Dutch Kids Convicted For Stealing Virtual Magic Amulet
from the are-you-kidding-me? dept
It's been over five years ago since we pointed out how silly the world would be if we started bringing real world justice into virtual worlds. It sets up a ridiculous situation, since the way any virtual world works is based on how it's programmed. If there's a problem with an action, it should be up to whoever controls the game to fix the problem, rather than the real world police. If you start setting a precedent where the "theft" of a virtual item in a video game is considered theft, then how do you deal with online worlds where theft is a part of the game? If the game allows it, then it should be a part of the game.Even with plenty of people warning about how ridiculous it would be for police to get involved in searching for a stolen magic sword, it seems that hasn't stopped people from going to the police. In the past, the lawsuits have usually been for other crimes besides theft, though. We had one for illegal computer access, after a woman logged into a boyfriend's account and deleted his virtual objects. In another case, someone was charged with copyright infringement for "copying" weapons.
However, now we have a case of an actual theft charge in the Netherlands. Two kids have been convicted of theft of a (I kid you not) "virtual amulet and a virtual mask" in the game Runescape. The details are pretty scarce, but apparently the two kids "coerced" another kid to hand over the items, and to the court that's as good as theft:
"These virtual goods are goods (under Dutch law), so this is theft."I have to admit I don't know much about Runescape, but a quick look at the website mentions that it can involve "fights to the death." Does that mean we'll soon have murder charges stemming from the game? Update: Some folks in the comments have helpfully filled in some of the details that were lacking from the original article. The two kids in this case apparently beat up and threatened at knifepoint (in real life) the other kid in order to get him to give them the virtual amulet. As others in the comments point out, it sounds like they should have been charged with assault and battery, but still not theft.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: laws, netherlands, runescape, stealing, theft, virtual goods, virtual worlds
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Threats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Threats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Threats
Then they should have been charged with assault and battery. It's still not theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.
Imagine if your a network administrator running a virtual server on your network. Someone then manages to force you to wipe your server (by holding a gun to your head, threats, whatever) leaving you without a major compononet of the network. While someone didnt actually take a physical server and destroy it. They did manage to take a virtual server and wipe it from your network. In this setting it would seem much more of a legitimate concern.
I dont think the Dutch courts have it all wrong here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.
Please provide your address. I'll come to your house and put a gun to your head and steal your wallet. Then I'll say,
This is a wallet.... A WALLET! He sued over losing stuff out if his wallet! GET A GRIP PEOPLE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.
And then there is the concept of Good Will for which companies pay millions (or show as an asset worth millions on their balance sheet) and on which, in some jurisdictions, you pay tax. There isn't even an icon you can point to for that.
Just because it is virtual doesn't mean that depriving someone of it isn't theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.
I didn't say that. I didn't say you hadn't lost anything. I said it should be handled *in the game*.
By the very same logic, if you worked for a year to build a character, acquire in game items, reputation and the like, and then someone hacks you with a magic sword and blows you away, you think you should be able to go to the courts?
No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.
http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/magazine/LandslideSep08_Kane.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.
virtual server is still a server, just no hardware
items in a game are data at best
next thing, people will be accused of assault over PVP battles
there's a word for an inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy...schizophrenic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.
it's already illegal just about everywhere to threaten someone, doubly so when a gun is involved. it doesn't matter what you tell a person to do at gunpoint, holding someone at gunpoint is illegal just about everywhere.
if this case really did involve real world menacing or coercion, why isn't that the charge and conviction instead of the virtual theft?
tricking someone in a game into doing something stupid is not illegal, if anything it *might* be a terms of service violation.
does this mean we can press charges against spawn killers? how about we try team killers for treason? that one will be funny to watch since in the US it carries the death penalty.
this is the danger of unintended consequences. so if there is some sort of game server failure and you have to roll the world back two days, does that mean i have a case for theft since my two days are now gone?
a virtual world belongs to it's creators, and those creators should handle these issues, not the real world police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.
That's a very different scenario. What we're talking about is an *in game* environment. The point is that issues in the game can be settled by the gaming administrators. Kick out the others, and return the virtual goods. It's as easy as that.
I have no problem if the kids were charged with assault and battery for the real world actions, but it wasn't theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.
Most importantly the virtual loss stems from an incident that happened outside of the game mechanics or rules. You have said, “What if you kill another character in a MMO? Is that murder?” If it happens within the game mechanics or rules it would always just be part of the game. If you don’t like it don’t play the game. If someone takes steps (like in this case) to use real world crimes alter a virtual account of any type (Gaming, banking, shopping, etc..) I really don’t think it is at all out of the question to receive some sort of compensation from the courts for losses. (It should be obvious the murder charge is ridiculous but I understand why you are attempting to use it to push your point. What we are talking about here is some form of loss. I understand some hold no value to the “Magic Amulet”. But that does not mean the victim has suffered no loss).
