- Related Stories
-
BBC to broadcast in 'Second Life'
May 31, 2007 -
Conference call 1, 'Second Life' 0
May 25, 2007 -
Dancing with Jimmy Wales in 'Second Life'
May 14, 2007 -
Europeans latch on to 'Second Life'
May 4, 2007
This case centers on virtual property maintained in a virtual world on the Internet. The plaintiff claims an ownership interest in this virtual property. He also asserts that the defendants, the operators of this virtual world, unlawfully confiscated his virtual property and denied him access to their virtual world.
The case raises new questions about rights and obligations that emanate out of the relationship between the owner and creator of a virtual world and its resident customers, as noted by the Pennsylvania federal trial judge. And as the judge correctly pointed out, while the property and the world where the property are found are virtual, the dispute is quite real.
Are you following along so far? Perhaps not, if you haven't delved into a virtual world yet. You might like some background relating to virtual worlds, the defendants and the plaintiff.
The defendants, Linden Research and CEO Philip Rosedale (PDF), operate a multiplayer role-playing game set in the virtual world called Second Life. Participants create avatars to virtually represent themselves. Second Life is populated by hundreds of thousands of avatars that interact with each other in myriad ways.
The plaintiff states in his lawsuit that many people currently are living large portions of their lives--forming friendships, acquiring property, entering into contracts, establishing business relationships and setting up social organizations--in virtual worlds such as Second Life.
Setting itself apart from other creators and operators of virtual worlds, Linden announced in late 2003 that it would recognize full intellectual property protection for the digital content created and owned by participants in Second Life. Consequently, Second Life avatars may buy, own and sell virtual goods of all types. Of significance to this particular case, avatars may purchase virtual land, make improvements to that land, and rent and sell land to other avatars for profit.
Virtual property is purchased using the virtual currency of Linden dollars. Lindens are purchased using real U.S. dollars. Indeed, Linden maintains a currency exchange that sets an exchange rate between Linden dollars and U.S. dollars.
Rosedale engaged in efforts to publicize nationally Linden's recognition of rights to virtual property. He even created his own avatar and held virtual town hall meetings in Second Life where he discussed the purchase of virtual land.
The plaintiff signed up and paid to participate in Second Life in 2005. He claims that he was induced into investing in virtual land by the press announcements of Linden and its Rosedale, and he asserted that he paid real money to Linden as tax on his virtual land. By mid-2006, the plaintiff had purchased numerous parcels of land as well as other virtual items.
A dispute occurred when the plaintiff then acquired a parcel of virtual land called Taessot for $300. He claimed that Linden sent him an e-mail advising him that Taessot had been purchased improperly as a result of an exploit and that, as a result, Linden took Taessot from him. The plaintiff also claimed that Linden then froze his account and effectively confiscated all of the virtual property and currency that he had maintained in his account with Second Life.
Because of this, the plaintiff sued Linden and Rosedale in federal court in Pennsylvania, asserting various causes of action, including unfair trade practices, conversion, interference with contractual relations, and breach of contract. The defendants responded with procedural arguments, as they sought to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, and as they tried to compel arbitration of the dispute.
Rosedale argued that the federal court in Pennsylvania did not have personal jurisdiction over him. The court disagreed, finding that the CEO participated in a national campaign to induce persons, including the plaintiff, to visit Second Life and purchase virtual property. This campaign created sufficient contacts between Rosedale and Pennsylvania for the court to exercise jurisdiction over him, according to the judge.
Linden and Rosedale also argued that the plaintiff was required to arbitrate his dispute pursuant to the plain wording of the Second Life terms of service. Indeed, the plaintiff conceded that he clicked on an "accept" button referencing the mandatory arbitration language. Still, the judge concluded that the arbitration provision was not enforceable.
The judge came to this conclusion because the arbitration clause is a contract of adhesion, meaning that it is presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. To gain access to Second Life, a participant has no choice but to accept the arbitration language. And while it is true that Second Life is not the only virtual world on the Internet, and that the plaintiff could have chosen to go elsewhere, the judge found it significant that Second Life is the only virtual world to grant property rights in virtual land to its participants. The judge also deemed important the fact that the mandatory arbitration language is not mutual; while participants are required to arbitrate their grievances, Linden provides other remedies for itself with respect to concerns about participants.
As we can see, real disputes can occur when it comes to virtual worlds, and those disputes are leading to litigation in real courts. Perhaps at some point a virtual judiciary will be set up in a virtual world so that disputes can be decided by judge and jury avatars. Who knows? Of course, whether real disputes emanating from virtual worlds could be effectively and conclusively resolved in a virtual courthouse remains to be seen.
Biography
See more CNET content tagged:
virtual worlds, Second Life, plaintiff, avatar, dispute
22 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
Hope this doesn't spell the end of SL.
