论文部分内容阅读
Recently, a woman surnamed Wang in Shenyang City, northeast China’s Liaoning Province, contacted Tencent, operator of China’s most popular instant messaging service and social networking platform QQ, and requested access to her husband’s account. A few weeks previously, Wang’s husband was killed in a car accident and she wanted access to the letters and photos stored in her husband’s QQ account. According to Wang, the account held the couple’s correspondence from the time they started dating, but she did not know her husband’s password.
Tencent rejected Wang’s request and explained that the QQ accounts belonged to the company rather than users. This, the company said, was in line with QQ’s terms of service.
Wang was left wondering why she was unable to inherit what to her was effectively her husband’s online property.
After it was first reported by the China Business Morning View newspaper, the story immediately became a headline nationwide and triggered heated debates among Chinese netizens on several major social networking sites, with the majority of comments criticizing Tencent for its “inhumane” treatment of deceased users and their families.
Later, Tencent officially attributed the“delay” in handling Wang’s application to its strict policies in protecting users’ privacy. The company also promised to help Wang access her husband’s account after verifying her identity with local authorities.
According to the China Business Morning View, a man surnamed Liu is contemplating what will happen to his QQ number once he dies. In China a catchy QQ account number is as prized an asset as a personalized car license plate. Liu said that he had received offers for as much as 10,000 yuan ($1,587), for the number. As such, he regards the number as an asset which, like a valuable vase, he should be able to pass on to his children.
Meanwhile, many veteran online game players said that their gaming achievements and virtual weapons were worth even more, and ought to be protected in law and given the same status as physical items.
Whose account?
Under Tencent’s terms of service, the right to use an account belongs solely to the original applicant, and this right shall not be gifted, loaned, rented, transferred or sold.
“Similar clauses exist for almost all online services. Users can only use these digital products but don’t own them, which I believe is rather reasonable,” said veteran Internet industry observer Zhang Yi. He told Yangcheng Evening News in Guangzhou, south China’s Guangdong Province, that if users had ownership of the accounts, they would be justified in claiming compensation if a service provider were to go bankrupt.
Zhang insists that only digital products that charge a fee can be classified as virtual assets, but free products are not. “While it is true that users spend time and effort maintaining their accounts and adding value to them, this added value only exists as long as service providers continue to operate,”Zhang explained.
However, some legal experts are prepared to endorse a broader understanding of what can be classified as virtual assets. Zhao Zhanling, a senior researcher with the Center for Intellectual Property Rights Studies at Beijing-based China University of Political Science and Law, believes that having value is the essential character of virtual assets. “Instant messaging accounts, online game accounts and microblog accounts all have the properties of assets, although they are different from traditional assets,” Zhao said.
Zhao also said that virtual assets should include user scores and rankings at online forums or games since users have spent time, effort and, in some cases, money in obtaining them.
At present, China does not have any laws governing the protection of virtual assets or even a clear definition of what they are.
In 2003, a group of 19 lawyers from southwest China’s Sichuan Province submitted a proposal to the National People’s Congress (NPC), the country’s top legislature, calling for virtual asset legislation after local police authorities refused to investigate an online game player’s complaint regarding the theft of his online gaming account and scores.
In 2008, the State Administration of Taxation issued a notice on its website, saying that individuals who profit by selling the virtual currency used in online games should pay income tax at a rate of 20 percent. This was seen as an indirect recognition of virtual assets as part of the economy.
The Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Commerce jointly issued another notice on the use of virtual cur-
rency in online games in June 2009.“Virtual currency can only be traded for virtual goods and services provided by its issuer, not real goods or services from other providers,” said the notice.
Given a steady increase in cases involving the trade and theft of online game accounts and achievements nationwide, NPC deputies, law professors and operators of social networking sites have been calling on the Supreme People’s Court to release judicial interpretations regarding virtual assets. However, the court said drafting such interpretations is impossible given the absence of legislation governing virtual assets.
