Rights To Virtual Property In Games? 167
With the rise of MMOs and other persistent environments over the last decade, the trafficking of virtual game property has become a multi-billion dollar industry. Regardless of whether the buying and trading goes on with the blessing of the content provider (or, in many cases, the owner of the account in question), the question of players' rights to virtual goods is coming to the forefront. The Escapist Magazine takes a look at how some companies are structuring their EULA in this regard, and what some countries, such as China, are doing to handle the issue.
"... the differences between China and the West in this case have more to do with scale than cultural norms. So many people play online games in Asia — and play them so intensely — that social problems in meatspace society inevitably emerge in virtual worlds as well. ... The general consensus, therefore, is that paradigm shifts like the ones that have already occurred in Asia will inevitably come to the West, and with them, the need for legislative scaffolding that keeps us all from killing each other."
Re:It is your property! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It is your property! (Score:3, Informative)
The gamemaker makes the rules. They could...
1. Have the game admins deal with theft such as that.
2. Permit stealing in the games, within the boundary of the game. No hacking of other people's accounts allowed.
Re:It is your property! (Score:3, Informative)
"The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way."
Re:It is your property! (Score:1, Informative)
Lately, all of the bitching related to theft has been that theft has been nerfed TOO MUCH, even by people who don't play rogues.
Re:It is your property! (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly, with fiat currency, the numbers in the bank only mean something because enough people say so.
Inside the crown of one of the kingdoms in the Society for Creative Anachronism (http://www.sca.org/ [sca.org])is the inscription "You rule because they believe".
Yes, from political power to the shoes on our feet, it's a matter of agreement. Now, the value and ownership of virtual items, is a facinating phenomenon.
Consider that people who play in virtual realities, online, in the SCA, in tabletop RPGs, or otherwise, do play within a set of rules. The players know what everyone owns, and have ideas as to the value of said items, irregardless of whether any meatspace value in currency is assigned to them.
If my Paladin has a +5 longsword, he'd better still have it the next day, save if the party's Rougue stole it, fair and square, within the rules of the game. I certainly place value on that longsword, as something useful to me in-game, and it does effect me personally in some manner, which is not described within the game. The game may describe how my character feels about the +5 longsword, but not me.
Selling the item for meatspace currency, is simply a translation of that understanding, into a market-value. I feel an emotional attachment to the sword; others share a similar attachment. This attachment occurs in RL, and is not in-game. It is appropriate that RL currency be assigned to an RL emotion.
--
Elvish grove for sale.
Re:It is your property! (Score:2, Informative)
I would rather eat my own eyes than have to read this game's forums.
In that case don't go anywhere near Eve Online...
Oh, and we don't like people to do something to their own eyes, as we need the tearducts intact.
Re:It is your property! (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed. However those are a representation of assets, not your actual assets.Granted the "score keeping" is done digitally, but it is directly related to your estate.The goods are not data.
While pretty much true, it's not exactly how it works. Banking has, and likely always will be, an investment in itself. Much like the stock market.
When banking, you agree to give the bank your money for a big 'ol IOU sticker (these days a digital one). The bank takes your money and invests it. They don't just keep it in their vault until you want it back while it magically grows more money (interest rates).
Surprisingly, this should be well enough known today, what with all the banking crisis talks and all. The fact that there's banks collapsing [icesave.nl] today with people loosing the money [bbc.co.uk] they had in said bank (unless the Government steps up to insure it). I think this might have happened in the saving-in-loan crises [wikipedia.org] but I'm not particularly familiar with it.
Though, A scene I remember that might also help others is the film "A Wonderful Life". There, George Bailey's S&L bank has a money rush where, in a panic, all the clients of the bank come storming in, demanding their money back, while the S&L doesn't keep enough cash on hand. This is where Bailey explains to his clients how a S&L works, by reinvesting.
So, yes and no. The account isn't just a score-card that represents actual assets. It is, in many ways, a fictional representation of assets that are only worth what the bank you use is worth. Should said bank go under, you could very well loose everything (like some people who invested in Iceland banks are experiencing). This is why the government banks savings accounts up to $100,000 (in the US). To insure people that banking is safe and get people to continue to invest in banks, who turn it around and give loans to businesses and for mortgages (at a higher interest rate).
Though, I'm no expert, so everything I say is only based on my general understanding of the system and should be taken with a grain of salt. No doubt I don't have a complete or accurate understanding of something as complex as the financial markets.
Re:It is your property! (Score:3, Informative)
FDIC does not commit to sending you paper currency, it commits to setting some bytes in a different computer...
But I don't see what any of that has to do with your checking account be a "a series of bytes" that it is worth quibbling about the ownership of.
Especially since there isn't enough physical currency (and never will be - because making there be would be retarded) to cover all of it and hence it is in a very real sense "just" a series of bytes.
The topic isn't the evils of banking, the wonderous goodness of the money multiplier, the gold standard, or any of those geek favourite topics - it's simple a question of whether "a series of bytes" might be worth quibbling over...
Of course there's a whole branch of discussion about the thing this isn't about, because I momentarily forgot that slashdot it home to ron paultards...