EULA's and laws in virtual worlds

In Virtual Liberty: Freedom to Design and Freedom to Play in Virtual Worlds, Jack M. Balkin argues that real world legal regulation of virtual worlds is inevitable.  He claims that this conclusion results from the ever increasing commodification of many virtual worlds, and therefore the increasing applicability of consumer protection laws.  He also cites issues of free speech within virtual worlds, as well as communication torts and violations of intellectual property as possible openings for legal regulation.  He also suggests a framework for distinguishing different types of virtual worlds and regulating them as per their function.  He calls this framework interration.  Much as a corporation gains a status as a virtual person, he argues that virtual worlds should be granted the legal status of a virtual place.  Different types of virtual worlds could be subject to different regulations and expectations depending on what type of world they interrate as.  An examination of the three EULA's that we discussed in class on Thursday makes clear the necessity of such regulatory flexibility.
     An examination of second life's EULA makes clear the intense commodification of the world.  Not only is in game currency directly purchasable with real money, the EULA acknowledges that creators of in game content enjoy intellectual property rights with respect to their creations.  This subjects Linden Lab to many legal responsibilities.  One could argue that they should be limited in their ability to remove people from the game, or otherwise deny them access to their property, if they have any.  They could theoretically be entitled to reimbursement should they ever lose virtual goods as a result of actions by Linden Labs.  Furthermore, the ability of players to engage in the creation of content makes Second Life ripe for copyright violations, which must be policed accordingly.
     In a game like EVE, however, the regulation necessary is quite different.  While players and player run corporations may spend years acquiring in game wealth equivalent to large amounts of real money, the EULA explicitly states that the game shall not be played for the purpose or with the intend of making money.  Players have no property rights to anything that they may acquire in game, and therefore, CCP is not necessarily required to furnish the same consumer protections.  In fact, in EVE, where theft, extortion, fraud, murder, and other such player misbehavior are considered valid gameplay strategies, excessive regulation could threaten the game's very survival.  Due to player's inability to create their own content, it is also unlikely that serious violations of intellectual property or copyright infringement could occur in EVE.
     Minecraft presents some interesting regulatory questions.  Minecraft is in no way shape or form commodified.  Players do not even play a monthly fee to join, and servers are private affairs run by private groups, not Mojang.  As such, Minecraft, and things created by players within it, should be entitled to fairly comprehensive free speech protections.  The only case in which this could be called into question is when players intentionally violate copyrights.  However, even in this case, the question of whether Mojang or the operator of the server that the offending content is on is liable remains an open one.

The Interaction of Law and Play in Virtual Worlds: The relationship between "antinaturalistic" conceptions of law and their malleability

In her article, "Virtual(ly) Law: The Emergence of Law in LambdaMOO", Jennifer L. Mnookin discusses the creation of semi-legal structures in LambdaMOO.  She argues that LambdaMOO serves as a physical test of the theories of Roberto Unger.  Unger argues for an "antinaturalistic" view of law, in which law is viewed as a man made construct, rather than stemming from natural principles.  He believes that this would result in the formation of social structures that are more malleable and more easily disrupted.  As Mnookin points out, even though the participants of LambdaMOO were quite aware of the antinaturalistic origins of their law, the tendency over time was for a majority of players, albeit not a large one, to attempt to further formalize the law, and create more fixed legal structures.  When looking at the present state of virtual worlds, I believe that this tendency has become even more fixed, due to the nature of modern virtual worlds.
      Unlike LambdaMOO, which was developed at a college, and existed as a primarily social and experimental world, most modern virtual worlds are created and owned by companies, and are intended to generate profit.  Many of these virtual worlds are MMORPGs. and are considered to be games.  This has important implications for the legal structures present. In "Rules of Play," Greg Lastowka argues that the laws that govern MMORPGS are heavily influenced by the concepts of games and play.  He notes that games must have generally agreed upon rules.  These rules both liberate and constrain the players, specifying what they can and cannot do, and determining what strategies are valid.  The necessity of fixed rules within a game creates a potent challenge to Unger's claims.  All participants in a modern MMO, such as World of Warcraft, agree to abide by an end user license agreement and the terms of use in order to play.  Despite the fact that the rules of the game are clearly and explicitly fabricated by the developers, and thus inherently antinaturalistic, the fact that they are the rules to a game necessitates that they be relatively fixed.  As such, the rules of game worlds like WoW are written entirely by the developers, and can only be changed by them.  Unlike in less structured virtual worlds, the participants cannot be allowed to debate or alter the rules, because they would be altering the rules of a game as they played it.
     As such, the game nature of most modern MMOs greatly expands upon the formalizing trend that Mnookin observed in LambdaMOO.  Though the legal structures that develop are clearly antinaturalistic, this fact does not result, as Unger would have hoped, in more malleable legal and social structures, but rather less malleable ones, as agreement on the rules of a game must be nearly unanimous in order for the game to be playable.  This is somewhat less of an issue in less goal-oriented and more social worlds like Second Life. However, the resources necessary to run such a massive virtual world, and the for-profit nature of the company running said world do lead to the formation of arbitrary, antinaturalistic, yet nonetheless fairly immutable legal structures.

LOTRO: The first 10 levels

For class on Thursday, we had to read Taylor, T.L. "Gaming Lifeworlds: Social Play in Persistent Environments," Play Between Worlds: Exploring Online Game Culture.  In this article, Taylor argues that the experience of playing an MMO is inherently social.  She claims that players must interact with other players in order to be successful, as each player is specialized for certain tasks, and no player can therefore succeed on his/her own.

     My experience in LOTRO so far does not corroborate this thesis.  However, I cannot say that I was surprised by this fact.  The first 10 levels in LOTRO have played very much like the first 10 levels in WoW, and, given my previous experience in WoW, I knew what to expect from the beginning.  Generally, at the very beginning, the quests that one undertakes function as tutorials.  As most people are still either learning the basic controls and game mechanics, or at least how their particular class functions, and due to the resulting simplicity of the introductory quests, there simply is no need for the help of other players at low levels.  This effect is compounded in a game which has been out for a long time.  At the beginning of a game's existence, level distribution among players will be even.  However, by the time a game has been out for several years, most players will have reached the higher levels, if not the maximum.  As such, there will be very few players in lower level zones.  While this does not necessarily invalidate Taylor's thesis as pertains to the endgame, I feel that the article would have been well served with this caveat included.  My experience in WoW, was that trough most of the time I spent leveling my character, I only occasionally needed to interact with other players for particularly hard quests, or specific services.  However, at high levels, the social aspect became unavoidable, as I needed to be a part of a large groups to experience endgame content such as raids or PvP battlegrounds.  It remains to be seen if LOTRO will turn out to be similar.

Creating a LOTRO toon

I have had much greater difficulty than I first anticipated in choosing my character for LOTRO. I have been viewing the game through the lens of my large amount of experience in WoW.  However, class types in LOTRO appear to be a little more specialized and complex than in WoW.  While I knew that I wanted to be a melee combatant who could deal some damage, I ultimately became torn between the captain, the champion, and the guardian.  On the one hand, a champion seems to be the most heavily oriented towards dealing damage, but as a result, is also the least versatile.  Guardians appear to be good tanks, but they don't do as much damage, and it might be hard for them to solo as a result.  Captains can heal and fight, but they appear complicated to learn.  Regardless of class choice, I felt that a Dwarf would best suit any of these classes, as they are physically sturdy and capable of taking hits.  I ultimately settled on a champion, as I wanted to have a relatively simple character while I learned the game mechanics.  Hopefully, they will not be too different from WoW.

     I have some difficulty defining myself in relation to the framework that Bartle presents for MUD participants.I like to think that I shift around depending upon my mood, although I am usually not much intot he social aspect of MMOs.  I like to achieve and explore, however, at higher levels in WoW, I have found that running raids in not nearly as fun as fighting other players.  I'm not sure if this makes me a killer though, because I tend to do this in designated player versus player areas, in which everyone is a willing participant.