This week's LGJ revisits the always popular topic of taxing virtual worlds.
Read on!
Showing posts with label Second Life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Second Life. Show all posts
Friday, January 23, 2009
Sunday, December 14, 2008
LGJ: Regulating Virtual Currency
This week's LGJ focuses on the potential problems associated with virtual currency, and what might drive the government to regulate it.
Read on!
Read on!
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Real Money Transactions Can Lead to Gambling Problems
Worlds in Motion has an article up detailing a new surge in the efforts to legitimize real money transactions in MMO games. Generally, the idea is a good one, as RMT can provide the players what they want, as demonstrated through the vibrant black market, while the legitimization gives the developers what they want. In fact, RMT based games are widely successful in other parts of the world. However, given the current state of US gambling laws, increased RMT in MMO games where gambling exists could put the MMO providers on thin ice. Second Life has already seen attention for gambling, and other worlds may not be far behind.
The tricky issue to deal with is the conversions between the virtual goods or currency and real currency. This is something I've discussed at length in my SSRN Papers. From a broad perspective, if a game either lacks gambling or lacks RMT, then there should be no cause for concern. However, when both elements are present, it becomes more problematic. Second Life (while gabling was still permissible), for example, as a direct currency exchange, could be viewed no differently than online casinos. In fact, even if gambling were using a more barter-like system, where, for example, weapons were wagered in fights, there could be a gambling issue assuming the weapon has a real world value, for example, from the ability to buy or sell it for real currency. The even more complex situation arises where the market price can fluctuate, especially given the prospect of reporting winnings or losses for tax purposes.
Obviously, this issue could take a number of turns depending on what the developers end up implementing in future games. It will be interesting to see if more developers place outright bans on wagering to avoid the issue entirely.
The tricky issue to deal with is the conversions between the virtual goods or currency and real currency. This is something I've discussed at length in my SSRN Papers. From a broad perspective, if a game either lacks gambling or lacks RMT, then there should be no cause for concern. However, when both elements are present, it becomes more problematic. Second Life (while gabling was still permissible), for example, as a direct currency exchange, could be viewed no differently than online casinos. In fact, even if gambling were using a more barter-like system, where, for example, weapons were wagered in fights, there could be a gambling issue assuming the weapon has a real world value, for example, from the ability to buy or sell it for real currency. The even more complex situation arises where the market price can fluctuate, especially given the prospect of reporting winnings or losses for tax purposes.
Obviously, this issue could take a number of turns depending on what the developers end up implementing in future games. It will be interesting to see if more developers place outright bans on wagering to avoid the issue entirely.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Bragg v. Linden Settles, Still No Virtual Property Precedent
In an astonishingly anticlimactic ending to what could have been the landmark first case on virtual property, Bragg and Linden have entered into a confidential settlement agreement. And while I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the agreement to be leaked online, even if it were, there would still be no precedent set on virtual property from this case. I imagine it's only a matter of time until some other case does just what many of us expected from Bragg v. Linden, but we will have to wait and see what case does just that.
Previous Law of the Game Coverage can be found here.
[Via Virtually Blind, Game Politics]
Previous Law of the Game Coverage can be found here.
[Via Virtually Blind, Game Politics]
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
MMOG = Massive MoneyLaundering Online Game?
A point I brought up in my 2005 paper, which was recently touched on by Symantec according to an article, is the possibility for money laundering through MMO games. The idea is simple enough: push money through virtual transactions to lose the connection to crime. According to the report:
I estimate that Symantec's solution to the problem is with greater security and client verification. However, a more simplistic approach would be taxation on virtual revenue, even if the concept is opposed by players. Think of it this way: Right now, income from sales in MMO games is supposed to be reported as ordinary income. Many people neglect to do this whatsoever. If, instead, there was automatic reporting to the IRS (or other country's tax agency, based on the residence of the player) of income derived from MMO sales, then the tax agency would know to expect payment from said individuals. Moreover, it ties a person to the MMO account, eliminating the possibility of spreading one person over 100 accounts and going unnoticed. Of course, this would have to be based on a cash out value, as has been suggested before by both myself and Bryan Camp. In any event, the process of losing money in the transaction generally makes different things less appealing as money laundering vehicles, and thus virtual taxation could be one answer to the problem.
[Via Kotaku]
"... a criminal enterprise could open several thousand MMOG accounts. Each could be used to trade with other players in the purchase or sale of in-game assets, the funds from which would ultimately be withdrawn from the accounts. Since thousands of accounts may engage in millions of transactions, each with small profits or losses, it would be difficult to trace the true source of the funds when they are withdrawn. These transactions can be conducted worldwide without the oversight that typically accompanies international bank remittances. In fact, in February 2007, China's central bank and finance ministries called upon companies to stop trading QQ coins and virtual currencies, presumably to curb the unregulated exchange of currency."
I estimate that Symantec's solution to the problem is with greater security and client verification. However, a more simplistic approach would be taxation on virtual revenue, even if the concept is opposed by players. Think of it this way: Right now, income from sales in MMO games is supposed to be reported as ordinary income. Many people neglect to do this whatsoever. If, instead, there was automatic reporting to the IRS (or other country's tax agency, based on the residence of the player) of income derived from MMO sales, then the tax agency would know to expect payment from said individuals. Moreover, it ties a person to the MMO account, eliminating the possibility of spreading one person over 100 accounts and going unnoticed. Of course, this would have to be based on a cash out value, as has been suggested before by both myself and Bryan Camp. In any event, the process of losing money in the transaction generally makes different things less appealing as money laundering vehicles, and thus virtual taxation could be one answer to the problem.
[Via Kotaku]
Friday, September 21, 2007
Virtual Worlds Become Virtual Nations?
An interesting piece was recently posted on Virtually Blind by Israeli attorney Jonathan J. Klinger. The crux of his argument was:
I want to begin with a meta-theoretical statement. The purpose of virtual worlds is to bring people together. As such, the solution that either people must be divided on geographical lines or game providers must be subjected to liability is a pure frustration of purpose. Of course, the concept of making a "virtual world" an actual nation is equally blasphemous. In fact, it seems at though negative consequences could easily result from creating "independent nations" within nations that exist on servers. So, what solutions are available to the problem? Clearly the social conscience of a person in Texas cannot be made to match a person in Isreal or Japan or France. That idea is equally impracticable, and in the same vein, the pipedream of creating "universal rules" to govern the internet is impracticable. Moreover, the idea that we allow complete free speech to govern our online worlds only gives rise to the most deplorable of content, as child predators would take refuge under the "free speech" of the digital world. There is also the final consideration that, ultimately, the server space is private property. The Grid belongs to Linden. Azeroth (all of the various iterations on the various servers) belongs to Blizzard.
