
the avatars inhabiting it) is outside the jurisdiction of the real
world.

> 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.

You don't need to repeat yourself. I've never challenged these two
points.

> If you're aware of case law that gives personhood to database
> entries then please, by all means, enlighten us.

Nope.

> The real world isn't isolated at all from a virtual world. A
> virtual world is completely contained within the larger real
> world.

I think we differ here.

> 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.

If one considers the real isolated from the virtual, then these
things are clear. It is when one considers the virtual world part of
the real, that one then sympathises with players believing they have
rights over things in the virtual world.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev