Aberystwyth University, UK
Copyright
2010:
A Second Life
or Death?
Kim Barker
[email protected]
Virtua
l
Enviro
nmen
ts

Bell (2008):
VWs and MMORPGs are
very different. A
definition of virtual
worlds is incredibly
difficult to agree upon.
“A synchronous, persistent
network of people, represented
as avatars, facilitated by
networked computers”


BUT makes no distinction
between games and
worlds!
Intera
ctive
Platfo
rms



Games now have a huge
market presence, bringing
the disputes to the
forefront e.g. Zynga
Hacker
Online gaming market
now worth more than
film market
World of Warcraft hit 12
million subscribers in
October 2010

MMO

RPGs
and
Copyr
ight

Copyright does not
protect ideas – only the
expression of an idea
Online games are classed
as computer software
Computer software in the
UK is protected by
copyright

Copyright
Designs and
Patents Act 1988
s3(1)(b)

3 main areas of gaming
challenge copyright:



The protection
given to
computer
software
The protection
given to ingame items
developed in
MMORPGs
Whether
copyright is the
most effective

Copyr
ight in
MMO 
RPGs




MMORPGs are fully immersive
multimedia interactive
environments
Typically they contain music,
graphics, videos, text, logos
etc
Each of these will attract
different copyrights, possibly
more than one!
The game code is protected
separately
No single protective
mechanism for the whole
game – each component is
protected by copyright
separately
Is that realistic or feasible
in the digital age?
MMO
RPGin
g
Issues



However
MMORPGs are at risk as a
whole

In-game items are also at risk
from theft, infringement and
hacking.

There are specific issues
relating to in-game properties
Avatars are at risk of being
copied – users have no rights
to have their appearance
protected

How do users protect their
virtual homes, virtual
businesses and virtual
property?
MMO 
RPGs,
EULAs 
and
IPRs 


MMORPGs are governed by
End User License
Agreements (EULAs)
These EULAs contain clauses
that govern IPRs
Copyright in MMORPGs is
therefore governed by a
contractual agreement
The EULAs are nonnegotiable
MMORPG IPRs are therefore
governed by contractual
clauses in adhesion contracts

Users have no
opportunity to
negotiate with EULAs
therefore have no
rights to virtual
property
EU
L
A
s
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y

Comprehensive click-wrap agreements
 Deal with many aspects of the relationship including:
 Liability
 Jurisdiction
 Dispute resolution
 Property rights

Regulate relationship between 1 user and developer

Do NOT regulate user-user relationships
Cli
ckwr
ap
EU
LA
s
EULAs are click-wrap contracts
 No case yet to challenge validity
of a game EULA

 Generally valid and enforceable
 Specht v. Netscape Communications
Corp. 2001
 Only limited declarations of
invalidity
 Declarations usually focus on
clauses rather than whole
agreements
 Bragg v Linden Research Inc (2007)
Copyri Copyright and contract are the
dominant methods joined by
ght
the EULA
and
 Contracts are used to control
Contr copyright and IP rights in games
and worlds
act
 Copyright and contract are
interdependent in a EULA context,
working in favour of
developers
Prope All EULAs differ slightly but
follow similar standard clauses
rty
Rights 2 very different approaches to
users' rights and property:
 EverQuest II – a MMORPG
 Second Life – a virtual world
Differ  Contrasting approaches of virtual
worlds and MMORPGs
ence?
 Virtual Worlds tend to allocate
property rights to users
Reflects the scripting and user
generated code / objects
 MMORPGs require users to
agree to waive their rights in
content and property
 Reflects the levels and the tasks
that are set in the game to progress
through the
hierarchical stages
“7.1 You retain any and all Intellectual
SeconProperty
Rights in Content
you
d Life:submit to the Service.
Prope
rty
You retain any and all Intellectual
Property Rights you already hold under
applicable law in Content you upload,
publish, and submit to or through the
Servers, Websites, and other areas of
the Service, subject to the rights,
licenses, and other terms of this
Agreement, including any underlying
rights of other users or Linden Lab in
Content that you may use or modify.”
EverQ
uest
II:
Prope
rty
“8. We and our suppliers shall retain all
rights, title and interest,
including, without limitation,
ownership of all intellectual
property rights relating to or
residing in the CD-ROM, the
Software and the Game, all
copies thereof, and all game
character data in connection
therewith. You acknowledge
and agree that you have not
and will not acquire or obtain
any intellectual property or
other rights, including any right
of exploitation, of any kind in or
to the CD-ROM, the Software or
the Game, including, without
limitation, in any artwork, music,
character(s), item(s), coin(s) or
other material or property,
and/or any compilation or
copyrightable arrangement of
any of the above (collectively,
"Rights"), and that all such
property, material, items and
Rights are exclusively owned by
us - except solely as SOE may
permit you to exploit Virtual
Concl
uding
Rema
rks






RMT offers essentially supercede
EULA provisions

Developers fail to take
action and by doing so,
endorse the activity

EULAs therefore appear
to be pick and choose
contracts!
Interdependence of copyright and
contract needs re-examining
EULAs need reconsidering
Users are beginning to directly
challenge EULA provisions by
engaging in outlawed activity
Dispute resolution provisions are
inadequate
EULAs are restrictive for users –
they favour developers
“By 2010 we should be
moving beyond the
Final
limited conceptual
thoug
framework of copyright
to a legal framework
ht!
that looks more closely
at the relationships any
individual or entity has
with information,
knowledge, culture or
creativity.”
B Fitzgerald, 2008.
We are now beyond 2010, but are
we beyond the limited
conceptual framework?