Should the courts play any role here? Your response to this is a resounding NO!!! You believe that this should just be resolved in game and should be open and shut. I disagree with you here. You are assuming the gaming administrators are going to do the right thing and boot the two kids who assaulted the other and return the merchandise. In actuality they don’t have to do anything unless they want to. You are attempting to create a whole different set of laws for this issue. There is no guarantee that anything will be done to correct the situation when you leave the decision up to the gaming administrators. You are assuming they will do the right thing. And eventually that will be a problem.
So here is my question to you Mike: In your opinion should the courts be able to order the Gaming administrator to correct the problem by ordering the gaming company to return the lost goods and boot the two criminals? Or should they find the two kids guilty of vandalism, theft, etc? If you are of the opinion the court has no role here I see big problems- (Especially when it comes to online gambling. Imagine if someone put 2 million dollars in an account. And the Gaming administrators said wow, “Let just cash in take the 2 million and close the site. We make the rules so why not. We are immune from any kind of court action because it is an in game issue)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.
Um. Explaining my position is not "defensive." It's simply explaining my position.
Most importantly the virtual loss stems from an incident that happened outside of the game mechanics or rules. You have said, “What if you kill another character in a MMO? Is that murder?” If it happens within the game mechanics or rules it would always just be part of the game. If you don’t like it don’t play the game. If someone takes steps (like in this case) to use real world crimes alter a virtual account of any type (Gaming, banking, shopping, etc..) I really don’t think it is at all out of the question to receive some sort of compensation from the courts for losses.
Again, the crime is assault in that case. The "losses" in the virtual world can be handled within the virtual world itself. Bringing in the real world courts opens a huge pandora's box.
You are assuming the gaming administrators are going to do the right thing and boot the two kids who assaulted the other and return the merchandise. You are assuming the gaming administrators are going to do the right thing and boot the two kids who assaulted the other and return the merchandise. In actuality they don’t have to do anything unless they want to. You are attempting to create a whole different set of laws for this issue. There is no guarantee that anything will be done to correct the situation when you leave the decision up to the gaming administrators. You are assuming they will do the right thing. And eventually that will be a problem.
No, I'm not assuming that they will. I'm assuming that if they *don't* (which is their choice) other players will take that into account, and potentially look to move to other games. You still don't need to involve the courts.
So here is my question to you Mike: In your opinion should the courts be able to order the Gaming administrator to correct the problem by ordering the gaming company to return the lost goods and boot the two criminals?
Nope. I think it's up to the gaming administrators, though, they should realize the consequences of not fixing the situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From a gaming perspective it may seem odd.
Someone holding a gun to your head and demanding you wipe your server is much different than convincing someone to give you an amulet. In the virtual world, no bodily, worldly harm was imminent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So in answer to your question, "Does that mean we'll soon have murder charges stemming from the game?" the answer is "yes" if it involves a real life murder. Just as this case involved a real life theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the coercion was in real life, then I can see a charge of assault and battery, but it's still not theft.
The music file example isn't correct, because here we're talking about a virtual world where there IS a de facto gov't: those who run the servers. They can "return" the missing merchandise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Theft is theft if forced to do something in real life due to threat of physical bodily harm. Just because it's a game should not dilute the fact that someone was "held up at knife point" in real life to hand over goods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Imagine walking out of a store and some people beat you up and steal what you've just bought. The store feels bad and offers to give you again for free what was stolen. If that happens, does that mean that the people did not steal from you?
Your argument is that if you can replace what was stolen, it's no longer theft. That makes no sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, that involves physical products in the real world. Totally different scenario.
Your argument is that if you can replace what was stolen, it's no longer theft. That makes no sense.
No, that's not my argument. My argument is that you live by the rules of the virtual world, not by the real world when in the virtual world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dutch article:
http://webwereld.nl/articles/53234/virtuele-diefstal-voortaan-strafbaar.html
Translated by Google:
http://209.85.171.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=nl&tl=en&u=http://webwereld.nl/artic les/53234/virtuele-diefstal-voortaan-strafbaar.html&usg=ALkJrhjEfgXmdino37k7Cqbnut9PBR2ukw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Um. I recognize you're just trolling, but must I point out the obvious? I wrote the post based on the AP article, which did not include those details. I have since updated the post to include those details.
And, as another commenter pointed out, no one said that I was omniscient. I write based on what is known at the time, and then half the reason we have these comments open is so that people can add in details that were missing. That's the point.
Finally, the additional facts that have been mentioned don't change the point. Theft was still the wrong charge.
I stand by the post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypothetical question for Mike, if there is a game where you can buy (with real money) items for use inside that game, and then someone comes by (either off or online) and threatens/forces you into handing those items, items you bought, over to him (outside of the game mechanics and rules), would you consider that to be theft? Or would real world laws not apply in that case either?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As I said before at first glance it may seem petty convicting two kids over a virtual amulet and mask. But that does not mean there is an area of concern. I dont think the Dutch courts have it wrong here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you could make a case for assault there, but not theft. The transfer of virtual goods could and should then be handled in the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And that does not count as theft?
Sure, it's assault too. But I did deprive you from 'goods' that were yours to begin with. Sure it may be digital, but still, it was your property, and not mine. That is the core principle of theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And that does not count as theft?
