Can Mark Zuckerberg's "metaverse" remain under his control?

Métamorphosing the Internet seems to be the declared ambition as the Facebook group takes on the name "Meta". In the "metaverse", everyone would live a part of their life through their 3D avatar, and be able to maintain a certain number of social contacts. Organize a business meeting, for example.

The metaverse, the dream that Mark Zuckerberg seems to want to make a reality, is based as much on a concept that is not new - that of a digitalized universe in which users can interact creatively - as on a substantial advance if it were to rely on augmented reality with tools such as virtual reality headsets.

Ten years ago, in an article published in an academic journal, we proposed to model how the publishers of a virtual world, such as Second Life, There or World of Warcraft, could themselves control the life of their creation, without the need for intervention by a public regulator. A nodal point lies around the acceptance of general conditions of use, which many validate without reading.

The stakes are linked to one characteristic in particular. The digital universe generated is persistent, in the sense that the user's avatar continues to exist, at least in lines of computer code, even after the user has switched off his or her computer, tablet or smartphone.

Creativity, community, code and copyright

Our model is based on the 5C's. The first "C" is "creativity". Creativity is a key element of any virtual universe, and determines its success with the public. It is expressed through a blend of art (the quality of the graphics and scripting of the universe), technology (the ergonomics of the virtual world, its ease of use and the security it offers users) and social interaction.

"Community" is the second "C". The network formed within a virtual world can be based on strong ties. This is particularly the case when users share an underlying bond, such as loyalty to the product. The challenge of this second "C" is that the expansion of a community makes it more difficult to coordinate user preferences.

The third stands for "code". It's a set of instructions for a computer that determines whether or not users can perform certain actions in a virtual world. The more permissive the universe creator's code, the more control the user has over the evolution of the universe. Codes also ensure the security of virtual property.

Virtual property and now intellectual property with the fourth "C", copyright. In Romano-Germanic countries, this notion is now replaced by copyright. Provided there is originality, this protection can be applied to a number of creations: texts, fiction, digital images, characters, building design or even music.

Legal certainty? Weaknesse

Alone, these first four elements are not without limits. In particular, these universes cannot be the object of constant innovation, the larger the community of users, the greater the risk of conflict, and the more the computer code restricts the universe's possibilities, the less attractive it will be for users. Copyright and authors' rights, on the other hand, cannot protect all types of information.

Companies therefore resort to a fifth "C": the "contract". In order to access a virtual world, users must enter into a contract with the publishing company. This enables the latter to establish a certain level of control over the virtual world, and generally takes the form of General Terms and Conditions of Use (GTCU). It also aims to provide a sufficient level of legal security in relations with users.

Sufficient? The analysis we carried out on 20 virtual worlds highlighted the fragility, at least in theory, of these contracts. Not only did they often confiscate all property rights to the detriment of users (or at best granted them very limited rights), but they also expressed a clear disproportion between the rights and obligations of each party (company and user). All this was reinforced by their lack of legibility (in the sense of "comprehensibility") for a normal user.

Distributing rights

How can we respond? The proposals we put forward have even greater resonance now that we're talking about the possible emergence of the metaverse, where the field of possibilities is even greater thanks to immersive technologies, cryptocurrencies and the interpenetration of the real and virtual worlds.

In our view, contracts should recognize users' property rights in virtual goods. The aim is to get rid of the toxic mix of provisions that are difficult for users to understand and to their distinct disadvantage. Publishers would also benefit from legal instruments enabling them to exercise lasting and fair control over the metaverse, reducing the risk of governments taking over its regulation.

Particular attention will need to be paid to personal data. This is all the more essential given the high degree of permeability between the real and virtual worlds, and the fact that this data will be used to "profile" users in both.

It would also seem advisable to align the provisions of the contract with the development model chosen by the company controlling the metaverse. In the "free-to-play" model, where the user's creativity comes into play, copyright must be fully or partially attributed to the user. In particular, users must be authorized to exchange the virtual goods they own for real money.

The development of so-called "non-fungible tokens" will make it possible, thanks to the blockchain, to authenticate intangible assets created in the metaverse. This will make it possible to distinguish them from possible copies and facilitate their monetization, particularly with cryptocurrency. It seems likely that the state regulator will remain present in this field if these tokens come to be considered as financial securities.

Only responsible behaviour

Our final point of vigilance is to align contract provisions with the gaming model. If the company controlling the metaverse wants to avoid real-money transactions, a contract is not enough to discourage them. The key is to be able to count on a community of users who are generally hostile to this behavior, to have a computer code that makes exchanges difficult, and to set up a planned obsolescence that would eliminate the lasting value of virtual goods.

The more the metaverse interconnects real and virtual life, the more the avatar will be an almost Siamese projection of its user. And the more the economy of the virtual world becomes a real economy, the more public authorities will interfere in the regulation of the metaverse. They will come to consider that regulation by contract will be insufficient to prevent fraud, corruption or violation of free competition, to name but a few.

Only responsible corporate behavior and an ongoing commitment to compliance will prevent the metaverse itself from becoming nothing more than an avatar for the turpitudes of the real world. But will it really be possible to differentiate between what is real and what is virtual? Digitization doesn't create virtuality; it merely constructs our reality with codes.

This article is republished from The Conversation under Creative Commons license. Read the original article.