MMOG appears in court....

[Hivetyrant]

check it out
Yeah, its kind of long... Sorry, but I thought I might as well put the entire article up [img]tongue.gif[/img]

A multiplayer online game is sued for allowing its players to dress up like comic book heroes. An upstart company winds up in court for creating a Tijuana sweatshop to manufacture digital weaponry. A funny thing is happening in these sprawling online multiplayer arenas. The ultimate in digital escapism, virtual worlds keep ending up in the ultimate in depressing reality: the courts. Massive multiplayer games have exploded in popularity, with games that range far beyond the quests and giant rat killings of a traditional title such as "Everquest II." Some skip Dungeons & Dragon-style role-playing altogether in favor of a free-form world not unlike a virtual "Burning Man." What they have in common is virtual worlds built to accommodate player interaction. The designers create the world and code the boundaries of behavior; the players add the drama with their social interactions. What happens in Norrath doesn't always stay in Norrath, however. Virtual goods now appear for sale in the real world, on eBay. Exchange rates for game currency and U.S. dollars are posted on sites like IGE. An island in one virtual world recently sold for $30,000! That kind of money attracts attention. Digital sweatshops, businesses where Third World laborers play online games 24/7 in order to create virtual goods that can be sold for cash, are also on the rise. One such business, Blacksnow Interactive, actually sued a virtual world's creator in 2002 for attempting to crack down on the practice. The first of its kind to center on virtual goods, the case was eventually dropped. Beth Simone Noveck, an associate professor of law at the New York Law School and director of the Institute for Information Law and Policy, isn't surprised that virtual conflicts are winding up in court. "Now that there's commerce, trading and the exchange of virtual goods in virtual worlds, the law is going to come in," she said. To get a handle on the boundaries between virtual worlds and real-world law, MSNBC.com asked Noveck to highlight several legal hot buttons as they apply to virtual worlds. Is digital property, property? Take virtual property. "One of the questions is, how do we treat property in virtual worlds," said Noveck. "Should we accord them the same protection as property in the real world?" Imagine your virtual world avatar wore a little amulet that was then stolen by another avatar, she suggested. Would that be classified as theft? Probably not. In many virtual worlds, particularly MMORPG's (massively multiplayer online role playing games) theft is allowed; it's considered part of the role playing experience. But money has a way of changing everything. If virtual world goods and money can hold value in a real-world economy, why can't they hold value in the courts? Actually it's already happened -- although the court ruling was in China. In 2003, a court that a virtual world developer had to compensate a player in cash after a hacker stole his virtual goods. Noveck takes the idea of digital property one step further. Imagine someone investing time and money (via a monthly subscription) into a virtual world. She's made friends, built a reputation and spent a fair amount of time collecting and creating virtual goods. All of a sudden, "poof!" her work disappears when the game creator, faced with a losing business, pulls the plug. "Time to get a life," may be the easy response. But for many, the virtual world is their life. The average player spends 22 hours a week online, according to Nick Yee, a virtual world anthropologist who has been documenting MMORPG's since 1999. "As we spend more time in these worlds, it's not enough for companies to say that 'we own everything and we can turn it off at any time,'" said Noveck. "The question may soon be should we have recourse against a game for obliterating assets?" Intellectual property in the virtual realm A more recent case involves Marvel Comics, owners of "Spider-Man" and "The X-Men" franchises. Concerned that players in the critically acclaimed online game "City of Heroes" were using the game's character building tools to outfit themselves as Marvel-owned heroes, the company sued the game's maker, South Korean online gaming giant NCsoft. It was up to NCsoft, Marvel charged, to prevent its players from infringing on its trademarks. advertisement "There's this larger question concerning virtual worlds on the legal treatment of the people who create and provide this service," said Noveck. "Should they be protected as an ISP or should they be responsible like Napster." Internet service providers are not legally responsible for the content of Web sites, that responsibility lies with the owner of the Web site. Napster, on the other hand -- well, everyone knows what happened with Napster. The Feds went after both the company and its customers. The case is still in the courts. Meanwhile, there's an interesting theoretical parallel. After all, a Marvel comic character is protected by the law in every medium. But what if a player in "City of Heroes" created his own virtual character and that character was promptly used in a Marvel comic book. Would that be illegal? "The laws haven't approached that yet," said Noveck. "But it wasn't too long ago that we were talking about whether" trademarks and brands could be protected on the Web. Creating an item in a virtual world worthy of branded status will depend, in the future, on whether the player is allowed ownership of the object created in a virtual world owned by a private company. Most virtual world designers maintain that anything created in the world belong to the company. But already one virtual world, "Second Life," cedes intellectual property rights over player creations to players themselves. That position, combined with "Second Life's" robust tools and scripting, has led to some fantastical creations. "Right now there's this intense disagreement over intellectual property," Noveck said. "Some say recognizing property is good because it enhances creativity, others say, 'Come on! People create things in virtual worlds for the love of it.'" Should virtual worlds be regulated by law at all? Of course all this talk about the law and virtual worlds may sound silly to most people; conjuring up images of tiny digitized courtrooms with a seventh-level dwarf pleading his case. But as the virtual world and the real world grow more alike, the legal questions will mount. Noveck played host to a number of cyber-philosophers and virtual world creators at State of Play II, a conference on virtual worlds in New York last fall. There were no Merlin hats in sight. Instead, discussion centered on the future potential of virtual world technology, according to Noveck, "as not just a place to play, but also a place to work or create culture." In other words, the same technology and multiplayer cooperation that has fostered many-a-dragon-quest in the past could some day be applied to more practical applications like encouraging political participation or fostering a collaborative environment for real world decision-making. Already, some players use virtual worlds as a sort-of public square, voicing their opinion on everything from real-world presidential politics to the problems they have with the game creators. And this brings up another potential legal issue: Using a privately run space to voice public opinions. "If this is a place where people are socializing than one of the questions is, should we be thinking of virtual worlds as something different, like a company town" said Noveck. Company towns are often mentioned as a possible legal precedent for the legal status of virtual worlds. A 1946 Supreme Court ruling found that towns created and run by companies could not restrict the First Amendment right of free expression. Despite their private origin, the court found, the towns served a public function. Applying the Constitution like a sledgehammer to online arenas originally created for escape may sound like the ultimate bad trip -- going against the "we're in this together" camaraderie that has sparked many a virtual world quest. But if virtual worlds are to reach the full potential that Noveck and like-minded scholars and enthusiasts espouse -- as a not just a place to play, but to work and create -- they will need people who understand both the strengths of real world law and virtual world collaboration. "We now have this technology that allows people to create their own place, their own rules," said Noveck. "We need to preserve it."

