Protection of virtual property

Unlike commercial property, which is tangible, virtual property refers to internet
resources such as Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), email accounts, domains, and virtual
worlds (Fairfield, 2005). Virtual worlds, for instance, have gained popularity mainly among the
youth all over the globe, attracting many people willing to invest in them. However, virtual
property in virtual worlds and other areas has not received the attention to legislation, judicature,
and academic field. As a result, owners of virtual property face common problems every day,
including theft, deterrence, and the market deficiency (Zhi-gang, 2003). As a result, there is need
to protect virtual assets and end the rivalry between the owners of these assets which exists
despite the presence of End User License Agreement (EULA) terms between the users and
developers. This paper explains the strategy, which may be the best approach to the protection of
virtual property.
Contract law should be the ruling paradigm in the context of virtual worlds. Eventually,
the traditional prevailing laws of virtual property are used and comprises of three theories;
personhood theory, utilitarianism and Lockean labor theory (Yang and Wang, 2004). However,
these theories are a poor fit for the virtual property as they do not solve the standing conflicts
between the users and developers leaving contract law as the option which can address these
issues. Evidence supporting such an argument can be derived from the case of Marc Bragg

2
versus Linden Research Company, which indicates the incompetence of the current traditional
prevailing laws governing virtual property. Through a loophole he had found, Marc Woebegone,
an avatar created by Marc Bragg, manipulated an internet address accessing an auction to a piece
of land earlier than intended by the owner, Linden Research Company. Marc, who was a lawyer,
though that exploiting the loophole was not in violation of the terms which he had read, but his
avatar was instead thrown into exile having his identity deleted (Dougherty, 2007).
In this case, Bragg argued that Linden Company’s punishment had violated his virtual
property rights while on the other hand, Linden arguing that such rights did not exist in their
terms of the agreement. Thereupon, existence and application of contract laws in determining the
responsibilities and rights of developers and users should be in place. Besides, courts should
resolve such issues by recommendation of clear contractual laws to ease the tension between
property rights users and virtual world developers. In addition, there are economic consequences
that are brought by the implementation of traditional virtual property regime which can only be
eradicated through the imposition of contractual laws (Cifrino, 2014). Furthermore, traditional
property setting is insufficient in the virtual-world setting, which is evolving every day hence the
need for more developed contract laws to govern it. Important to note, only contract laws grant
the developers a chance to offer a favorable level of rights to their users and traditional
justification flaws when applied to virtual property (Moringiello, 2010).
On the whole, the virtual property has undeniable secondary market value since people
trade it every day. For this reason, users need legal protection when dealing with such trades
where the traditional property definition and interpretation of virtual property are inadequate.
Therefore, the need for well-defined contract laws arises which will relieve the tension between
the developers and users of the virtual property hence protecting the rights of each party.

3
Besides, the developer needs to monitor the behavior of the user to maintain and guard the
integrity of the virtual world. In so doing, several contract laws have to be in place, defining the
relationship between the two and the powers of the developer over the user.

4

References
Fairfield, J.A., 2005. Virtual property. BUL, Rev., 85, p.1047.
Zhi-gang, Y.U., 2003. On the Legal view of Virtual Property in the Net Games and the
Protection of Contract Law [J]. The Political Science and Law Tribute, 6.
YANG, L.X. and WANG, Z.H., 2004. On Real Right Attributes of Network Virtual Property and
Related Basic Rules [J]. Journal of the National Procurators College, 6.
Dougherty, C., 2007. Bragg v. Linden: Virtual property rights litigation. Linden: Virtual Property
Rights Litigation. E-Commerce Law & Policy, 9(7).
Cifrino, C.J., 2014. Virtual property, virtual rights: Why contract law, not property law, must be
the governing paradigm in the regulation of virtual worlds. BCL, Rev., 55, p.235.
Moringiello, J.M., 2010. What Can Virtual Worlds Do for Property Law? Fla. L. Rev., 62, p.159.