So where does this leave possible solutions? Governing in-world conduct being left to the worlds owners, how should jurisdiction be handled? I think it is time for a paradigm shift an analyzing jurisdictional elements with virtual worlds. Put simply: Server location dictates jurisdiction. While this idea won't bode will with the "minimum contacts" proponents out there, the theory does have a logical base. Ultimately, the activity occurs on the server, not at the user end. I can click buttons all day long on my personal computer, but without the server end, there is no net effect. As such, the server is the critical component. This is the basis for a client-server model, and this is, in my opinion, how it should be treated under the law. This provides the maximum certainty for the developer.
This, of course, leaves the issue of performing an activity illegal in one country on a server located in another. Ultimately, issues like these will have to be resolved by the governments, rather than putting the developer in the line of fire or forcing the defeat of the purpose of virtual worlds. So, for example, if a 3rd world nation hosts "Child Porn: The Game," it will be up to the international community to pressure that country to abolish the game. (Moreover, with something as pernicious as child pornography, local governments could likely track subscriptions and users in order to find offenses in the local countries. I can't say I favor invasion of privacy, but I also can't say I oppose using any means necessary to remove dangerous predators from the streets.) On the other hand, with something as hotly debated as online gambling, rather than leaving the user and developer in difficult and awkward positions, it would have to be resolved between nations. Ultimately, either the moralists would win, or the simple positive economics would. In either case, the burden is on the government, or indirectly on society as a whole, rather than punishing the developer or the user based on what are largely ambiguous lines.
Will this paradigm shift happen? It seems doubtful given the overwhelming analysis of jurisdiction to the contrary. However, I think that we have reached a time in which the old analysis need to be seriously re-examined based on the dramatically different world and virtual worlds that technology has created.
[Via Virtually Blind]
For example, earlier this year, Michael Carlton, CEO of online sportsbook Victor Chandler, was arrested in Israel. An Israeli court asserted jurisdiction over Carlton, a foreign citizen, and stated that as long as a portion of the illegal activity (here, gambling) occurred in Israel, there is no need for universal jurisdiction, and the website operator is subjected to the Israeli law (State v. Carlton, Hebrew decision). The court stated that it was in Victor Chandler’s responsibility to bar all communication from Israel since the activity they offer is illegal for Israeli citizens to participate in.I, however, do not agree. Moreover, I believe the precedent set by Isreal should be looked at with disdain by the legal community. Take note here that I'm departing from an actual analysis, which the above quote limits itself to, and moving into theoretical alternatives that would generally be beneficial to all those involved.
Using the same rationale, any employee of Blizzard or Linden Lab could be subjected to the Israeli penal code, as they are allowing illegal conduct (under Israeli law) to take place on their servers. Blizzard could face harsher liability as it distributes World of Warcraft actively in Israel, while Second Life is only available for download.
The only solution to these legal problems is to separate players according to countries, or even states (as some state laws in the US differ regarding pornography and violence). Any other solution may cause a conflict of laws, and subject the industry to liability twice: the first is the constitutional tort, where legal expression is barred though there is no local legal reason to bar it (e.g. ageplay in the U.S.) and the second is potential criminal prosecution by another state which may prosecute company leaders for user actions that are actually legal in the home country of the company.
I want to begin with a meta-theoretical statement. The purpose of virtual worlds is to bring people together. As such, the solution that either people must be divided on geographical lines or game providers must be subjected to liability is a pure frustration of purpose. Of course, the concept of making a "virtual world" an actual nation is equally blasphemous. In fact, it seems at though negative consequences could easily result from creating "independent nations" within nations that exist on servers. So, what solutions are available to the problem? Clearly the social conscience of a person in Texas cannot be made to match a person in Isreal or Japan or France. That idea is equally impracticable, and in the same vein, the pipedream of creating "universal rules" to govern the internet is impracticable. Moreover, the idea that we allow complete free speech to govern our online worlds only gives rise to the most deplorable of content, as child predators would take refuge under the "free speech" of the digital world. There is also the final consideration that, ultimately, the server space is private property. The Grid belongs to Linden. Azeroth (all of the various iterations on the various servers) belongs to Blizzard.
So where does this leave possible solutions? Governing in-world conduct being left to the worlds owners, how should jurisdiction be handled? I think it is time for a paradigm shift an analyzing jurisdictional elements with virtual worlds. Put simply: Server location dictates jurisdiction. While this idea won't bode will with the "minimum contacts" proponents out there, the theory does have a logical base. Ultimately, the activity occurs on the server, not at the user end. I can click buttons all day long on my personal computer, but without the server end, there is no net effect. As such, the server is the critical component. This is the basis for a client-server model, and this is, in my opinion, how it should be treated under the law. This provides the maximum certainty for the developer.
This, of course, leaves the issue of performing an activity illegal in one country on a server located in another. Ultimately, issues like these will have to be resolved by the governments, rather than putting the developer in the line of fire or forcing the defeat of the purpose of virtual worlds. So, for example, if a 3rd world nation hosts "Child Porn: The Game," it will be up to the international community to pressure that country to abolish the game. (Moreover, with something as pernicious as child pornography, local governments could likely track subscriptions and users in order to find offenses in the local countries. I can't say I favor invasion of privacy, but I also can't say I oppose using any means necessary to remove dangerous predators from the streets.) On the other hand, with something as hotly debated as online gambling, rather than leaving the user and developer in difficult and awkward positions, it would have to be resolved between nations. Ultimately, either the moralists would win, or the simple positive economics would. In either case, the burden is on the government, or indirectly on society as a whole, rather than punishing the developer or the user based on what are largely ambiguous lines.
Will this paradigm shift happen? It seems doubtful given the overwhelming analysis of jurisdiction to the contrary. However, I think that we have reached a time in which the old analysis need to be seriously re-examined based on the dramatically different world and virtual worlds that technology has created.
[Via Virtually Blind]
Metanomics
I thought many of the readers out there might be interested in the Metanomics 2007 programs going on in Second Life. They are hosting a number of speakers, including my former professor Bryan Camp from the Texas Tech School of Law.
Those interested in the study of Metanomics should try to attend some of their seminars. For the uninitiated, their FAQ gives the following overview:
Those interested in the study of Metanomics should try to attend some of their seminars. For the uninitiated, their FAQ gives the following overview:
[Thanks to Robert Bloomfield for the tip!]“Metanomics” refers to the study of the business and policy aspects of the “metaverse” of virtual worlds. Metanomics can focus on issues arising within virtual worlds, such as how developers manage the economy of a game world (like World of Warcraft), or how residents of virtual worlds manage and regulate business. Metanomics also includes the study of how real-world businesses can use virtual worlds as part of their strategy, and how real-world law and regulation might apply to virtual-world activities. Finally, metanomics includes the use of virtual worlds as laboratories in which to study real-world business or policy issues.
Metanomics can take an "immersionist," "augmentationist," or "experimentalist" perspective. Immersionist metanomics attempts to understand business and policy issues from entirely within the virtual world in question, with little reference to the outside world. Augmentationist metanomics views the metaverse as simple an addition (augmentation) to the real world, and examines how its appearance affects business practice and regulatory policy. Experimentalist metanomics uses the metaverse as a laboratory in which to conduct controlled experiments that can tell us something new about the real world (such as eliminating capital gains taxes actually does increase investment and productivity).
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Chinese Editorial Calls for Increased Regulation of Virtual Goods
An editorial on China View has some rather harsh words for the online gaming industry in China, specifically for those in the "black market" of virtual goods. The sibling to the gold farming issue in China is the theft and resale of virtual goods.
The article brings up a number of interesting points, but also seems to confuse the "virtual theft" concept with the "gold farming" one, although both issues have been met with cries for regulation, along with the already regulated "underage gaming" issue in China.
The editorial, however, leaves me with mixed feelings. On the one hand, it is always positive to see people outside the gaming establishment finally realize and accept that these virtual goods, be they land in Second Life or an Infinity Blade in World of Warcraft, do have a "value." Moreover, the idea of protecting players from theft is definitely a positive one. On the other hand, the idea of additional government regulations never seems to be the most appropriate approach. While this could be in China rather than the US, I still can't help but feel the regulations are inappropriate.
The major difficulty would be the near impossibility of government alone policing those systems, but on the flip side, the game providers lack any real enforcement tools if and when they can track virtual wrongdoings. The logical outcome would be a necessity for cooperation between government and game providers, but I think the mandates should come from the game providers, not the government. After all, the government does not seem to, on a basic level, understand these games. This would only lead to ineffective legislation that would breed resentment in the gaming community or lead to a downward trend in the games overall.
Regardless of your stance on game regulation, the wisdom of self regulation is evident in many industries, from law to medicine. In this case, where a real crime is involved, similar cooperation has worked for other industries. Of course, only time will tell if any actual regulation is attempted, but given the trend to monetize virtual worlds, some sort of "law enforcement" is almost inevitable.
[Via GamePolitics]
The article brings up a number of interesting points, but also seems to confuse the "virtual theft" concept with the "gold farming" one, although both issues have been met with cries for regulation, along with the already regulated "underage gaming" issue in China.
The editorial, however, leaves me with mixed feelings. On the one hand, it is always positive to see people outside the gaming establishment finally realize and accept that these virtual goods, be they land in Second Life or an Infinity Blade in World of Warcraft, do have a "value." Moreover, the idea of protecting players from theft is definitely a positive one. On the other hand, the idea of additional government regulations never seems to be the most appropriate approach. While this could be in China rather than the US, I still can't help but feel the regulations are inappropriate.
The major difficulty would be the near impossibility of government alone policing those systems, but on the flip side, the game providers lack any real enforcement tools if and when they can track virtual wrongdoings. The logical outcome would be a necessity for cooperation between government and game providers, but I think the mandates should come from the game providers, not the government. After all, the government does not seem to, on a basic level, understand these games. This would only lead to ineffective legislation that would breed resentment in the gaming community or lead to a downward trend in the games overall.
Regardless of your stance on game regulation, the wisdom of self regulation is evident in many industries, from law to medicine. In this case, where a real crime is involved, similar cooperation has worked for other industries. Of course, only time will tell if any actual regulation is attempted, but given the trend to monetize virtual worlds, some sort of "law enforcement" is almost inevitable.
[Via GamePolitics]
Monday, August 27, 2007
A Tale of Two Worlds: New U.S. Gambling Laws and the MMORPG
Back in late April I finished an article titled A Tale of Two Worlds: New U.S. Gambling Laws and the MMORPG. That article has been published in the now available August edition of the Gaming Law Review. I must admit that some of the substantive MMORPG analysis is a bit simplistic (mostly in defining the volume of real money transactions as they relate to World of Warcraft), in part due to to audience considerations, but the legal analysis is quite thorough. While my SSRN revisions are still under review, the paper is available to those who may have access to the journal through academia or other means.
For those interested, here is the reference information:
Abstract
Full Citation:
Mark Methenitis. Gaming Law Review. 2007, 11(4): 436-439. doi:10.1089/glr.2007.11404.
Gaming Law Review, Volume 11, Number 4
[UPDATE: Just to clarify, the simplification was in the following regard: I assumed, for the purpose of the paper, that Blizzard's ban on real money transactions was completely effective, rather than just mostly effective. The concept of the "black market" complicated the comparison to a high degree and would have easily doubled the length of the paper. It also plays to a greater assumption that Blizzard will, in all likelyhood, continue to crack down and may eventually wholly eliminate real money transactions, even those on the "black market" type level.]
For those interested, here is the reference information:
A Tale of Two Worlds: New U.S. Gambling Laws and the MMORPG
Gaming Law Review. Aug 2007, Vol. 11, No. 4: 436-439
Abstract
Full Citation:
Mark Methenitis. Gaming Law Review. 2007, 11(4): 436-439. doi:10.1089/glr.2007.11404.
Gaming Law Review, Volume 11, Number 4
[UPDATE: Just to clarify, the simplification was in the following regard: I assumed, for the purpose of the paper, that Blizzard's ban on real money transactions was completely effective, rather than just mostly effective. The concept of the "black market" complicated the comparison to a high degree and would have easily doubled the length of the paper. It also plays to a greater assumption that Blizzard will, in all likelyhood, continue to crack down and may eventually wholly eliminate real money transactions, even those on the "black market" type level.]
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Second Life Bans Gambling...Sort Of
As I continue to play catch up from my hiatus, I have been hit by a bit of an irony. During my time away, I did submit the finalized version of "A Tale of Two Worlds: New US Gambling Laws and the MMORPG," which will be appearing in this month's Gaming Law Review. Of course, a mere few days later, Virtually Blind reports that Second Life has issued a clear "ban" on in game gambling, making some of the examples I used in the paper moot.
While I do agree with Virtually Blind's Benjamin Duranske that the revised policy statement is far clearer than the previous, I can't go as far as to call this a true "ban." The revised statement leaves many loopholes that I'm certain will be exploited in the days, weeks, and months to come. The policy states that games cannot "(1)(a) rely on chance or random number generation to determine a winner, OR (b) rely on the outcome of real-life organized sporting events, AND (2) provide a payout in (a) Linden Dollars, OR (b) any real-world currency or thing of value."
First, the statement really makes no claims at all with respect to games of skill. In fact, Second Life poker wouldn't violate this policy under many interpretations of "relying on chance." Whether it would be interpreted this way under the UIGEA is an entirely different debate (without an answer at this point), but more than likely poker would not violate the Second Life policy. The same could be said for any other game of skill that could be integrated into the grid. I suspect it will only be a matter of time before someone builds a Quake Zero betting system that plays through Second Life.
