Commodification of identity in online communities

Commodification of Identity in Online Communities Ren Reynolds [email protected] www.renreynolds.com Abstract There is a large market in virtual items and avatars, though their legal status is still disputed. This conflict is brought to a head in situations such as when one of the many types of virtual-item related crime takes place. This paper examines the mechanics of virtual worlds and the nature of the value of these items, and the operation of the markets that have grown around them. The paper also gives practical, legal and philosophical arguments for and against the commoditisation of items, avatars and by extension online identity.  I live in northern Egypt, about 50 paces south east of a lake. I have a modest camp, a tent, a few chests and a small kiln. Someone spent time showing the basics. Then when I had learnt how to grow my own seeds, make my own bricks and had helped others with a few projects I was allowed to join their guild. As a guild member I share my equipment and resources with the group, I help other members with projects that enable them to progress and where ever we all are in Egypt we chat. We are guild members and friends. Some times when its night and no one is around I can hear the wind blow sand through the empty desert. I feel cold. I feel alone. I wrote this description when I was 10 days old in a place called Egypt. This Egypt exists on a set of game-servers and in the collective imagination of about 2,000 people who live in eGenesis’ game A Tail In The Desert (ATITD). This paper discusses the relationship between worlds such as Egypt and the physical \ social world we all live in. The paper is based on the idea that while virtual worlds may be play spaces with their own rules and cultures, they are not disconnected from the physical world. The very act of playing a game forms a nexus between the virtual and the physical, and when that game involves a multiple players the game-world becomes a mechanism for mediating relationships between individuals. As game worlds become more popular and virtual communities grow and mature the question that faces society as a whole is not whether we have a relationship with these worlds but what form that relationship should take. This paper examines one aspect of the virtual-physical nexus – the generation of value within game worlds and potential expression of that value in terms of property. The paper describes how game mechanics give rise to ideas of property and how the values associated with in-game resources relate to the development of in-game and extra-game economies. The paper also describes some of the conflicts associated with virtual-items and avatars. In particular arguments surrounding the legal status of these virtual objects are discussed i.e. whether they should be property and if so who’s. From MUDs to MMORPGs The virtual worlds discussed in this paper are a genre of computer game. They are client-server computer programs that present the user with an interface that represents anything from a series of inter-connected rooms to a vast landscape or even planets. Multiple players can be present in this space at the same time, can be aware of each other’s presence and can communicate in a number of ways which include ‘speaking’ and gesturing. Another defining aspect of these worlds is that they are persistent. That is, if you build something in the world and then log off, it will be there next time you log on (unless of course someone with the power to move or destroy it did so while you were gone). MUD1 The first of these virtual worlds, MUD1 (Multi-User Dungeon 1), was created in 1979 at the University of Essex by Roy Trubshaw and Richard Bartle (McGowan & McCullaugh 1995). MUD1 is a text based game on a Tolkienesque \ Dungeons & Dragons theme where the player moves from room to room collecting items and killing things (Nimue & Valentine 2003). Where MUD1 differed from earlier adventure style games was that multiple players could be in the space at the same time and could interact. Social Worlds Many of today’s virtual worlds still use the ‘sword and sorcery’ themes used in MUD1 – which is hardly surprising given the enduring popularity of The Lord of the Rings, though there is a now a wide variety of themes and range of worlds – some of which de-emphasize the game play aspects of the world structure in favour of creating an alternative social space. These so-called social worlds started to emerge around 1990. The first of these were TinyMUD created in 1989 by James Aspnes (Burka 1993) and LambdaMOO (where MOO stands for MUD Object Orientated, a reference to the structure of code that was used to create the world) created in 1990 by Pavel Curtis (Burgess). This type of game built on the emerging culture of online communities established by BBSs (Bulletin Board Systems) such as The Well (The Whole Earth Lectronic Link - established in 1984 by Stewart Brand (Rheingold 2000)) and sparked a rise in popularity of virtual worlds in general. Two interesting and pertinent aspects of some of the early MUDs is that they gave users accesses to the underlying code, meaning that individual users could not only interact with the virtual world, they could alter it in significant ways (see Dank’s Dead Dog below). Users and administrators of some of the worlds also experimented with different forms of social structure and control (politics in LambdaMOO reference). 2D 2 3D Early MUDs such as MUD1, LambaMOO etc are text based i.e. rooms, actions and other people are present to the player in the form of textual descriptions. The next stage of virtual word development was the addition of 2D graphics in the game Habitat created in 1985 by Chip Morningstar and F. Randall Farmer (Morningstar & Randall 1990) for Lucasfilm Games. Eleven years later in 1996 the company 3DO released the first 3D MUD: Meridian 59 (originally developed by Andrew and Christopher Kirmse (Aihoshi 2001)). MMORPGs Today’s persistent world games expand on the themes established in MUD1 and later generations of game. The primary differences are ones of scale, complexity and range of themes. These games also offer an expansion in what the player can do such as use different powers, weapons, build buildings etc, however the code of the popular games is closed to users meaning that in many ways they are more restrictive The game There in unusual in giving players the ability to modify many of the game aspects, it also has a developer program that gives people the ability to add to game code (www.there.com/developer.html) creating new objects.. The current generation of games are known by confusing array of names and acronyms: Persistent World games, MMORPGs, MMOs, MMOGs etc, where MMORPG stands for Massively Multiplayer Online Role Play Game. The most popular and well know of these are (all launch dates and subscription figures from Woodcock 2003, unless otherwise stated): EverQuest (everquest.station.sony.com) – This is currently the most popular MMORPG in the English speaking world. EverQuest or EQ was launched in 1999 by Sony Online Entertainment and has an estimated half a million subscribers. EverQuest has a Tolkienesque theme and is based in a land called Norrath. UltimaOnline (www.uo.com) – Also known as Ultima or UO is published by Electronic Arts’s UltimaOnline. It was launched in 1997 and has an estimated 250000 players. Ultima also has a Tolkienesque theme. Lineage (www.lineage.com) – Is arguably the worlds largest MMORPG by a very large margin. Like Ultima and EverQuest, Lineage is based on a ‘swords and sorcery’ theme (in fact Lineage is created by Lord British aka Richard Garriott – creator of Ultima). Unlike EQ and UO who’s main player based in split between US and Europe, Linage’s main player base is Korea. The licence and usage model is also different as a large number of players access the game through internet café’s, this makes direct subscriber comparisons difficult, however according to the developer (NC Soft) Lineage currently has around 3.2 million subscribers source: n-csoft press release 21\02\03, see also NC Soft IR Report August 2003 for a full sales break down: www.ncsoft.net/eng/txt/IR_Report_Eng(FY2002).ppt. Dark Age of Camelot (www.darkageofcamelot.com) – Mythic Entertainment’s Dark Age of Camelot is set in the world of Arthurian Legends and is another game with around a quarter of a million subscribers. Star Wars Galaxies (starwarsgalaxies.station.sony.com) – Developed by the makers of EverQuest, Star Wars Galaxies (known variously as SWG or SW:G) is an MMORPG set in the Star Wars universe, although still not officially released in Europe and only officially released in the US June 2003 (about 4 months before the writing of this paper) SWG has already gained over 300,000 registered users source: SOE press release 19\09\03 (starwarsgalaxies.station.sony.com/content.jsp?page=Galaxies%20European%20Release). In addition to the leading MMORPGs listed above there are a vast number of other games based on a wide number of themes, each of which have 200,000 subscribers or less. For example: Never Winter Nights (based on the Role Play game Dungeons and Dragons (nwn.bioware.com)); Anarchy Online (cyberpunk dystopia theme (www.anarchy-online.com)); Kingdom of the Winds (created by Nexon and base on Asian