Hehehe, they had a funny picture there aswell

So what do you guys think? DO you like the fact that people pay real money for virtual stuff?

[Vaskez]

Interesting. Thanks for posting it. It's amazing what social upshakings can take place due to the march of technology. I don't like the fact that real money is paid for virtual stuff, but let's face it, it's gonna get more common as more and more effort and time is put into creating and accumulating virtual stuff, then people are likely to put more and more real world value on it. In 10 years' time at most, virtual things will probably have equal legal status to real things (with some notable exceptions, that don't translate to virtual worlds).

[ 02-07-2005, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Vaskez ]

[Sir Degrader]

Wow. That's pretty strange, the 3rd world labor bit really caught my attention. Pretty odd stuff.

[Vaskez]

Yeah same here, I'd never heard of that before: well I guess it makes a change from us hearing about them doing dangerous manual labour.

[RoSs_bg2_rox]

Yeah it does. I agree, that was very interesting. I thought it quite amazing when he said that the game designers and publishers could actually have the rights to the virtual weapons etc. and thefore the money. That could lead to a whole new area of things, maybe people selling virtual gold on ebay will soon have to pay the designers commission, which if you think about it is actually quite fair. The designers could also make an online bank, selling created gold for cash, although there might be some legal issues with this. But something to think about all the same.

[SilentThief]

Wait until the first "virtual murder" case hits the courts.... or "virtual rape" (hey, sick ppl out there, you never know....)

I think if someone plays a game and finds some awesome artifact; then they should have the right to sell it... IN THE GAME WORLD. I do not think these forms of entertainment should be used to make a quick buck (or slow one for that matter). Sadly; theres always some situation that developes like this: some can't get laid pencil necked geek who's played the game for like the past 22 years would kill someone and then talk trash about it. Then that someone would probably pay much money for the "longsword +4 against pencil-necked geeks".

