Abstract
Rewind to the early 1990s: an infant World Wide Web recently created by Tim Berners-Lee was starting to redefine the way people were connected globally. First came communication services (e.g. e-mail) and a shift from physical to digital marketplaces (e.g. ecommerce). Then came the rise of Internet platforms, in what is now deemed to be Web 2.0. The critics of Web 2.0 claim it is a spoiled version of early Internet promises: freedom from surveillance, online safety (even through anonymity)—in a nutshell, more control and power for the user. The answer to the problems of Web 2.0 is thought to be the third era of the Internet, namely the Decentralized Internet, based on (among others) blockchain technology. While a lot of literature has focused on the legal implications of blockchain assets such as cryptocurrencies from a banking perspective, not the same can be said about the consumer protection angle necessary in tackling the hype that has affected users who spent valuable financial resources on investing, playing on or using blockchain-based platforms. This chapter aims to make a contribution to fill this research gap, and focus on Decentraland, a virtual world where LAND, a non-fungible token is traded in order to allow users to build their own spaces on these plots. In doing so, the chapter elaborates on the notion of Internet of Value, and looks at the inner workins of Decentraland from the perspective of European law, more specifically the Digital Content Directive.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Catalina Goanta and Marieke Hopman, ‘Cryptocommunities as Legal Orders’ (2020) Internet Policy Review, 9(2), retrieved from https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/crypto-communities-legal-orders. For an expression of the cryptolibertarian ideology on the Silk Road, see for instance a forum post by Dread Pirate Roberts, the administrator of the first iteration of the Silk Road, about the platform’s goal: ‘Money is a tool, a means to an end. Our end here at Silk Road is not the accumulation of money, or the comfort and security it brings (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Our end is freedom from tyranny, and secured basic human rights for the people of the world. As awesome as it is, Silk Road is just the beginning in what will likely be a long journey’, <https://antilop.cc/sr/users/dpr/messages/20110727-0707-625-Re_SilkRoad_Fees.txt>, accessed 26 October 2019.
- 2.
Rechtbank Overijssel, 14 May 2014, ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2014:2667.
- 3.
Ibid.
- 4.
Terms of Service, Article 10.6, (Decentraland, a Virtual World on Open Standards, n.d.). All terms of service cited in this chapter were in force in October 2019.
- 5.
(Decentraland, a Virtual World on Open Standards, n.d.), Terms of Service, Article 1.
- 6.
(Decentraland, a Virtual World on Open Standards, n.d.), Terms of Service, Article 5.2.
- 7.
(Decentraland, a Virtual World on Open Standards, n.d.), Terms of Service, Article 5.9.
- 8.
(Decentraland, a Virtual World on Open Standards, n.d.)Terms of Service, Article 1.
- 9.
(Decentraland, a Virtual World on Open Standards, n.d.) The elements of the site are further described in Article 12.1 as follows: ‘The visual interfaces, graphics (including, without limitation, all art and drawings associated with Tools), design, systems, methods, information, computer code, software, ‘look and feel’, organization, compilation of the content, code, data, and all other elements of the Site and the Tools (collectively, the ‘Curator Materials’) are owned by the Curator, and are protected by copyright, trade dress, patent, and trademark laws, international conventions, other relevant intellectual property and proprietary rights, and applicable laws.’
- 10.
Additional conflicts exist between the articles of the Terms of Service and mandatory European consumer protection, such as the unfairness of consumer arbitration clauses, like the one in Article 18.1: ‘If the parties do not reach an agreed upon solution within a period of 30 days from the time informal dispute resolution under the Initial Dispute Resolution provision begins, then either party may initiate binding arbitration as the sole means to resolve claims, subject to the terms set forth below’. See (Engelmann, 2017). The same can be said for the limitation of liability included in e.g. Article 4 of the Terms of Service: ‘You and the third party private key manager you select are entirely responsible for security related to access of the Tools. The Curator bears no responsibility for any breach of security or unauthorized access to your account’.
- 11.
Decentraland, ‘White Paper’ <https://decentraland.org/whitepaper.pdf>.
- 12.
See for instance the Game Jam that took place between 16 and 30 September 2019, a ‘two-week online competition to create awesome interactive content that will form part of Decentraland’ <https://gamejam.decentraland.org>.
- 13.
