Commodification of Identity in Online Communities
Ren
Reynolds
ren@aldermangroup.com
www.renreynolds.com
Abstract
There is a large market in virtual items and
avatars, though their legal status is still disputed. This conflict is brought
to a head in situations such as when one of the many types of virtual-item
related crime takes place.
This paper examines the mechanics of virtual worlds
and the nature of the value of these items, and the operation of the markets
that have grown around them. The paper also gives practical, legal and
philosophical arguments for and against the commoditisation of items, avatars
and by extension online identity.
I live in northern
As a guild member I share my equipment and resources with the group, I
help other members with projects that enable them to progress and where ever we
all are in
Some times when its night and no one is around I can hear the wind blow
sand through the empty desert. I feel cold. I feel alone.
I wrote this description when I was 10 days old in
a place called
This paper discusses the relationship between
worlds such as
This paper examines one aspect of the
virtual-physical nexus – the generation of value within game worlds and
potential expression of that value in terms of property.
The paper describes how game mechanics give rise to
ideas of property and how the values associated with in-game resources relate
to the development of in-game and extra-game economies. The paper also
describes some of the conflicts associated with virtual-items and avatars. In
particular arguments surrounding the legal status of these virtual objects are
discussed i.e. whether they should be property and if so who’s.
The virtual worlds discussed in this paper are a genre
of computer game. They are client-server computer programs that present the
user with an interface that represents anything from a series of
inter-connected rooms to a vast landscape or even planets. Multiple players can
be present in this space at the same time, can be aware of each other’s
presence and can communicate in a number of ways which include ‘speaking’ and
gesturing. Another defining aspect of these worlds is that they are persistent.
That is, if you build something in the world and then log off, it will be there
next time you log on (unless of course someone with the power to move or
destroy it did so while you were gone).
The first of these virtual worlds, MUD1 (Multi-User Dungeon 1), was created
in 1979 at the
Many of today’s virtual worlds still use the ‘sword
and sorcery’ themes used in MUD1 –
which is hardly surprising given the enduring popularity of The Lord of the
Rings, though there is a now a wide variety of themes and range of worlds –
some of which de-emphasize the game play aspects of the world structure in
favour of creating an alternative social space.
These so-called social worlds started to emerge around
1990. The first of these were TinyMUD created in 1989 by James Aspnes
(Burka 1993) and LambdaMOO (where MOO stands for
MUD Object Orientated, a reference to the structure of code that was used to
create the world) created in 1990 by Pavel Curtis (Burgess).
This type of game built on the emerging culture of online communities established
by BBSs (Bulletin Board Systems) such as The Well (The Whole Earth Lectronic Link - established in 1984 by Stewart Brand
(Rheingold 2000)) and sparked a rise in popularity of virtual worlds in
general.
Two interesting and pertinent aspects of some of the
early MUDs is that they gave users accesses to the
underlying code, meaning that individual users could not only interact with the
virtual world, they could alter it in significant ways (see Dank’s
Dead Dog below). Users and administrators of some of the worlds also
experimented with different forms of social structure and control (politics in LambdaMOO reference).
Early MUDs such as MUD1, LambaMOO etc are text based i.e.
rooms, actions and other people are present to the player in the form of textual
descriptions. The next stage of virtual word development was the addition of 2D
graphics in the game Habitat created in 1985 by Chip Morningstar and F. Randall
Farmer (Morningstar & Randall 1990) for Lucasfilm
Games. Eleven years later in 1996 the company 3DO released the first 3D MUD:
Today’s persistent world games expand on the themes
established in MUD1 and later
generations of game. The primary differences are ones of scale, complexity and range
of themes. These games also offer an expansion in what the player can do such
as use different powers, weapons, build buildings etc, however the code of the
popular games is closed to users meaning that in many ways they are more
restrictive[1].
The current generation of games are known by
confusing array of names and acronyms: Persistent World games, MMORPGs, MMOs, MMOGs etc, where MMORPG
stands for Massively Multiplayer Online Role Play Game.
The most popular and well know of these are (all
launch dates and subscription figures from Woodcock 2003, unless otherwise
stated):
EverQuest (everquest.station.sony.com) – This is currently
the most popular MMORPG in the English speaking world. EverQuest or EQ was launched
in 1999 by Sony Online Entertainment and has an estimated half a million
subscribers. EverQuest has a Tolkienesque theme and is based in a land called Norrath.
UltimaOnline
(www.uo.com) – Also known as Ultima
or UO is published by Electronic Arts’s UltimaOnline. It
was launched in 1997 and has an estimated 250000 players. Ultima also has a Tolkienesque theme.
Lineage (www.lineage.com)
– Is arguably the worlds largest MMORPG by a very large margin. Like Ultima and EverQuest, Lineage is
based on a ‘swords and sorcery’ theme (in fact Lineage is created by Lord British aka Richard Garriott
– creator of Ultima). Unlike EQ and UO who’s main player based in split between US and
The licence and usage model is
also different as a large number of players access the game through internet
café’s, this makes direct subscriber comparisons difficult, however according
to the developer (NC Soft) Lineage
currently has around 3.2 million subscribers[2].
Dark Age of Camelot (www.darkageofcamelot.com) – Mythic
Entertainment’s Dark Age of Camelot is
set in the world of Arthurian Legends and is another game with around a quarter
of a million subscribers.
Star Wars Galaxies (starwarsgalaxies.station.sony.com) –
Developed by the makers of EverQuest,
Star Wars Galaxies (known variously
as SWG or SW:G) is an MMORPG set in the Star Wars universe, although still
not officially released in Europe and only officially released in the US June
2003 (about 4 months before the writing of this paper) SWG has already gained over 300,000 registered users[3].
In addition to the leading MMORPGs listed above
there are a vast number of other games based on a wide number of themes, each
of which have 200,000 subscribers or less. For example: Never Winter Nights
(based on the Role Play game Dungeons and Dragons (nwn.bioware.com)); Anarchy
Online (cyberpunk dystopia theme (www.anarchy-online.com)); Kingdom of
the Winds (created by Nexon and base on Asian
mythology (www.nexustk.com) and Final
Fantasy XI (based on the successful Final Fantasy game series, at the time of
writing this game was available in Japan and was slated for release in the rest
of the world in 2004 on both PC and PS2 (where PS2 means the Sony Play Station
2 the market leader in console platforms).
Current social worlds (which are often not referred
to as MMORPGs as the play aspect of Role Play is generally too weak and \ or
unstructured for the gaming community ) include The Sims Online ((www.eagames.com/official/thesimsonline/home/index.jsp)
an online version of the highly popular single-person game The Sims and There
(www.there.com).
