Seminar - Brisbane, 15 February 2007 - Videogames, Virtual Environments and the Law

I'll be hosting a two hour seminar this week at QUT. The topic is Videogames, Virtual Environments and the Law.

Anyone interested in the intersection of games and law should definitely come down and have a talk with us. We'll be covering content classification, competition law, cheating, and virtual liberties. RSVP by Tuesday.

• Presenters: Bjorn Bednarek, Dale Clapperton, Brendan Cosman, Nic Suzor. Chaired by Professor Brian Fitzgerald.

• Date: Thursday 15 February 2007

• Time: 12pm - 2pm

• Venue: Room 1064A, Level 7, Z Block, Gardens Point Campus QUT. Refreshments provided.

• RSVP: By email to l.silver@qut.edu.au by Tuesday 13 February

Videogames and virtual environments now rival film, television and other established media for industry size, consumer numbers and cultural influence. The rise of new technologies always challenges the law, and videogames and virtual environments have raised some interesting issues. The presenters will discuss issues of classification; cheating; freedom of speech and associated liberties; and competition law. The format will be quite informal, with attendees encouraged to participate in the discussions.

Computer and video games have been classified in the current method since 1996. The games industry, gamer demographics, and the games themselves have changed a great deal since then. The games industry now rivals the film industry in terms of dollar value, if not quite cultural influence; games are no longer just made for and targeted at single males under 20 years old; and the levels of complexity, interaction and realism are ever increasing.

This session will include discussion on: recent games Refused Classification; the lack of an R18+ rating for games; the effects of increasing graphical realism, freeform, sandbox gaming and user modifications; as well as the roles of context and interactivity.

Competitive play in computer games has spawned its own industry, complete with high profile cyber-athletes and big dollar sponsorship deals. In Australia, competitions on the latest games are used as marketing tools for game publishers, ISPs and game service providers. As with performance enhancing drugs in traditional sports, cheating in computer games has the potential to undermine the quality of competition to the detriment of all involved. What are the potential solutions that the legal system currently offers to this issue, and what more can or should be done?

A growing concern for virtual worlds, as more people spend more time inside them, and as they become ever more important for global communication, is to what extent behaviour will be dictated by the platform owner. If virtual worlds are purely private spaces, then there is little argument to suggest that they must provide a certain level of civil liberties. The platform owner is free to allow and disallow speech arbitrarily. However, as virtual worlds market themselves as being a place where business is done and participants can socialise and communicate, do they begin to acquire responsibilities towards their participants? Recent political protests and attempts by private actors to stifle news reporting in Second Life provide important examples of potential conflicts. This session will examine the basis and scope of any claim for freedom of speech and associated liberties in virtual environments.

The 'virtual' events inside virtual worlds are nonetheless controlled (or capable of being controlled) by 'real' companies in the 'real' world, and subject to 'real' laws. Markets have developed for the sale of 'virtual' items - so-called Real Money Trading (RMT), and markets exist for the provision of online gaming services. The conduct of participants in these real-world markets is regulated by the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA).

Contractual and technological attempts by games publishers to prohibit RMT result in the reduction or elimination of competition in markets for virtual items, leaving the publisher with a virtual (pun not intended) monopoly on supply. Games publishers also use DRM and copyright laws to enforce technological tying of a game to the publisher's online gaming service, and prevent the emergence of competing services (i.e. the bnetd project). These types of conduct may contravene Part IV of the TPA.