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

[Crosbie Fitch]

From: Ren Reynolds
> On 25 September 2003 09:52 Crosbie Fitch wrote

> A good deal of ethics can be reduced to promise breaking, so I
> would say that if someone in a game world steals or cheats gold
> from someone else then this is an act with a real moral dimension
> - irrespective of the lack of the physical nature of things.

A game is a way of simulating some aspect of the real world in order
to explore consequences - without direct repercussions in the real
world.

Just as a book is an escape into a world without real world
consequences, so a game or virtual world should have the same
privilege. The nightmare scenario is that there is no escape from
the real world, that ones behaviour is just as much restricted in a
game as it is in the real world. This denies fantasy, denies
role-playing, denies the ability to cheat, lie, or perform any other
activity that is proscribed in the real world.

It is the benefit of exploring the ethical aspects of ones actions
in a fantasy world that educate, and hopefully entertain. People can
choose the level of moderation they're comfortable with, from
complete absence to total repression. Because as we know, there are
plenty of psychological griefers as well as those that attempt to
persuade players to perform real-world tasks, or form real world
relationships or organisations. However, I really think it's too
soon to outlaw anything in a game that isn't already outlawed in
human intercourse in general (conspiracy, copyright, breach of
contract, misrepresentation, etc.), though this would still only
apply to the real world, i.e. use of MMOGs to conspire to commit a
crime in the real world, is far different than to commit a 'pretend'
crime in the virtual world.

The other aspect is the duty of the MMOG provider to take greater
pains to protect players' assumptions that they have persistent
exclusive rights to the virtual items in possession of their
avatars. This is very bad. DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN! Either make it
clear in the conditions of use that all virtual items are fully
guaranteed against loss (if the current market value is properly
registered, etc.), or make it blindingly clear that there is no such
guarantee or even notion that the player possesses anything
whatsover.  We must be able to produce MMOGs without being legally
required to have a duty of care toward the maintainenance of
avatars, other virtual items, and the virtual world in
general. Market forces are plenty sufficient to persuade MMOG
providers to provide quality and reliability for their customers. We
don't need the law stepping in and making it a de facto requirement
(if only a consequence of granting players rights over their virtual
property).

I would hate to see the situation which is tantamount to me telling
someone I've just handed them an invisible gold bar surrounded by an
anti-gravity field, they sell it to a pal for $5,000, and then I say
"Ooops. Sorry I accidentally dematerialised it" and then they sue me
for causing the loss of their invisible gold bar.

> Intersections of law are similar. If someone starts to use
> trademarked images from say Coca Cola all over a game world. Then
> no one is going start to ask whether these are real or not - no
> someone is going to get sued for trademark infringement.

Granted, use of IP within the virtual world is equivalent to its use
within movies or stories.

> So in every case you need to look at context and act. The exact
> extent of how far we want to extend laws generally into virtual
> worlds is something we all need to think about. My personal
> project is to look at the relationship of identity between
> individual and avatar as I think when we understand this we will
> understand much more about the nature of agency on line and hence
> the kind of laws we should apply.

But, it can vary. Some games attempt to persuade the player that
they really have entered the virtual world as themselves (VR). At
the other extreme we have games that persuade the player that they
are a remote god undetectable by any denizen, only able to influence
natural or chance events, etc. In the middle we have a player able
to influence a denizen, take puppet-like control of such a denizen,
or to enter as a new being, an avatar. And perhaps there are many
other ways in which players can operate within a virtual world. Some
of these having slightly different ethical slants.

My own preference (for ethical purposes) is to do everything to
maintain isolation, i.e. the idea that the real world can not be
detected by the virtual and vice versa. This doesn't preclude that
players may influence the virtual world to a greater or lesser
degree, but at least it guards against the idea that players enter
or have access to the virtual world, or may take anything into it or
out of 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

> I wonder a lot what we mean by this. Assuming that these are
> player characters to what degree is the person-hood in question
> only that of the player. I think in cases like this, unless we
> specifically carve out laws that have protected spaces (some one
> has suggested I look into private ordering here) then we are
> always going mix game rules with external law.

If two avatars marry, who is marrying who in what jurisdiction?
Would the church of the real world wish to supervise weddings in the
virtual world as well as the real? Or would it form a virtual
church?

If an autistic person, completely incommunicative in the real world,
develops a vivacious, charismatic personality in the virtual world
and forms many relationships, etc., is the provider liable in the
event of system failure?

> Even if we think about contact sports where much of what goes on
> would be considered assault if there were not common consent
> during the game and the law agreed to ring-fence the acts - people
> can, and do, get charged with assault when they take it too
> far. In the UK an official in a rugby match was recently found
> negligent in not performing their duty of care when a player was
> injured (Vowles v Evans and others [2003] ER 134). So I'm not sure
> the virtual worlds can escape the law - however real or otherwise
> we think them to be.

The law can only operate in an environment that can be
policed. Policing is expensive. Some players will not care to pay
for themselves to be policed.  It will not be long before
uncontrolled, and unpoliced virtual worlds are built. It will happen
sooner if the currently controlled ones become prohibitively
expensive due to policing requirements.  Look at MS's chatroom
closure decision. Probably driven more by moderation costs than a
desire to demonstrate the dangers of unmoderated chatrooms.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev