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

[Matt Mihaly]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Crosbie Fitch wrote:
> 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,

Avatars can't think and thus don't have perspectives. Players have
perspectives, not database entries.

>> 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.

I'd actually argue it IS real. I mean, you really are changing
database entries. You really are communicating with other
people. You really AREN'T killing anyone, etc etc. That's just the
fiction we put on top of the reality.

> 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.

Well, sure, it's all subject to real world law because these games
are part of the real world. But again, no one is killing anything,
etc in these games because there's nothing there to kill.

> 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.

I've asked you for case law showing me how a database entry can have
personhood and thus legal ownership over anything. When you provide
that I will begin to entertain your argument, as my argument is
simply that ownership (as opposed to possession) is a legal device
and without legal support, there is no ownership, at least under the
law (which is what we are talking about).

> 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.

Yes, they may indeed, though I see it as unlikely that courts are
going to start prosecuting people for murder from bashing monsters
or PK.

>> 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:

Of course I do. Bilbo doesn't have personhood. He's a character in a
movie and a book.

>> 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.

Just depends on your definition of reality I suppose. Reality, to
me, is the sum total of All.

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