The second loophole is actually one that was mentioned in the article, being that only betting on the outcome of "real-life organized sporting events" is banned. Thus, if your event is either not real life, not organized, or not a sporting event, it is excluded. Virtually Blind mentioned the Oscars or Survivor (although Big Brother would be more timely at the moment). But there are a large number of other excluded events. MMO-based sporting events (in Second Life, World of Warcraft or elsewhere) would not be "real-life" events, so they would be excluded. This means that theoretically you could bet on PvP matches. The definition of "organized" will likely be pushed, probably in drawing a line between "professional" or "league" play. However, the most critical designation may be "sporting." What is defined as a sport? Is Major League Gaming a sport? I know of people who would argue on both sides of that debate. This restriction is by no means as comprehensive as it appears.
Perhaps the biggest loophole is in the "payout in (a) Linden Dollars, OR (b) any real-world currency or thing of value" clause. First, as Virtually Blind points out, the phrasing doesn't seem to restrict gambling in virtual items "of value." This, taken broadly, means that a simple casino chip system implemented in Second Life could circumvent the restriction. The only restrictions are on betting with Linden Dollars or real world currency or items of value. Thus, any virtual good that can be bought, gambled with, and resold for value would not be included. While actual chips might be argued to be the equivalent of currency, a system that operates in a similar manner without using chips may skirt the rules. Moreover, as Play No Evil's Steven Davis points out in comment 1, the use of a pachinko style system would skirt the restriction. For those unfamiliar with Japanese gambling, pachinko is a game in which you play with, earn or lose metal ball bearings. Having played the game while in Japan, it's much like a cross between a slot machine, a pinball machine, and a video game. These ball bearings can be redeemed for prizes. Among the prizes are a tokens that are, in the parlor, worthless, but if you take them to a booth nearby, they can be exchanged for cash. A similar model could be employed in Second Life as a means to bypass this policy.
While this new policy does help in some respects, it is still probably inadequate to deflect the pressures the UIGEA is placing on the system. Whether these loopholes were intentional or the result of an oversight will not impact the government's investigation, which seems to be an inevitability at this point.
While I do agree with Virtually Blind's Benjamin Duranske that the revised policy statement is far clearer than the previous, I can't go as far as to call this a true "ban." The revised statement leaves many loopholes that I'm certain will be exploited in the days, weeks, and months to come. The policy states that games cannot "(1)(a) rely on chance or random number generation to determine a winner, OR (b) rely on the outcome of real-life organized sporting events, AND (2) provide a payout in (a) Linden Dollars, OR (b) any real-world currency or thing of value."
First, the statement really makes no claims at all with respect to games of skill. In fact, Second Life poker wouldn't violate this policy under many interpretations of "relying on chance." Whether it would be interpreted this way under the UIGEA is an entirely different debate (without an answer at this point), but more than likely poker would not violate the Second Life policy. The same could be said for any other game of skill that could be integrated into the grid. I suspect it will only be a matter of time before someone builds a Quake Zero betting system that plays through Second Life.
The second loophole is actually one that was mentioned in the article, being that only betting on the outcome of "real-life organized sporting events" is banned. Thus, if your event is either not real life, not organized, or not a sporting event, it is excluded. Virtually Blind mentioned the Oscars or Survivor (although Big Brother would be more timely at the moment). But there are a large number of other excluded events. MMO-based sporting events (in Second Life, World of Warcraft or elsewhere) would not be "real-life" events, so they would be excluded. This means that theoretically you could bet on PvP matches. The definition of "organized" will likely be pushed, probably in drawing a line between "professional" or "league" play. However, the most critical designation may be "sporting." What is defined as a sport? Is Major League Gaming a sport? I know of people who would argue on both sides of that debate. This restriction is by no means as comprehensive as it appears.
Perhaps the biggest loophole is in the "payout in (a) Linden Dollars, OR (b) any real-world currency or thing of value" clause. First, as Virtually Blind points out, the phrasing doesn't seem to restrict gambling in virtual items "of value." This, taken broadly, means that a simple casino chip system implemented in Second Life could circumvent the restriction. The only restrictions are on betting with Linden Dollars or real world currency or items of value. Thus, any virtual good that can be bought, gambled with, and resold for value would not be included. While actual chips might be argued to be the equivalent of currency, a system that operates in a similar manner without using chips may skirt the rules. Moreover, as Play No Evil's Steven Davis points out in comment 1, the use of a pachinko style system would skirt the restriction. For those unfamiliar with Japanese gambling, pachinko is a game in which you play with, earn or lose metal ball bearings. Having played the game while in Japan, it's much like a cross between a slot machine, a pinball machine, and a video game. These ball bearings can be redeemed for prizes. Among the prizes are a tokens that are, in the parlor, worthless, but if you take them to a booth nearby, they can be exchanged for cash. A similar model could be employed in Second Life as a means to bypass this policy.
While this new policy does help in some respects, it is still probably inadequate to deflect the pressures the UIGEA is placing on the system. Whether these loopholes were intentional or the result of an oversight will not impact the government's investigation, which seems to be an inevitability at this point.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Even More Second Life Gambling: Two New Issues to Consider
In the wake of a bit of a gambling scandal in Second Life, two new points of concern have been once again made very public.
1. Second Life is not an inherently secure gambling platform, and as such, both the player and the house should be exceedingly wary of the integrity of the game.
2. Linden Labs, while claiming to "ban gambling," has done nothing of the sort, and needs to start worrying that the Feds may soon come calling.
Second Life Gambling Security
Gambling, at its core, is only as valuable as the integrity of the game. If the house is cheating, the player shouldn't play. If the player is cheating, the house shouldn't be letting the player play. In either case, when the integrity is placed into question from one side or the other, the game loses. Second Life has to be one of the few places where the integrity of the game itself is questioned more often than it is validated.
Here is just a short list of reasons why Second Life is not a good place to be involved in gambling:
1. There is no oversight of the house.
2. There is no oversight of the player.
3. The security is only as good as the scripter, and often, that isn't very good.
4. There is no real grievance system.
5. There is no way to assure payout.
To be honest, a player never knows if the house is paying out what it should, when it should, and without releasing information to other parties. On the flip side, the house never knows if the player has found a way to scam the system, short of an incident like this. Imagine if FrostyFox had, rather than take $200,000 up front, taken $500 per day for a few months. Would Bob Perry have even noticed, or if he did, would he have just considered it within the acceptable margin of error? As much as everyone likes to believe in the honesty of others, this should be example enough to make some people think twice.
Linden Labs UIGEA Wake Up Call
It was not that long ago when the reports of the Feds visiting Second Life made their way into the blog-o-sphere. And for a while it seemed that maybe Linden had taken the matter seriously. But this new story just shows that Linden's efforts were far more hollow than they appeared. It is hard to fault them, as the methods described to fly under the radar, and because no companies have yet felt the wrath of the UIGEA, but Linden (and potentially other game developers) need to take notice before the Feds decide to dictate the outcome. And unfortunately for the MMO developers, the Skill Game Protection Act won't do anything for in-game slots or other games of chance, even if they are cloaked within a game of skill.
