Terra Nova

tVPN: Two new podcasts

Ren continues to crank out interesting new podcasts on the Virtual Policy Network.

Virtually Policy #2: From Ghana to Second Life – public diplomacy in the digital age

In the second episode of Virtually Policy, Bill May talks with Ren Reynolds about using social media and Second Life in public diplomacy.

Virtually Policy #3: Virtual Currencies & Roach Motels (1/2)

The third episode of Virtually Policy is part one of a two-part interview with virtual currency expert Jon Matonis.  (The next part will be about Bitcoin.)

Kudos to Ren for putting these together -- looking forward to more in the future!

Call for Papers - Law and Virtual Worlds

The Journal of Virtual Worlds Research will be publishing a special issue dedicated to law and virtual worlds.   Dan Hunter, Melissa de Zwart, and I will be editing the issue.  The Call for Papers and more information can be found here: http://bit.ly/CFP-lawvirtual

Here's an excerpt from the site CFP:

This special issue will focus on legal questions generated by the creation, regulation and participation in virtual worlds. We are looking for papers that explore beyond the basics of ‘the magic circle’ (asserting that virtual worlds are immune from external laws and norms) and consider emerging legal issues that may encourage or inhibit the uptake of virtual worlds. In particular, we are interested in papers that adopt a multi-jurisdictional focus and which propose new ways that the legal issues may be approached by developers and regulators. Innovative and creative papers are encouraged.

Given the audience and nature of the JVWR we are looking for papers which are accessible to a non-legal readership. They should demonstrate a good awareness of the nature of virtual worlds.

So all those eager to move beyond debates about the magic circle, please submit a 600 word abstract before June 30, 2012.  Again, more info on the website.

Virtually Policy

Kudos to Ren Reynolds for kicking off a new podcast: Virtually Policy.  In the inaugural episode, Ren interviews Arno Lodder with regard to the Dutch Runescape case, which led to the first national Supreme Court decision concerning crime in virtual worlds. 

You can find the podcast here as well as on iTunes.

On Second Skin

Someone saw the movie Second Skin and wrote me asking about game addiction. He said "You gave the example of the heavy set girl who has to take care of her mother so she can't leave, she plays mmorpgs to be someone else. The most powerful part of this example was, 'yes, I agree that there's a problem in that situation. But the problem is not with her, it's with us.' ... Why do people become so addicted to these games? Is it societies fault? What do we need to do to prevent people from feeling like they have no other options but to play these games? What are the challenges people face once they develop this so called 'Second Skin'? And how important is it to shed the second skin and come back to their true self?"

So I, growing sentimental, said,

Interesting story! Well - how can I help? Addiction, as a concept, is pretty loosely defined. The term gets applied too often. What's the difference between a chemical brain dependency - a medical problem - and an activity that is so enjoyable that you don't want to give it up? Some people like France. Is it ever proper to say "That guy is addicted to France?" Bottom line, I'm not sure that addiction is a helpful concept here.

Let's try a different concept and starting point - virtuous living.

The Smartest Guys in the World

Only the Terra Novans can adequately appreciate the number of people in this Wired UK  list who are involved in play, simulation, virtual worlds or things related (economics, network science, etc.)  Minecraft, Sid Meier, etc.  Check it out.  

 

Life c. 2000: The Massively Single-Player Game

Jason Wall sent me a note explaining that World of Warcraft (you've heard of it?) is doing even more to encourage the formation of ad hoc raiding groups. Back in the day, he notes, the only way you could get raid-level gear was by being in a raid-level guild and by raiding, a lot. Much was said back then (not least by me) about the way MMORPGs seemed to provide a communal experience for people isolated by contemporary society. If society gave people anomie, then online community, it seemed, was the antidote.

How pollyannish! We (I) also said that online environments were really no different from offline ones in a number of ways. "It's a strange theater, but the players are still human," I would say. I should have followed up and asked myself, if this is so, then why should we expect society to look any different in there than it does out here? How could game designers eliminate an anomie that is so pervasive elsewhere?

I suppose if I had challenged myself that way, I would have responded that game designers have the advantage of consciously designing a place. Or perhaps they have the advantage of vast dictatorial power over both the rules and the physics of interaction. These advantages would surely enable some designers to discover how to generate community among people who (I assumed) desire it.

