 |
Second Life "property"
A Pennsylvania attorney has further blurred the lines between reality and cyberspace by filing a first-of-its-kind property rights lawsuit that alleges a multiplayer online gaming company illegally seized his “virtual real estate.”
Marc S. Bragg of West Chester, Pa., is seeking relief in a real-world court for an alleged “conversion” or theft of property from the 3-D virtual world of Second Life, a “massively multiplayer role-playing game” (MMPORG) that boasts some 200,000 “residents” and 12,000 “profitable in-world business owners.”
Linden Labs, the San Francisco-based creator of Second Life, “intentionally, without Plaintiff's consent and without lawful justification, interfered with and destroyed Plaintiff's right of property,” the complaint says.
Bragg, who joined Second Life in late 2005 and uses the online name “Marc Woebegone,” had accumulated about $2,000 worth of virtual land, goods and currency when Linden canceled his account in May and effectively, he argues, converted his virtual property.
The company, however, claims Bragg breached Second Life’s terms of service agreement by using an “exploit” in the game –- that is, he had discovered how to hold an unauthorized auction of a property that was not yet for sale.
“Plaintiff knowingly violated the rules governing the purchase of computer services simulating 'real estate' use in Second Life,” Linden Labs founder Philip Rosedale says in a court brief.
Second Life's three-dimensional platform allows a player to create a persona or “avatar,” who can then explore the digital world and take part in everything from adult encounters to commercial transactions. The virtual commerce is conducted in “linden” dollars, which can be converted into U.S. dollars at online currency exchanges.
There are no virtual courts in Second Life, however, so Bragg filed suit in Chester County Court of Common Pleas. The case was recently transferred to federal court in Philadelphia.
"Plaintiff held all title, interest and possessory rights to the virtual land ... that was acquired from Defendants," the suit says.
But one potential problem for Bragg is he does not appear to have a contract of sale confirming what property rights he actually had. Absent such a contract, he relies primarily on statements by Rosedale hyping Second Life property ownership to the media.
The property owned in Second Life, moreover, exists only in Linden's code and would therefore cease to exist if the company discontinued the game or went out of business.
If anything, Bragg blurs the lines between reality and cyberspace too much, at one point claiming that “no fine print provided by Defendants could possibly operate to suspend the laws of the United States inside of Second Life.” Does that mean those laws would apply in other MMPORGs like Ultima and World of Warcraft or, for that matter, in a game of Monopoly?
Whatever happens to Bragg’s complaint, the issue of property ownership within these games will likely surface again. Business Week recently featured a Second Life “real estate developer” who has already accumulated $250,000 worth of virtual property and makes her living from her virtual real estate business. If investors are going to keep buying into the game, they’re going to want to know exactly what they’re buying.
By Josh Saltzman
11/28/06
A New York doctor is now free to poke fun at “Barney” on his Web site without fear of being sued for copyright infringement by the owner of the children's dinosaur character.
Dr. Stuart Frankel responded to Lyons Partnerships' legal threats by filing a declaratory relief action seeking judicial confirmation that his Barney parodies qualify as fair use. The dustyfeet.com site describes Barney as an evil merchandising scheme and features a picture of the purple dinosaur under the heading, “This is the enemy.”
As part of a settlement filed Nov. 27, Lyons has agreed not to sue Frankel and to pay his legal fees. "Hopefully Lyons Partnership has learned its lesson and will have more respect for fair use in the future," Frankel attorney Corynne McSherry of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said in a statement.
Frankel tells On Point he would have removed the "Barney" material from his site "if the 'Barney' people had asked me nicely in the first place ... It's nothing I care very much about. I was just practicing HTML coding and put up something that popped into my head that I thought would be mildly amusing for about two seconds."
"I will continue to maintain a fully 100% legal website," he adds, "but don't know whether 'Barney' will feature in it."
A settlement had been in the works since Lyons filed a motion to dismiss in September, arguing the case was essentially moot because it promised not to “make any claim directly or indirectly against Stuart Frankel ... for infringing any copyright.”
As recently as June, a Lyons attorney told Frankel in an e-mail that the materials he was using “are the intellectual property of Lyons Partnership” and it was “unlawful” to use them without Lyons' permission.
Frankel would almost certainly have won injunctive relief from a judge because parodies such as his usually qualify as fair use. Lyons now has effectively enjoined itself.
By Matthew Heller
11/28/06