mythology (www.nexustk.com) and Final Fantasy XI (based on the successful Final Fantasy game series, at the time of writing this game was available in Japan and was slated for release in the rest of the world in 2004 on both PC and PS2 (where PS2 means the Sony Play Station 2 the market leader in console platforms). Current social worlds (which are often not referred to as MMORPGs as the play aspect of Role Play is generally too weak and \ or unstructured for the gaming community ) include The Sims Online ((www.eagames.com/official/thesimsonline/home/index.jsp) an online version of the highly popular single-person game The Sims and There (www.there.com). Recently variations on these themes have started to emerge with games like A Tail In The Desert (www.atitd.com). This game is unusual for a number of reasons such as the fact that the game has a progressive structure but no in-game conflict and that the creation of art and laws are explicit parts of the game structure. There is also a close-knit relationship between players and developers all of which are reminiscent of the culture of early games such as LambaMOO. Readers should also note that every virtual world, MUD or BBS mentioned above is available online today even MUD1 (www.british-legends.com) and Meridan 59 (meridian59.neardeathstudios.com) can still be played. Also, in addition to the games mentioned there are hundreds of other virtual world games, with new text based games MUDs still being created. MMORPG Mechanics At a high level of approximation there are very strong similarities between all MMORPGs. This applies to the game structure, technical structures and business models employed by the games. In fact many of the fundamental aspects of today’s virtual worlds were established in MUD1. Overview – what’s the point ? The ostensible point of a traditional MUD or MMORPG is to use some form of in-game representation to meet a set of goals such as: solving puzzles, killing things or accumulating resources. All of which is based on some form of player-character representation interacting with other players, in-game artefacts and other game elements. Game worlds are representations of the physical world or some fantasy version of it. As such game worlds use many of the same basic concepts such as individual identity, objects, property etc. However to understand how these concepts relate to the physical world one has to understand both the commercial, technical and in-game mechanics of virtual worlds. This section provides an over view these mechanics. Business Models Nearly all MMORPGs are based on a common business model. Players purchase client software for around 50 euro and then subscribe to the game paying a monthly fee of between 10 and 20 euro. In addition to the character progression described below, the game world constantly develops. New plotlines, monsters, artefacts or places are created by the developers and periodically new game releases are issued which tend to offer new worlds, character types, power etc. There is generally a separate fee for these game expansions. Some games alter this model by providing client software for free or a free trial. EULAs, Servers and Databases Servers and Databases The client software that runs on the user’s computer communicates with game server or servers (Lee 2003). The game as a whole is made up of this network of computers with the game servers at its hub. Game items and avatars exist in virtue of being entries in databases on these game servers which the client program interacts with. Hence a player-character will be a set of entries describing the avatars attributes, these attributes interact with the sever and client computers e.g. if someone picks up an object in the game an attribute in the player-character database (or related database) will alter – this will be registered by the client computer if the player looks to see what they are holding etc. EULAs The client software and the use of the game are licensed to the player. This licence is commonly known as the End User Licence Agreement (EULA) and can be me manifest in various forms such as: in printed form with the software, on the companies web site, displayed each time the user plays the game – or any combination thereof. A game EULA sets out the terms and conditions for playing the game. Most EULAs include statements relating to game characters and items, these statements generally say that all such objects are the property of the game company. EULAs may also include statements to the effect that sale of such objects or the braking of any other terms (sometimes including in-game rules of conduct) can mean the immediate termination of a users account. For example EverQuest New Dawn (European edition 2002) does not contain a printed form of the EULA as part of the physical game packaging or materials. Clause 9 this EULA states: ‘You may not sell, attempt to sell, purchase, attempt to purchase, auction or facilitate the purchase, sale or auction of any accounts, items, coin or copyrighted material relating to the Games’. Ultima Online’s licence states at Paragraph 5(c): Rights. You acknowledge and agree that all characters created, and items acquired and developed as a result of game play are part of the Software and Service and are the sole property of EA.com. You acknowledge that: (i) the Software and the Service permit access to Content that is protected by copyrights, trademarks, and other proprietary rights owned by EA.com or Content Providers (collectively, "Rights"). for Mythic Entertainment’s Dark Age of Camelot, EULA runs to just over 9,000 words, states at (2): OWNERSHIP OF SYSTEM, GAME AND GAME CONTENT; RIGHTS TO ACCESS AND USE SAME” (A) “Ownership of System, Game and Game Content”, that “You acknowledge and agree that Mythic is the sole and exclusive owner of the System, and that Mythic or its suppliers are the sole and exclusive owner(s) of all right, title and interest (including, without limitation, all intellectual property rights), code, programs, routines, subroutines, objects, files, data, characters (including all items, currency, objects and attributes comprising or associated with a character and an Account). And again at 2(B): Mythic Owns Accounts, Account Attributes, Characters, Items and Objects; Assignment” that “You acknowledge and agree that your Account(s), and all attributes of your Accounts, including all guilds, groups, titles, and characters, and objects, currency and items acquired, developed or delivered by or to characters as a result of Game play through your Accounts are part of the System and the Game Content, and are the sole and exclusive property of Mythic, including any and all copyrights and intellectual property rights in or to any and all of the same, all of which are hereby expressly reserved. Characters and Avatars Typically when a player beings to play an MMORPG the first thing they do is choose a character. This generally involves choosing attributes such as type, appearance and choosing between attributes such as strength or wisdom. This system is a very similar to the character creation system in table top role play games such as Dungeons and Dragons. The character starts off at a low level. That is they have few powers and abilities in the game. As a player acts within the game word the character generally increases in ability gaining various attributes. In most (though not all) MMORPGs a level system is used to denote their advancement. In one respect the level of a character represents the amount of effort \ time put in by the player – this has been termed by Edward Castronova (2002) as Avatar Capital. Resources Resources, together with characters, make up some of basic building blocks of MMORPGs. The types of in-games resources that MMORPGs utilize include: artefacts (magic swords, gems), materials (sand, wood), buildings (houses etc) and land. In addition there are two categories of resource that I will treat separately – currency and art. Relative Scarcity All resources tend to be relatively scarce and there is generally a hierarchy of resources. Relative scarcity can take several forms which give rise to different forms of value structure: Effort based scarcity – (the most common form) – resources take player time \ skill to accumulate Absolute – there are an absolute number of items of a particular type Composite (a type of effort based scarcity) – items are created through a combination of skill, time and accumulated base resources Geographical \ Chronological – resources are available only at certain palces in the game world or at particular times Community – resources can only be released through group effort (tasks that take two or more players, monsters that require skills). Scarcity, and thus value is not static. When new skills or powers are introduced into a world they command a high value, this decays over time as the supply of resources increases. There are of course special cases of this rule (currency and art are discussed below), and complexity is added to all notions of value when virtual worlds become so large that for technical reason they operate as a series of relatively discrete worlds on multiple servers (know as shards). Though shards really only create permutations and the same basic resources constraint themes. Paying for scarcity In practice games mix these