subject: The Ownership Of Virtual Property [print this page] With view to the unexpected accidents like server failures, the operators don't dare to admit the concept of "the ownership of virtual property". Otherwise, they'll face the biggest nightmare if the online games encounter failures accidentally and players come to claim compensation for their virtual losses.
Theres still no related law in both China and America. Game developers' attitude toward the ownership of virtual property is just: strongly rejective. In the opinion of the analysts from iresearch.com, wow gold game operators will have to face an increasing number of botting and account stealing behaviors, and invest more money to guarantee stably-&-safely running systems, if they accept the virtual trade and the related trade platforms.
In terms of the ownership of virtual property, we turned to the chief adviser from the branch of Sam & Partners: The so-called "ownership of virtual property" only stands for the service contract relationship between world of warcraft gold gamers and game operators. Neither of the two owns the virtual goods actually. The so-called "virtual goods" are just some data saved in one or several computers, not real valuable property.
The virtual equipment's nature won't be changed no matter how much it costs or how many Internet fees the wow gold player has paid to achieve it. In the case that the equipment is missing, the player can just require the game operator to fulfill its obligations according to the service contract, i.e. recovering the equipment, or making compensation for the losses. But this is still not a relief based on the ownership of virtual property.
According to the previous researches, the so-called virtual currency in the banking field is actually electronic currency, which is the inevitable outcome of the new technology revolution and the world of warcraft gold online economic growth. The U.S. Congress once conducted discussion to tax the industry of virtual goods trade.
But since the opinions differed widely, there's no final conclusion made. They thought that the taxation requirements were still far from being satisfied. Some scholars from South Korea once discussed to protect the virtual goods from the prospective of intellectual property rights and endow the goods with real property rights to some extent. But this is just being discussed anyway.
