Virtual Worlds and the problem of player-rights
I'd appreciate some help from any thoughtful people about my post here on virtual worlds and player rights. You can find the post here.
Basically, the most current virtual worlds such as World of Warcraft have medieval heirarchy, where players have nearly no rights at all. In 100 years, this type of online government will be a cute footnote. I'm outraged that you aren't outraged about this, as virtual worlds will become increasingly important in the future, for reasons that reach beyond games. I'd like to be part of the solution, so lend a hand. So far the three most important topics I can identify are
1) Freedom of speech
2) Privacy
3) Ownership of virtual items
The question isn't whether these things should be allowed. I consider it self-evident that they should be. The question is how to deal with the consequences, and what other important rights should be addressed along with these.
This particular topic is too important to be burried in my blog, and I think the discussion on the forums would be more long-lasting, so I request that you post there.
Thanks,
--Sirlin
PS -- At the top of this blog, there's now a link to the Atom feed.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
I was going to post a Blog comment on this topic, but it came out rather lengthy; I’m very passionate about the concept of human rights and how they relate to society at large.
Instead, I tossed a reply into the forum thread you started on the topic. Suffice to say, we largely agree on this matter, including that you should generally be allowed to sell in-game items for real world money.
January 11th, 2006 at 1:54 am
While freedom of speech and privacy are no brainers. I think the idea of the legalized ownership of virtual items is a hideous minefield. If it gets recognized in law it won’t be long until we see the first lawsuit when a valuable item gets nerfed, or a change in game mechanics renders it obselete.
January 12th, 2006 at 12:26 am
I highly suggest reading the paper I linked in my forum post. Allowing the sale of virtual items might be more of a “no brainer” than the other two issues. I can’t argue it better than the paper. Unfortuantely it’s long enough that you have to be pretty comitted to get through it. ;)
–Sirlin
January 13th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Frankly, I doubt that this will get far. A game world is by a classic Lockean definition its creator’s property, and property rights are not likely to overridden by the argument that game designers “govern” people who are voluntary vistors to their creations.
The proper analogy is likely a theme park. If Disney doesn’t like you swearing in Disneyland, it is their perogative to show you the door. Likewise, it is theft to take or sell the towels which their hotels have lent you for use during your visit. Disney certainly has control over your experience in their creation, but it is ultimatly their property, build by thier effort and with the use of their resources, and you are merely a visitor who has chosen to partake in the experience in return for cash.
- Davon
January 13th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
I read some of the article, and in the portions I read, there was only one argument that struck me as convincing: that the act of creating and playing a character constitues a creative act and therefore gives the player property rights to the characters.
The degree to which this is convincing varies from game to game. Take World of Warcraft. The sense in which you create a character is very limited. You are given a model from a small selection of those available and equip it with a selection of in-game items. I think Blizzard could argue here that, while MMOs as a creative act allow for some audience participation, so do other artistic mediums to a lesser degree. For example, if you read a novel, you partipate to the extent that you interpret the novel, and you do own that interpretation. However, while you might publish that interpretation in a form such as critism which uses material from the novel in a limited fashion, publishing an interpretation which borrows heavily from the original such as fanfiction would not be acceptable without the permission (implicit of explixit) of the author.
On the other hand, some games such as Star Wars Galaxies explicitly encourage player created content and promote it as an integral part of the game experience. I think that, having explicitly promoted the game on the basis that players will engage in a creative act, LucasArts would have a hard time arguing that a property relationship which must be alienated by an NDA or so forth isn’t involved at some point.
Anyhow, I have to admit there are interesting issues at hand here, but I still feel that the language of rights is misapplied in many situations with regards to MMOs. At the very least, I didn’t see any convincing arguments that players are in any sense “citizens” of virtual worlds (though they brought up open-source worlds, in which case there may be a more appropriate analogy present) or that any rights except property rights are relevant to the relationship between players and game developers in MMOs.
- Davon.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:59 am
Thanks for putting in the Atom feed!
January 18th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
This is a lot of information to digest at once (I read the paper you linked D.). Particularly fascinating for me since I’m working at a place that is developing a major MMO title. This subject of rights and economy for MMO’s keeps coming up, and subsequently I stumbled across this interesting read:
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2006/feature_dibbell_janfeb06.msp
It’s shorter than the article you linked, and admittedly much narrower, but it gets to the point nicely in a sort of Michael Moorish way. Meanwhile, I’ll continue digesting…
January 18th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
1:53PM, that’s a good article too… so if we really want to start getting “outraged”, let’s just start lobbying our government to tax us! At least, everyone would sit up and start paying a lot more attention– not the least of whom would be Blizzard. We could gather picket signs and march, chanting “more government and higher taxes, the price of freedom!” Hm… wait a second… maybe not such a good idea.
January 27th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Figured this might fit in with this post. Apparently Blizzard isn’t allowing GLBT friendly guilds to sprout up in Wow. Seems to me that’d fall under freedom of association…
http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=Ga&article_code=1172
January 28th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
James, I stumbled on that story myself, then two seconds after posting about it, saw your post with with same link!
–Sirlin
February 13th, 2006 at 2:31 am
I play EVE online. EVE is commercial- it’s one of the points of the game to make money. Almost all items can be made and sold and very few have to be found. Unofficially, the in- game currency (ISK) has a real- world conversion rate. This got me wondering- if a player robs another player (piracy is a big part of EVE) then is the victim losing ‘real’ money? If so, does he have legal, real world, recourse?
No wonder that the EULA for EVE specifically bans the sale of ISK for ‘real’ money.
Given the amount of time and money now being spent on in- game items there is going to have to be some kind of legal fallout at some point. Games like EVE come perilously close to making in- game economics real- world economics. I don’t know how a game could survive real world civil suits.
The only option for a game designer is to do what CCP (EVE’s designer) does and expressly forbid real world trade of in game stuff. Otherwise you open the door to real world laws ruling your virtual world. That would be the end of PVP and piracy in EVE. And what fun is that?
February 13th, 2006 at 2:58 am
I read the law article. It is interesting, but doesn’t deal with my question about EVE- if I get robbed by another player- not an NPC, not the game itself- what keeps me from seeking legal recourse? It seems to me that if property is to exist in a virtual world there is going to have to be some kind of waiver that allows for destruction or loss in the course of the game. In EVE, more so than other MMO’s, you can lose everything from bad decisions. If it is real property, there is going to be a desire for civil redress against the game company or the player that caused the loss. The article, it seems to me, avoided this problem.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
http://www.vgsummit.com/
the CEO of Kongregate will speak at this event