different types of scarcity to create a huge range of in-game challenges which give texture to the game experience. In most games accumulation resources and in particular resources of greater scarcity is related progression within the game structure. This makes games unusual in economic terms as it is the very scarcity of resources and the challenges that this presents which makes the game interesting and hence gives the items value. What is particularly usual is that people generally pay for resources and for things to be made easier, in games people are, in a sense, paying to be deprived of things and to have the lives made more difficult (Castronova 2002). The artifice of scarcity What also seems strange about virtual items is the artificiality of their scarceness. As digital items are digital, the reproduction cost is negligible, hence a game could make infinite resources available to players. This makes game based economies seem highly unreal (especially when combined with the fictional narrative of virtual worlds and the fact that they are ‘just games’), however artificial control of supply underlies many ‘real world’ economies. For example while the market for oil and diamonds are ultimately based on finite physically resources, the production at any one time is tightly controlled to ensure price stability as anyone who has filled up a vehicle with fuel the day after an OPEC meeting will know. In the digital world the current controversy over file sharing demonstrates how a market for virtual items with negligible cost of reproduction can be sustained through behaviour patterns and the application and enforcement of legal sanctions. Currency Many games have resources that are primarily or exclusively used as an in-game currency. EverQuest has copper, silver, gold and platinum pieces, UltimaOnline uses a similar system (Britannian gold pieces), The Sims Online has Simoleans, ATITD enables any player with a modest level of in-game ability to create their own currency though at the time of writing a currency called TN (Teppy Notes) dominates trade. There has also taken an alternative approach as it makes an explicit link with sovereign currencies by allowing players to purchase ThereBucks (Clark 2003). Currency is different from other resources in that it has different value dynamics, in that its value tends to be relative to other asset’s, and for larger games which have extra-game economies (see below) the currency operates just as any other tradeable currency (or other instruments such as shares) and indicates the overall strength of a game world. ART-efacts Art in context of in-game resources is any unique combination of resources that has an original player input. For example some games allow players to construct buildings or even in-game artefacts that are explicitly intended as art works. Dark Age of Camelot has recently released the Foundations expansion that enables players to create houses, The Sims Online provides players with the ability to design and decorate their homes, There emphasises Avatar decoration and ATITD has a test as part of one of its progression tracks that requires the player to create a sculpture that has to be voted on as ‘interesting’ by at least 20 other players. There also allows players to significantly alter the look of game elements and through its developer program allows new game objects to be created. What makes art objects unusual in economic terms is the nature of their supply and demand. While like all virtual items they could be effectively infinitely replicated once created, their initial creation is based on players not the game company (who design and create the other artefacts), what’s more these artefacts tent to be gratuitous in respect of general game play. Like in the physical world artists create them because they want to be creative, in some cases the art may attain value or give the creator status but their primary function is generally not economic. Dank’s Dead Dog This ability to create game objects gave rise to one of the early debates of in-game rights. In LambdaMOO a player called Martha coded a beautiful but poisonous flower which killed a dog created by another player Dank (Lessig 1999). This incident initiated a debate about the nature of in-game objects, game rules, social rule and physical world values which in a sense this paper is another instalment. Fan Art While the creation of completely original in-game art (as opposed to the assembly of pre-created objects in novel forms) is rare in MMORPGs, players still create a huge amount of original material in the form of web sites, fan art, fan fic. As these creations are inspired by the world created by the games company, sometimes the works can lead to conflict (see below). High Art In addition to fan art, fine artists are increasingly using MMORPGs and other computer game spaces as locations for art work. Artists working in this medium include Eddo Stern with works such as Summons to Surrender Works by Eddo can be seen at: www.summonstosurrender.com and Julian Holland Oliver Game based works by Julian and others can be seen at: www.selectparks.net . Some of these works are confrontational in both in-game terms and broader political terms. Eddo for example has used physical robots to control game characters. Sony have ruled the use of robots as cheating (Hanart 2000) – however in these works Eddo was not playing the game in any conventional sense, which points to yet another boundary between the virtual and the physical. Control & Ownership Ideas of ownership transcend game boundaries. EULAs tend to assert that all in-game objects are owned by the game company, whereas exclusive control of in-game resources by player-characters i.e. in-game ‘ownership’ is fundamental to the way that these games operate. There are a number of ways that players can obtain in-game resources. Character attributes are generally gained through some form of effort and \ or test, be it in the form of combat or by solving a puzzle. Often attributes can only be gained by certain character types and by characters working in a group. For example a monster may have to be killed that requires both magic and fighting; killing the monster may increase the fighters strength and the magicians wisdom. Artefacts are similar, they tend to be potentially available to either all characters e.g. gold; or characters of a certain type e.g. weapons might only be available to fighters; or characters at a certain level. This structure drives the availability of both artefacts and skills. That is, when new artefacts or skills are introduced into the game world only a few players have access to them, as time goes by more players acquire the items and they become more available. The other way that items can be acquired is through forms of exchange (see next section). Avatar power-play Character attributes are generally not like resources. By definition those that are associated with that particular character, hence they cannot be traded separately from the character. However attributes are used in negotiations, a party may need certain skills and ability to complete a quest, some members with rare attributes may use this as a bargaining strategy when forming the group. This aspect of avatar attributes is one of the contributors to the in-game power structure and hence both in-game and extra-game value of characters. There are also cases where skills may be taught or exchanged e.g. in ATITD skills can be taught, some skills are only learnt through teaching and require the learner also to teach for them to progress. Exclusivity Items tend to be under the control of a single player at any one time. Hence when a player either ‘takes’ or ‘picks-up’ a resource it is generally under the exclusive control of that player. Similarly an item may be in a building or container controlled by the character, which gives that character unique access to that artefact (though generally direct control in the sense of use, is only related to artefacts that a character is holding \ carrying or directly interacting with) Items can also generally be held in common ownership e.g. by guild or clan, or be public e.g. if an item is dropped on the ground. Exchange In general resources can be exchanged in-game between characters and between characters and NPC (Non-Player Character – a part of the game program that appears as an avatar in-game, NPCs include Monsters and Merchants). Usually there are a number of ways that this can be achieved: Direct exchange - One character gives an items directly to another character or group (guild or clan) so that the item goes directly from one character’s inventory to another Dropping - A character drops an item so another can pick it up. Exchange of Title – A character changes the ownership state or title of an object e.g. by selecting a building and selecting a menu choice that says something to the effect of ‘donate this building to the public’. Trade – this is a form of direct exchange that can occur between two characters or a character and an NPC. Trade is different from general exchange in that its designated as a specific form of transaction e.g. though a trade window, or through the fact that one character or NPC is a merchant or trader of some form. Variations on these themes include depositing items in spaces \ buildings