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

[Michael Chui]

--- Crosbie Fitch <crosbie at cyberspaceengineers.org> wrote:

> 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.

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

I feel I'm a little slow in following this (having only a
sub-rudimentary understanding of law will do that), but I get the
very distinct feeling that you're saying this:

In order to resolve the issue, we need to first define virtual
worlds, avatars, and just about everything else in the rapidly
growing MUD vocabulary with American law.

That's painful. I recently read Cooper's "The CyberFrontier", with
many agreements. I also have been seeing a lot of remarks on how the
industry is still young. Defining all the terms in legalese, if you
ask me, would probably constrict the growth of the market
drastically. (It might not; I'm just noting that the very ambiguity
of many of the terms, while confusing, probably sparks an
imagination here and there.) And MUDs have been classified as Art
and Entertainment, as well; to my knowledge, neither have any
defining legal terms, but rather, they are governed by their effect
on the audience. The Obscenity property, for instance.

If you cut out the Mona Lisa's smile, are you stealing from Mona
Lisa, Leonardo Da Vinci, the museum, or the public? (Granted, I also
have no idae to whom the Mona Lisa currently belongs, or even if
it's under American jurisdiction.. I don't know much. :)

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