Update: Jenny I got your number

The Jackson Sun News reports that eBay yanked the auction for the phone number discussed here. Seems there was some concern about whether this was a property interest that could be alienated. Looks like they haven't read the myriad cases on the issue.

Bidding was up to $200,000 before it was pulled. And they say that gamers need to get a life.

Comments

[Richard Bartle]

1.

Although eBay may not like selling phone numbers, they seem happy to sell vehicle registration numbers.

At the time of writing, for example, 7 bids on UK registration number 1 HPU have pushed its auction price to £2,760 (although this isn't yet enough to meet its reserve). Amusingly, there isn't actually a vehicle anywhere in the country with 1 HPU as its number plate; rather, there is a "retention certificate" that allows the owner to renumber an existing vehicle. Why is there such a certificate? Because the government organisation that distributes numbers, the DVLA, also sells them. Before they sold them, if you wanted to sell a number plate yourself you had to own the car with which it was associated, then arrange a transfer.

If Terra Nova wants its own personalised plate, by the way, TN 1 is available for a mere £175,000 (plus £105 for the transfer).

Richard

[Dan Hunter]

2.

Richard> If Terra Nova wants its own personalised plate, by the way, TN 1 is available for a mere £175,000 (plus £105 for the transfer).

Surely this is the kind of asset that virtual "tip jars" was built for. We *need* this plate, people. Please give generously.

[Jeff Cole]

3.

The 7th Circuit seems pretty clear:

"No one has a property interest in a phone number. 47 C.F.R. § 52.107(a); see also Jahn v. 1-800-FLOWERS.com, Inc., 284 F.3d 807 (7th Cir.2002). The subscriber has at most a right to use a given number, and whether that number tags along when the customer switches carriers depends on contracts plus rules to be found in statutes and regulations." In re StarNet, Inc., 355 F.3d 634, 637 (7th Cir. 2004).

Gotta love ol' Easterbrook.

Jeff Cole

[magicback]

4.

The clarification of law leads to the next question: defense of rights.

Trademarks need to be defended. Traders can buy & sell regardless of law. People trades privileges and favors.

In the prior thread, one phone company reserve and verbally protected the right to their numbers while another do not.

I don't know the historical development of property or use rights, but am interested to know the role Defense of Rights played and how this will apply to virtual property.
Frank

[Dan Hunter]

5.

Frank> I ... am interested to know the role Defense of Rights played and how this will apply to virtual property

This is too big an issue to answer comprehensively. But one obvious point that arises from your post is that users may well choose a world (in part) on the developers' attitudes to policing the rights. Hence, just as it's in Linden Lab's interest to distinguish themselves from other worlds by providing an open IP regime, some other worlds (should/do) seek to distinguish themselves by allowing trade in virtual assets (cf SOE's attitude to SW:G and EQ).

Hence we should expect that any world that has a perceived competitive advantage in virtual property trade (There, UO, etc) would/should be looking to provide stronger enforcement of the trades in order to solidify its competitive position. Thus we might expect to see mechanisms emerge from these worlds to enforce the rights.

Whether we will actually see this depends in part on whether trades of this type are something that the users of that world are specifically in favor of (eg There) or notionally against for RPG reasons (eg UO)

[magicback]

6.

Thanks Dan,

I do believe it is a competitive edge for VW owners to clarify and visibly demonstrate their ownership claims.

I'm thinking that there might be historical situations where the lack of visible defense of a particular right leads to the owner losing the right via a change in social perception of said right or de facto law regardless of social opinions.

Is this a risk factor IP and virtual property creators should worry about?

A lot of illegal activity goes on under the radar of the authorities. There may be cases where the activities are so economically significant that governments have declared it legal.

Frank

[Richard Bartle]

7.

Magicback>the lack of visible defense of a particular right leads to the owner losing the right via a change in social perception of said right or de facto law regardless of social opinions.

This is something that concerns me, too. How much time does a virtual world developer who DOESN'T want their world commodified have to invest in stamping out sales they view as "illegal"?

SOE, for example, has banned sales of EQ accounts on auction sites that will listen to them, but not on all auction sites (because some ignore them). OK, so this looks like they're defending their ownership.

However, SOE also offer a transfer service that is pretty well only ever used for characters that have been sold against SOE's stated wishes. In this case, they look to be less serious about stamping out the practice.

How far does a developer who doesn't want their game commodified have to go to stop commodification being imposed upon them?

Richard

[magicback]

8.

Richard>How far does a developer who doesn't want their game commodified have to go to stop commodification being imposed upon them?

It seems that there will always be a certain level of illegal activity. Societies and rules of law marginalize these activities and these activities stay in the fringes of society.

With that said, a $200,000 bid for a phone number moves the activity into mainstream thought, and whether legal or not the act becomes acceptable.

So, can we better sway public thought against the lure of money?

In countries like China, the government just publishes a ruling that voids or ban certain activities and have the propaganda power to keep the activity marginalized. Each act changes the landscape and market equilibrium.

An united stance perhaps? More bad press like violent games?

Frank

[Richard Bartle]

9.

Magicback>So, can we better sway public thought against the lure of money?

You can use it against itself, ju-jitsu style. For example, a developer could word its EULA such that any real-world sales of virtual objects are reflected by a reduction of the same real-world amount from their credit card, which is then passed to a charity. That might cut down the traffic somewhat.

I'm not suggesting that developers do that (a simple banning of anyone who sells anything would have a similar effect and be less controversial), but I'd have thought the fact that developers have access to the credit cards of the people who play their games could be used more creatively than it is now (while remaining legal, of course!).

Richard

[magicback]

10.

Here's an article regarding countersuits against RIAA.

http://msn-cnet.com.com/2100-1027_3-5161209.html?part=msn-cnet&subj=ns_3-5143115&tag=tg_home

Strong defense against IP theft or similar cases may end up with strong countersuits. This is a risk.

So is going with the flow and utilize tranaction middleware and embracing consumerism the solution?

Frank

[Brask Mumei]

11.

"How far does a developer who doesn't want their game commodified have to go to stop commodification being imposed upon them?"

The problem with MMORPGs has always been the same: The Players.

This comment is similar to:
"How far does a developer who doesn't want their game grief-played have to go to stop grief play being imposed upon them?"

Indeed, other than people being more united in an anti-grief play stance, both questions reveal the same flaw. There are no technical solutions to these problems (Well, other than uninteresting ones like preventing anyone from playing :>) The solutions must be social in nature. And with playerbases of 100k, if you find such a solution, please apply it post-haste to the real world, because we certainly could use it.

- Brask Mumei