Recently variations on these themes have started to
emerge with games like A Tail In The
Desert (www.atitd.com). This game is unusual for a number of reasons such
as the fact that the game has a progressive structure but no in-game conflict
and that the creation of art and laws are explicit parts of the game structure.
There is also a close-knit relationship between players and developers all of
which are reminiscent of the culture of early games such as LambaMOO.
Readers should also note that every virtual world,
MUD or BBS mentioned above is available online today even MUD1 (www.british-legends.com) and Meridan 59 (meridian59.neardeathstudios.com) can still be
played. Also, in addition to the games mentioned there are hundreds of other virtual
world games, with new text based games MUDs still
being created.
At a high level of approximation there are very
strong similarities between all MMORPGs. This applies to the game structure,
technical structures and business models employed by the games. In fact many of
the fundamental aspects of today’s virtual worlds were established in MUD1.
The ostensible point of a traditional MUD or MMORPG
is to use some form of in-game representation to meet a set of goals such as:
solving puzzles, killing things or accumulating resources. All of which is
based on some form of player-character representation interacting with other
players, in-game artefacts and other game elements.
Game worlds are representations of the physical
world or some fantasy version of it. As such game worlds use many of the same
basic concepts such as individual identity, objects, property etc. However to
understand how these concepts relate to the physical world one has to understand
both the commercial, technical and in-game mechanics of virtual worlds. This
section provides an over view these mechanics.
Nearly all MMORPGs are based on a common business
model. Players purchase client software for around 50 euro and then subscribe
to the game paying a monthly fee of between 10 and 20 euro. In addition to the
character progression described below, the game world constantly develops. New
plotlines, monsters, artefacts or places are created by the developers and periodically
new game releases are issued which tend to offer new worlds, character types,
power etc. There is generally a separate fee for these game expansions. Some
games alter this model by providing client software for free or a free trial.
The client software that runs on the user’s
computer communicates with game server or servers (Lee 2003). The game as a
whole is made up of this network of computers with the game servers at its hub.
Game items and avatars exist in virtue of being entries in databases on these
game servers which the client program interacts with. Hence a player-character
will be a set of entries describing the avatars attributes, these attributes
interact with the sever and client computers e.g. if someone picks up an object
in the game an attribute in the player-character database (or related database)
will alter – this will be registered by the client computer if the player looks
to see what they are holding etc.
The client software and the use of the game are licensed
to the player. This licence is commonly known as the End User Licence Agreement
(EULA) and can be me manifest in various forms such as: in printed form with
the software, on the companies web site, displayed each time the user plays the
game – or any combination thereof.
A game EULA sets out the terms and conditions for
playing the game. Most EULAs include statements
relating to game characters and items, these statements generally say that all
such objects are the property of the game company. EULAs
may also include statements to the effect that sale of such objects or the
braking of any other terms (sometimes including in-game rules of conduct) can
mean the immediate termination of a users account.
For example EverQuest
New Dawn (European edition 2002) does not contain a printed form of the
EULA as part of the physical game packaging or materials. Clause 9 this EULA
states: ‘You may not sell, attempt to sell, purchase, attempt to purchase,
auction or facilitate the purchase, sale or auction of any accounts, items,
coin or copyrighted material relating to the Games’.
Ultima
Online’s licence states at Paragraph 5(c):
Rights. You acknowledge and
agree that all characters created, and items acquired and developed as a result
of game play are part of the Software and Service and are the sole property of
EA.com. You acknowledge that: (i) the Software and
the Service permit access to Content that is protected by copyrights,
trademarks, and other proprietary rights owned by EA.com or Content Providers
(collectively, "Rights").
for Mythic Entertainment’s Dark Age of Camelot, EULA runs to just over 9,000 words, states at
(2):
OWNERSHIP OF SYSTEM, GAME AND
GAME CONTENT; RIGHTS TO ACCESS AND USE SAME” (A) “Ownership of System, Game and
Game Content”, that “You acknowledge and agree that Mythic is the sole and
exclusive owner of the System, and that Mythic or its suppliers are the sole
and exclusive owner(s) of all right, title and interest (including, without
limitation, all intellectual property rights), code, programs, routines,
subroutines, objects, files, data, characters (including all items, currency,
objects and attributes comprising or associated with a character and an
Account).
And again at 2(B):
Mythic Owns Accounts, Account
Attributes, Characters, Items and Objects; Assignment” that “You acknowledge
and agree that your Account(s), and all attributes of your Accounts, including
all guilds, groups, titles, and characters, and objects, currency and items acquired,
developed or delivered by or to characters as a result of Game play through
your Accounts are part of the System and the Game Content, and are the sole and
exclusive property of Mythic, including any and all copyrights and intellectual
property rights in or to any and all of the same, all of which are hereby
expressly reserved.
Typically when a player beings to play an MMORPG
the first thing they do is choose a character. This generally involves choosing
attributes such as type, appearance and choosing between attributes such as
strength or wisdom. This system is a very similar to the character creation
system in table top role play games such as Dungeons and Dragons.
The character starts off at a low level. That is
they have few powers and abilities in the game. As a player acts within the
game word the character generally increases in ability gaining various
attributes. In most (though not all) MMORPGs a level system is used to denote
their advancement. In one respect the level of a character represents the
amount of effort \ time put in by the player – this has been termed by Edward
Castronova (2002) as Avatar Capital.
Resources, together with characters, make up some
of basic building blocks of MMORPGs. The types of in-games resources that MMORPGs
utilize include: artefacts (magic swords, gems), materials (sand, wood),
buildings (houses etc) and land. In addition there are two categories of
resource that I will treat separately – currency and art.
All resources tend to be relatively scarce and
there is generally a hierarchy of resources. Relative scarcity can take several
forms which give rise to different forms of value structure:
Scarcity, and thus value is not static. When new
skills or powers are introduced into a world they command a high value, this
decays over time as the supply of resources increases. There are of course
special cases of this rule (currency and art are discussed below), and complexity
is added to all notions of value when virtual worlds become so large that for
technical reason they operate as a series of relatively discrete worlds on
multiple servers (know as shards). Though shards really only create
permutations and the same basic resources constraint themes.
In practice games mix these different types of
scarcity to create a huge range of in-game challenges which give texture to the
game experience. In most games accumulation resources and in particular resources
of greater scarcity is related progression within the game structure. This
makes games unusual in economic terms as it is the very scarcity of resources
and the challenges that this presents which makes the game interesting and
hence gives the items value. What is particularly usual is that people
generally pay for resources and for things to be made easier, in games people
are, in a sense, paying to be deprived of things and to have the lives made
more difficult (Castronova 2002).
