8 ms·

Is there already a legal discussion going on about who actually owns the 'virtual' real space? Let's say you have company A and company B who offer the same se

Is there already a legal discussion going on about who actually owns the 'virtual' real space? Let's say you have company A and company B who offer the same service in a city. Company A now buys a sponsored virtual Ingress portal / PokeStop / ad-banner in the real-world location of company B with the message "Come visit us at location of company A, we have more pokestops and we offer better prices". Would this be legal?

btown 10y ago
This already occurs in the third-party controlled "virtual reality" of Google search ads, where you can bid on a competitor's brand name. As this article indicates, there are drawbacks that keep this practice rare if the ad network operator is thoughtful in building a fair market: http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2015/06/12/bidding-on-competitor-brands http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2015/06/12/bidding-on-comp...
ianhawes 10y ago
I don't see how it would be illegal. In Baltimore, there are 2 competing casinos about 10 miles apart off of the same highway. When you approach the newer casino from any direction, there are multiple billboards advising you to keep driving to the older competing casino for better payouts and other bonuses.
- yoodenvranx 10y ago
  Yes, but doing it in augmented reality means that casino A could put ads _inside_ of casino B. Just imagine casino A would pay some guys to carry advertising sign inside of casino B. Those guys would be removed instantly. Or let's say somebody creates a AR game where you can leave signs with random texts everywhere. And then somebody decides to plant a sign with "OP is bundle of sticks" on your property. In the real world you can just remove the sign and call the cops, but what would you do in the AR world? If there will be too much shenanigans I can see that in the future your real property boundary might translate into the virtual AR world.
  - DavidWanjiru 10y ago
    I suspect this will eventually go the way domain names went. Initially, any random person would register microsoft.com, and Microsoft didn't have much recourse back then. Now they do, I believe, and I feel like this is a similar question of ownership of something virtual.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    Is this augmented reality a public space or specific to an app? I'm thinking that will be one determinate.
  - DavidWanjiru 10y ago
    I suspect this will eventually go the way domain names went. Initially, any random person would register microsoft.com, and Microsoft didn't have much recourse back then. Now they do, I believe, and I feel like this is a similar question of ownership of something virtual.
  - ominous 10y ago
    Inside I can access the mcdonald's website when I am inside a burguer king. I can phone a friend and get a suggestion to buy a Xbox when I am evaluating footage from a PS4. I can be at home, access the starbucks website and get a pop-up from hangouts where a friend might ask me to have coffee... in his house! What do you mean inside?
    - spdustin 10y ago
      Yes. But you don't see a poster for a Whopper while looking at the McDonalds menu board, do you?
      - kirykl 10y ago
        But why couldn't you be free to see the Whopper poster in that case? McDonalds owns the store, they don't own my vision while I'm in their store. Until we are given implants at birth, the user chooses to enable augmented reality
794CD01 10y ago
It's not actually in copmany B's space. It's in Niantic's database and the associated coordinates match the location of company B. The law doesn't come into it. You don't own information just because it happens to be about you. Especially if it's about a real world location which you only temporarily lease.
- adrianN 10y ago
  > You don't own information just because it happens to be about you. The lawsuits that force google to blur faces and some houses in Germany seem to indicate otherwise. Those are privacy related problems, but I think they still show that your blanket statement needs more nuance.
  - 794CD01 10y ago
    Sure, some countries have stupid laws. I would still say homosexuals are people who deserve the same rights as anyone else, even though there are countries where that is not true.
- noddingham 10y ago
  Except the law does come into. If the coordinates in Niantic's database are on private property, then you'd be trespassing.
  - x1798DE 10y ago
    Only if you physically go there.
Vexs 10y ago
Interesting possibilities- there's already examples of people having gyms on their houses and having people milling around their yards all day. There was also an "incident" where a koffing showed up at a holocaust museum- and the museum got pissed. Like someone below me mentioned, virtual ads could be pretty powerful too, and, y'know, what's to stop someone from constructing virtual dicks in front of a building. (Besides whoever runs the AR service) There's really not a DMCA-like-thing for AR stuff.
Mahn 10y ago
Right now technically the virtual representation of real life locations belongs to the developer, so I don't think what you describe would hold in court at all. But it's a conversation that we may need to have depending on how massive and pervasive these AR games/services become.
keithrl 10y ago
Lawyer here. I wrote a pretty lengthy analysis on implications of AR application intersecting with real property: http://associatesmind.com/2016/07/11/is-pokemongo-illegal/ http://associatesmind.com/2016/07/11/is-pokemongo-illegal/ It's a novel issue of first impression. There is no controlling statute or case law. The most we can do is make informed speculation at this point. My guess is that at some point a court will find that property rights will extend to geo-spatial, virtual property boundaries. That is, you retain control of how your property appears in 'cyberspace.'
- wyager 10y ago
  Jesus, I hope that's false. Cyberspace isn't real. It's absolutely insane to suggest that one ought to have control over some abstract data just because there exists a vague correspondence between some part of that data and some piece of land they own in the real world. Should photographs of buildings be illegal? After all, it's just a virtual representation of the real property. In fact, it's a much closer representation than just "these fake coordinates vaguely resemble these real coordinates".
  - tremon 10y ago
    I think you're missing context here: the GP specifically said he was talking about implications of AR application intersecting with real property.
    - yoodenvranx 10y ago
      Yes, exactly, I am not talking about some random virtual world but specifically about AR and its connection to the real world. I wonder what the military thinks about the Ingress portals and PokemonStops on their bases. In worst case that will results in some virtual ban zones around military compounds where AR is forbidden.
    - BatFastard 10y ago
      AR and its intersection with real property is a HUGE topic. Can people post ads on your building in AR? Can they write nasty things about you and your customers? Can they setup trap for drug dealers? There are literally hundreds of such questions. Do you have control over how Google maps depicts your properties, how about China Netcom? AR is the worlds biggest genie, and people are just starting to become aware of it. The idea of "Controlling AR" is ridiculous! Its going to come from a million places..
bbctol 10y ago
I hope there's at least going to be some agreed-upon best practices. Pokemon Go seems to draw from the Ingress dataset of interesting places, which excludes a lot of private residences, unless your house is particularly interesting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/07/11/what-happens-when-pokemon-go-turns-your-home-into-a-gym/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/07... I'm glad that guy seems okay with it, but there are real repercussions to a third party instantly turning your home into a location in a game without your permission or even giving warning. If these sorts of games become more popular, someone will start raising a stink.

