I don't play around in Second Life, mostly because it doesn't -- from what I gather, anyway -- offer significantly more swordplay, explosions or space battles than my average afternoon at the office. It's conceptually interesting to me as a creative community and social space, but what I really want from virtual recreation is the chance to blow stuff up, or hack it to bits, without real world consequences. The comparative tedium of chatting with a guy who prefers to present himself as a blue-haired leather goddess... that, I can get on the subway.
But the article and the lawsuit beg the same question as the proposed Congressional economic analysis of in-game transactions: when should your virtual "property" be assessed, assigned (or otherwise legally recognized as having) a real world value? "The second somebody pays you for it," is my answer, and no sooner.
I think the Second Life Terms of Service make this abundantly clear, at least as a practical matter:
5.2 All data on Linden Lab's servers are subject to deletion, alteration or transfer.
When using the Service, you may accumulate Content, Currency, objects, items, scripts, equipment, or other value or status indicators that reside as data on Linden Lab's servers. THESE DATA, AND ANY OTHER DATA, ACCOUNT HISTORY AND ACCOUNT NAMES RESIDING ON LINDEN LAB'S SERVERS, MAY BE DELETED, ALTERED, MOVED OR TRANSFERRED AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON IN LINDEN LAB'S SOLE DISCRETION.
Similar provisions are in the EULA and/or terms of service for every persistent world on-line game I've ever played.
No comments:
Post a Comment