The debate around selling in-game items for real-world money, often referred to as “Rl Money,” is a contentious one within the gaming community. A common misconception is that trading digital assets acquired in video games for actual currency is unequivocally legal simply because it occurs within a virtual space. This perspective often argues that Terms of Service (ToS) are not laws, and digital items are not copyrighted material, therefore, selling them is a personal prerogative. However, this viewpoint overlooks critical aspects of copyright law that could potentially classify such transactions in a legally ambiguous, if not problematic, area.
While it’s true that game developers’ Terms of Service are contractual agreements and not statutory laws, and the direct copyright of individual in-game items is complex, the assertion that selling these items for RL money is automatically legally sound is not necessarily accurate. Section 117 of the U.S. Copyright Act, specifically subsection (b), introduces a layer of complexity to this issue.
Subsection (b) of § 117 addresses the “Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation” of computer programs. While seemingly technical, its implications for in-game items are significant. It stipulates that “Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program.” This can be interpreted to mean that any profit derived from the game, including through the sale of in-game items, without explicit legal consent from the game developer (who typically holds the copyright) could be construed as infringing upon their rights.
This interpretation suggests that while you might possess an in-game item within the game’s environment, the right to commercially exploit that item for RL money might not automatically be yours. The game developer, as the copyright holder of the game software, retains certain rights over how their program and its components are utilized for profit.
Therefore, while no widespread case law might explicitly detail jail time for selling a sword obtained in a game, dismissing the legal concerns entirely based on the argument that “it’s not illegal” is an oversimplification. The legal landscape surrounding digital assets and “RL money” transactions is still evolving, and Section 117 indicates that profiting from in-game items without developer consent could potentially be viewed under certain interpretations as a copyright infringement issue. It’s a nuanced area where the legality is not as clear-cut as simply stating “it’s not illegal.”