What also seems strange about virtual items is the
artificiality of their scarceness. As digital items are digital, the
reproduction cost is negligible, hence a game could make infinite resources
available to players. This makes game based economies seem highly unreal
(especially when combined with the fictional narrative of virtual worlds and
the fact that they are ‘just games’), however artificial control of supply
underlies many ‘real world’ economies. For example while the market for oil and
diamonds are ultimately based on finite physically resources, the production at
any one time is tightly controlled to ensure price stability as anyone who has
filled up a vehicle with fuel the day after an OPEC meeting will know. In the
digital world the current controversy over file sharing demonstrates how a
market for virtual items with negligible cost of reproduction can be sustained
through behaviour patterns and the application and enforcement of legal
sanctions.
Many games have resources that are primarily or
exclusively used as an in-game currency. EverQuest
has copper, silver, gold and platinum pieces, UltimaOnline uses a similar
system (Britannian gold pieces), The Sims Online has Simoleans, ATITD enables any player with a modest
level of in-game ability to create their own currency though at the time of
writing a currency called TN (Teppy Notes) dominates
trade. There has also taken an
alternative approach as it makes an explicit link with sovereign currencies by
allowing players to purchase ThereBucks (Clark 2003).
Currency is different from other resources in that
it has different value dynamics, in that its value tends to be relative to
other asset’s, and for larger games which have extra-game economies (see below)
the currency operates just as any other tradeable
currency (or other instruments such as shares) and indicates the overall
strength of a game world.
Art in context of in-game resources is any unique
combination of resources that has an original player input. For example some
games allow players to construct buildings or even in-game artefacts that are explicitly
intended as art works. Dark Age of
Camelot has recently released the Foundations expansion that enables
players to create houses, The Sims Online
provides players with the ability to design and decorate their homes, There emphasises Avatar decoration and ATITD has a test as part of one of its
progression tracks that requires the player to create a sculpture that has to
be voted on as ‘interesting’ by at least 20 other players. There also allows players to significantly alter the look of game
elements and through its developer program allows new game objects to be
created.
What makes art objects unusual in economic terms is
the nature of their supply and demand. While like all virtual items they could
be effectively infinitely replicated once created, their initial creation is
based on players not the game company (who design and create the other
artefacts), what’s more these artefacts tent to be gratuitous in respect of
general game play. Like in the physical world artists create them because they
want to be creative, in some cases the art may attain value or give the creator
status but their primary function is generally not economic.
This ability to create game objects gave rise to
one of the early debates of in-game rights. In LambdaMOO a player called Martha
coded a beautiful but poisonous flower which killed a dog created by another
player Dank (Lessig 1999). This incident initiated a
debate about the nature of in-game objects, game rules, social rule and
physical world values which in a sense this paper is another instalment.
While the creation of completely original in-game
art (as opposed to the assembly of pre-created objects in novel forms) is rare
in MMORPGs, players still create a huge amount of original material in the form
of web sites, fan art, fan fic. As these creations
are inspired by the world created by the games company, sometimes the works can
lead to conflict (see below).
In addition to fan art, fine artists are
increasingly using MMORPGs and other computer game spaces as locations for art
work. Artists working in this medium include Eddo Stern with works such as Summons to Surrender[4]
and Julian Holland Oliver[5].
Some of these works are confrontational in both in-game terms and broader
political terms. Eddo for example has used physical robots to control game
characters. Sony have ruled the use of robots as cheating (Hanart
2000) – however in these works Eddo was not playing the game in any
conventional sense, which points to yet another boundary between the virtual
and the physical.
Ideas of ownership transcend game boundaries. EULAs tend to assert that all in-game objects are owned by
the game company, whereas exclusive control of in-game resources by
player-characters i.e. in-game ‘ownership’ is fundamental to the way that these
games operate.
There are a number of ways that players can obtain
in-game resources. Character attributes are generally gained through some form
of effort and \ or test, be it in the form of combat or by solving a puzzle.
Often attributes can only be gained by certain character types and by
characters working in a group. For example a monster may have to be killed that
requires both magic and fighting; killing the monster may increase the fighters
strength and the magicians wisdom.
Artefacts are similar, they tend to be potentially
available to either all characters e.g. gold; or characters of a certain type
e.g. weapons might only be available to fighters; or characters at a certain
level. This structure drives the availability of both artefacts and skills.
That is, when new artefacts or skills are introduced into the game world only a
few players have access to them, as time goes by more players acquire the items
and they become more available.
The other way that items can be acquired is through
forms of exchange (see next section).
Character attributes are generally not like
resources. By definition those that are associated with that particular character,
hence they cannot be traded separately from the character. However attributes
are used in negotiations, a party may need certain skills and ability to
complete a quest, some members with rare attributes may use this as a
bargaining strategy when forming the group. This aspect of avatar attributes is
one of the contributors to the in-game power structure and hence both in-game
and extra-game value of characters.
There are also cases where skills may be taught or
exchanged e.g. in ATITD skills can be taught, some skills are only learnt
through teaching and require the learner also to teach for them to progress.
Items tend to be under the control of a single
player at any one time. Hence when a player either ‘takes’ or ‘picks-up’ a
resource it is generally under the exclusive control of that player. Similarly
an item may be in a building or container controlled by the character, which
gives that character unique access to that artefact (though generally direct
control in the sense of use, is only related to artefacts that a character is
holding \ carrying or directly interacting with) Items can also generally be held
in common ownership e.g. by guild or clan, or be public e.g. if an item is
dropped on the ground.
In general resources can be exchanged in-game between
characters and between characters and NPC (Non-Player Character – a part of the
game program that appears as an avatar in-game, NPCs
include Monsters and Merchants). Usually there are a number of ways that this
can be achieved:
Variations on these themes include depositing items
in spaces \ buildings controlled exclusively by a character or group e.g. a
chest or house.
The mechanics of games discussed above combined
with compelling game play give rise to a number of economic systems. That is
in-game and extra-game economics are no accident, they are an enviable
consequence of game mechanics, a compelling game world and highly predictable
human behaviour. The latter may not be intended or even desired by the
designers.
Compelling game play means that aspects of virtual
world are designed by players or as an economist might say – there is value.
Now if all resources were instantly available or there were no way to exchange
artefacts or avatars, or there was no way to exercise exclusive control, then the
conditions for an economy would not exist, however it is moot whether a game
world of this type would be sufficiently interesting for people to join or to
support a commercial model for its operation (though some form of peer-to-peer
world may side step the financial issues).