controlled exclusively by a character or group e.g. a chest or house. MMORPG Economies Economies are no accident The mechanics of games discussed above combined with compelling game play give rise to a number of economic systems. That is in-game and extra-game economics are no accident, they are an enviable consequence of game mechanics, a compelling game world and highly predictable human behaviour. The latter may not be intended or even desired by the designers. Compelling game play means that aspects of virtual world are designed by players or as an economist might say – there is value. Now if all resources were instantly available or there were no way to exchange artefacts or avatars, or there was no way to exercise exclusive control, then the conditions for an economy would not exist, however it is moot whether a game world of this type would be sufficiently interesting for people to join or to support a commercial model for its operation (though some form of peer-to-peer world may side step the financial issues). In-game: Gift and Barter economies The game mechanics discussed above give rise to a wide range of in-game trading structures. In some worlds, trade is embedded in the game structure. In EverQuest, for example, NPC Merchants represent an infinite demand for certain items allows players to convert basic resources to currency and so progress up the in-game economic structure. More traditional trade also occurs between characters. This form of trade can take a number of structural forms: Gift Characters often simply give resources to one another. The reasons for this can be as many and varied as in the physical world: a person might simply want to help a lower character out, they may want to gain favour or show appreciation. Barter In worlds where there is no currency, barter predominates. Barter comes about through the types of relative scarcity discussed above. For example one character may have the ability to obtain gems while another might be able to create wine, the items thus have different relative values for the two characters so a trade is possible. Similar characters may simply be located in parts of the game world where different resources are plentiful or scarce. Because of the wide variety of items and different ability to obtain the items, in-game trade is a significant aspect of just about all MMORPGs. What’s more due to the lack of a common currency, barter economies can be complex, for this reason fan sites often create trading lists which quote their buy \ sell rates against a matrix of resources, such sites sometimes evolve into forms of commodity exchange. Currency based trade A variation on barter occurs where a world has a developed currency system. The drivers behind trade remain the same, though the addition of currency and thus the ability to abstract and accumulate value leads to more sophisticated gaming and trade systems. In-game currency also makes the possibility of cross-world trading a more feasible one as it provides a single tradable commodity against which a world-to-world exchange rate can be established (where a game world has shards this is made more complex however the existence of a common tradable commodity across a single world still allows meaningful exchange rates to be established). In-game trade structures are complex. This is due to the supply \ demand structures noted above. For some basic items there is either almost limitless supply and or demand (created by NPC characters). This can mean that some items effectively have no value, due to over supply; or have an ‘artificial’ value created by limitless demand. Most items follow a rough price decay model; they have high value when first introduced into the world which drops as the supply increases. One exception to this is where there is a ‘dupe’ or weakness in the game code that allows players to generate resources or skills at a faster rate than the designers intended (and generally faster than the rest of the game population can), such events create odd market anomalies. Extra-Game trading & meta-economies Given the factors discussed at length above: the game mechanics, in-game value structures, and the fact that players have a real passion for the game world (Yee 2002a, 2002b) See the extensive and on-going work done by Nick Yee on the behaviour and psychology of MMORPG players: www.nickyee.com , I would argue that is inevitable that ‘real’ economic structures form around these worlds. There are things within the game world that people actually desire. These things are obtained through an investment of time (and sometimes co-operation and skill, both of which require time). It is thus inevitable that some players will do a time \ value calculation i.e. they will simply pay real money for items they want. The fact that people will pay money for what they desire and that some people desire virtual items takes us into the many and various trading structures that surround MMORPGs and the controversies that come about through the intersection of virtual items with real cash. Real Cash Edward Castronva has conducted a number of detailed economic analyses of the relationship between virtual world items and real world economics. Famously he has concluded the effective wage in EverQuest’s game world Norrath is USD 3.42 which combined with the population puts its effective GDP 77th in the league table of ‘real’ world economies (Virtual) – though of course Narrath is a real world economy under just about any definition one wants to use. Recently Julian Dibble (2003b) had taken Castronova’s (2001) figures and combined these with historic and current trading volumes from sites such as eBay and playerauctions.com, in his analysis he concludes that the size of the total market in virtual items and avatars is a minimum of $20million but probably more like $40 million and could be as high as $63 million. The reason for the variation is because of the number of sales sites and the fact that the majority of this trade is a ‘grey’ economy and thus not centrally tracked (see below). Player-to-player trading Most player-to-player trades operate just like any other person to person internet transaction. An item or character is offered for sale on a web site. A price is agreed between to individuals, an exchange of funds occurs and an exchange of item. The fund exchange tends to occur using on-line systems such a PayPal. For in-game items the exchange occurs in the game world at some pre-defined location, for characters, the access rights are exchanged. Players may also just agree deals between each other on line, but due to the size of game worlds and the increased specialized of trading, most trades now occur between players that do not know each other (this can be evidenced from trade volumes). Auction sites Like any market, buyers need to find sellers and vice versa. Hence offers of sale and requests for purchase are not scattered randomly over the internet but focus on relatively small number of sites. The main trading sites are currently the online auction site eBay (www.ebay.com), and a number of virtual item specific sites such as www.playerauctions.com and www.markeedragon.com. These sites are themselves commercial entities, hence one of the second order markets related to virtual items is in sales \ auction sites and play mechanics. Crime If you have a lot of people who generally do not know each other exchanging a lot of money though a huge volume of unregulated trades it is almost certain that some form of black economy and other types of crime will emerge. This is certainly the case for virtual item trading. There no figures for the volume of game related crime in the west but in Korea where MMORPGs are massively popular the Korean police have reported that thus far in 2003 there have been 22,000 reported game related cyber-crimes making up over 50% of the total number of cyber crimes (Duk-kun 2003). Though it should be noted that ‘game’ here refers not only to MMORPGs but online games such as Poker (see Jhi) There are a wide range of scams from simply inflating the value of items for the new and unwary buyer (which might be seen as healthy capitalism) to out and out fraud. Take the money and run One type of fraud is probably the good old ‘take the money and run’. This works as transactions are asynchronous i.e. the buyer has to give the seller their money and the seller has to give the buyer the goods – these are two transactions that generally happen at approximately (but not exactly) the same time. Hence a seller can simply take payment for items and then disappear. Identity & Deception There are a number of variations on this theme most of which revolve around the basic scam theme. These tend to involve deception in the form of a seller or buyer pretending to be someone else. In these cases the fraudster tends to pretend either to be an innocent buyer \ seller in an attempt to lure someone into a deception, or they pretend to be well known player or trader. In the latter case the deception often takes the form of creating an email address that is very similar to that of the person. For example if the trader is [email protected], the fraudster might create [email protected] . As much of the deal making occurs on ICQ a similar type of identity deception occurs there as well. Another variation on this is