See also Inge Graef, ‘Blurring Boundaries of Consumer Welfare’ in (Bakhoum, Gallego, Mackenrodt, & Surblytė-Namavičienė, 2018).
- 14.
In addition, there are considerable questions relating to private international law and the applicability of European consumer protection to international services. However, it is generally accepted that if providers of digital content or services target European consumers, they must abide by European consumer protection standards.
References
Abrahams, N. (2007). Media laws from virtual words. UNSW Law Journal, 30(1), 295–306.
Adimi, G. A. (2018). How the new generation cryptocurrencies decoded the investment contract code: Analysis of US and EU Laws IV: Scritti in Tema Di Diritto Dell’Economia. Bocconi Legal Papers, 1, 313–346.
Agrawal, G. (2019, May 8). All about ERC token standards. Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/coinmonks/all-about-erc-token-standards-9c759efdc791.
Alvarez, M. (2018). A comparative analysis of cryptocurrency regulation in the United States, Nigeria, and China: The potential influence of illicit activities on regulatory evolution. ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law, 1, 33–56.
Bakhoum, M., Gallego, B. C., Mackenrodt, M.-O., & Surblytė-Namavičienė, G. (2018). Personal data in competition, consumer protection and intellectual property law: Towards a holistic approach? Springer.
Berger, M., Jucker, A. H., & Locher, M. A. (2016, August). Interaction and space in the virtual world of second life. Journal of Pragmatics, 101, 83–100. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.05.009.
Boellstorff, T. (2015). Coming of age in second life: An anthropologist explores the virtually human. Princeton University Press.
Buchko, S. (2018). What is decentraland? (MANA). CoinDesk (blog). Retrieved from https://coincentral.com/decentraland-mana-beginners-guide/
Casper, C. (2018). How to buy MANA (Decentraland) your top 11 options. CoinIQ (blog). Retrieved from https://coiniq.com/how-to-buy-mana/.
Chen, A. (2011). The underground website where you can buy any drug imaginable. Gawker. Retrieved from http://gawker.com/the-underground-website-where-you-can-buy-any-drug-imag-30818160.
Chesney, T., Chuah, S.-H., & Hoffmann, R. (2009). Virtual world experimentation: An exploratory study. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72(1), 618–635. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2009.05.026.
Consultant, The Cryptocurrency. (2019). What is the internet of values? Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/swlh/what-is-the-internet-of-values-3f14b5d35a90.
Davidson, S., De Filippi, P., & Potts, J. (2018). Blockchains and the economic institutions of capitalism. Journal of Institutional Economics, 14(4), 639–658. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137417000200.
De la Rocha, A. (2018). Anatomy of an ERC: An exhaustive survey. Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/coinmonks/anatomy-of-an-erc-an-exhaustive-survey-8bc1a323b541.
Decentraland (n.d.). Decentraland. Retrieved from https://decentraland.org.
Decentraland/Stoneage-Browser (n.d.). GitHub. Retrieved from https://github.com/decentraland/stoneage-browser.
Storj (n.d.). Decentralized Cloud Storage—Storj. Retrieved from https://storj.io.
DTube (n.d.). Retrieved from https://d.tube/.
Ducuing, C. (2019). How to make sure my cryptokitties are here forever? The complementary roles of blockchain and the law to bring trust. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 10(2), 315–329. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2019.39.
Engelmann. (2017). International commercial arbitration and the commercial agency directive: A perspective from law and economics. Springer.
Gallego, M. D., Bueno, S., & Noyes, J. (2016). Second life adoption in education: A motivational model based on uses and gratifications theory. Computers & Education, 100, 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.001.
Garofalo, D. A. (2013). Make the connection: Posting on social media. In D. A. Garofalo, Building communities (pp. 107–159). Chandos Publishing Social Media Series. Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-735-4.50005-1.
Gikay, A. A. (2018). Regulating decentralized cryptocurrencies under payment services law: Lessons from European Union Law. Case Western Reserve Journal of Law, Technology and the Internet, 9, 1–35.
Graphite. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://graphitedocs.com.
Grimmelmann, J. (2014). Anarchy, status updates, and Utopia. Pace Law Review, 35(1), 135–153.