The game mechanics discussed above give rise to a
wide range of in-game trading structures. In some worlds, trade is embedded in
the game structure. In EverQuest, for
example, NPC Merchants represent an infinite demand for certain items allows
players to convert basic resources to currency and so progress up the in-game
economic structure. More traditional trade also occurs between characters.
This form of trade can take a number of structural
forms:
Characters often simply give resources to one
another. The reasons for this can be as many and varied as in the physical
world: a person might simply want to help a lower character out, they may want
to gain favour or show appreciation.
In worlds where there is no currency, barter
predominates. Barter comes about through the types of relative scarcity
discussed above. For example one character may have the ability to obtain gems
while another might be able to create wine, the items thus have different
relative values for the two characters so a trade is possible. Similar
characters may simply be located in parts of the game world where different
resources are plentiful or scarce. Because of the wide variety of items and
different ability to obtain the items, in-game trade is a significant aspect of
just about all MMORPGs. What’s more due to the lack of a common currency,
barter economies can be complex, for this reason fan sites often create trading
lists which quote their buy \ sell rates against a matrix of resources, such
sites sometimes evolve into forms of commodity exchange.
A variation on barter occurs where a world has a
developed currency system. The drivers behind trade remain the same, though the
addition of currency and thus the ability to abstract and accumulate value leads
to more sophisticated gaming and trade systems. In-game currency also makes the
possibility of cross-world trading a more feasible one as it provides a single
tradable commodity against which a world-to-world exchange rate can be
established (where a game world has shards this is made more complex however
the existence of a common tradable commodity across a single world still allows
meaningful exchange rates to be established).
In-game trade structures are complex. This is due
to the supply \ demand structures noted above. For some basic items there is
either almost limitless supply and or demand (created by NPC characters). This
can mean that some items effectively have no value, due to over supply; or have
an ‘artificial’ value created by limitless demand. Most items follow a rough price
decay model; they have high value when first introduced into the world which
drops as the supply increases. One exception to this is where there is a ‘dupe’
or weakness in the game code that allows players to generate resources or
skills at a faster rate than the designers intended (and generally faster than
the rest of the game population can), such events create odd market anomalies.
Given the factors discussed at length above: the
game mechanics, in-game value structures, and the fact that players have a real
passion for the game world (Yee 2002a, 2002b)[6],
I would argue that is inevitable that ‘real’ economic structures form around
these worlds.
There are things within the game world that people
actually desire. These things are obtained through an investment of time (and
sometimes co-operation and skill, both of which require time). It is thus
inevitable that some players will do a time \ value calculation i.e. they will
simply pay real money for items they want.
The fact that people will pay money for what they
desire and that some people desire virtual items takes us into the many and
various trading structures that surround MMORPGs and the controversies that
come about through the intersection of virtual items with real cash.
Edward Castronva has
conducted a number of detailed economic analyses of the relationship between
virtual world items and real world economics. Famously he has concluded the
effective wage in EverQuest’s
game world Norrath
is USD 3.42 which combined with the population puts its effective GDP 77th
in the league table of ‘real’ world economies (Virtual) – though of course Narrath is a real
world economy under just about any definition one wants to use.
Recently Julian Dibble (2003b) had taken Castronova’s (2001) figures and combined these with historic and current
trading volumes from sites such as eBay
and playerauctions.com, in his
analysis he concludes that the size of the total market in virtual items and
avatars is a minimum of $20million but probably more like $40 million and could
be as high as $63 million. The reason for the variation is because of the
number of sales sites and the fact that the majority of this trade is a ‘grey’
economy and thus not centrally tracked (see below).
Most player-to-player trades operate just like any
other person to person internet transaction. An item or character is offered
for sale on a web site. A price is agreed between to individuals, an exchange
of funds occurs and an exchange of item. The fund exchange tends to occur using
on-line systems such a PayPal. For in-game items the
exchange occurs in the game world at some pre-defined location, for characters,
the access rights are exchanged. Players may also just agree deals between each
other on line, but due to the size of game worlds and the increased specialized
of trading, most trades now occur between players that do not know each other
(this can be evidenced from trade volumes).
Like any market, buyers need to find sellers and
vice versa. Hence offers of sale and requests for purchase are not scattered
randomly over the internet but focus on relatively small number of sites. The
main trading sites are currently the online auction site eBay (www.ebay.com), and
a number of virtual item specific sites such as www.playerauctions.com and www.markeedragon.com. These sites are
themselves commercial entities, hence one of the second order markets related
to virtual items is in sales \ auction sites and play mechanics.
If you have a lot of people who generally do not
know each other exchanging a lot of money though a huge volume of unregulated trades
it is almost certain that some form of black economy and other types of crime will
emerge. This is certainly the case for virtual item trading. There no figures
for the volume of game related crime in the west but in
There are a wide range of scams from simply
inflating the value of items for the new and unwary buyer (which might be seen
as healthy capitalism) to out and out fraud.
One type of fraud is probably the good old ‘take the money and run’. This works as
transactions are asynchronous i.e. the buyer has to give the seller their money
and the seller has to give the buyer the goods – these are two transactions
that generally happen at approximately (but not exactly) the same time. Hence a
seller can simply take payment for items and then disappear.
There are a number of variations on this theme most
of which revolve around the basic scam theme. These tend to involve deception
in the form of a seller or buyer pretending to be someone else. In these cases
the fraudster tends to pretend either to be an innocent buyer \ seller in an
attempt to lure someone into a deception, or they pretend to be well known
player or trader. In the latter case the deception often takes the form of
creating an email address that is very similar to that of the person. For
example if the trader is trader@v-item-trading.com,
the fraudster might create trader@v-itme-trading.net
. As much of the deal making occurs on ICQ a similar type of identity deception
occurs there as well.
Another variation on this is to set up a web page
that look very like the log-in page for one of the commercial payment sites;
then enter into a transaction with a player and get them to log-in to the spoof
payment site. This way the fraudster can obtain the buyers account log –in or
possibly credit card details. An imaginative spin on this type fraud was
recorded by Julian Dibble in his Blog - Play Money
(Dibble 2003a).
Yet another is type of standard credit card fraud,
where a buyer claims that the virtual item has not been delivered and so
demands their money back from PayPal or what ever
system is being used. In these cases the buyer has to prove the transaction has
taken place – not easy in a virtual world that lacks transaction tracking.
There are a number of terms for the practice of
Duping all of which refer to the practice of using some weakness in the game
code to create more of an item that usual game play allows, some of these
exploits can be technical complex (Koster 2003)
however if a player can generate enough volume of trade before the Dupe is discovered
a significant amount of money can be made.