btown 10y ago

This already occurs in the third-party controlled "virtual reality" of Google search ads, where you can bid on a competitor's brand name. As this article indicates, there are drawbacks that keep this practice rare if the ad network operator is thoughtful in building a fair market: http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2015/06/12/bidding-on-competitor-brands http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2015/06/12/bidding-on-comp...

ianhawes 10y ago

I don't see how it would be illegal. In Baltimore, there are 2 competing casinos about 10 miles apart off of the same highway. When you approach the newer casino from any direction, there are multiple billboards advising you to keep driving to the older competing casino for better payouts and other bonuses.

yoodenvranx 10y ago
Yes, but doing it in augmented reality means that casino A could put ads _inside_ of casino B. Just imagine casino A would pay some guys to carry advertising sign inside of casino B. Those guys would be removed instantly. Or let's say somebody creates a AR game where you can leave signs with random texts everywhere. And then somebody decides to plant a sign with "OP is bundle of sticks" on your property. In the real world you can just remove the sign and call the cops, but what would you do in the AR world? If there will be too much shenanigans I can see that in the future your real property boundary might translate into the virtual AR world.
- DavidWanjiru 10y ago
  I suspect this will eventually go the way domain names went. Initially, any random person would register microsoft.com, and Microsoft didn't have much recourse back then. Now they do, I believe, and I feel like this is a similar question of ownership of something virtual.
- protomyth 10y ago
  Is this augmented reality a public space or specific to an app? I'm thinking that will be one determinate.
- DavidWanjiru 10y ago
  I suspect this will eventually go the way domain names went. Initially, any random person would register microsoft.com, and Microsoft didn't have much recourse back then. Now they do, I believe, and I feel like this is a similar question of ownership of something virtual.
- ominous 10y ago
  Inside I can access the mcdonald's website when I am inside a burguer king. I can phone a friend and get a suggestion to buy a Xbox when I am evaluating footage from a PS4. I can be at home, access the starbucks website and get a pop-up from hangouts where a friend might ask me to have coffee... in his house! What do you mean inside?
  - spdustin 10y ago
    Yes. But you don't see a poster for a Whopper while looking at the McDonalds menu board, do you?
    - kirykl 10y ago
      But why couldn't you be free to see the Whopper poster in that case? McDonalds owns the store, they don't own my vision while I'm in their store. Until we are given implants at birth, the user chooses to enable augmented reality