As we approach the 270 day deadline to construct the finding tracking system, we may be inching closer to the first enforcement of the UIGEA. The question remains, however, when that enforcement will spread to the MMO world. If the status quo continues, the answer may be sooner than you think.
1. Second Life is not an inherently secure gambling platform, and as such, both the player and the house should be exceedingly wary of the integrity of the game.
2. Linden Labs, while claiming to "ban gambling," has done nothing of the sort, and needs to start worrying that the Feds may soon come calling.
Second Life Gambling Security
Gambling, at its core, is only as valuable as the integrity of the game. If the house is cheating, the player shouldn't play. If the player is cheating, the house shouldn't be letting the player play. In either case, when the integrity is placed into question from one side or the other, the game loses. Second Life has to be one of the few places where the integrity of the game itself is questioned more often than it is validated.
Here is just a short list of reasons why Second Life is not a good place to be involved in gambling:
1. There is no oversight of the house.
2. There is no oversight of the player.
3. The security is only as good as the scripter, and often, that isn't very good.
4. There is no real grievance system.
5. There is no way to assure payout.
To be honest, a player never knows if the house is paying out what it should, when it should, and without releasing information to other parties. On the flip side, the house never knows if the player has found a way to scam the system, short of an incident like this. Imagine if FrostyFox had, rather than take $200,000 up front, taken $500 per day for a few months. Would Bob Perry have even noticed, or if he did, would he have just considered it within the acceptable margin of error? As much as everyone likes to believe in the honesty of others, this should be example enough to make some people think twice.
Linden Labs UIGEA Wake Up Call
It was not that long ago when the reports of the Feds visiting Second Life made their way into the blog-o-sphere. And for a while it seemed that maybe Linden had taken the matter seriously. But this new story just shows that Linden's efforts were far more hollow than they appeared. It is hard to fault them, as the methods described to fly under the radar, and because no companies have yet felt the wrath of the UIGEA, but Linden (and potentially other game developers) need to take notice before the Feds decide to dictate the outcome. And unfortunately for the MMO developers, the Skill Game Protection Act won't do anything for in-game slots or other games of chance, even if they are cloaked within a game of skill.
As we approach the 270 day deadline to construct the finding tracking system, we may be inching closer to the first enforcement of the UIGEA. The question remains, however, when that enforcement will spread to the MMO world. If the status quo continues, the answer may be sooner than you think.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Bragg v. Linden: Your Virtual Future May Rest On This Case
It's not often that a critical case can be seen coming before it is decided. However, Bragg v. Linden in federal court in Pennsylvania stands to be possible the landmark case in MMORPG law or virtual law or whatever you would like to call it.
For those who haven't been following, the basic facts are that Mr. Bragg was a Second Life real estate developer. He bought some land ("Taessot") for $300. Second Life contacted him soon after saying the land was acquired with an exploit, reclaimed the land, and banned his account.
The court has officially denied Linden's motion to dismiss and their motion to compel arbitration, negating a portion of the TOS. This means, more than likely, the issue will go to trial. What is the issue? As the court put it:
Ultimately at issue in this case are the novel questions of what rights and obligations grow out of the relationship between the owner and creator of a virtual world and its resident-customers.
So what does this mean to you?
If you are a gamer, you should be paying attention because someone may finally stand to define your rights in the game, the virtual world, or at a minimum in Second Life.
If you are a developer, there are a number of reasons to be paying attention:
1. If you make statements like Linden has about rights in game, how will those assertions operate with your EULA?
2. What rights can players assert regardless of the EULA?
3. How far can a government intervene in your virtual world?
4. If you have an arbitration clause in your TOS, will it suffer the same fate as Linden's?
I have my own theories on what the answers to these questions might and perhaps should be, but I will save that for a future post. Keep checking back with Law of the Game for more on the Bragg case as it develops.
For those who haven't been following, the basic facts are that Mr. Bragg was a Second Life real estate developer. He bought some land ("Taessot") for $300. Second Life contacted him soon after saying the land was acquired with an exploit, reclaimed the land, and banned his account.
The court has officially denied Linden's motion to dismiss and their motion to compel arbitration, negating a portion of the TOS. This means, more than likely, the issue will go to trial. What is the issue? As the court put it:
Ultimately at issue in this case are the novel questions of what rights and obligations grow out of the relationship between the owner and creator of a virtual world and its resident-customers.
So what does this mean to you?
If you are a gamer, you should be paying attention because someone may finally stand to define your rights in the game, the virtual world, or at a minimum in Second Life.
If you are a developer, there are a number of reasons to be paying attention:
1. If you make statements like Linden has about rights in game, how will those assertions operate with your EULA?
2. What rights can players assert regardless of the EULA?
3. How far can a government intervene in your virtual world?
4. If you have an arbitration clause in your TOS, will it suffer the same fate as Linden's?
I have my own theories on what the answers to these questions might and perhaps should be, but I will save that for a future post. Keep checking back with Law of the Game for more on the Bragg case as it develops.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Alternative IP and Economic Structuring for MMORPGs
Out in the grand expanses of the world wide web, there are really two competing models of IP licensing in the MMO world. The first is followed by the vast majority of games, including the ever-popular World of Warcraft. The other is a more recent development employed by Second Life. After explaining these two in brief, I would like to propose an alternative "middle ground" which could significantly alter the MMO landscape. This IP model is accompanied by a brief discussion of a relevant business model which is closely related.
The World of Warcraft Model
I term this the "World of Warcraft" model, but it historically begins more in the Ultima Online age. The model is basically as follows: The developer provides all content, which is licensed to the user. The user has, basically, no rights under this model. In short, no matter what it took for you to get that Blackfury, the item is merely "on loan" to you from the developer. You can never truly own it. This model is the most popular because it protects the assets of the developer, specifically all the intellectual property that went into the game you're playing. After years of development, most developers don't want to chance anyone walking away with even part of their intellectual property.
The Second Life Model
The Second Life model is much different. In short, the developer provides the basics of the world, but it is up to the user to fill in the rest. The upshot to this model is the user owns their IP. The downside, on the other hand, is that to get a truly enveloping storyline like WoW, it takes a user developing one, not to mention the play mechanics to accompany it. For those seeking profit, this model is ideal. For those looking for an adventure, elsewhere would probably be a better choice.
An Alternative?
So, where does that leave the player? If they want an adventure, the WoW model is the choice, but they never truly have any interest in what they've accomplished. On the flip side, the SL model gives unlimited ownership, but no pre-written storyline to speak of. The alternative rests in an argument eBayers made for years while selling vitrual goods they did not truly own.