In addition to the various types of cyber crime and
form of in-game behaviour that result in gaining virtual items that can be sold
– such as invading a virtual home and taking the possessions (Ward 2003); there
are also report of games sparking ‘real life’ crime including assault (Levander 2001).
The increasing size of the virtual item economy
together with the increase in crime has seen a growth in broker services.
Brokers provide a range of services from simply selling items like conventional
virtual-item traders, to setting-up and acting as an intermediary in large
deals. Broker services are based on three key factors that player desire: trust,
convenience and expertise.
Trust is becoming increasingly important as reports
of scams rises. Brokers trade on their reputation within (and increasingly
across) gaming communities. This can manifest itself in a trade as follows:
player A wants to buy a sword, they contact broker B who finds a player with a
sword to sell. B then acts as a trusted third party by purchasing payment (usually
in the form of in-game currency) from A (generally in terms of in-game
currency) and the sword from C. The broker then exchanges the goods to the
other parties. Brokers typically charge between 5 and15% for this type of
service when the items are being transferred on the same shard; when items are
transferred between shards (a xShard deal) rates are typically between 15 and 60% (this
reflects both the complexity and prior investment needed in moving items
between shards and the large variation in relative value that can exist).
An example of a brokerage (a collection of brokers)
is the Markee Dragon site (www.markeedragon.com)
brokers. Markee Dragon (who runs the site) is a market leader in UltimaOnline and
has expanded on the basic broker structure by creating a network or hub of
brokers under the Markee Dragon brand. While brokers act as individuals the
trust value is extended in a number of ways. Firstly by general brand
association, secondly by the fact that membership is by invitation only, and
lastly through an extension of the service offered by Markee Dragon whereby all
deals are underwritten to all brokers on the site.
A variation on the types of exchange described
previously is a cross world (or xWorld) exchange. For example many experienced Ultima or
EverQuest players are starting to play Star Wars Galaxies, as these players are
virtually rich and experienced gamers it makes sense to trade in some of their
existing value to give them a start in the new world. Hence cross world trading
is beginning to occur, traders are starting to quote effective exchange rates
and Brokers such as Markee Dragon are looking to make xWorld trading into a standard
service though it looks likely that transaction costs will be high i.e. 60%+.
The established practices described above might
lead one to assume that the legal status of virtual items was well understood,
that everyone agreed that players had the rights to buy and sell them, and that
all players thought that this trade was acceptable as part of the game.
However none of these assumptions are true. The
legal status of virtual items is unclear and legal arguments can be made that
both support and deny the rights of players to buy and sell them. What’s more as
T L Taylor noted in the paper ‘Whose game is this anyway?”: Negotiating
corporate ownership in a virtual world’ (Taylor 2002) the practice is disputed
by both some games companies and some players which has lead to a number of
relatively public disagreements between games companies and players. For
instance in 2000 SOE, publisher of EverQuest
formed an agreement with auction sits eBay and Yahoo! to ban the sale of EQ
items and remove any auctions on their sites (
Sony is far from alone in taking action. Another
case that was covered widely in the on-line media was that of the disputes
between the game companies Mythic Entertainment (makers of Dark Age of Camelot) and FunCom (makers
of Anarchy Online) and the so called
item farmers - BlackSnow Interactive (Rasputin 2002, Shokrizade 2002). Both cases were complex but effectively
revolved around BlackSnow’s right to sell virtual
items and the game company’s right to stop this by banning BlackSnow
accounts from their games.
Disputes have also extended beyond the bounds of
items and avatars. SOE banned a player account from EverQuest on the basis of a piece of FanFic
based in the EverQuest world. The
story involved the rape of another character and was written by one know as Mystere (
As the previous sections of this paper suggest, the
debate over virtual items and avatars tends to be framed in terms of property
rights. The cases referenced above revolved around arguments over intellectual
property rights and the nature of the contract between player and game company.
Although we have a test case (Mythic vs BlackSnow) the law in this
area is moot. Moreover while most of the debate about these issues centres on
property law, it is likely that the key legal battle ground (if there is to be
one) will be contract law and its limits.
The following sections of this paper give an
overview to the way that various laws may apply to virtual items and avatars.
The section that follows examines some of the arguments for the application of
these or other laws.
Copyright provides a limited set of monopoly rights
to the authors of original intellectual works. Copyright is similar to the
intellectual property laws of patent, but differs in a number of respects that
are important to virtual items. Where patent provides rights in an invention
that merely has to be defined, copyright subsists in actual works i.e. not an
idea but a particular expression of that idea (in the form of copies of a
written novel, or the recording of a song). Where the originality test for
patent is a high standard of uniqueness, copyright has a very low test of
originality.
In my view and that of writers such as Stephens
(2002) copyright does not apply directly to virtual items or avatars as works
in and of themselves. The reason for this that is the under US and EU copyright
law, software is a form of literary work, as such copyright applies to software
code in the form of preparatory works, source code and object code. Individual
instances of virtual items are code, they are data, hence fall out side this
scope.
In addition to individual works, copyright also
encompasses collections of works – just so long as a number of criteria are
met. In the EU a separate right in computer databases has also been introduced
in addition to the copyright in collections.
In my view the strongest argument for property in
virtual items and avatars is based on copyright in a collection. Broadly
speaking avatars and virtual items are entries in databases held on gaming
servers. These databases are designed by the game company, and individual
entries in the databases are selected through the actions of players e.g. the
player picks the name of an avatar; they often choose certain criteria such as
race, level of strength vs intelligence; and through
game play other criteria are modified such as experience points for killing
things, items held if something is picked up.
If we assume that an avatar or a virtual item can
itself be seen as a collection, then the games company has a copyright claim by
virtue of their design of the database, similarly a player has a copyright
claim by virtue of their selection of elements of that collection. Typically
the contract between games-company and player (the EULA – End user Licence
Agreement) transfers all property rights from player to games company. Hence if
these rights subsist then they are generally held exclusively by the games
company.
The chief argument against this state stems from
the limit of copyright in collections. This right subsists in a collection as a
whole and does not affect the rights in any element of that collection – that
it is nether alters nor confers rights on elements. Now as an avatar is only
part of a lager database and as any virtual item is a sub-part of the avatar
entry, then it is arguable that neither an avatar or an item constitutes a
collection in an of itself, hence copyright does not obtain. If this is the
case then neither avatars or virtual items are property according to copyright
law.
Copyright is a limited monopoly. Its limits include
time, scope of things covered and scope of acts that owners have a monopoly in.