Not this lawsuit, but the precedent it sets on suing when something happens you don't like.
say. There is an important distinction between SL and, say World of
Warcraft. WoW is definitely a game - the players compete and
move up through the ranks through questing and battle. In SL,
there is no structured quest engine, and for the most part, there is
no competition. SL can therefore more accurately be described as
a virtual environment. Comparision with games is natural,
however, given that what little precedent that exists mostly comes
from Korean and Chinese gaming disputes...
ROTHFLMAO
The only thing that is going to happen here is that Linden Lab, will tighten the wording on their TOS (Terms of Service Agreement) and take other measures so idiots like this guy won't be able to pull something like this again..
This lawsuit should only discuss the type of fraud that may occur at ebay, which is, the item received and paid for is not what was represented. There should be, and must not be, any consideration given for non-actual/non-existent property. Some may argue that I have just dismissed "intellectual property;" the difference is that IP has worth; avatars and virtual storefronts have no worth.
The solution is to charge an entry fee to "play" 2nd Life, and keep real greenbacks out of the virtual world. Consider this: If Linden Labs server dies, all of 2nd Life will disappear/vanish without a trace...is that a good investment? gd
In all, anyone investing a lot of time or money into second life needs to spend more time living, and doing real life things... such as finding a SO and getting it on. And no, I don't mean log into SL or another service and find one, I mean go out dagnabit!
Value is literally what we assign to stored and transfered energy. An automobile has the value of the stored energy of every worker who assembled it, plus the energy of all the people who worked to build the parts and the people who transported the parts and finished products. A peice of software code is another form of stored energy, as is data stored in a file; it took time and energy to create it. It has value to the people who created it, and may have value to others it could be transferred to.
Every virtual reality that allows multiple users to interact with the virtual environment and impose persistent changes to parts of the environment (either the 'physical' layout within the environment, or to their personaes) is allowing the users to create value. As an automobile is a pile of value made by the collaboration of the workers, sellers, and transporters, so too are the "characters" in Second Life and other persistent virtual realities contain value.
Most roleplaying games with a persistent virtual environment claim the right to complete control of all aspects of the players accounts. Some even allow the real life selling and trading of accounts or data within their control while skimming off a percentage for the "house". Second Life, not being a game, gave rights of ownership to its participants; and if I remember correctly, actually imposes a 'tax' on participants. Now if the IRS can be in the process of exploring means of imposing real life taxes on value gained within a virtual world (and they are), it is also reasonable for real life litigation of property and contract disputes arising from the interaction of the host company and participants, as well as between participants within the virtual environment.
Let me put it another way before I close. There is no difference (except perhaps in the degree of value) between a stock broker sitting in front of a computer at a Morgan-Stanley office buying and selling bonds, funds, and stocks all day; and a participant in Second Life buying, improving, and selling virtual properties within the Second Life environment.
If the plaintiff violated the his contract with Linden Labs by the use of a cheat, then Linden Labs is probably in the right to confiscate his goods and seize his account. The courts should be actually trying two disputes: is the contract as written by Linden Labs legal, and if so, did the plaintiff violate the contract?
You've hit the nail on the head - when we discuss SL in my IP class (in law school) most people have the same reaction as those posted for this thread, e.g., "Huh?! Get a life," "it's fake," etc. When I point out that people are paying money for others to do the work for them and that the service-for-value model in SL is no different than normal contracts and property concepts - the light goes on.
By way of example, consider that buying property in SL is no different than buying a hamburger at Burger King. I could go out and buy the ingredients for the burger and make it myself, but I am willing to exchange $4 for someone to do it for me. $4 is not the cost of the ingredients; it is a number that BK has assigned that will cover the cost of the ingredients plus overhead plus wages of the workers plus profit. The $4 is the value that BK wants in return for making you that burger.
Building real estate in SL or gold farming in WoW is no different. It is entirely based on the notion that I personally don't want to spend the time building/farming and I am willing to put a value on my time to the extent I will trade someone real world money for the effort it takes to achieve the desired result.
I know I am preaching to the choir, but where litigation comes in is just like the real word - when performance breaks down and one party has breached the parties agreement. If I kept getting burgers from burger king without paying, of course they would sue me - I was depriving them of the value they associate with selling those burgers to someone. Just because the item itself in question is intangible does not eliminate the value associated with producing it. That's what the issue in in these cases and people should not be so quick to dismiss these case because they involve "virtual property."
Will we have to re-litigate Second Life judiciary decisions in the real world? Imagine those judges exasperation!
Using a simple analogy. If I buy an ebook from Amazon and they do not deliver then they are in breach of contract.
On taxing Virtual Worlds.
I consider virtual currency like sitting down at a poker table. Until you have left the table you may not have any earnings to be taxed.
So, while I am going about my activities in a computer generated environment I do not expect to be under the juristiction of any specific government.
But if I cash in some or all of my virtual money for 'normal' real money then I would consider this earnings which could be taxed.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://virtuallyblind.com/category/lawsuits/bragg-v-linden-lab/" target="_newWindow">http://virtuallyblind.com/category/lawsuits/bragg-v-linden-lab/</a>
I think that second life and realfakeworld should work together.