The alternative boils down to drafting a license in such a manner that the player does not own the item he has acquired, rather his effort to acquire it salable. In terms of drafting, there are two likely ways to create this system:
1. Establish a license that acknowledges player effort and allows the sale of player "effort" vis a vis the sale of items.
2. Draft the license in such a way that each individual game property is granted based on a license that is transferable only between players.
Of course, to continue to exert proper intellectual property controls over these licenses, the developer would have to implement something else. Specifically, an integrated real money auction system. Let's be perfectly honest: People are willing to pay money for characters and items in MMORPGs. Moreover, while the eBay ban has slowed the market, it has by no means shut it down. So, what is a developer to do? Police the market at a high cost?
The alternative here, of course, is to create your own auction. The business model is simple enough: Allow players to list, buy and sell items and characters. Provide for integrated exchange tools in the game. Use an online payment system to automate the process. Put in feedback. Then charge a transaction fee and you're making an even bigger profit off your MMO monster than your were before. While the coding may be difficult, the reward could be enormous. And such a system would not further entangle your development company with the IRS, in case that was a concern. (Players would be on their own to report MMO profits to Uncle Sam, unless a regulatory change moves all MMO income from ordinary income to gambling winnings.)
Conclusion
In short, it is not beyond the realm of possibility for a developer to legitimize real money trades in games where they wish to retain the majority of the rights to the IP. It would take a concerted effort and more work than the creation of a typical MMO, but the potential profit from such a system seems limitless. Of course, a new, carefully drafted license as noted above would be an absolute must to be sure that the developer's rights are protected.
[Update: It would seem Joystiq is reading my mind today. In fact, Sony's StationExchange operates on a similar model to what I've suggested here. Check back in the near future for a more in-depth analysis of the Sony model.]
The World of Warcraft Model
I term this the "World of Warcraft" model, but it historically begins more in the Ultima Online age. The model is basically as follows: The developer provides all content, which is licensed to the user. The user has, basically, no rights under this model. In short, no matter what it took for you to get that Blackfury, the item is merely "on loan" to you from the developer. You can never truly own it. This model is the most popular because it protects the assets of the developer, specifically all the intellectual property that went into the game you're playing. After years of development, most developers don't want to chance anyone walking away with even part of their intellectual property.
The Second Life Model
The Second Life model is much different. In short, the developer provides the basics of the world, but it is up to the user to fill in the rest. The upshot to this model is the user owns their IP. The downside, on the other hand, is that to get a truly enveloping storyline like WoW, it takes a user developing one, not to mention the play mechanics to accompany it. For those seeking profit, this model is ideal. For those looking for an adventure, elsewhere would probably be a better choice.
An Alternative?
So, where does that leave the player? If they want an adventure, the WoW model is the choice, but they never truly have any interest in what they've accomplished. On the flip side, the SL model gives unlimited ownership, but no pre-written storyline to speak of. The alternative rests in an argument eBayers made for years while selling vitrual goods they did not truly own.
The alternative boils down to drafting a license in such a manner that the player does not own the item he has acquired, rather his effort to acquire it salable. In terms of drafting, there are two likely ways to create this system:
1. Establish a license that acknowledges player effort and allows the sale of player "effort" vis a vis the sale of items.
2. Draft the license in such a way that each individual game property is granted based on a license that is transferable only between players.
Of course, to continue to exert proper intellectual property controls over these licenses, the developer would have to implement something else. Specifically, an integrated real money auction system. Let's be perfectly honest: People are willing to pay money for characters and items in MMORPGs. Moreover, while the eBay ban has slowed the market, it has by no means shut it down. So, what is a developer to do? Police the market at a high cost?
The alternative here, of course, is to create your own auction. The business model is simple enough: Allow players to list, buy and sell items and characters. Provide for integrated exchange tools in the game. Use an online payment system to automate the process. Put in feedback. Then charge a transaction fee and you're making an even bigger profit off your MMO monster than your were before. While the coding may be difficult, the reward could be enormous. And such a system would not further entangle your development company with the IRS, in case that was a concern. (Players would be on their own to report MMO profits to Uncle Sam, unless a regulatory change moves all MMO income from ordinary income to gambling winnings.)
Conclusion
In short, it is not beyond the realm of possibility for a developer to legitimize real money trades in games where they wish to retain the majority of the rights to the IP. It would take a concerted effort and more work than the creation of a typical MMO, but the potential profit from such a system seems limitless. Of course, a new, carefully drafted license as noted above would be an absolute must to be sure that the developer's rights are protected.
[Update: It would seem Joystiq is reading my mind today. In fact, Sony's StationExchange operates on a similar model to what I've suggested here. Check back in the near future for a more in-depth analysis of the Sony model.]
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Second Life Rape: Much Ado About Nothing
Law of the Game is typically about intellectual property and business law type matters, expanding at most into the civil arena. However, due to the incomprehensible number of news stories about Second Life rape, the blog will be taking a short detour into the world of quasi-criminal law.
The common denominator between these articles is their approach to the analysis of so-called "Virtual Rape." (Although some draw lines between virtual sexual harassment, stalking, and rape through so-called "voodoo dolls," all are dealing with the same over-arching concept.) I think many of them have missed the point. So, rather than start with what occurs in Second Life, let's start with what occurs in First Life, i.e. the real world.
There are really two kinds of rape: Traditional forced intercourse and Statutory rape. Both could theoretically occur in a virtual world, so each should be looked at individually.
Statutory Rape
Statutory Rape is "a sexual act that is considered rape by the law regardless of whether it was coercive or consensual." In most jurisdictions, this would be like a 30 year old having sex with a 13 year old. The law protects the child because consent is not necessarily valid and because there is a moral stance against the action.
Can this occur in Second Life? Well, it can. Teens are supposed to be segregated to the teen grid, but either an adult posing as a teen or vice versa could theoretically be on the wrong grid. If said impostor has cybersex with someone of a radically different age, it could in fact be statutory rape.
Or is it? No sex is actually occurring. While the pedophile in question may be slapped with all sorts of indecency charges, I have yet to see any prosecution in the US for statutory rape based entirely on cybersex, and if such a prosecution had occurred, I'm sure certain websites would have posted it by now.
Traditional Forced Intercourse
Traditional rape is generally defined as forced intercourse without consent. Under the voodoo doll scenario posted on Virtually Blind, a rape is possible, in that forced intercourse occurs. So, people in Second Life can get raped.
Or can they? Typically, a player has to install or activate some element of code to enable the rape. By this simple action, are they not consenting? And if they are volunteering, then the act is not rape. Even if the code is maliciously installed, like a virus, Second Life rape and real life rape have one major difference: In Second Life, you can always pull the plug. Turn off your computer. Disconnect from the server. Walk away from the monitor. There are many, many points of egress that a real rape victim is not afforded.