As Stephens (2003) has pointed out, as far as game mechanics are concerned,
selling an avatar or virtual items involves either changing access to an account
or exchanging an item in-game; neither act involves copying anything. What’s
more item exchange is within the scope of most games, the fact that money
changes hands outside the game seems neither here nor there. Hence it is
arguable that on pure copyright grounds a game company rights do not extend to
the control of avatar or item sales.
What the analysis above indicates is that rather
than being a copyright issue, the legitimacy of avatar and virtual item sales
is actually a matter of contract law. Most EULAs for
MMORPGs assert that all intellectual property is owned by the games company,
some EULAs are also explicit about the sale of
avatars and virtual items. The enforceability of such clauses can be argued
both ways.
Supporting a non-sale of item clause one simply has
to look at it and note that a player has agreed to use the software on the
basis of the licence. Hence if the player sells an item or avatar they are in
clear breach of that contract, thus EULAs do in fact
ban item sales (irrespective of the issue of ownership of those items) and the
only remaining matter is a practical one of preventing the trade.
The opposing view is based on the assumption that
either copyright does not subsist in items and avatars, or if copyright does
subsist then their sale does not break that right. In either case one might
claim that as copyright does not extend to the sale of virtual items or
avatars, then a company has no rights (in this respect) to back up the
contractual clauses. What’s more one might argue that attempting to stop
players trading in items is in fact a misuse of the companies copyright in the
software (or items \ avatars – if such rights are granted).
Another area of law that may have applicability to
rights in avatars is the US State law of Rights of Publicity. These laws give
an individual right to control the commercial use of their persona, what’s more
this is an alienable property right i.e. it can be sold (Baird 2001, Beard
2001). The rights are recognised either under common law or legislation (or
both) in about half of all
If an individual is an item trader and they are
known in-game and out of game as a trader, then they may be able to argue,
under rights of publicity, that their avatar is a necessary part of their
persona, hence is their property. An immediate argument against this is that
the avatar is not that person, it does not look like them, its gestures are
limited to those pre-defined in the game world etc. However in the case of Motschenbacher v Reynolds[7]
which involved the use of a distinctively marked car in a commercial, the judge
ruled that the markings were sufficient to lead people to believe that the
driver in question was in the car – hence associated with the commercial, as
such use of the car contravened his rights of publicity; even though he was not
seen and did not personally create, design or paint the car in question. Given
this, it seems at least arguable that, in the case of the commercial use of
persona, an avatar could be included under such a right and hence is the
property of a player. However it would require a test case to establish this as
at present the Right of Publicity is a rather vague and oft-times contradictory
area of law (Haemmerli 1999).
The previous sections of this paper provided an
overview of the structure of MMORPGs and its relationship with the practice of
item trading, some of the conflicts that have arisen around issues of property
and some of the arguments around the legal status of virtual items and avatars.
The following section of the paper describes some
of the possible types of state that could be ascribed to virtual-items and
avatars and discusses some of the arguments for and against these.
Items and avatars could be recognised as the
players’ property. The most likely legal way of doing this is to use
intellectual property law to recognise items and avatars as works and recognise
the player as the author of that work. That is items and avatars would be
recognised as distinct from the game software and other items of the game
company’s intellectual property and the players labour would be recognised. Under
There are a number of arguments that one might
evidence for and against this position, a number of these are summarised below:
Recognising a player’s rights of property in
virtual items and avatars recognises the reality of practice. It has been
argued above that the structure of current MMORPGs gives rise to value and ultimately
extra-game economics; hence this position would recognise both practice and the
enviable relationship between practice, game structure and the way that people
inevitably act when engaged in these types of competitive actives that can be
influenced by market behaviour (Koster 2003, Scheltema 2003). It would also legitimise current practice
and reduce the conflict between players and games companies over these property
rights – traders would not longer be renegade.
As noted above (3.3.4 Crime) there are large number of scams and frauds related
to item and avatar trade. Some of these are clearly illegal, others are boarder
line as they exist mainly within the game world. Providing clear property
rights in game objects would clarify the legal situation and, in theory, help
to prevent crime.
MMORPGs are designed so that players act within the
game and through their actions gain resources and skills. Purchasing avatars or
virtual items means that this process is short circuited – in short it is
cheating.
In my view the strongest argument against granting
legal rights of ownership of in-game objects to players is the implicit
liability that this would impose on game companies and the possible impact on
the future of virtual worlds this would have.
That is, if virtual items are property in a
conventional (intellectual property) sense, then games companies are no long
simply running a game they are the custodian of extremely valuable assets.
Using Castronova’s analysis, this would mean that SOE’s EverQuest
servers were hosting transactions worth millions of dollars.
Issues arise when assets become unstable in some
sense. For example when virtual items are deleted or accidentally copied, or when
servers are hacked? In these cases the game company would most likely be liable
for the assets value of the items. This protect against such liabilities
materialising games companies may choose to use much tighter levels of
security. Indeed banking type levels of security may be necessary for a game
company to fulfil a duty of care over the assets under its control. What’s more
games companies would need to be insured against risks of loss player-assets
and any potential actions taken by players as a result of such losses. The costs
of these defensive measures would mostly likely make the creation of MMORPGs
completely un-economic, so would effectively kill what they were trying to
protect.
Imposing traditional property laws would change the
legal status of in-games actions and bring torte and criminal laws in to a whole
new area. For instance in-game actions could be seen as fraud or theft that could
be referred to the criminal justice system, and if the idea of virtual- items
as property is legally complex then untangling the nature of putative criminal
acts would be an order more difficult.
From a general legal theory point of view one could
argue that these laws would not be sensible as from an economic \ utilitarian
view of law, the difficulty of their applicability would render them so
inefficient that they would be almost pointless.
An issue related to liability is the question of a
companies right to sell or shut down a service (Scheurer
2002). Would a company have to buy the assets of all the players before they
shut the servers down, could the company announce a shut down and effectively
crash the market for assets related to that game – could they be sued for this
? Could a company sell a game to another company without the express permission
of the players ?
As noted above ensuring that property rights were
owned by players would most probably require a public policy limit to contract.
This is a fairly significant legal measure that would interfere with the game
company’s freedom to contract, not a step that a legal jurisdiction would take lightly
especially given the perceived relative importance of virtual items to those
outside the games world at present.
There are a number of arguments against giving
players property rights in avatars and virtual items that could be categorised
under the heading: It just doesn’t make
any sense ! These arguments are often aired on discussion forums and list
serve debates over player property rights.
It’s
just a game
– The nature of virtual items and avatars is that
they are part of a game world, hence it does not make sense to think in terms
of property rights and value. What’s more, the rules that apply are those of
the game world, not the physical or real legal world. As games are invented
narrative spaces we should shield them from the impact of the law.
