Here's a different take on it: how should an avatar be different from doing business as (DBA)? Is it an amalgam of a DBA and incorporation?
With a DBA (which I have and I'm sure most of you all do too), it is simply a legal alias for yourself. As such, any actions you take as the business are not differentiated from those taken by you as yourself. I assume that likewise, actions of others applied to the business is legally no different than actions applied to you. However, the business is philosophically treated as if it were a different entity. A corporation is legally an entirely new entity that is not tied to a person. In some ways it is like an avatar controlled by more than one puppeteer. It is possible to make a corporation that has one employee (shareholder? trustee? ... you get the idea.) Actions of a corporation and actions applied to a corporation by others are considered independent of actions related to the individual(s) in the corporation. Would either of these concepts sufficiently cover the extension of rights to an avatar? I suspect a DBA is closest, where any event relating an actor to an avatar to an individual can be mapped exactly to an actor to a DBA to an individual, and offhand I can't think of a counterexample. ---Jason Olshefsky http://JayceLand.com/ http://JayceLand.com/blog/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en.