Hansen, D. L., Shneiderman, B., & Smith, M. A. (2011a). Chapter 3—Social network analysis: Measuring, mapping, and modeling collections of connections. In D. L. Hansen, B. Shneiderman, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL (pp. 31–50). Boston: Morgan Kaufmann. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-382229-1.00003-5.
Hansen, D. L., Shneiderman, B., & Smith, M. A. (2011b). Chapter 9—Thread networks: Mapping message boards and email lists. In D. L. Hansen, B. Shneiderman, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL (pp. 127–141). Boston: Morgan Kaufmann. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-382229-1.00009-6.
Hansen, D. L., Shneiderman, B., & Smith, M. A. (2011c). Part I. Getting started with analyzing social media networks. In D. L. Hansen, B. Shneiderman, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL (Vol. 1). Boston: Morgan Kaufmann. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-382229-1.00016-3.
Hoekstra, J., & Diker-Vanberg, A. (2019). The proposed directive for the supply of digital content: Is it fit for purpose? International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 33(1), 100–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2019.1562638.
Hughes, E. (1993). A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto. Retrieved from https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html.
Kalning, K. (2007). If second life isn’t a game, what is it? Msnbc.Com. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17538999/ns/technology_and_science-games/t/if-second-life-isnt-game-what-it/.
Karniell, Y., & Bates, S. (2010). Copyright in second life. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, 20(3), 433–456.
Kayser, J. J. (2006). The new new-world: Virtual property and the end user license agreement notes & comments. Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, 1, 59–86.
Khan, J. (2016). To what extent can blockchain be used as a tool for community guidance. Edinburgh Student Law Review, 2, 114–133.
Klastrup, L. (2009). The worldness of EverQuest: Exploring a 21st century fiction. Game Studies, 9(1) Retrieved from http://gamestudies.org/0901/articles/klastrup.
Krzywinska, T. (2006). Blood scythes, festivals, quests, and backstories: World creation and rhetorics of myth in World of Warcraft. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1555412006292618.
Lastowka, F. G., & Hunter, D. (2004). The laws of the virtual worlds. California Law Review, 1, 1–74.
Lee, J. Y. (2019). A decentralized token economy: How blockchain and cryptocurrency can revolutionize business. Business Horizons, 62(6), 773–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.08.003.
Lee, J., Yoo, B., & Jang, M. (2019). Is a blockchain-based game a game for fun, or is it a tool for speculation? An empirical analysis of player behavior in crypokitties. In J. J. Xu, B. Zhu, X. Liu, M. J. Shaw, H. Zhang, & M. Fan (Eds.), The ecosystem of e-business: Technologies, stakeholders, and connections (pp. 141–48). Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22784-5_14.
Lehmann, M. (2016). A question of coherence: The proposals on EU contract rules on digital content and online sales. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 23(5), 752–774. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X1602300502.
Lidsky, L. B. (2009). Anonymity in cyberspace: What can we learn from John Doe publicity, privacy, and intellectual property meet the first amendment. Boston College Law Review, 5, 1373–1392.
Liedel, D. A. (2018). The taxation of bitcoin: How the IRS views cryptocurrencies. Drake Law Review, 1, 107–146.
Locher, M. A., Jucker, A. H., & Berger, M. (2015, September). Negotiation of space in second life newbie interaction. Discourse, Context & Media, Communicating time and place on digital media, 9, 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2015.06.002.
Malaby, T. (2011). Making virtual worlds: Linden lab and Second Life. Cornell University Press.
Manning, P. (2019, February). Free the code, free the world: The chronotopic ‘worldness’ of the virtual world of ryzom. Language & Communication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.01.002.
Marshall, A. (2014, January). Sensemaking in second life. Procedia Technology, SLACTIONS 2013: Research conference on virtual worlds—Learning with simulations, 13, 107–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2014.02.014.
McCullagh, D. (2001). Technology as security symposium: Is technology changing the law. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 1(2002), 129–142.
Mearian, L. (2019). Global blockchain spending to hit $12.4B by 2022; Finance Sector Leads Growth | Computerworld. Retrieved from https://www.computerworld.com/article/3356502/global-blockchain-spending-to-hit-124b-by-2022-finance-sector-leads-growth.html.
Mistry, K. (2018). P(L)Aying to win: Loot boxes, microtransaction monetization, and a proposal for self-regulation in the video game industry student notes. Rutgers University Law Review, 1, 537–578.