Conclusion
In short, Second Life rape isn't really rape at all. It's not a nice thing to do (assuming it's the effect of a virus and not voluntary as opposed to people who buy into it), but it's certainly not a crime. However, that is not to say that some real crimes may not come from stalking that originates in Second Life, or leaks of personal information, but until it crosses the boundary to have a real, tangible criminal effect in the real world, like stalking or identity theft or burglary, it's not anything more than a pseudo-crime. As such, I would hope the police find something better to do than investigate rape in Second Life, such as investigate rapes and murders in real life.
The common denominator between these articles is their approach to the analysis of so-called "Virtual Rape." (Although some draw lines between virtual sexual harassment, stalking, and rape through so-called "voodoo dolls," all are dealing with the same over-arching concept.) I think many of them have missed the point. So, rather than start with what occurs in Second Life, let's start with what occurs in First Life, i.e. the real world.
There are really two kinds of rape: Traditional forced intercourse and Statutory rape. Both could theoretically occur in a virtual world, so each should be looked at individually.
Statutory Rape
Statutory Rape is "a sexual act that is considered rape by the law regardless of whether it was coercive or consensual." In most jurisdictions, this would be like a 30 year old having sex with a 13 year old. The law protects the child because consent is not necessarily valid and because there is a moral stance against the action.
Can this occur in Second Life? Well, it can. Teens are supposed to be segregated to the teen grid, but either an adult posing as a teen or vice versa could theoretically be on the wrong grid. If said impostor has cybersex with someone of a radically different age, it could in fact be statutory rape.
Or is it? No sex is actually occurring. While the pedophile in question may be slapped with all sorts of indecency charges, I have yet to see any prosecution in the US for statutory rape based entirely on cybersex, and if such a prosecution had occurred, I'm sure certain websites would have posted it by now.
Traditional Forced Intercourse
Traditional rape is generally defined as forced intercourse without consent. Under the voodoo doll scenario posted on Virtually Blind, a rape is possible, in that forced intercourse occurs. So, people in Second Life can get raped.
Or can they? Typically, a player has to install or activate some element of code to enable the rape. By this simple action, are they not consenting? And if they are volunteering, then the act is not rape. Even if the code is maliciously installed, like a virus, Second Life rape and real life rape have one major difference: In Second Life, you can always pull the plug. Turn off your computer. Disconnect from the server. Walk away from the monitor. There are many, many points of egress that a real rape victim is not afforded.
Conclusion
In short, Second Life rape isn't really rape at all. It's not a nice thing to do (assuming it's the effect of a virus and not voluntary as opposed to people who buy into it), but it's certainly not a crime. However, that is not to say that some real crimes may not come from stalking that originates in Second Life, or leaks of personal information, but until it crosses the boundary to have a real, tangible criminal effect in the real world, like stalking or identity theft or burglary, it's not anything more than a pseudo-crime. As such, I would hope the police find something better to do than investigate rape in Second Life, such as investigate rapes and murders in real life.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Final Fantasy VII in Second Life?
In Response to Play Final Fantasy VII in Second Life
While the idea of playing Final Fantasy VII in Second Life sound fun, my infringement sense is tingling. The original article states: "As far as Square's sponsorship of the whole thing, we know for sure that they aren't directly involved. Among the GMs I spoke with, almost all of them were 100% convinced that Square had given some kind of blessing to the proceedings, but nobody was positive who exactly got that blessing." And if I were involved with this, "not positive" would mean "bad idea."
What the people have created is a derivative work, of sorts. I only say "of sorts" because no one has ever tested this medium (to my knowledge) in court. In short, among the bundle of rights a copyright owner has is the right to create derivative works. Derivative works are things like re-makes and sequels that rely on elements of the original work. As a relevant example, Dirge of Cerberus and Advent Children are both derivative works of Final Fantasy VII. The rumored remake (based on the E3 2005 Tech Demo) would also be a derivative work.
And so would Midgar in Second Life.
Second Life Midgar relies on significant (and substantial) elements of Final Fantasy VII. It is, without a doubt, a derivative work. Which means that either the creators need a license to create the work, or they are likely committing copyright infringement, which SquareEnix could bring suit over. The fact that they are profiting from the work (or at a minimum collecting revenue, even if it is a wash or a loss) only makes the infringement more troublesome.
Maybe SquareEnix will continue to look the other way. Maybe one of the GMs secretly works for the RPGiant. In any case, if I were taking profit from this game, I would want a license in writing sooner rather than later.
While the idea of playing Final Fantasy VII in Second Life sound fun, my infringement sense is tingling. The original article states: "As far as Square's sponsorship of the whole thing, we know for sure that they aren't directly involved. Among the GMs I spoke with, almost all of them were 100% convinced that Square had given some kind of blessing to the proceedings, but nobody was positive who exactly got that blessing." And if I were involved with this, "not positive" would mean "bad idea."
What the people have created is a derivative work, of sorts. I only say "of sorts" because no one has ever tested this medium (to my knowledge) in court. In short, among the bundle of rights a copyright owner has is the right to create derivative works. Derivative works are things like re-makes and sequels that rely on elements of the original work. As a relevant example, Dirge of Cerberus and Advent Children are both derivative works of Final Fantasy VII. The rumored remake (based on the E3 2005 Tech Demo) would also be a derivative work.
And so would Midgar in Second Life.
Second Life Midgar relies on significant (and substantial) elements of Final Fantasy VII. It is, without a doubt, a derivative work. Which means that either the creators need a license to create the work, or they are likely committing copyright infringement, which SquareEnix could bring suit over. The fact that they are profiting from the work (or at a minimum collecting revenue, even if it is a wash or a loss) only makes the infringement more troublesome.
Maybe SquareEnix will continue to look the other way. Maybe one of the GMs secretly works for the RPGiant. In any case, if I were taking profit from this game, I would want a license in writing sooner rather than later.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Virtual Goods and Consumer Protection
In Response to:
Uk gov't urged to act on 'virtual goods': Anti-fraud laws should apply to Second Life
I have dealt with a wide variety of consumer protection issues in my career, primarily ones dealing with franchising. Consumer protection, in general, is a double edged sword: on the one hand, naive consumers should be protected from frauds; on the other, government regulations do not always work as planned and always inevitably lag behind real world progress. With the evolution rate involved with online commodities and virtual goods, the gap between the world the regulations are designed for and the present reality will always be vast. I, however, will grant that some sort of consumer protection needs to exist. I would propose, rather than allowing government regulators to handle the situation, the creation of a multi-national regulatory body to handle issues in virtual goods. The body would basically parallel a licensing board (much like doctors and lawyers deal with) that can adapt its rules at a much faster pace to conform to the reality of the business, but at the same time have the ability to censure members.