“Cyber companies and their customers are encouraged to solve their disputes through arbitration. The courts should also try these cases fairly and provide convincing rulings,” Liu Haijun, a law professor at Renmin University of China in Beijing, said in an interview with Beijing-based Procuratorate Daily.
Protection of privacy
Although the majority of netizens sympathized with Wang’s plight and condemned Tencent for declining her request to take over her deceased hus- band’s QQ account, others argue that social networking sites shouldn’t grant permission for anyone to access a deceased user’s account without strict identity verification procedures.
“Protecting privacy is also a form of paying due respect to the deceased,” wrote one micro-blogger.
Zhang also believes that striking a balance between recognizing the value of online assets and protecting online privacy will not be easy. “There are times when users may not want even those closest to them to access their online files,” Zhang said.
As controversies over online heritage have attracted more attention, a large number of bloggers are giving serious thought to how their cyberspace identity will be preserved and passed on after their death. Many of them said that they would include their QQ passwords in their wills.
The dilemma has also boosted the profile of a new variety of entrepreneurs: digital heritage management service providers. This new breed of online business seeks to monetize Internet users’ desire to manage their online lives after their deaths.
Some companies promise to manage the details of customers’ digital death by storing their passwords and keeping records of
who gets access to certain information. The companies will send their customers e-mails regularly to make sure that they are still alive. If a customer fails to reply to any of the periodic confirmation e-mails, the com- pany will e-mail his or her accounts and passwords to the designated heirs.
A Nanjing-based company offers a cyberspace heritage management service, which implants spy software into customers’ personal computers. When the spy software discovers that the users haven’t signed into their instant message accounts or e-mail accounts for a set period of time, the company will contact the designated heirs to pass down details of the customers’ digital assets.
This company also offers an “account graveyard” service, to obliterate content its users would prefer not to linger on after them. Reserving one“graveyard vacancy” costs users 10 yuan ($1.6) per year.
While China’s colossal population of Internet users, about 500 million, or 40 percent of the country’s population, means an enormous potential market for digital heritage planning services, these start-ups in the world of online death still face challenges. Besides convincing perspective customers that the heritage management company they choose will still be a going enterprise by the time they die, the companies are also subjected to the risk of compensation if the accounts and passwords they are entrusted with are stolen by hackers.
Death maybe a certainty but the lifespan and success of an online start-up remains extremely hard to predict.
Tencent rejected Wang’s request and explained that the QQ accounts belonged to the company rather than users. This, the company said, was in line with QQ’s terms of service.
Wang was left wondering why she was unable to inherit what to her was effectively her husband’s online property.
After it was first reported by the China Business Morning View newspaper, the story immediately became a headline nationwide and triggered heated debates among Chinese netizens on several major social networking sites, with the majority of comments criticizing Tencent for its “inhumane” treatment of deceased users and their families.
Later, Tencent officially attributed the“delay” in handling Wang’s application to its strict policies in protecting users’ privacy. The company also promised to help Wang access her husband’s account after verifying her identity with local authorities.
According to the China Business Morning View, a man surnamed Liu is contemplating what will happen to his QQ number once he dies. In China a catchy QQ account number is as prized an asset as a personalized car license plate. Liu said that he had received offers for as much as 10,000 yuan ($1,587), for the number. As such, he regards the number as an asset which, like a valuable vase, he should be able to pass on to his children.
Meanwhile, many veteran online game players said that their gaming achievements and virtual weapons were worth even more, and ought to be protected in law and given the same status as physical items.
Whose account?
Under Tencent’s terms of service, the right to use an account belongs solely to the original applicant, and this right shall not be gifted, loaned, rented, transferred or sold.
“Similar clauses exist for almost all online services. Users can only use these digital products but don’t own them, which I believe is rather reasonable,” said veteran Internet industry observer Zhang Yi. He told Yangcheng Evening News in Guangzhou, south China’s Guangdong Province, that if users had ownership of the accounts, they would be justified in claiming compensation if a service provider were to go bankrupt.
Zhang insists that only digital products that charge a fee can be classified as virtual assets, but free products are not. “While it is true that users spend time and effort maintaining their accounts and adding value to them, this added value only exists as long as service providers continue to operate,”Zhang explained.