to set up a web page that look very like the log-in page for one of the commercial payment sites; then enter into a transaction with a player and get them to log-in to the spoof payment site. This way the fraudster can obtain the buyers account log –in or possibly credit card details. An imaginative spin on this type fraud was recorded by Julian Dibble in his Blog - Play Money (Dibble 2003a). Yet another is type of standard credit card fraud, where a buyer claims that the virtual item has not been delivered and so demands their money back from PayPal or what ever system is being used. In these cases the buyer has to prove the transaction has taken place – not easy in a virtual world that lacks transaction tracking. Duping There are a number of terms for the practice of Duping all of which refer to the practice of using some weakness in the game code to create more of an item that usual game play allows, some of these exploits can be technical complex (Koster 2003) however if a player can generate enough volume of trade before the Dupe is discovered a significant amount of money can be made. …and bad old crime In addition to the various types of cyber crime and form of in-game behaviour that result in gaining virtual items that can be sold – such as invading a virtual home and taking the possessions (Ward 2003); there are also report of games sparking ‘real life’ crime including assault (Levander 2001). Brokers The increasing size of the virtual item economy together with the increase in crime has seen a growth in broker services. Brokers provide a range of services from simply selling items like conventional virtual-item traders, to setting-up and acting as an intermediary in large deals. Broker services are based on three key factors that player desire: trust, convenience and expertise. Trust is becoming increasingly important as reports of scams rises. Brokers trade on their reputation within (and increasingly across) gaming communities. This can manifest itself in a trade as follows: player A wants to buy a sword, they contact broker B who finds a player with a sword to sell. B then acts as a trusted third party by purchasing payment (usually in the form of in-game currency) from A (generally in terms of in-game currency) and the sword from C. The broker then exchanges the goods to the other parties. Brokers typically charge between 5 and15% for this type of service when the items are being transferred on the same shard; when items are transferred between shards (a xShard deal) rates are typically between 15 and 60% (this reflects both the complexity and prior investment needed in moving items between shards and the large variation in relative value that can exist). Brokerages An example of a brokerage (a collection of brokers) is the Markee Dragon site (www.markeedragon.com) brokers. Markee Dragon (who runs the site) is a market leader in UltimaOnline and has expanded on the basic broker structure by creating a network or hub of brokers under the Markee Dragon brand. While brokers act as individuals the trust value is extended in a number of ways. Firstly by general brand association, secondly by the fact that membership is by invitation only, and lastly through an extension of the service offered by Markee Dragon whereby all deals are underwritten to all brokers on the site. xWorld Broking A variation on the types of exchange described previously is a cross world (or xWorld) exchange. For example many experienced Ultima or EverQuest players are starting to play Star Wars Galaxies, as these players are virtually rich and experienced gamers it makes sense to trade in some of their existing value to give them a start in the new world. Hence cross world trading is beginning to occur, traders are starting to quote effective exchange rates and Brokers such as Markee Dragon are looking to make xWorld trading into a standard service though it looks likely that transaction costs will be high i.e. 60%+. Controversies The established practices described above might lead one to assume that the legal status of virtual items was well understood, that everyone agreed that players had the rights to buy and sell them, and that all players thought that this trade was acceptable as part of the game. However none of these assumptions are true. The legal status of virtual items is unclear and legal arguments can be made that both support and deny the rights of players to buy and sell them. What’s more as T L Taylor noted in the paper ‘Whose game is this anyway?”: Negotiating corporate ownership in a virtual world’ (Taylor 2002) the practice is disputed by both some games companies and some players which has lead to a number of relatively public disagreements between games companies and players. For instance in 2000 SOE, publisher of EverQuest formed an agreement with auction sits eBay and Yahoo! to ban the sale of EQ items and remove any auctions on their sites (Taylor, 2002). SOE also banned individual players from EverQuest for alleged acts such as Item Farming (Asher, 2000). Sony is far from alone in taking action. Another case that was covered widely in the on-line media was that of the disputes between the game companies Mythic Entertainment (makers of Dark Age of Camelot) and FunCom (makers of Anarchy Online) and the so called item farmers - BlackSnow Interactive (Rasputin 2002, Shokrizade 2002). Both cases were complex but effectively revolved around BlackSnow’s right to sell virtual items and the game company’s right to stop this by banning BlackSnow accounts from their games. Disputes have also extended beyond the bounds of items and avatars. SOE banned a player account from EverQuest on the basis of a piece of FanFic based in the EverQuest world. The story involved the rape of another character and was written by one know as Mystere (Taylor, 2002). SOE also caused the removal of the work from a non-sony site. Like in the cases of item sales, Sony based its action on property rights. Andrew Zaffron, general council for SEO, stated “[SOE has] the exclusive right to permit or disallow the outside use of our intellectual property” (Mulligan, 2000; see also Smedley, 2000). Law As the previous sections of this paper suggest, the debate over virtual items and avatars tends to be framed in terms of property rights. The cases referenced above revolved around arguments over intellectual property rights and the nature of the contract between player and game company. Although we have a test case (Mythic vs BlackSnow) the law in this area is moot. Moreover while most of the debate about these issues centres on property law, it is likely that the key legal battle ground (if there is to be one) will be contract law and its limits. The following sections of this paper give an overview to the way that various laws may apply to virtual items and avatars. The section that follows examines some of the arguments for the application of these or other laws. Copyright Copyright provides a limited set of monopoly rights to the authors of original intellectual works. Copyright is similar to the intellectual property laws of patent, but differs in a number of respects that are important to virtual items. Where patent provides rights in an invention that merely has to be defined, copyright subsists in actual works i.e. not an idea but a particular expression of that idea (in the form of copies of a written novel, or the recording of a song). Where the originality test for patent is a high standard of uniqueness, copyright has a very low test of originality. Software In my view and that of writers such as Stephens (2002) copyright does not apply directly to virtual items or avatars as works in and of themselves. The reason for this that is the under US and EU copyright law, software is a form of literary work, as such copyright applies to software code in the form of preparatory works, source code and object code. Individual instances of virtual items are code, they are data, hence fall out side this scope. Collections In addition to individual works, copyright also encompasses collections of works – just so long as a number of criteria are met. In the EU a separate right in computer databases has also been introduced in addition to the copyright in collections. In my view the strongest argument for property in virtual items and avatars is based on copyright in a collection. Broadly speaking avatars and virtual items are entries in databases held on gaming servers. These databases are designed by the game company, and individual entries in the databases are selected through the actions of players e.g. the player picks the name of an avatar; they often choose certain criteria such as race, level of strength vs intelligence; and through game play other criteria are modified such as experience points for killing things, items held if something is picked up. If we assume that an avatar or a virtual item can itself be seen as a collection, then the games company has a copyright claim by virtue of their design of the database, similarly a player has a copyright claim by virtue of their selection of elements of that collection. Typically the contract between games-company and player (the EULA – End user Licence Agreement) transfers all property rights from player to games company. Hence if these rights subsist then they are generally held exclusively