“if augmented reality really catches on, and an internet environment overlaid on our real world surroundings becomes common, what will be the rules around using that augmented space?" [...]
Could you sell, lease, or subdivide the digital rights to your own home, yard, or lobby? Could you extract a toll, tax, or commission from virtual usage?
— bldgblog.com
Referencing multiple, international cases of private property disputes over the mega-popular Pokémon Go game, Geoff Manaugh floats the idea of zoning regulations for virtual and augmented reality instances.
As players wander through public and private spaces alike to catch 'em all, they inevitably trespass on certain stakeholders ideas' of what's allowed in that space—especially if the 'Trainers' are profiting financially in any way from occupying, say, a suburban front yard.
As these disputes proliferate (whether from Pokémon Go, or the next AR/VR game to takes its place in popularity), Manaugh's piece poses the following: What rights do virtual entities have to be in those spaces? What rights to property owners have to keep Snorlax from napping in their hammock?
More AR/VR on Archinect:
12 Comments
I hope Manaugh finishes his Pokemon Go book before this story / app / fad is gone in two weeks
This is just another CRAZY example of the idea that because something is being done on the net its somehow different. It isn't. Someone traipsing across your yard because they are playing an internet game is no different than them doing it because they are not. Someone putting a game goal post in your yard physically or via the net, without your consent, is the same thing. There is no need for new or extra regulation. there is a need for common sense and a MINIMAL amount of decency and respect.
yes but Steven, this can be documented accurately.
As long as they can access the point from a public right of way, it is fair game public use. It isn't really on your physical property. Even if they have a digital goal post on your property, you can interact with it from 20 meters, for the most part they can access it without trespassing. In the rare occasion where they can't access it without trespassing, then they aren't allowed to do so without your permission.
I'll say this much, if people cam crawling onto other people's private property, they can be getting themselves into some serious trouble. I think it will be important for these kinds of games to actually keep the location of these augmented reality 'items' (marked by a digital goal post) located in public right of ways and parks and some locations where approved authorization is made.
Property tresspassing does seem like a real issue that could arise.
However, the goal posts should be AT the public right of way like a sidewalk so that the interaction doesn't become a problem. What if the property has a big lot and the goal post is more than 60-ft from the public right of way. I think as long as these things are done in such a way that it doesn't require tresspassing, I think it would be appropriate.
This is basically GIS technology being applied in a video game.
Personally, I think the digital goal posts should be as reasonable as possible be located within the public right of way or clearly documented public parks and places that are public in nature. This is my personal take.
This way, we keep the aura of tresspassing property out of it.
Case in point
Ugh.
Thanks citizen,
I think Grossenbacher points are largely in-line with what I said above. It was only a matter of time before lawsuits arise.
but isn't Zoning really "virtual" anyway....
I'm sorry, I'm calling bullshit on all of this, especially the lawsuit. Unless you have some kind of 60 acre estate, unlikely in NJ, and since many of us have played Pokemon Go, we all know that you can catch one of these fucking characters from a few hundred feet, and never step on someone's private property.
Olaf, It's not so much zoning as much as legal boundary lines.
b3tadine, (LONG RESPONSE below)
the placement of the markers may not always be guaranteed to apply. People in my town may very well have a large enough lot where it could be trespassing.
For example, a 75-ft. x 150 ft. lot and the placement market might happen to be in the back yard. That means, you might already be 100+ ft. to just get to the back yard from the sidewalk. The back yard might be 50 ft deep. Therefore, it might be more than 125 ft.
Therefore, it's just possible that one might be having to commit multiple counts of trespassing just to get within range. While PokeMon Go is just one game but there is still a realistic possibility that other games that follows a similar idea yet place these digital items tied to GPS locations where a person has to be much closer. Lets say the person has to be within 3 meters to collect and the location of so called digital items at GPS locations requiring the player to enter another person's property in order to collect.
I agree that there is a realistic potential for this. With all these so called monsters / characters or any so called GPS coordinated linked digital items / virtual objects-entities, it is very easy for a mere person placing these virtual objects in a database linking the virtual objects to a GPS location that requires entering personal property.
All it takes is a little carelessness or goofing up on the placement in a GIS database. That's basically what this game is essentially using.
Seriously, this can happen. It can happen very easily. It is very unlikely the people placing these so called virtual objects/entities in a database is really thinking about people's property and boundary lines & where they are.
It happens. As for kids, I personally don't care so much. No different than kids playing lazer tag and just playing in the neighborhood. It's the unscrupulous adults and older kids/teens with a shady background that would be more concerning to people / property owners the most. If they play this game or a similar game, the developer of video games do need to take as much responsible control to minimize the general risk of people trespassing property.
While, technically, a neighbor in a rental house has to technically trespass legal boundary to get to parts of the the place, we don't really complain or have issues as long as they don't cause trouble or anything like that. There's a concrete walk way so it's more just matters of being good neighbors. However, there are less scrupulous people that would be more concerning.
We wouldn't really want kids running around into back yard or otherwise playing around in the yard or anywhere on the property because of liability if they get themselves hurt. While, I haven't YET seen kids, teens, or adult running around my back yard.
This Pokemon Go craze has been going on in Astoria, Oregon as well. It hasn't got out of control here from what I can tell. Other than maybe an annoyance in the downtown area. I do appreciate that it gets people out of their homes and all.
As long as its responsibly done, I don't see any real issue with it.
Portals
"The Pokéstops are submitted by users, so obviously they're based on places people go," Hanke said. "We had essentially two and a half years of people going to all the places where they thought they should be able to play Ingress, so it's some pretty remote places.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.