However, some legal experts are prepared to endorse a broader understanding of what can be classified as virtual assets. Zhao Zhanling, a senior researcher with the Center for Intellectual Property Rights Studies at Beijing-based China University of Political Science and Law, believes that having value is the essential character of virtual assets. “Instant messaging accounts, online game accounts and microblog accounts all have the properties of assets, although they are different from traditional assets,” Zhao said.
Zhao also said that virtual assets should include user scores and rankings at online forums or games since users have spent time, effort and, in some cases, money in obtaining them.
At present, China does not have any laws governing the protection of virtual assets or even a clear definition of what they are.
In 2003, a group of 19 lawyers from southwest China’s Sichuan Province submitted a proposal to the National People’s Congress (NPC), the country’s top legislature, calling for virtual asset legislation after local police authorities refused to investigate an online game player’s complaint regarding the theft of his online gaming account and scores.
In 2008, the State Administration of Taxation issued a notice on its website, saying that individuals who profit by selling the virtual currency used in online games should pay income tax at a rate of 20 percent. This was seen as an indirect recognition of virtual assets as part of the economy.
The Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Commerce jointly issued another notice on the use of virtual cur-
rency in online games in June 2009.“Virtual currency can only be traded for virtual goods and services provided by its issuer, not real goods or services from other providers,” said the notice.
Given a steady increase in cases involving the trade and theft of online game accounts and achievements nationwide, NPC deputies, law professors and operators of social networking sites have been calling on the Supreme People’s Court to release judicial interpretations regarding virtual assets. However, the court said drafting such interpretations is impossible given the absence of legislation governing virtual assets.
“Cyber companies and their customers are encouraged to solve their disputes through arbitration. The courts should also try these cases fairly and provide convincing rulings,” Liu Haijun, a law professor at Renmin University of China in Beijing, said in an interview with Beijing-based Procuratorate Daily.
Protection of privacy
Although the majority of netizens sympathized with Wang’s plight and condemned Tencent for declining her request to take over her deceased hus- band’s QQ account, others argue that social networking sites shouldn’t grant permission for anyone to access a deceased user’s account without strict identity verification procedures.
“Protecting privacy is also a form of paying due respect to the deceased,” wrote one micro-blogger.
Zhang also believes that striking a balance between recognizing the value of online assets and protecting online privacy will not be easy. “There are times when users may not want even those closest to them to access their online files,” Zhang said.
As controversies over online heritage have attracted more attention, a large number of bloggers are giving serious thought to how their cyberspace identity will be preserved and passed on after their death. Many of them said that they would include their QQ passwords in their wills.
The dilemma has also boosted the profile of a new variety of entrepreneurs: digital heritage management service providers. This new breed of online business seeks to monetize Internet users’ desire to manage their online lives after their deaths.
Some companies promise to manage the details of customers’ digital death by storing their passwords and keeping records of
who gets access to certain information. The companies will send their customers e-mails regularly to make sure that they are still alive. If a customer fails to reply to any of the periodic confirmation e-mails, the com- pany will e-mail his or her accounts and passwords to the designated heirs.
A Nanjing-based company offers a cyberspace heritage management service, which implants spy software into customers’ personal computers. When the spy software discovers that the users haven’t signed into their instant message accounts or e-mail accounts for a set period of time, the company will contact the designated heirs to pass down details of the customers’ digital assets.
This company also offers an “account graveyard” service, to obliterate content its users would prefer not to linger on after them. Reserving one“graveyard vacancy” costs users 10 yuan ($1.6) per year.
While China’s colossal population of Internet users, about 500 million, or 40 percent of the country’s population, means an enormous potential market for digital heritage planning services, these start-ups in the world of online death still face challenges. Besides convincing perspective customers that the heritage management company they choose will still be a going enterprise by the time they die, the companies are also subjected to the risk of compensation if the accounts and passwords they are entrusted with are stolen by hackers.
Death maybe a certainty but the lifespan and success of an online start-up remains extremely hard to predict.