by the games company. The chief argument against this state stems from the limit of copyright in collections. This right subsists in a collection as a whole and does not affect the rights in any element of that collection – that it is nether alters nor confers rights on elements. Now as an avatar is only part of a lager database and as any virtual item is a sub-part of the avatar entry, then it is arguable that neither an avatar or an item constitutes a collection in an of itself, hence copyright does not obtain. If this is the case then neither avatars or virtual items are property according to copyright law. Copyright and item sales Copyright is a limited monopoly. Its limits include time, scope of things covered and scope of acts that owners have a monopoly in. As Stephens (2003) has pointed out, as far as game mechanics are concerned, selling an avatar or virtual items involves either changing access to an account or exchanging an item in-game; neither act involves copying anything. What’s more item exchange is within the scope of most games, the fact that money changes hands outside the game seems neither here nor there. Hence it is arguable that on pure copyright grounds a game company rights do not extend to the control of avatar or item sales. Contract What the analysis above indicates is that rather than being a copyright issue, the legitimacy of avatar and virtual item sales is actually a matter of contract law. Most EULAs for MMORPGs assert that all intellectual property is owned by the games company, some EULAs are also explicit about the sale of avatars and virtual items. The enforceability of such clauses can be argued both ways. Supporting a non-sale of item clause one simply has to look at it and note that a player has agreed to use the software on the basis of the licence. Hence if the player sells an item or avatar they are in clear breach of that contract, thus EULAs do in fact ban item sales (irrespective of the issue of ownership of those items) and the only remaining matter is a practical one of preventing the trade. The opposing view is based on the assumption that either copyright does not subsist in items and avatars, or if copyright does subsist then their sale does not break that right. In either case one might claim that as copyright does not extend to the sale of virtual items or avatars, then a company has no rights (in this respect) to back up the contractual clauses. What’s more one might argue that attempting to stop players trading in items is in fact a misuse of the companies copyright in the software (or items \ avatars – if such rights are granted). Rights of Publicity Another area of law that may have applicability to rights in avatars is the US State law of Rights of Publicity. These laws give an individual right to control the commercial use of their persona, what’s more this is an alienable property right i.e. it can be sold (Baird 2001, Beard 2001). The rights are recognised either under common law or legislation (or both) in about half of all US states (Carpenter 2001). Being State laws they vary from state to state, however in general persona includes: name, voice, signature, photograph, image, likeness, distinctive appearance, gesture or mannerisms. If an individual is an item trader and they are known in-game and out of game as a trader, then they may be able to argue, under rights of publicity, that their avatar is a necessary part of their persona, hence is their property. An immediate argument against this is that the avatar is not that person, it does not look like them, its gestures are limited to those pre-defined in the game world etc. However in the case of Motschenbacher v Reynolds Motschenbacher v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, 498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir. 1974). which involved the use of a distinctively marked car in a commercial, the judge ruled that the markings were sufficient to lead people to believe that the driver in question was in the car – hence associated with the commercial, as such use of the car contravened his rights of publicity; even though he was not seen and did not personally create, design or paint the car in question. Given this, it seems at least arguable that, in the case of the commercial use of persona, an avatar could be included under such a right and hence is the property of a player. However it would require a test case to establish this as at present the Right of Publicity is a rather vague and oft-times contradictory area of law (Haemmerli 1999). Practice and Issues The previous sections of this paper provided an overview of the structure of MMORPGs and its relationship with the practice of item trading, some of the conflicts that have arisen around issues of property and some of the arguments around the legal status of virtual items and avatars. The following section of the paper describes some of the possible types of state that could be ascribed to virtual-items and avatars and discusses some of the arguments for and against these. Player property Items and avatars could be recognised as the players’ property. The most likely legal way of doing this is to use intellectual property law to recognise items and avatars as works and recognise the player as the author of that work. That is items and avatars would be recognised as distinct from the game software and other items of the game company’s intellectual property and the players labour would be recognised. Under UK and US law this could be done either though an interpretation or modification of current copyright law. Alternatively, the type of model adopted by the EU for databases could be utilised i.e. create a sui generis right in virtual items and avatars. If this position was recognised as a player’s right, then there would need to be a limit on contract set (on public policy grounds) such that terms in EULAs which assert or transfer rights were not enforceable. There are a number of arguments that one might evidence for and against this position, a number of these are summarised below: Supporting player ownership Practice Recognising a player’s rights of property in virtual items and avatars recognises the reality of practice. It has been argued above that the structure of current MMORPGs gives rise to value and ultimately extra-game economics; hence this position would recognise both practice and the enviable relationship between practice, game structure and the way that people inevitably act when engaged in these types of competitive actives that can be influenced by market behaviour (Koster 2003, Scheltema 2003). It would also legitimise current practice and reduce the conflict between players and games companies over these property rights – traders would not longer be renegade. Consumer Protection As noted above ( ) there are large number of scams and frauds related to item and avatar trade. Some of these are clearly illegal, others are boarder line as they exist mainly within the game world. Providing clear property rights in game objects would clarify the legal situation and, in theory, help to prevent crime. Against Player Ownership It’s cheating MMORPGs are designed so that players act within the game and through their actions gain resources and skills. Purchasing avatars or virtual items means that this process is short circuited – in short it is cheating. Liability In my view the strongest argument against granting legal rights of ownership of in-game objects to players is the implicit liability that this would impose on game companies and the possible impact on the future of virtual worlds this would have. That is, if virtual items are property in a conventional (intellectual property) sense, then games companies are no long simply running a game they are the custodian of extremely valuable assets. Using Castronova’s analysis, this would mean that SOE’s EverQuest servers were hosting transactions worth millions of dollars. Issues arise when assets become unstable in some sense. For example when virtual items are deleted or accidentally copied, or when servers are hacked? In these cases the game company would most likely be liable for the assets value of the items. This protect against such liabilities materialising games companies may choose to use much tighter levels of security. Indeed banking type levels of security may be necessary for a game company to fulfil a duty of care over the assets under its control. What’s more games companies would need to be insured against risks of loss player-assets and any potential actions taken by players as a result of such losses. The costs of these defensive measures would mostly likely make the creation of MMORPGs completely un-economic, so would effectively kill what they were trying to protect. Legal complexity Imposing traditional property laws would change the legal status of in-games actions and bring torte and criminal laws in to a whole new area. For instance in-game actions could be seen as fraud or theft that could be referred to the criminal justice system, and if the idea of virtual- items as property is legally complex then untangling the nature of putative criminal acts would be an order more difficult. From a general legal theory point of view one could argue that these laws would not be sensible as from an economic \ utilitarian view of