The assumption that people want to have community, indeed that they would agree to be forced into it, is denied by tale of the suburb. Housing prices are highest in the suburbs, places that often look very village-y but are in fact built to provide each person with solitude. Soft barriers protect suburban residents from too much interaction. Yet unlike residents of rural areas, suburbanites are not completely alone. Suburbanites are alone together.

"Alone together" - we've heard that before. Over the past decade, online game communities have evolved from forced grouping models to alone-together models such as we see in SWTOR and in WoW's new pick-up group mechanisms. We've moved from massively multiplayer online games to massively singleplayer online games. Our virtual worlds are becoming like suburbs - places where most people, most of the time, are doing whatever they please and having no effect or interaction with anyone else. Protected from others, but not separated.

The neo-liberal in me says, 'this is apparently the life people want to lead.' It is striking that game designers have created environments that so perfectly match the isolating ethos of urban development that so many people bemoan. It is striking that the forced-grouping model has fallen away and been replaced by solo play. Both online and off, the villages went away and were replaced by cul-de-sacs. Both were developments - someone developed them to be what they ended up being. And people like it.

The whole thing smells of irresistable social and economic change, of dynamics that are unavoidable. The massively singleplayer outcome is perhaps a very solid equilibrium between the competing tensions freedom and community.

If that is so, and I think it is, it spells doom for all kinds of social engineering projects. The New Urban neighborhood? The Global Village? The online game that purportedly makes people into good citizens? These will all remain as empty as the dead little towns that dot the rural landscape, or as decrepit and bully-plagued as the once-vibrant urban neighborhoods that dot the cities.

In the end, people just want their space. The Buddha was told that the monks were squabbling. He replied, "Like pebbles in a small bag, the monks polish each other." But if they can get out of the bag, Wise One, won't they? And keep their rough edges?

Dutch Court recognizes Runescape items as legal "goods"

The Dutch Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Runescape theft case today.  You can find the ruling here, and here's a Google-translated version.  The ruling cites to the work of Professor Arno Lodder (who guest-blogged here), who has been keeping close tabs on the case, as well as to my book and to my work with Dan on virtual law & virtual crime.

One thing to bear in mind is that this case involved real violence and the theft of virtual goods.  The victim was beaten and threatened with a (real) knife, with the defendants demanding he hand over a mask and an amulet within Runescape.  As the court notes, the violence occurred outside of the context of the game.  So at the very least, this was a case of criminal assault.  The only issue was whether the crime amounted to theft, which hinged on whether or not the virtual items could be classified, under Dutch law, as goods.

The lawyer for the defendants argued that Runescape's virtual items are not goods because they are not tangible and have no commercial value.  The Dutch Supreme Court disagreed.  Citing to the size of virtual economies as well as to specific sales on eBay of Runescape items, it rejected the argument that the goods had no economic value.  It also observed that the victim had invested time and effort to obtain the value of the items, that the game gave him exclusive rights to the items, and that the defendants had, by violence, acquired that value and those exclusive rights from the victim. 

In my opinion, the reasoning of the Dutch Supreme Court is roughly analogous to the reasoning in the U.S. decision of Kremen v. Cohen, which found that domain names were subject to civil conversion in California despite their intangible nature.  Though I have mixed feelings about the Cohen case, I believe the recognition of the items as goods is the right result in this case.  As the Court explains, the victims here were clearly motivated by the prospect of acquiring the virtual items of the victim and they used violence to obtain that value. 

Additionally, as the Dutch Supreme Court explicitly notes, the violence here was not in the context of the game.  As I explain in Chapter 6 of my book, there can be cases where legal prohibitions against in-game theft of virtual property may be in tension with the rules of a game.  (In essence, this is the question of the "magic circle" which we have discussed here for some time.) In this case, however, the theft occurred completely outside the rules of Runescape.  Given this, I think the Dutch Supreme Court's recognition of the economic and status value of virtual items is entirely appropriate.

I may have more to say once I get a better translation of the ruling -- Google Translate is great to get the gist of the matter, but I have a feeling I'm missing plenty of nuance.

Update: I should clarify that the cites mentioned above are actually contained in the AG's opinion accompanying the Supreme Court decision.  The Dutch Supreme Court apparently does not do cites in its opinions.  The AG's office is attached to the Supreme Court and offers advice to the court.