Sadly, it all comes down to playing fair and getting along, something that has always been out of the question with ppl.

SilentThief

[quietman1920]

You know, I actually discussed this at lunch today with my manager. He games in the pay-to-play world; I game in the free (for now) NWN world. He justifies that if it brings him happiness, he can spend $50 on E-bay and get the items he needs. I tell him that I either earn them the hard way (making me appreciate them more) or I take the time with the tool-set to make my own.

I have no doubt that in his world, loss if items you spent Real Money on generates some Real Disputes (punch outs or worse, if the offendee can track down the offender). But thats why I prefer NWN to EverCrack.

[Lox]

This has always been an interesting topic to me. I was an Econ student in college, and always wondered what we could learn about economies from studying MMORPGs. This MMORPG in particular caught my attention - they explicitly say that in game currency is equivalent to US dollars. There is no monthly fee (it's a free download too), but if you want, you can deposit money in your account, which will appear as virtual money in your avatars inventory. You can cash out as well. (Note: I have not verified any of this. This is from the website and PC Gamer article)

I thought this was a really great idea, but I've been reluctant to try it. What is to say that the developpers won't create uber-items, and sell them in game to lessen their financial liability (and if they did, would that be wrong?). And what happens if there's a run on the bank? If everyone cashes out at the same time, will they be able to pay? Would you have legal recourse if they didn't?

[Q'alooaith]

Thats more a problem with all banks, none can realy afford for everyone to take all their cash and leave, they just don't have all the money..

I'd rather see this nonsense stop though, I mean how long is it before designers get smart and have you sign a ten page contract before playing MMOG's, waiving any right to legal action on account of lost items and so on..


MMOG's have gotten themselves into this mess because of levels..

Content, that's what keep's a MMOG alive, and too many devlopers think that levels = content.. I mean how many times have you find uber sword +[insert level here] gotten from a mob that is just a rehash of somthing you faced for the first time 90 odd levels ago?


Whats the diffrence between a level 10 Rat monster, and a level 20 Mutated rat monster? Well to a level 20 player the level 10 rat moster is no threat, and the level 20 is a challenge, while the level 30 rat monster is impossible.. To a level 30 player the level 20 is no threat, the level 30 is a challenge and the level 40 is impossible..

See the patern, and this is what many MMOG's are, they repakage the same mobs, use diffrent grafics and names, but they are basicaly the same things you've been fighting since level 1.

How is this relivent?

Simple, if MMOG's didn't use the never ending treadmill approach people wouldn't feel such possesion over items and charactors, whats 72 hours work if it's gone? three days not somthing to get overly upset with, whats 1000 hours work on a charactor and items?

The current Breed of MMOG's have dug their own graves.. shame they are going to drag all the other down with them

[Q'alooaith]

Thats more a problem with all banks, none can realy afford for everyone to take all their cash and leave, they just don't have all the money..

I'd rather see this nonsense stop though, I mean how long is it before designers get smart and have you sign a ten page contract before playing MMOG's, waiving any right to legal action on account of lost items and so on..


MMOG's have gotten themselves into this mess because of levels..

Content, that's what keep's a MMOG alive, and too many devlopers think that levels = content.. I mean how many times have you find uber sword +[insert level here] gotten from a mob that is just a rehash of somthing you faced for the first time 90 odd levels ago?


Whats the diffrence between a level 10 Rat monster, and a level 20 Mutated rat monster? Well to a level 20 player the level 10 rat moster is no threat, and the level 20 is a challenge, while the level 30 rat monster is impossible.. To a level 30 player the level 20 is no threat, the level 30 is a challenge and the level 40 is impossible..

See the patern, and this is what many MMOG's are, they repakage the same mobs, use diffrent grafics and names, but they are basicaly the same things you've been fighting since level 1.

How is this relivent?

Simple, if MMOG's didn't use the never ending treadmill approach people wouldn't feel such possesion over items and charactors, whats 72 hours work if it's gone? three days not somthing to get overly upset with, whats 1000 hours work on a charactor and items?

The current Breed of MMOG's have dug their own graves.. shame they are going to drag all the other down with them