The legal model of virtual reality in the Internet space (using the example of online multiplayer games)

The subject of study is the category of "virtual reality," as examined by the authors in the context of multiplayer online games.
The purpose of the article is to analyze modern approaches to defining the concept of virtual reality and the relationships arising from the circulation of virtual reality objects. The research methodology incorporates general scientific methods, as well as a comparative research method and a formal legal approach.
Results. An analysis of modern approaches to defining the concept of virtual reality and the relationships arising from the circulation of virtual reality objects suggests both the possibility and the necessity of regulating such relationships, particularly in the context of online games. In identifying the philosophical basis of this study, the authors of the article believe that the ontological principle of virtual reality lies in overcoming the limitations of human nature within a virtual environment. The desire to regulate all aspects of human life is excessive and does not lead to the desired consequences. However, virtual gaming actions will be subject to real law if the participant understands that their actions will have consequences in the real world. To support their position, the authors apply the so-called "magic circle theory": the rules in the game space differ from those in the real world until a violation of the game rules is detected, leading to negative consequences for the copyright holder in reality.
The authors focus on the relationships that develop between participants in multiplayer online games. These relationships are used as an example of virtual reality, which has been insufficiently studied from a legal perspective and lacks qualified legal regulation.
The authors identify three main approaches developed in legal scholarship regarding the description of virtual reality, gameplay, its objects, and relationships: reification of virtual world objects by applying property law to the relevant relationships; consideration of the relationships between players transferring game assets as services for modifying game parameters; and description of the relationships between players as the transfer of a claim (a claim) between the initial and subsequent users of virtual property under a contract for the provision of services for organizing the game process (an agreement between the initial user and the game organizer).
In examining the legal classification of relationships between players regarding the alienation of various in-game items in multiplayer online games, the authors seek to answer the question: are such transactions permissible, do they have legal significance, and which legal institution and branch of law should regulate the actions of players? The article concludes that in these cases, a transfer of rights of claim (right of claim) occurs between the users-players: the right of claim against the game developer, arising from the agreement with the gaming organization, is transferred. Currently, this classification of relationships is considered optimal, but it is temporary. According to the authors, neither property law nor contract law in their traditional forms can serve as a full-fledged regulator of virtual reality; sooner or later, courts and legislators will be forced to recognize virtual property as a special type of social relationship.

1. Fairfield J.A.T. Virtual Property. Boston University Law Review, 2005, vol. 85, pp. 1047–1102.

2. Astashkin A.M. Analysis of the ontological status of virtual objects: modal logic and contemporary French philosophy (G. Deleuze, Q. Meillassoux, J. Baudrillard and J. Derrida). Filosofskaya mysl', 2018, no. 10, pp. 75–85. DOI: 10.25136/2409-8728.2018.10.26563. (In Russ.).

3. Yee N. The Demographics, Motivations and Derived Experiences of Users of Massively-Multiuser Online Graphical Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 2006, vol. 15, iss. 3, pp. 309–329. DOI: 10.1162/pres.15.3.309.

4. Castronova E. Virtual Worlds: A First-Hand Account of Market and Society on the Cyberian Frontier, CESifo Working Paper No. 618. Munich, Center for Economic Studies & Ifo Institute for Economic Research Publ., December 2001. 40 p.

5. Pollitzer B. Serious Business: When Virtual Items Gain Real World Value. December 1, 2007. 51 p. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1090048.

6. Lastowka F.G., Hunter D. The Laws of the Virtual Worlds. California Law Review, 2004, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 1–73. DOI: 10.2307/3481444.

7. Trofimova A.A. Ontological specificity of virtual reality. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Tomsk State University Journal, 2012, no. 395, pp. 47–49. (In Russ.).

8. Arkhipov V.V. Virtual property: systemic legal issues in the context of the development of the computer games industry. Zakon, 2014, no. 9, pp. 69–90. (In Russ.).

9. Lakhani A. (ed.). Commercial Transactions in the Virtual World: Issues and Opportunities. Hong Kong, City University of Hong Kong Press, 2014. 376 p.

10. Arkhipov V.V. Virtual law: main problems of the new direction of legal studies. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Pravovedenie = Proceedings of Higher Educational Institutions. Pravovedenie, 2013, no. 2 (307), pp. 93–114. (In Russ.).

11. Rozhkova M.A. The concept of "property" in the legal provisions of the European Court of Human Rights, in: Rozhkova M.A. (ed.). Obyekty grazhdanskikh prav, Collection of articles, Moscow, Statut Publ., 2007, pp. 95–112. (In Russ.).

12. Arkhipov V. Computer games, "magic circle" and semantic limits of law. Mezhdunarodnyi zhurnal issledovanii kul'tury = International Journal of Cultural Research, 2019, no. 1, pp. 73–87. (In Russ.).

13. Bartle R.A. Pitfalls of Virtual Property. April 2004. Available at: https://mud.co.uk/richard/povp.pdf (accessed: May 11, 2025).

14. Ivanov A.A. Intellectual property and real rights: issues of correlation. Zakon, 2017, no. 1, pp. 84–90. (In Russ.).

15. Duranske B.T. Virtual Law: Navigating the Legal Landscape of Virtual Worlds. Chicago, ABA Publishing, 2008. xv + 461 p.