On a roll here...
According to ABC News Online, a Shanghai online gamer has killed a fellow player because the victim stole his virtual sword, sold it and kept the £462.57 resulting from the sale. Before taking matters into his own hands, the accused man had approached the police for support but was told that the property didn't exist, and therefore there was nothing the law could do about it.
I do feel odd about posting this after the last blog, but I feel it differs from the GTA issue on two counts: 1. The crime in real life had nothing to do with violence in the game. The victim "borrowed" the item from the accused and then went off and sold it. This isn't cool in real life either. 2. The item has real value in the real world.
The legal quagmire!
While China is a massive market for massively multiplayer online games, there are no laws protecting virtual property. There have been precedents in that and other regions to suggest that online items and avatars may be protected in the future, but thus far any convictions or rewards relating to the theft of virtual property have been as a result of crafty intellectual property and identity theft arguments.
Some expect this to change. From the article:
"The armour and swords in games should be deemed as private property as players have to spend money and time for them," said Wang Zongyu, an associate law professor at Beijing's Renmin University of China."
As Western player investment begins to rise to unexpected and surprising levels, attention is cautiously being paid to what role virtual stuff plays in real life courtrooms. The first State of Play conference programme features some of the papers presented on this topic.
The tongues at Terra Nova will be wagging over this one. Can't wait to read the conversation.