law, the difficulty of their applicability would render them so inefficient that they would be almost pointless. Do not press Quit An issue related to liability is the question of a companies right to sell or shut down a service (Scheurer 2002). Would a company have to buy the assets of all the players before they shut the servers down, could the company announce a shut down and effectively crash the market for assets related to that game – could they be sued for this ? Could a company sell a game to another company without the express permission of the players ? Freedom to contract As noted above ensuring that property rights were owned by players would most probably require a public policy limit to contract. This is a fairly significant legal measure that would interfere with the game company’s freedom to contract, not a step that a legal jurisdiction would take lightly especially given the perceived relative importance of virtual items to those outside the games world at present. It just doesn’t make any sense ! There are a number of arguments against giving players property rights in avatars and virtual items that could be categorised under the heading: It just doesn’t make any sense ! These arguments are often aired on discussion forums and list serve debates over player property rights. It’s just a game – The nature of virtual items and avatars is that they are part of a game world, hence it does not make sense to think in terms of property rights and value. What’s more, the rules that apply are those of the game world, not the physical or real legal world. As games are invented narrative spaces we should shield them from the impact of the law. - In my view, while these points make sense, they are not applicable when one looks at practice. Value is, as they say, in the eye of the beholder. So it is irrelevant whether something is a game or not, if people think something has value, then by definition it does. Moreover, game companies do attempt to apply intellectual property law to game objects by way of the EULA, and even if they did not, one cannot simply wish away the connection between a community activity and the law. The existence of an object depends on the existence of the game - It is the case that, if it were not for the creation of the game, the activity of a group of users and critical code running on servers, avatars and virtual items would cease to exist. - However this is not, in itself, an argument against property rights. In terms of general dependency one can think of the example of a thirteenth floor apartment. Its existence depends on all the floors below it, and if it is leased then there is a legal dependency on a free hold existing. However apartments can still be property. As a second example one can take another type of virtual object – money in a bank balance. In this case one’s balance is simply an entry in a database. If the bank’s servers were turned off the entry would cease to exist, but this does not mean that the money ceases to exist (well it might but then one would get into the liability issues discussed above). One can take the analogy further, there is no reason in principle why a characters attributes (including inventory) could not be printed off and held as a representation of the value of the character – much like printed money or share certificates in fact. Virtual items can just be replicated so they do not have stable value - As virtual gold pieces or avatars are just representations in databases, they could with very little effort just be replicated, hence their value is without any real basis and is not stable. - Again this is true, but not an argument against property. MP3 files can and are replicated at almost zero cost, what’s more they don’t need a game environment for this to occur, any modern computer can do it using basic tools in the operating system. However this does not mean that songs are not owned. Game Company Property Supporting game company ownership Control Games companies design, build and maintain the game world (this may actually be a set of companies but for the purpose of the argument these can be abstracted into a single entity, in practice, legally this would probably be the publisher rather than the developer if they are separate organisations). For the game to function as a game (for the good of the players) it is necessary that the game company retains control of the game. Axe wheedling noobies One aspect of control that affects other players directly is the ability for a new player to buy power (mainly through the acquisition of an avatar though this applies in part to virtual items especially things that give abilities such as magic scrolls). The fact the powers have not been gained through effort also means that they may not be backed by the experience to use them appropriately. This can have a negative effect on other players and the balance of the game generally. Natural Rights, IPR and contract A games company creates the conditions for virtual items and avatars to be created and through contract they attempt to transfer any such rights to themselves. At face value this seems like a normal operation of intellectual property rights and right to contract freely, hence the law should support these acts through clarifying the status of these objects and in the cases under discussion clearly ascribe these rights to games companies. Against game company ownership Structure of game implies consent to player rights By the nature of the structure of these games value arises and extra-game trade will exist. Hence through the act of making a game of this form a game company has implicitly recognised that it is creating these external factors, hence these companies forgo the seemingly natural flow of rights described above. Creating a renegade clan Given the inevitably of extra-game trade, ascribing property rights with a game company and through this attempting to restrict trade sets the game company in a state of conflict with a section of the player base. Conclusion - Forget property ? Short term The practice of avatar and virtual-item trading is at odds with the wishes of some players and many game companies. It also contradicts the written contract that attempts to govern the use of many games. The precise legal status of this trade is somewhat uncertain as one can construct a range of legal arguments to attack and defend it. So it looks as the law should come down on the side of players or games companies as having property interests in virtual-items and avatars. But there are strong arguments for and against assigning property rights to players or games companies, and each position has significant disadvantages. Hence, in the short term the answer to the legal and practical issues may be shockingly simple – do nothing. Major MMORPGs are thriving so the current trade does not seem to be having a massively negative effect. Games companies can and do take action where they deem it necessary. Also the nature of most frauds related to virtual items means that they are criminal acts under present laws e.g. deception, credit card fraud etc. Thus one has to question what the benefits of legislating in the short term would be, especially as it seems that the only suitable laws would be sui generis laws in virtual-items in avatars. So, to take an economic view of the purpose of law there is not a strong enough case to motivate enactment or enforcement of such laws. The Future We have come along way since MUD1, while we are not quite at the level of the cyberpunk visions of writers like William Gibson, the relationship between virtual worlds and the physical world are getting stronger each day. Virtual words have real economic effects, they have associated crime and lest we forget they bring pleasure to millions of people around the world. While doing nothing may be the best compromise in the short term, over time virtual worlds will mature and most likely spread their influence more deeply into civil society. The increasing effects of virtual worlds on civil society will put pressure on a formalization of the rules within these games and in the way they relate to existing laws. Virtual Items The future of virtual-items is difficult to predict. However as there is a trend to treat them as property it looks likely that either the current situation will pertain. That is, items will be traded but that this trade will remain as largely as a set of bargains between individuals rather than a formal or regulated form of trade. If the net flow of value into virtual worlds increases significantly there it is likely that there will be calls for property rights to be formalized and possibly these worlds to fall under some form of recognised governance structure. However such a structure would not be easy to achieve as the issues over domain name assignment testifies (see ICANN and the WIPO domain name resolution processes). What’s more the nature of MMORPGs makes in-game and cross-game governance highly problematic. For example, in the interests of what is effectively currency stability there may be advantages in enforcing social norms within game worlds that prevent de-stabling activities such as duping and forms of greifing (i.e. causing grief - forms of disruptive in-game behaviour). But given that virtual worlds are gratuitous-communities it is not