[MUD-Dev] BlackSnow sues Mythic for online property rights

[Jeff Cole]

<EdNote: Minorly edited>

From: John Buehler

> The property involved here is that of Mythic, not the players.
> The players are interacting with an entertainment source and are
> developing a misconception that they are actually in the
> environment depicted on the screen and that they own the objects
> that their characters are depicted to own.  This is part of what I
> was talking about about the problems with immersion.  People start
> to believe things that simply aren't true.

I am in law school and can tell you that there is a legitmitate
legal issue.  "Property rights" within the context of the law are a
construct of society through which a person can form those
expectations which he can reasonably hold in his dealings with
others.  What's more, property rights extend to possessors other
than the "true owner."

> There are no objects to own.  There is only data and graphics to
> depict the idea of objects.

Property is not about "objects" (e.g. intellectual property), it's
about a bundle of rights which a person can reasonably expect to
exercise and which the law will enforce.  A song is not an object,
yet the law recognizes a property right known as a copyright.

> And those depictions are owned, lock, stock and barrel, by Mythic.

Maybe, maybe not.  Even if Mythic is (or at some time were) the
"true owner" of such items, the player may still have a property
interest in the items which it's character "owns" within the game.

> As an example, the leasor of an automobile is not obligated to
> permit you to transfer the lease to another person. Same thing
> with a rented home.

That is more akin to the selling of accounts-- something which, in
my post, I distinguished from selling items.

With respect to selling items, though, your rental home analogy
fails.

  Consider: Rofrano v. Duffy, 291 F.2d 848 (C.A.2 1961).  In this
  case, a tenant sued his landlord for recovery of $10,500 cash
  which the tenant had found in his basement (in a lunch box, behind
  paint cans on a shelf six feet above the ground) and had turned
  over to his landlord on the latter's representation that he was
  the owner. The United States District Court for The Southern
  District of New York entered a judgment for the tenant and the
  landlord appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the tenant
  either as the finder or occupant of premises was entitled to
  mislaid money discovered by him on shelf in the basement.  Tennat
  got the money because he was the occupier of a rental space.

This is an example of the common law.

The issue is complex.  

Yrs. Afftcy,
Jeff Cole

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev