All the discussion about Diablo 3 has got me wondering: are virtual goods very different from "real" goods, and does the nature of our ownership of virtual goods differ from that of "real" goods? Should there be a difference?
Ownership of virtual goods
All the discussion about Diablo 3 has got me wondering: are virtual goods very different from "real" goods, and does the nature of our ownership of virtual goods differ from that of "real" goods? Should there be a difference?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yes virtual goods are very different from "real" goods and yes "ownership" can (and often should) be different.
EG to take Diablo, if I own a sword in real life I can sell it and use it etc as the law of the land allows - if I "own" a sword in Diablo then technically it is really owned by Blizzard and then owned virtually by me. I can sell it and use it as Blizzard's "laws" allow, within the context of real laws. If Blizzard didn't maintain ultimate ownership then it would prevent them from doing certain updates etc
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
There is no inherent reason why the same logic wouldn't apply to real-life goods (i.e. you sign a contract allowing you to have ownership of something within some sphere but not in others; it's not too far from you owning a house, but the government owning the land or possessing sovereignty over it). People willingly consent to give up their rights to in-game property when they sign up to play a game. If they didn't sign away that right, stealing in-game property should be tantamount to real-life theft. The problem would be determining the value of that property, but that's not always as difficult as it sounds.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. You could instead construe it as a form of gambling - people 'own' their virtual goods, but they gamble on the outcome of a game (combat, whatever) with other characters, with the forfeits being their possessions.
Obviously that's not the model being pushed by game companies, but the point is that there's multiple ways to view virtual goods in games that don't necessarily fit the 'contract to give up property rights' model.
I was referring to instances where the digital goods are taken outside the rules of the game.
Hope is the denial of reality
In Wall Street everything you buy (stocks, derivatives, bonds) is virtual, even money is. This crisis is more virtual than real. If money was not exchanged for goods, the world economy would be just an online game in banks servers.
Crisis indeed took place because the owners of the virtual videogame of Wall Street were allowed to hijack the real economy, companies, real people. Even companies are virtual entities, a gathering of people in a certain place under a virtual name. Nations are virtual entities that exist only in people's minds. Land is real, nations are not.
People kill and die for money. People is enslaved and animals and forests are destroyed baceuse of money. People kill and die for nations that do not even last 200o years. In the year of 250 AC there was no nation called China, just 3 nations named Wu, Shu and Wei that were at war. All those poor folks died for nothing, died for nations that do not even exist today.
Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.
The more I think about this the more fascinated I become.
Doing business in Diablo may require a significant time commitment, but everything you buy and sell in Diablo comes directly from Blizzard's algorithms rather than representing any real effort or production, and one might argue that you don't own any of the goods in Diablo. But what about the real money that will flow into (and occasionally out of) Diablo? Who owns that? How are things like income taxes and VAT handled in a business that deals with both real and fake assets? What about insurance? Is Blizzard required to follow auctioneering laws in any state or country?
Another thing I've been wondering about: A lot of games out there offer players special benefits in return for money. (eg. more lives, less hassle, etc) Would it be legal to modify such games so that a person playing all on his own would be able to avoid such fees? Provided he paid for the game in the first place--I'm not talking about outright piracy.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Read Neal Stephenson's Reamde.
Yeah, do that. It doesn't really answer any of the questions but it's a pretty cool book.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
I haven't thought about virtual property verses real property in a long time. Perhaps I haven't thought about a lot of stuff in a long while. However, I think they have remarkably similar properties and very similar moral and legal results. If you own a virtual sword and someone took it without your permission, and in violation of the game's rule. I would contend that is an immoral act, how hard or easy it is for the item to be obtained doesn't really matter. What matters is the agreed to rules, at the minimum we can say taking of the sword is breaking your word, your agreement, and therefore the theft is a form of lying. At a maximum we will say they are breaking their word (not following the games end user agreement) and in addition they are stealing from another person. This is wrong no matter how you slice it.
What I would say is better about stealing something electronically verses physically is that when you steal physically you are creating greater danger for yourself and others, and is a boulder move, and I would argue is of a greater immoral nature due to the increase amount of danger. People can physically get hurt or lose their lives in such physical thefts, in virtual thefts which our currencym for example, is turning into basically virtual currency (one day there will be nothing physical to steal in terms of money) this action is wrong.
Perhaps the best legal and moral way to deal with virtual theft or virtual wrong doing is the following:
1.) You are being immoral in that you are breaking your word via the end user agreement, and two additionally so by being disrespectful to whatever players you are hurting.
2.) Secondly you are being immoral in that you are stealing and the degree of this theft is determined by the value of the item at hand, best determined by the market itself.
3.) It is a safer way to steal, I don't view online pirates, or thieves (as being as dangerous to society) as those who are bold enough to rob a store or something. But both are wrong.
people buy virtual goods for Second Life... Then people move to Facebook... what a waste of money...
Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote