I just read an interesting article on the status of a lawsuit between a "Second Life" user and the operators. I've never really understood the purpose of mundane virtual worlds for entertainment value. Fantastic worlds or worlds with conflict are interesting to me, but a world where I can build a house or dress up in socially questionable ways, but are otherwise similar to real life, seems kind of silly to me. Diff'rent Strokes for different folks I guess. Perhaps the schism, in the parlance of Ward and Beaver, is the same as between wanting to play "House" and wanting to play "Cowboys and Indians." Perhaps the nexus is wanting to play "Doctor."
But I digress. The article is very interesting to me because (1) it's a glimpse at where the virtual property world is going, and (2) it describes an online contract where a judge gives the hapless user an escape from the "I ACCEPT" button.
1. Recently, there have been some articles where reporters have suggested that the IRS may TAX virtual income as real income. In most virtual worlds, taxing virtual income seems a little silly. Is the acquisition of items like the "Uber Sword of Uberness" income? How do you quantify its value? If I can't trade the item, and don't plan to sell my avatar, then when is the income recognized? For items I can trade, what determines the proper exchange rate? However, from what I understand of "Second Life," some of the questions are easier to answer. The article describes a system where real money and virtual money are exchanged via an official system (as opposed to the notoriously reviled "gold sellers" in more fantastical virtual worlds). It will be interesting to see how this case turns out, whether the confiscation of virtual property amounts to an actionable conversion.
2. When I click on "I have read and understand the terms and conditions for use of this software and accept them in their entirety," I think about how I probably haven't read and don't understand them. I just want to use the da** software! Well, rejoice fellow victims of contracts of adhesion, in this particular case, the judge said the terms don't necessarily bind the user. Interesting.