- In my view, while these points make sense, they
are not applicable when one looks at practice. Value is, as they say, in the
eye of the beholder. So it is irrelevant whether something is a game or not, if
people think something has value, then by definition it does. Moreover, game
companies do attempt to apply intellectual property law to game objects by way
of the EULA, and even if they did not, one cannot simply wish away the
connection between a community activity and the law.
The
existence of an object depends on the existence of the game
- It is the case that, if it were not for the
creation of the game, the activity of a group of users and critical code
running on servers, avatars and virtual items would cease to exist.
- However this is not, in itself, an argument against
property rights. In terms of general dependency one can think of the example of
a thirteenth floor apartment. Its existence depends on all the floors below it,
and if it is leased then there is a legal dependency on a free hold existing. However
apartments can still be property. As a second example one can take another type
of virtual object – money in a bank balance. In this case one’s balance is
simply an entry in a database. If the bank’s servers were turned off the entry
would cease to exist, but this does not mean that the money ceases to exist
(well it might but then one would get into the liability issues discussed
above). One can take the analogy further, there is no reason in principle why a
characters attributes (including inventory) could not be printed off and held
as a representation of the value of the character – much like printed money or
share certificates in fact.
Virtual
items can just be replicated so they do not have stable value
- As virtual gold pieces or avatars are just representations
in databases, they could with very little effort just be replicated, hence
their value is without any real basis and is not stable.
- Again this is true, but not an argument against
property. MP3 files can and are replicated at almost zero cost, what’s more
they don’t need a game environment for this to occur, any modern computer can
do it using basic tools in the operating system. However this does not mean
that songs are not owned.
Games companies design, build and maintain the game
world (this may actually be a set of companies but for the purpose of the
argument these can be abstracted into a single entity, in practice, legally
this would probably be the publisher rather than the developer if they are
separate organisations). For the game to function as a game (for the good of
the players) it is necessary that the game company retains control of the game.
One aspect of control that affects other players directly
is the ability for a new player to buy power (mainly through the acquisition of
an avatar though this applies in part to virtual items especially things that
give abilities such as magic scrolls). The fact the powers have not been gained
through effort also means that they may not be backed by the experience to use
them appropriately. This can have a negative effect on other players and the
balance of the game generally.
A games company creates the conditions for virtual
items and avatars to be created and through contract they attempt to transfer
any such rights to themselves. At face value this seems like a normal operation
of intellectual property rights and right to contract freely, hence the law
should support these acts through clarifying the status of these objects and in
the cases under discussion clearly ascribe these rights to games companies.
By the nature of the structure of these games value
arises and extra-game trade will exist. Hence through the act of making a game
of this form a game company has implicitly recognised that it is creating these
external factors, hence these companies forgo the seemingly natural flow of
rights described above.
Given the inevitably of extra-game trade, ascribing
property rights with a game company and through this attempting to restrict
trade sets the game company in a state of conflict with a section of the player
base.
The practice of avatar and virtual-item trading is
at odds with the wishes of some players and many game companies. It also
contradicts the written contract that attempts to govern the use of many games.
The precise legal status of this trade is somewhat uncertain as one can
construct a range of legal arguments to attack and defend it. So it looks as
the law should come down on the side of players or games companies as having
property interests in virtual-items and avatars. But there are strong arguments
for and against assigning property rights to players or games companies, and
each position has significant disadvantages.
Hence, in the short term the answer to the legal
and practical issues may be shockingly simple – do nothing.
Major MMORPGs are thriving so the current trade
does not seem to be having a massively negative effect. Games companies can and
do take action where they deem it necessary. Also the nature of most frauds
related to virtual items means that they are criminal acts under present laws e.g.
deception, credit card fraud etc.
Thus one has to question what the benefits of
legislating in the short term would be, especially as it seems that the only
suitable laws would be sui generis laws in virtual-items in avatars. So, to
take an economic view of the purpose of law there is not a strong enough case
to motivate enactment or enforcement of such laws.
We have come along way since MUD1, while we are not quite at the level of the cyberpunk visions
of writers like William Gibson, the relationship between virtual worlds and the
physical world are getting stronger each day. Virtual words have real economic
effects, they have associated crime and lest we forget they bring pleasure to
millions of people around the world.
While doing nothing may be the best compromise in
the short term, over time virtual worlds will mature and most likely spread their
influence more deeply into civil society. The increasing effects of virtual
worlds on civil society will put pressure on a formalization of the rules within
these games and in the way they relate to existing laws.
The future of virtual-items is difficult to
predict. However as there is a trend to treat them as property it looks likely
that either the current situation will pertain. That is, items will be traded
but that this trade will remain as largely as a set of bargains between
individuals rather than a formal or regulated form of trade.
If the net flow of value into virtual worlds
increases significantly there it is likely that there will be calls for property
rights to be formalized and possibly these worlds to fall under some form of
recognised governance structure. However such a structure would not be easy to
achieve as the issues over domain name assignment testifies (see ICANN and the
WIPO domain name resolution processes). What’s more the nature of MMORPGs makes
in-game and cross-game governance highly problematic. For example, in the
interests of what is effectively currency stability there may be advantages in
enforcing social norms within game worlds that prevent de-stabling activities
such as duping and forms of greifing (i.e. causing
grief - forms of disruptive in-game behaviour). But given that virtual worlds
are gratuitous-communities it is not easy to see how a system of differential
sanctions might be devised through which norms would be enforced. The issue
being that any sanction must be strong enough to deter the behaviour but lower
than the cost of a player simply moving from one game to another. Yet if a
person has been a member of a single virtual community for some years the
switching cost may be high enough to enforce useful norms.
A current trend is to settle many legal ambiguities
by appealing to one form of property law or other. The
While there are already areas of trademark laws
that cover the transfer of marks, I want to look beyond the use of online
identity for trade, and look to the potential uses of avatars in the future. If
avatars begin to identify more strongly and the use of this identification
gains wider application e.g. in trade and civil affairs, then the argument for
the non-alienability of at least some forms or representation of identity
becomes stronger (as does the argument against anonymity in at least some
transactions). Ultimately the motivation behind this argument becomes two fold.
Form the perspective of the community there are instances where there is an
interest in representation of identity, identifying consistently. From the
perspective of the individual there is an interest in some representation of
self, in a sense some form of self (in respect to online communities) having
rights are more than mere property rights.
