The Business & Social Network

Owners guidelines - Terms of service as law

The owner of a virtual world has the right to make the rules. Normally a user signing on will be offered a terms of service agreement and must indicate that they read and will observe the terms of service. It’s like a shrink-wrap law wherein use of the product is prima fascia evidence of an agreement to comply with the terms. Guidelines are often developed to make the behaviors specified in the terms of service clear to the user population. Chat rooms have a System Operator (SysOp) these individuals are empowered by the owner to enforce the terms of service and employ a host of sanctions consisting of , muting, denial of specific functions and ejection. Virtual worlds have in-world police or moderators who perform the same function.

A user who violates the terms of service is breaking civil law because they break the terms of service and therefore create a violation of the contract or use of the service. This argument I believe world stand in favor of the owner if sued for denial of service.

There arise two realms of law in this arrangement. The first is real world law breaking and the second is guideline/terms of service violation.

Real crimes that traffic in virtual worlds include money laundering, child pornography, and credit fraud. It could include stalking if so specified in a restraining order. All of these offensives are outside of the control of the owner and must involve real world police.

The second is the pseudo-law based on the owner’s terms. Generally these deal with freedom of speech/expression issues. Oddly it could be argued that a user who signs into a virtual world and by so doing accepts the terms and conditions gives up first amendment rights. SO the entire body of in-world law can be pretty much what the owners says...(My house my rules)

Activeworlds has a police force to enforce guidelines and has successfully maintained a non abusive environment in the commercial universe hosting Alphaworld one of the earliest still operating virtual communities (www.activeworlds .com)

I gave a presentation recently at the 3D Training, Learning and Collaboration (3D TLC) in April. There is a briefing related to this subject.

http://www.VR4YourPC.com/OnLine_Police.ppt

Tags: Law, guidelines, of, service, terms

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Max Burns on August 6, 2009 at 10:21am

This is an interesting discussion, thanks for posting it.

I wonder about the ownership of objects that are created. Under most EULA and TOS agreements, the owner of the virtual world retains all right to products created within the bounds of the virtual world. However, when one steps back a level and looks at the booming exchange market of real money for virtual goods, the situation becomes messier.

If the world owner holds all right to a sword or a table produced in-game, is the producer of that item not, in effect, selling stolen merchandise? Similarly, if a player exchanges real currency for a game currency and uses the game currency to purchase materials that ultimately become a sword, would the player have grounds to say that his or her own financial and opportunity costs went into production of the item, and thus they should be able to profit from their work?

The entire system of "ownership" in virtual worlds appears to be fluid and loosely enforced, but we all know this can't go on in perpetuity. I'd be interested to hear what you think.

Permalink Reply by James Gatto on August 6, 2009 at 12:00pm

DIfferent virtual worlds adddress IP ownership in different ways. In Second Life the user/content creators retain ownership of the IP in their creations, but grant certain licenses to Linden and other users. Other virtual worlds require assignment of IP to the VW operator if you upload content. If you are in the business of creating content and want to commercialize your creations in world and/or in the real world it is important to understand both the IP ownership and licensing provisions of the relevant TOSs.
You are correct that there is a market in the real world for goods based on virtual goods. Square Enix was succesful in suing some real world retailers for selling a real world replica of a virtual world sword.
Given the different IP ownership approcahes by different VWs, it is important to read and understand the TOS before you create/upload virtual goods and make an informed decison on how they will impact your commercialization plans.

Permalink Reply by James Gatto on August 6, 2009 at 10:52am

It is generally true that the virtual world owner can make the rules, but they are subject to certain real world law constraints. Two examples, are as follows. Linden had a abitration clause in its TOS. When M. Bragg sued Linden, the court found the arbitration clause enenforceable and allowed the case to proceed in court instead of requiring arbitration. So despite the existence to of the clause and Bragg having agreed to it, the court did not enforce it.
In another TOS case, a court found it improper for a TOS to state that changes to the TOS could be made at any time by the system operator and that such changes became effective when published, given that users did not necassarily see the changes and were not required to accept the changes. This is of greater concern than the arbitration clause issues.
These are just two examples. While it is true that a virtual world operator has great latittude in setting terms, it is important to also understand where doing so can cross the line such that a court will not likely enforce the terms.

RSS