Second Guessing Property Value in Second Life
|
Written By Reprise Media | November 21, 2006 | Share This
|
|
Recently, the topic of intellectual property rights and virtual worlds has taken center stage. On Monday, Linden Labs reported that Second Life had been invaded by a “copybot”, a nefarious program capable of duplicating resident’s creative content. Because the Second Life economy is propped on the sale of user-generated content, the copybot was essentially stealing people’s intellectual (or virtual) property. In the copy-bot’s wake, Second Life residents were finally challenged with the predicament — Is the content that we create in a virtual world our own? Or does it belong to the owner of that world?
In Second Life, residents create unique clothing, buildings, hairstyles and artwork, etc., to sell for virtual dollars that can be exchanged for real money. As a result, virtual intellectual property is tied to a real-world dollar amount. Yet, Linden Lab’s terms of service agreement has the following to offer:
“…you understand and agree that by submitting your Content to any area of the service, you automatically grant (and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant) to Linden Lab: (a) a royalty-free, worldwide, fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to (i) use, reproduce and distribute your Content within the Service as permitted by you through your interactions on the Service, and (ii) use and reproduce (and to authorize third parties to use and reproduce) any of your Content in any or all media for marketing and/or promotional purposes in connection with the Service;”
As a “resident” of Second Life, I recently had to refer back to this agreement after I found out that my avatar (Dexter Mahana) had been used in a recent ABC exposé without my consent. I was contacted by a reporter from SL Business Magazine who was curious if I had signed a disclosure. Of course, I had not and was never asked to do so - though I would’ve been flattered had ABC bothered to approach me.
My avatar’s brief media exposure got me thinking about the definition of ‘ownership’ in a Second Life. As populations in virtual worlds grow, the lines of intellectual property become more important to define. “Virtual” law, however, is at best a techie’s interpretation of the real-world - without, of course, any checks, balances or rights beyond the terms of the user agreement. But, because those terms don’t include an In The Case of Copy-Bot clause for blocking users, Linden Labs has been powerless to stop the bot-festation. That leaves no recourse for affected residents to file of any semblance of a lawsuit, leaving them virtually (pardon the pun) powerless to fight back.
In fairness to Second Life, they are working on creating a way for residents to “self-police” themselves by creating restrictions within certain areas. Interesting, but I wonder how long it’ll take another bot to break down the virtual walls of self-policed barriers.
Perhaps the copy-bot fiasco re-affirms that Second Life is nothing more than an interactive, and highly entertaining game. It’s principal draw is not the opportunity to make money, but Second Life’s unlimited potential growth as an open source product. In a sense, then, the entire economy is not supported by the trade of linden dollars, but by the opportunity to be creative.
It’s ironic (and kind of hilarious) that the very bots that pose the greatest threat to Second Life’s economic structure (like copy-bot) are arguably the most creative uses of the program. If Linden Labs creates “laws” against the use or production of programs like Copy-Bot, it would essentially put a cap on Second Life’s growth potential. As frustrating as it might be for the creators of virtual hairstyles and digital objects, limiting creativity could ultimately be more damaging to the program’s long term development than any invading sci-fi bot.
ADS: Do you need cheap dedicated servers?
Topics: Open Source |