« Voice in Virtual Worlds, Take 3 | Main | The air that we breathe »

Apr 15, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c022953ef00e551ed28a88834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Against Cyberproperty:

Comments

1.

Belows is an simple arrangement of VP/CP/IP.

* against platform owners
Farmers v. Owners of MMO --> virtual Property v. CyberProperty

RMTers v. Owners of MMO --> VP v. IP(TOS wrapped)

Gamers v. Owners of MMO --> ip(TOS given) v. IP(TOS wrapped)


* among players
Farmers, RMTers v. Gamers in MMO --> VP v. ip/cp(TOS given)


* among owners
Developers of MMO v. Operators of MMO --> IP v. CP

* from outside
Hackers v. Owners --> vp v. IP/CP
Hackers v. Gamers --> vp v. ip
Hackers v. Farmers, RMTers --> vp v. VP

2.

Unggi - thanks for spinning that out and throwing IP into the mix. I think in the virtual world context it is important to see that you've got all three kinds of rights: VP, IP, and CP. Of course, virtual property is still the most theoretical of the above!

With regard to how you've broke it down, yes, I think that makes sense. And, to add to that, I think where you've got "cyberproperty" indicated, you can include the full range of cyberproperty stand-ins that Mike and I discuss in the paper. So, e.g., systems owners can make trespass claims, but they might also make claims under the CFAA or CAN-SPAM if the facts are right.

My only quibble is with the last bit re the hackers. I think parties profiting (or not profiting) from software exploits might be inclined to deny any property rights at all if things are going their way -- just as developers will be inclined to resist VP if that generally goes their way (see Richard's recent post). I actually could see a situation, though, where a company might be inclined to claim that virtual property rights exist in response to hacking. (See, e.g., the Habbo furni theft.)

3.

Greg/

>>And, to add to that, I think where you've got "cyberproperty" indicated, you can include the full range of cyberproperty stand-ins that Mike and I discuss in the paper.

I understand that cyberproperty doctrine is a throwback idea, essentially retrogressive in the Internet Age.


>> I actually could see a situation, though, where a company might be inclined to claim that virtual property rights exist in response to hacking. (See, e.g., the Habbo furni theft.)

Yes, re to this point, i recalled a korean prosecutor once presented same argument in 2006.

He pointed that the victim of hacking should be not (only) the players but (aslo) the platform owners.

Korean information security law applying to in-game currency or item hacking stated that,

Article 49: Anybody should not damage the other's information which is used, stored or transmitted in digital networks.

The prosecutor argued at that time, why not the gaming companies falls on "the other's"

Though, until now, i could not noticed a criminal case on hacking where the victim is referred to gaming company as his argument.

ps. the law protects 'the other's information' which is not identical to 'the other's property'.

4.

i guess a weak point of the prosecutor's argument might be the application the word of 'damage' in the statute.

At player's postion, he/she lost the possession of the hacked items 'in' his/her inventory, while at company's postion, the items are still 'in' its DB server.

5.

Unggi -- yes, I think that is problematic, isn't it? If self-help is actually superior to law in terms of a remedy, you would think that the law would recognize that and require self-help.

Thank you for these comments. I feel very privileged to hear from a jurist that has actually confronted the things I'm simply wondering about!

6.

Very interesting- it seems like the term or prefix 'cyber' is losing influence, or relevance, in many areas. I'm thinking of things like cybertheory, cyberspace, cyberbodies-- you just don't hear those much anymore, so this is an interesting tie in. Virtual seems to be ascendant (virtual worlds, virtual property, virtual ... ) with the exception of "virtual reality." Or do you think law is clinging to cyber- and you are trying to pry it loose?

7.

Hey Mia --

I've really got no linguistic agenda, other than the substantive one of trying to locate the property right with the person having the greatest investment and reliance interest, rather than just strengthening the rights associated of physical property ownership in a networked environments. The exact terms are not so important to me -- I'm just going with the existing terminology.

But generally, I think "cyber" is a bit past its prime. In law, you see it living on with course listing in "cyberlaw" (which I've taught) and the doctrine of cyberproperty/cybertrespass. I actually think "virtual" is getting kind of old too, but "virtual" is kind of the lead adjective for virtual worlds. When you're trying to talk about new property rights that would exist in virtual worlds, "virtual" seems like the term that should be used.

Hmm... Is there a new online buzz prefix that might be used for some new unanticipated form of property interest? iProperty? eProperty? wiiProperty? :-)

8.

greglas: "Hmm... Is there a new online buzz prefix that might be used for some new unanticipated form of property interest?"

How about "Property 2.0," "Semantic Property" or "Social Property?" ;p

9.

Yeah, but property law isn't keen on radical paradigm shifts, so "2.0" doesn't fit. And I think property has always been both "semantic" and "social."

But yes, those are certainly buzzwords!

10.

Greg:

>> Thank you for these comments..

I'm just a lucky crafter who admire at your creating.

>>And I think property has always been both "semantic" and "social."

And property has always been "virtual/artificial" also.

11.

Unggi Yoon says:

">>And I think property has always been both "semantic" and "social."

And property has always been "virtual/artificial" also"

I could not agree more with this statement. Property has always been a concept, a nexus of rights that converge over a physical item.

The problem I have with "virtual property" having parrallel rights with actual property is virtual property's completely dependant nature on some outside actors to keep the property relevent to the user. Virtual property rights seem to split from responsiblity for access and upkeep of that property.

I can understand giving someone Intellectual property rights in the expression of an idea through a computer-program-medium, but should we give actual property rights to someone for a virtual item that takes some else's labor (through providing internet access, server upkeep, power) to maintain?

A virtual item in a program exists as the sum of many peoples labor, and not just in the initial production, but in that items continued existence.

When I buy a ball from the store, lots of people have supported the creation of that ball, but once I pay for it, I've accounted for that. Contrast this with a virtual ball, where its continued existence is dependent on factors outside of my cost or control. If i fail to pay my internet bill, do I have an action for conversion of VP because I cant get to my virtual ball? this seems silly.

While the concept of property has always been virtual, the reality of the property itself is that after it is produced, it "exists" independently of any person's efforts. Virtual property does not have this trait, so virtual property should not have the same rights attached to it as real, independently existent property.

12.

Kevin --

The problem with your analogy is that you have many types of rights in property that are premised on rights owned by someone else. Google for "easements" for example. The example of the ball is the prototypical chattel property interest, but property is often much more complicated than that.

Take, for instance, the dollars you place in a bank. The bank might record your deposit in an electronic system that it maintains and funds. The fact that it owns the physical property of the bank and the electronic chattel of the accounting system does not mean that it is ridiculous for you to claim that you own the funds you deposited.

Of course, the fact that you deposited your funds in the bank means that you might not be able to access those funds 24/7 and that in order to withdraw you have to show ID, etc. Likewise, if you own an easement over someone's land, you don't own their land and you can't exceed the scope of the easement in your use.

Virtual property interests will need to be similarly balanced between rights of physical property owners and virtual property owners. The right to claim a legal interest in virtual property, when recognized, will not look at all like the right you have over a ball you buy at the store.

13.

I'm indebt to you, Greg. Thanks!

What I mean in 'property is virtual', I used the word 'virtual' as antonym of 'natural as it is' or 'unchangible by human', not as antonym of 'physical' or 'real'.

In other words, I used the word 'virtual' similiar to the meaning of 'historical'.

To own food, to own my womb, to own shot-gun, to own house, to own land, to own patent, to own company, to own money, to own my avatar...

The meaning of these ownerships are not identical in the past and the present, in the east and west, and probably in off-line and on-line.

The comments to this entry are closed.