794CD01 10y ago

It's not actually in copmany B's space. It's in Niantic's database and the associated coordinates match the location of company B. The law doesn't come into it. You don't own information just because it happens to be about you. Especially if it's about a real world location which you only temporarily lease.

adrianN 10y ago
> You don't own information just because it happens to be about you. The lawsuits that force google to blur faces and some houses in Germany seem to indicate otherwise. Those are privacy related problems, but I think they still show that your blanket statement needs more nuance.
- 794CD01 10y ago
  Sure, some countries have stupid laws. I would still say homosexuals are people who deserve the same rights as anyone else, even though there are countries where that is not true.
noddingham 10y ago
Except the law does come into. If the coordinates in Niantic's database are on private property, then you'd be trespassing.
- x1798DE 10y ago
  Only if you physically go there.

Vexs 10y ago

Interesting possibilities- there's already examples of people having gyms on their houses and having people milling around their yards all day. There was also an "incident" where a koffing showed up at a holocaust museum- and the museum got pissed. Like someone below me mentioned, virtual ads could be pretty powerful too, and, y'know, what's to stop someone from constructing virtual dicks in front of a building. (Besides whoever runs the AR service) There's really not a DMCA-like-thing for AR stuff.

Mahn 10y ago

Right now technically the virtual representation of real life locations belongs to the developer, so I don't think what you describe would hold in court at all. But it's a conversation that we may need to have depending on how massive and pervasive these AR games/services become.

keithrl 10y ago

Lawyer here. I wrote a pretty lengthy analysis on implications of AR application intersecting with real property: http://associatesmind.com/2016/07/11/is-pokemongo-illegal/ http://associatesmind.com/2016/07/11/is-pokemongo-illegal/ It's a novel issue of first impression. There is no controlling statute or case law. The most we can do is make informed speculation at this point. My guess is that at some point a court will find that property rights will extend to geo-spatial, virtual property boundaries. That is, you retain control of how your property appears in 'cyberspace.'

wyager 10y ago
Jesus, I hope that's false. Cyberspace isn't real. It's absolutely insane to suggest that one ought to have control over some abstract data just because there exists a vague correspondence between some part of that data and some piece of land they own in the real world. Should photographs of buildings be illegal? After all, it's just a virtual representation of the real property. In fact, it's a much closer representation than just "these fake coordinates vaguely resemble these real coordinates".
- tremon 10y ago
  I think you're missing context here: the GP specifically said he was talking about implications of AR application intersecting with real property.
  - yoodenvranx 10y ago
    Yes, exactly, I am not talking about some random virtual world but specifically about AR and its connection to the real world. I wonder what the military thinks about the Ingress portals and PokemonStops on their bases. In worst case that will results in some virtual ban zones around military compounds where AR is forbidden.
  - BatFastard 10y ago
    AR and its intersection with real property is a HUGE topic. Can people post ads on your building in AR? Can they write nasty things about you and your customers? Can they setup trap for drug dealers? There are literally hundreds of such questions. Do you have control over how Google maps depicts your properties, how about China Netcom? AR is the worlds biggest genie, and people are just starting to become aware of it. The idea of "Controlling AR" is ridiculous! Its going to come from a million places..

bbctol 10y ago

I hope there's at least going to be some agreed-upon best practices. Pokemon Go seems to draw from the Ingress dataset of interesting places, which excludes a lot of private residences, unless your house is particularly interesting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/07/11/what-happens-when-pokemon-go-turns-your-home-into-a-gym/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/07... I'm glad that guy seems okay with it, but there are real repercussions to a third party instantly turning your home into a location in a game without your permission or even giving warning. If these sorts of games become more popular, someone will start raising a stink.