Is It Artificial?

All things deteriorate and die, so the notion of property is, itself, totally artificial. If we choose to assign a tangible value for something abstract, we agree to do so through every level of abstraction.

The notion that "virtual" property is not equivalent to physical property is anachronistic. If The Walt Disney Company (itself a virtual individual) can own Mickey Mouse (an idea, rendered by masses) for over 100 years (a super-human timespan; thanks, Sonny), then I can own that sword in Everquest and nobody, but nobody, can tell me that I don't have all the rights that apply to property ownership in the world where I exist (aka "Real").

Here's what sucks. As soon as you accept that abstraction, and there is no distinction drawn between the Real and the computer-mediated, all the rules apply, too. Nobody wants the rules unless they're in their favor.

I get that the point of Dusan Writer's post here is about the decisions of the platform owners and the 'suggestion' that they should make those decisions with the input of the participants, but I would argue: what authority do the players have other than that derived from their choice to participate?

I'm all for democratization, but Linden is more like Lex Luthor than Martin Luther - their goal is money (with a dash of megalomania - but hey, takes one to know one).