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

[Jeff Cole]

From: Crosbie Fitch
> From: Matt Mihaly

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

Actually, most important is how valuable are the objects of concern.
Rest assured that at some point, these objects are going to become
sufficiently valuable--or, more accurately, the market will become
sufficiently valuable--that the law will intervene.  Regardless of
any philosophical, epistemological, or other considerations.

The objects in question are "real" because a sentient person has the
right to control, and exclude others from controlling, such objects.
That's what makes them "real."  The value doesn't inhere in any
tangible aspect of such object anymore than the value of a stock
certificate inheres in the paper and ink of which it is composed: it
inheres in the legal rights that the certificate affords the owner.
The bank balance isn't composed of the same bills that you deposited
(or that were paid to your bank, if bills were paid at all, from the
drawee bank): its value inheres in your right to assert against your
bank your contractual right to the funds.

People and companies regularly offer property that they have yet to
acquire (and which they might not ever acquire) as security against
loans.

It doesn't matter if virtual sword == real sword.  What matters is
that the customer has the exclusive right to that sword, and can
freely (or not so) transfer it to another.

> 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.

It's not whether the avatar owns it.  The law isn't going to draw
the distinction: a case will never be captioned Avatar v. Player
... it will be Player v. Player.  Heh.

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

> Does the law recognise the virtual world as real though?

> 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.

You have a conceptual disconnect.  The law isn't going to take
notice because people refer to avatars "owning" objects.  It's going
to take notice because *real* people are placing *real* value on the
*real* rights to exclude others and freely transfer *virtual*
objects.  The value may well disappear if the developer powers down
the servers, but that doesn't matter.  When the market becomes
sufficiently valuable, the law will provide remedies to the *real*
participants.

If you need a conceptual analogy to corporate personhood, then
consider that corporate personhood makes sense because a corporation
exhibits sentience through its directors/officers/shareholders.
Avatars exhibit sentience through the player.  If that helps, great.
But its a legal fiction.

Consider also: different forms of business organization have
different rights/liabilities that reflect the different
relationships between the management and investment qualities that
they exhibit.

> 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.

See, most people can distinguish meaning through context.
"Ownership" in the real world has different meaning based on the
type of property involved (e.g. realty as opposed to personalty) and
the context in which it was acquired.  For most, the distinctions
don't really matter because it reduces to the rights to exclude and
freely transfer.  But to the law, the distinctions are very
important.  Indeed, people regularly hire lawyers (or hire people
who hire lawyers) to take care of the details to make sure that the
person has complied with the law such that (s)he can exclude others
and freely transfer the property.

> 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.

But that's not what you're discussing.  You're discussing one
*player's* ability to give another *player* a *virtual* object.  The
avatar is merely a client or an interface.

> 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.

Ownership is only as good as the power of the state that enforces it
(or, the power of the state that prevents another from asserting an
adverse ownership, heh).  Period.

>> 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.
...
> 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.

Regardless of whether they're isolated or not, it's the *real* world
value and the *real* world player's right to exclude (and transfer
to) others that the law is going to address.

You can be as pedantic as you want, but that isn't going to win your
case.  These issues are hardly revolutionary in the law.  The trick
is getting judges to analogize to the brick and mortar.

Yrs. Affcty,
Jeff Cole
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev