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.