The first step would be the creation of the body with some recognition by governments. The only real restriction that the governments need to authorize is that in order to be a virtual commodity supplier and/or broker, you must be licensed by the board. This would mean that games that wish to have real world currency transactions, such as Second Life, must be registered. Additionally, if someone wanted to act as an independent virtual goods broker (a profession which will undoubtedly appear in the not too distant future), they must be registered as well. The exact details of license requirements would have to be detailed by the board. More than likely, games without real-world transactions (i.e. Word of Warcraft) would be exempt from registration and licensing.
Ultimately, then, the board has the responsibility to field complaints issued about their members. Upon review, the board would be free to fine members or suspend licenses, just like bar associations and medical boards. Assuming the policing is adequate, the consumer protection desired would exist without bogging the entire system down in government action. Moreover, the board would be able to address new technological issues as they emerge, whereas a government would be horribly behind and lack the experts to completely understand the problem (not to mention the partisan political element and typical inter-nation bickering).
Uk gov't urged to act on 'virtual goods': Anti-fraud laws should apply to Second Life
I have dealt with a wide variety of consumer protection issues in my career, primarily ones dealing with franchising. Consumer protection, in general, is a double edged sword: on the one hand, naive consumers should be protected from frauds; on the other, government regulations do not always work as planned and always inevitably lag behind real world progress. With the evolution rate involved with online commodities and virtual goods, the gap between the world the regulations are designed for and the present reality will always be vast. I, however, will grant that some sort of consumer protection needs to exist. I would propose, rather than allowing government regulators to handle the situation, the creation of a multi-national regulatory body to handle issues in virtual goods. The body would basically parallel a licensing board (much like doctors and lawyers deal with) that can adapt its rules at a much faster pace to conform to the reality of the business, but at the same time have the ability to censure members.
The first step would be the creation of the body with some recognition by governments. The only real restriction that the governments need to authorize is that in order to be a virtual commodity supplier and/or broker, you must be licensed by the board. This would mean that games that wish to have real world currency transactions, such as Second Life, must be registered. Additionally, if someone wanted to act as an independent virtual goods broker (a profession which will undoubtedly appear in the not too distant future), they must be registered as well. The exact details of license requirements would have to be detailed by the board. More than likely, games without real-world transactions (i.e. Word of Warcraft) would be exempt from registration and licensing.
Ultimately, then, the board has the responsibility to field complaints issued about their members. Upon review, the board would be free to fine members or suspend licenses, just like bar associations and medical boards. Assuming the policing is adequate, the consumer protection desired would exist without bogging the entire system down in government action. Moreover, the board would be able to address new technological issues as they emerge, whereas a government would be horribly behind and lack the experts to completely understand the problem (not to mention the partisan political element and typical inter-nation bickering).
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Second Life Professionals: Just Fun or Real Fraud?
Anyone who has explored much of Second Life has noted that there are many “professionals” offering services in the world. From psychiatrists to lawyers, they are all present in Second Life. However, with the proliferation of Second Life residents and resident professionals, an interesting issue arises: Does real life accreditation, training and experience matter in Second Life? More importantly, should it?
Anyone can go into the virtual realm and claim to be just about anything. If someone is using their real name, it’s generally easy enough to see if they’re really a member of a state bar or graduate of the university they claim. With a pseudonym, it becomes much less likely to track them down. So, if I or anyone else decides to begin their Second Life as a professional, should their credentials be subject to some sort of actual verification?
Much of the outcome will depend on any future outcry from the residents. If there is some scandal, that outcry is likely to follow. However, in the meantime, I think it is important to examine the issue and perhaps get residents to voice their opinion on the matter to avoid an actual scandal. Just as an example, I am going to explore two very different professions, psychologists and attorneys, and how their lack of education may impact Second Life and its residents.
Psychologists
Attorneys in Second Life could serve two functions: dealing with in-game issues and dealing with real life issues. Both of these could be a potential nightmare if an unlicensed pseudo-professional is involved. As with all professions, there are a large number of untrained, armchair lawyers, many of whom spend hours a day attempting to argue legal points on message boards across the internet. Some are better at these arguments than others, and like so many topics, many are completely out of touch with the reality of the legal situation.
Dealing with in-game issues is one real where an unlicensed person may have enough knowledge to operate without detriment, for example in resolving in-game disputes. After all, real life mediators and arbiters do not need to be attorneys in many states. However, in the in-game realm, there are issues that could spill over into the real world realm that do need competent legal advice, for example license or customer agreements. Since Second Life residents retain the rights to the things they create, many of them have license agreements, and firms in Second Life do offer agreement reviews (see here). Reviews of or drafts of binding legal documents done by armchair lawyers could have detrimental effects should there ever be a client.
More problematic would be the offering of legal advice applicable to the real world entirely. Every state has some sort of criminal penalty for the unauthorized practice of law, and for good reason. The practice of law is a difficult profession that requires training to properly research and analyze legal issues thoroughly. Finding a quick answer on Google or Wikipedia is generally not sufficient, and legal advice at that level, when represented as complete and accurate, can lead people to make the wrong decision. Moreover, as laws vary by jurisdiction, advice from a lawyer in
Psychologists and Attorneys are just two groups of professionals who could and do appear in Second Life. Accountants, Doctors, and countless other groups could appear, each with their own respective dilemmas involving the practice of their profession in their Second Life. Moreover, for each group, the potential for fraud varies and the risk of the results of the fraud varies. I would hope that anyone seeking professional services in Second Life takes anything they receive with a grain of salt. However, should there be an increase in the number of actual and supposed professionals offering services in Second Life, some sort of credential verification should likely be implemented.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
For the MMORPG Fans
I've noticed the comments about the upcoming MMORPG content. While I don't have any of the new content ready yet, other than my second post, I thought I would take the time to re-link an old paper I wrote about MMORPG gambling. You can read the paper here.
I re-posted the paper on GoogleDocs since my TTU posting will expire in the not too distant future. That paper has been referenced many times, according to my most recent searches, including Wikipedia, Kotaku, Answers.com, and other scholarly papers posted online. A quick google search will generate quite a few results.
One note on the content of the paper: it is officially out of date. Because of changes to eBay policy on the sale of virtual goods and the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, a some of the current analysis no longer applies, other than in the theoretical sense. I've written an update, but due to some potential publication restrictions, I cannot post the update at this time. Perhaps it will make an appearance here in the future.
I re-posted the paper on GoogleDocs since my TTU posting will expire in the not too distant future. That paper has been referenced many times, according to my most recent searches, including Wikipedia, Kotaku, Answers.com, and other scholarly papers posted online. A quick google search will generate quite a few results.
One note on the content of the paper: it is officially out of date. Because of changes to eBay policy on the sale of virtual goods and the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, a some of the current analysis no longer applies, other than in the theoretical sense. I've written an update, but due to some potential publication restrictions, I cannot post the update at this time. Perhaps it will make an appearance here in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
