It is not often that legal notices can play a role in bringing customers to the client’s online doorstep, but virtual worlds might present just such an opportunity.
Many of these virtual worlds host robust marketplaces that are a major draw for users. Yet, almost none of them confer any rights over virtual property. For example, under the terms of use for World of Warcraft, users "have no interest, monetary or otherwise, in any feature, content or availability of World of Warcraft" or in "any Game Data" associated with the virtual world.
Of course, there are good reasons for this, such as limiting liability, controlling gold farming, and avoiding the mediation of property disputes between players. But as the operators of Second Life have pointed out, there is an inevitable friction between denying users property protection while encouraging them to invest substantial time in developing their world.
Some of that friction has become evident in recent squabbles over virtual property. Earlier this spring, players of EVE Online, a space opera, lost billions in in-game currency to the Eve Intergalactic Bank. The third-party bank offered interest on deposits, albeit in ISK, the in-game currency. It was nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. When it collapsed, there was no FDIC to pick up the pieces. Nor did CCP Games, the service provider, view this as anything that justified punishing the culprit. Instead, it shrugged off the incident as a natural byproduct of the rough and tumble of gameplay.
More recently, Marc Bragg has refiled a lawsuit against the operator Second Life, claiming that the service ought to compensate him for the virtual land, currency, and in-game goods it confiscated from him when it suspended his account following his exploit of the game's land auction system.
That lawsuit makes much of Second Life's decision to confer intellectual property rights to users. Second Life's terms of service provides that users "retain any and all applicable copyright and other intellectual property rights" with respect to the content they create. Though, the scope of ownership is rather limited; Linden Lab still owns all the underlying data and disclaims any liability for deletion. Bragg will have a hard time finding refuge in the TOS.
It may take a few more Ponzi schemes and lawsuits to elevate the property rights issue to the level that consumers start factoring that into their choice of online worlds. But as Second Life has attempted to prove, giving users some legal control over their property is one way to differentiate itself from the pack, albeit with some additional legal risk.
Comments