Mowbray, M. (2006). Implementing pseudonymity. SCRIPTed: A Journal of Law, Technology and Society, 1, 34–44.
Nadler, P., & Guo, Y. (2019, October). The fair value of a token: How do markets price cryptocurrencies? Research in International Business and Finance, 101108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2019.101108.
Nakamoto, S. (2009). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Retrieved from https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf.
Partala, T. (2011). Psychological needs and virtual worlds: Case second life. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(12), 787–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.07.004.
Pearce, C. (2011). Communities of play: Emergent cultures in multiplayer games and virtual worlds. MIT Press.
Popper, N. (2018, December 21). Timothy C. May, Early Advocate of Internet Privacy, Dies at 66. The New York Times, sec. Obituaries. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/21/obituaries/timothy-c-may-dead.html.
R/Decentraland—ETA on Iron Age? (n.d.). Reddit. Retrieved October 27, 2019, from https://www.reddit.com/r/decentraland/comments/a4nnza/eta_on_iron_age/.
Savelyev, A. (2018). Some risks of tokenization and blockchainizaition of private law. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(4), 863–869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2018.05.010.
Schultz, A. R. (2019, May 22). Blockchain-based virtual world decentraland will finally launch its public beta in june, but it won’t be very decentralized (Yet) and it won’t support VR. Ryan Schultz. Retrieved from https://ryanschultz.com/2019/05/22/blockchain-based-virtual-world-decentraland-will-finally-launch-its-public-beta-in-june-but-it-wont-be-very-decentralized-yet-and-it-wont-support-vr/.
Sein, K. (2017). What rules should apply to smart consumer goods: Goods with embedded digital content in the borderland between the digital content directive and normal contract law. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 2, 96–110.
Sergeenkov, A. (2019). Why blockchain and VR might be a match made in digital heaven. Retrieved from https://hackernoon.com/why-blockchain-and-vr-might-be-a-match-made-in-digital-heaven-3b0c849978cf.
Shelton, A. K. (2010). Defining the lines between virtual and real world purchases: Second life sells, but who’s buying? Computers in Human Behavior, Online Interactivity: Role of Technology in Behavior Change, 26(6), 1223–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.019.
Skinner, C. (2016). ValueWeb: How fintech firms are using bitcoin blockchain and mobile technologies to create the internet of value. Marshall Cavendish International Asia Pte Ltd.
Song, J. Y., Chang, W., & Song, J. W. (2019). Cluster analysis on the structure of the cryptocurrency market via Bitcoin–Ethereum filtering. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 527, 121339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.121339.
Sundquist, M. (2012). Online privacy protection: Protecting privacy, the social contract, and the rule of law in the virtual world. Regent University Law Review, 25, 153–183.
Taylor, T. L. (2009). Play between worlds: Exploring online game culture. Cambridge: MIT Press.
The Internet of Value: What It Means and How It Benefits Everyone. (2017, June 21). Ripple (blog). Retrieved from https://www.ripple.com/insights/the-internet-of-value-what-it-means-and-how-it-benefits-everyone/.
The Million Dollar Homepage—Own a Piece of Internet History!. (n.d.). Retrieved October 28, 2019, from http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/.
Truong, N. B., Um, T.-W., Zhou, B., & Lee, G. M. (2018). Strengthening the blockchain-based internet of value with trust. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) (pp. 1–7). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICC.2018.8423014.
Warburton, J. M. (2016). An innovative legal approach to regulating digital content contracts in the EU special issue on law and governance in the digital era. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 3, 246–255.
Wein, K. (2001). Dendrite v. Doe: A new standard for protecting anonymity on internet message boards developments in science and technology law—Part I: Internet law. Jurimetrics, 4, 465–478.
William, M. (2018). ERC-20 Tokens, Explained. Cointelegraph. Retrieved from https://cointelegraph.com/explained/erc-20-tokens-explained.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Goanta, C. (2020). Selling LAND in Decentraland: The Regime of Non-fungible Tokens on the Ethereum Blockchain Under the Digital Content Directive. In: Lehavi, A., Levine-Schnur, R. (eds) Disruptive Technology, Legal Innovation, and the Future of Real Estate. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52387-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52387-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-52386-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-52387-9
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)