easy to see how a system of differential sanctions might be devised through which norms would be enforced. The issue being that any sanction must be strong enough to deter the behaviour but lower than the cost of a player simply moving from one game to another. Yet if a person has been a member of a single virtual community for some years the switching cost may be high enough to enforce useful norms. Avatars A current trend is to settle many legal ambiguities by appealing to one form of property law or other. The US laws of Rights of Publicity are and example where even issues of the use and rights persona have utilised ideas of property to find resolution. The practice of Brokering is an illustration of the commercial use of identity, as such seems to lend support to the idea the Rights of Persona should apply to online representations of persona i.e. avatars, email, ICQ number etc. However this practice and its relationship to virtual world communities can also be interpreted as lending weight to the argument against such rights. That is, in a virtual world the primary means of identification are these representations of self. Indeed to exist within a virtual world it is necessary to be represented within that world. Hence there is a strong link between identity and representation, moreover the link is not solely a matter between the individual and their avatar, the persona is communal. For example, a member of a community has an interest in a broker being who they say they are. This community interest suggests that the relationship between representation of persona and the individual has, in at least some cases, values that may not easily be expressed in terms of property rights. That is, it does not seem a broker should simply be able to sell their avatar. While there are already areas of trademark laws that cover the transfer of marks, I want to look beyond the use of online identity for trade, and look to the potential uses of avatars in the future. If avatars begin to identify more strongly and the use of this identification gains wider application e.g. in trade and civil affairs, then the argument for the non-alienability of at least some forms or representation of identity becomes stronger (as does the argument against anonymity in at least some transactions). Ultimately the motivation behind this argument becomes two fold. Form the perspective of the community there are instances where there is an interest in representation of identity, identifying consistently. From the perspective of the individual there is an interest in some representation of self, in a sense some form of self (in respect to online communities) having rights are more than mere property rights. This form of argument has it roots in Hegel and Kant’s theories of autonomy, freedom and property. For as it can be argued that property is a necessary expression of self and thus fundamental to freedom, Kant’s idea of the Innate Right would suggest that anything fundamentally linked with self is inalienable and that there is a normative moral argument to support this. From this argument we recognise immorality of slavery – that is we do not simply recon the price of a person we exclude ‘persons’ from the market for goods. These arguments suggest that in the future, we may come to recognise aspects of self in online communities which are exceptional for the very same reasons. The question that remains is at which point public policy should begin to make such exceptions and whether we think that these possibilities should guide the hands of present day policy makers, for if we take the first step down the road of making avatars property it will most likely be harder to turn off that path later. References Anon (2003). Meridian 59 Frequently Asked Questions, available at: http://meridian59.neardeathstudios.com/M59-FAQ.shtml, access on05.10.03. Aihoshi, R. (2001). Meridian 59 Interview, available at: rpgvaultarchive.ign.com/features/interviews/m59.shtml, accessed on 05.10.03. Baird D. G. (2001). "Does Bogart Still Get Scale? Rights of Publicity in the Digital Age", John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Papers (second Series) No. 120, Available from: www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/workingpapers.html, Date accessed: 03/08/03. Beard. J. J. (2001). ‘Clones, Bones and Twilight Zones: Protecting the digital persona of the quick, the dead and the imaginary’, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 16:3. Burgess J., et. al., The History of LambdaMoo, available at: www-cse.stanford.edu/classes/cs201/projects-98-99/controlling-the-virtual-world/history/mud.html, accessed on 05.10.03. Burka, L. (1993). A Hypertext history of Multi-User Dimensions, online at: http://www.apocalypse.org/pub/u/lpb/muddex/essay/, accessed on 05.10.03. Carpenter J. L. (2001). ‘Internet Publication: The Case for an Expanded Right of Publicity for Non-Celebrities’, Virginia Journal of Law and Technology Vol. 6, Issue 3. Castronova, E. (2001). ‘Virtual worlds: A first-hand account of market and society on the cyberian frontier’, Gruter Institute Working Papers on Law, Economics, and Evolutionary Biology, Volume 2, Available at: hpapers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=294828, Date accessed: 22/02/02. Castronova, E. (2002). ‘On Virtual Economies’, CESifo Working Paper Series, No. 752, Available at: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=338500, Date accessed: 22/02/02. Clark, D. (2003). ‘Online Game Hopes to Convert Virtual Cash Into Real Revenue’, Wall Street Journal, January 8, 2003. Dibble, J. (2003a). ‘Scammed! (Saturday, July 05, 2003)’, Play Money Diary of a Dubious Proposition, [Blog], Available at: www.juliandibbell.com/playmoney/, Date accessed: 03/08/03. Duk-kun, B. (2003), Police Say Game Sites Hotbed of Cyber Crime, in The Korean Times 08-07-2003, available at: times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200308/kt2003080718330611980.htm, accessed on 05.10.03. Hanart, X., (2000). Polémique autour des macros EverQuest : tricherie ou non ?, GameSpot, available at demo.gamespot.fr/stories/news/0,1610,2011333,00.html, accessed on: 21/02/03. Haemmerli , A. (1999). ‘Whose Who ? The Case for a Kantian Right of Publicity’, Duke Law Journal, Vol 49 383. Jhi, K. Y., (?) Cyber Crimes in Korea, available at www.4law.co.il/Lea242.htm, accessed on 05.10.03. Koster, R. (2003), Post at October 5, 2003 09:16 AM in response to Duping (and sploits) on Terranova available at: terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2003/10/duping_and_splo.html, accessed on 05.10.03. Koster, R. (2003), Selling virtual property for real world money, available at: http://www.legendmud.org/raph/gaming/charsell.html, accessed on 05.10.03. Lee, J. (2003). ‘Data-Driven Subsystems for MMP Designers: A Systematic Approach’, Game Developer, Vol. 10, No. 8, 34-39. Lessig, L. (1999), Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Basic Books. Levander, M. (2001). Where Does Fantasy End?, Time Magazine, June 4, 2001, VOL.157 NO.22. McGowan, C. & McCullaugh, J. (1995). Entertainment in the Cyber Zone: Exploring the Interactive Universe of Multimedia, Random House. Morningstar, C. & Farmer, F. R., (1990).’The Lessons of Lucasfilm's Habitat, in Cyberspace: First Steps’, Michael Benedikt (ed.), 1990, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Mulligan, J. (2000). ‘Mommy, she talked dirty’, HappyPuppy.com, Available at: hwww.happypuppy.com/features/bth/bth-vol9-28.html, Date accessed: 15/07/2002. Nimue & Valentine (2003), How to Play aka Mortal Help, online at http://www.british-legends.com/beginner.htm, accessed on 05.10.03. Rasputin, (2002), 08:14 AM Friday March 15th, 2002 post to unknownhttp://www.unknownplayer.com/archive/02/03/15/442.php, accessed on 12.06.02 Rheingold. H.,(2000) Virtual Communities available at: www.rheingold.com/vc/book/, accessed on 05.10.03. Scheltema, D. (2003), On the "Moral Repugnancy" of External Markets for Virtual Goods, dislogue, available at: dansch.rr.nu/dislogue/archives/000121.html, accessed on 05.10.03. Scheurer, V. (2002). ‘For Sale – the concept of ownership of an online community’, Developer Magazine. Shokrizade, R. (2002). 03:01 PM Monday June 10th, 2002 post to http://www.unknownplayer.com/archive/02/06/10/737.php, accessed on 12.06.02 Smedley, J. (2000), Posting on eqvault.com, online at http://eqvault.ign.com/archive/arc73.shtml access on 15.07.2002. Stevens, M (2002), Sales of In-Game Assets: An Illustration of the continuing Failure of Intellectual Property Law to Protect Digital-Content Creators, 80 Texas L.R. 1513. Taylor, T.L. (2002), ‘“Whose game is this anyway?”: Negotiating corporate ownership in a virtual world,’ CGDC Conference Proceedings, Tampere University Press, p227-242. Woodcock, B. S. (2003), An Analysis of MMOG Subscription Growth – Version 7.0, available at http://pw1.netcom.com/~sirbruce/Subscriptions.html, accessed on 05.10.03. Ward M., (2003). ‘Does virtual crime need real justice?’, BBC Online News Monday, 29 September, 2003, available online at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3138456.stm, accessed on 05.10.03. Yee, N. (2002a), Codename Blue: An Ongoing Study of MMORPG Players, available at www.nickyee.com/codeblue/home.html Yee, N,.(2002b), The Daedalus Project, available at www.nickyee.com/daedalus