This form of argument has it roots in Hegel and
Kant’s theories of autonomy, freedom and property. For as it can be argued that
property is a necessary expression of self and thus fundamental to freedom,
Kant’s idea of the Innate Right would suggest that anything fundamentally
linked with self is inalienable and that there is a normative moral argument to
support this. From this argument we recognise immorality of slavery – that is
we do not simply recon the price of a person we exclude ‘persons’ from the
market for goods. These arguments suggest that in the future, we may come to
recognise aspects of self in online communities which are exceptional for the
very same reasons. The question that remains is at which point public policy
should begin to make such exceptions and whether we think that these possibilities
should guide the hands of present day policy makers, for if we take the first
step down the road of making avatars property it will most likely be harder to
turn off that path later.
References
Anon
(2003). Meridian 59 Frequently Asked Questions, available at:
http://meridian59.neardeathstudios.com/M59-FAQ.shtml,
access on05.10.03.
Aihoshi,
R. (2001). Meridian 59 Interview, available at:
rpgvaultarchive.ign.com/features/interviews/m59.shtml, accessed on
05.10.03.
Baird D.
G. (2001). "Does Bogart Still Get Scale? Rights of Publicity in the
Digital Age", John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Papers (second
Series) No. 120, Available from:
www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/workingpapers.html, Date accessed:
Beard. J.
J. (2001). ‘Clones, Bones and Twilight
Zones: Protecting the digital persona of the quick, the dead and the imaginary’,
Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 16:3.
Burgess
J., et. al., The History of LambdaMoo, available at:
www-cse.stanford.edu/classes/cs201/projects-98-99/controlling-the-virtual-world/history/mud.html,
accessed on 05.10.03.
Burka,
L. (1993). A Hypertext history of Multi-User Dimensions, online at:
http://www.apocalypse.org/pub/u/lpb/muddex/essay/, accessed on 05.10.03.
Carpenter
J. L. (2001). ‘Internet Publication: The
Case for an Expanded Right of Publicity for Non-Celebrities’, Virginia
Journal of Law and Technology Vol. 6, Issue 3.
Castronova,
E. (2001). ‘Virtual worlds: A first-hand
account of market and society on the cyberian
frontier’, Gruter Institute Working Papers on
Law, Economics, and Evolutionary Biology, Volume 2, Available at:
hpapers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=294828, Date accessed: 22/02/02.
Castronova,
E. (2002). ‘On Virtual Economies’, CESifo Working Paper Series, No. 752, Available at:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=338500, Date accessed:
Clark, D.
(2003). ‘Online Game Hopes to Convert Virtual
Cash Into Real Revenue’, Wall Street Journal,
Dibble,
J. (2003a). ‘Scammed! (
Duk-kun,
B. (2003), Police Say Game Sites Hotbed of Cyber Crime, in The Korean Times
Hanart,
X., (2000). Polémique autour
des macros EverQuest : tricherie ou
non ?, GameSpot, available at demo.gamespot.fr/stories/news/0,1610,2011333,00.html,
accessed on:
Haemmerli
, A. (1999). ‘Whose Who ? The Case for a
Kantian Right of Publicity’, Duke Law Journal, Vol
49 383.
Jhi,
K. Y., (?) Cyber Crimes in
Koster,
R. (2003), Post at
Koster,
R. (2003), Selling virtual property for real world money, available at:
http://www.legendmud.org/raph/gaming/charsell.html, accessed on
05.10.03.
Lee, J.
(2003). ‘Data-Driven Subsystems for MMP
Designers: A Systematic Approach’, Game Developer, Vol. 10, No. 8, 34-39.
Lessig,
L. (1999), Code and Other Laws of
Cyberspace, Basic Books.
Levander,
M. (2001). Where Does Fantasy End?, Time Magazine,
McGowan,
C. & McCullaugh, J. (1995). Entertainment in the Cyber Zone: Exploring the Interactive Universe of
Multimedia, Random House.
Morningstar,
C. & Farmer, F. R., (1990).’The
Lessons of Lucasfilm's Habitat, in Cyberspace: First
Steps’, Michael Benedikt (ed.), 1990, MIT Press,
Mulligan,
J. (2000). ‘Mommy, she talked dirty’, HappyPuppy.com, Available at:
hwww.happypuppy.com/features/bth/bth-vol9-28.html, Date accessed:
Nimue
& Valentine (2003), How to Play aka Mortal Help, online at
http://www.british-legends.com/beginner.htm, accessed on 05.10.03.
Rasputin,
(2002),
Rheingold.
H.,(2000) Virtual Communities available at: www.rheingold.com/vc/book/,
accessed on 05.10.03.
Scheltema,
D. (2003), On the "Moral Repugnancy" of External Markets for Virtual
Goods, dislogue, available at:
dansch.rr.nu/dislogue/archives/000121.html, accessed on 05.10.03.
Scheurer,
V. (2002). ‘For
Shokrizade, R. (2002).
http://www.unknownplayer.com/archive/02/06/10/737.php,
accessed on 12.06.02
Smedley,
J. (2000), Posting on eqvault.com, online at
http://eqvault.ign.com/archive/arc73.shtml access on 15.07.2002.
Stevens,
M (2002), Sales of In-Game Assets: An
Illustration of the continuing Failure of Intellectual Property Law to Protect
Digital-Content Creators, 80 Texas L.R. 1513.
Woodcock,
B. S. (2003), An Analysis of MMOG Subscription Growth – Version 7.0, available
at http://pw1.netcom.com/~sirbruce/Subscriptions.html, accessed on 05.10.03.
Ward M.,
(2003). ‘Does virtual crime need real
justice?’, BBC Online News
Yee, N.
(2002a), Codename Blue: An Ongoing Study of MMORPG Players, available at
www.nickyee.com/codeblue/home.html
Yee,
N,.(2002b), The Daedalus Project, available at www.nickyee.com/daedalus
[1] The game There in unusual in giving players the ability to modify many of the game aspects, it also has a developer program that gives people the ability to add to game code (www.there.com/developer.html) creating new objects.
[2]
source: n-csoft press release 21\02\03, see also NC
Soft IR Report August 2003 for a full sales break down: www.ncsoft.net/eng/txt/IR_Report_Eng(FY2002).ppt
[3]
source: SOE press release 19\09\03 (starwarsgalaxies.station.sony.com/content.jsp?page=Galaxies%20European%20Release)
[4] Works by Eddo can be seen at: www.summonstosurrender.com
[5]
Game based works by Julian and others can be seen at: www.selectparks.net
[6] See the extensive and on-going work done by Nick Yee on the behaviour and psychology of MMORPG players: www.nickyee.com
[7] Motschenbacher v. R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company, 498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir. 1974).