Techdirt.com is, by its nature, a scarce good. A magic amulet in a game is not.
Besides, we're talking about in a GAME WORLD, where those who run the game can easily fix the situation.
The assault charges are all that should happen in the real world, not theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the real issue here has been sidestepped
The charges have 0 to do with anything virtual in the case, which is more accurately mike's point.
Mike, runescape is a free equivalent of ultima online...think MMO type game, less graphical world of warcraft equivalent if that helps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong charge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter's post
Then make your comments.
There was actual physical violence involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Peter's post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You didn't mention that said coercion was at knifepoint.
You didn't mention that the game items are comparable to someone stealing something of yours that you find valuable. (unless of course you are so obtuse as to believe that only your views of value are important)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then the lawsuit should have been for assault. Not theft.
You didn't mention that said coercion was at knifepoint.
That was not in the original AP story.
You didn't mention that the game items are comparable to someone stealing something of yours that you find valuable. (unless of course you are so obtuse as to believe that only your views of value are important)
Value is meaningless here. Let's say there's an online MMO where part of the goal is to steal goods from others. Would you still consider it theft, even if it's valuable? The point is that if it's in the game, it should be taken care of in the game, otherwise, you're going to run into problems.
If you build a great character in a game, and it has value, and another character kills your character, is that theft?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you build a great character in a game, and it has value, and another character kills your character, is that theft?"
Good point Mike, and if the kids beat up his character in game and stole his items that way, the police would have never and should have never been involved. BUT, as the theft was not from INSIDE the game, but from OUTSIDE the game, the issue is most definitely THEFT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The assault was outside the game. The "theft" if you can call it that, was inside.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
novel plot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Value is meaningless here. As I pointed out above, what if you built a valuable character in an MMO (valuable characters are often sold) and then another character kills it in a fight.
Is that theft?
Of course not. It's a part of the game. Anything that happens in the game should be dealt with in the game.
If there was assault out of the game, then the charge should be assault, not stealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
details not so scarce if you look for them....
This seems to put a different spin on the crime . Maybe you guys should try Google before you write an article with 'scarce' facts.... but thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: details not so scarce if you look for them....
This seems to put a different spin on the crime . Maybe you guys should try Google before you write an article with 'scarce' facts.... but thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.
We wrote the article based on what the AP had reported, which did not include that. So, is it that we should Google or that the AP should Google?
Either way, I have since updated the post, based on this info, and it does not change things one bit. The kids should have been charged with assault, not theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"2. Isn't it up to me what I do with my items & account?
No, the terms and conditions state that your character, account and items are, and remain, the property of Jagex. "
"Game items must only be exchanged for other items/services within the game. Exchanging game items for items or other benefits in other online games, real-life money or other real-life benefits is not allowed."
http://www.runescape.com/kbase/viewarticle.ws?article_id=2082
Even looking directly at Jagex (owner of Runescape) rules, this cannot really be called "theft" in that they own every item and character present in the game.
This trial should not be about stealing, but rather about the physical threats, as people have said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a great point! Thanks TechDude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Virtuality is a nonissue
Think of it this way: if time is money, then whatever you spend your time on has value to you. If you spend it in pursuit of a virtual sword instead of a paycheck, then that virtual sword is still an INVESTMENT of sorts. Couple that with the fact that "virtual" assets like the magic sword are seen as valuable by an entire community of people: the value of the sword becomes very real indeed. People who say "it's just a game" are missing the point - yes, these are games, but they are also financially-based communities.
Analogy: If I buy a house in rural Italy, I - and everyone in Italy - think of it, rightly, as having VALUE. Saying that a magic sword has no value is *exactly* the same as saying that my country villa is worthless, simply because you've never been to Europe. The difference is that, because these games are 100% manmade and controlled, it IS possible to have bad inflation or for property values to drop.
The lesson here is that everything is worth what somebody will pay for it... and in virtual worlds, game items hold value just like a dollar bill does. (Note that we use fiat currency, by the way - it's *really* just worthless bits of paper, right? So can I have yours?) Conclusion: If you steal or destroy someone's valued assets, you are behaving unethically and ought to be punished by law. Of course, it's a whole new field of law, and it'll be a real quagmire to sort out exactly what's legal and what isn't and what penalties should be. But once that happens, you'd better believe that online assets will start seeing real-live taxation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Virtuality is a nonissue
So answer this: if I build up a valuable character in the game, and someone else kills it in a battle in the game, is that theft?
If it's enclosed within a virtual world, it should be taken care of within that world. If it's allowed within the world, then whoever controls the world makes the laws. Bringing in outside laws is very dangerous and will basically destroy the ability to create any sort of real fantasy world, since they will all be governed by outside laws.
Analogy: If I buy a house in rural Italy, I - and everyone in Italy - think of it, rightly, as having VALUE. Saying that a magic sword has no value is *exactly* the same as saying that my country villa is worthless, simply because you've never been to Europe.
You're building a strawman here. NO ONE said that a magic sword has no VALUE. We're saying that the issue needs to be taken care of WITHIN the game world, because that's where the rules are set. Again, if theft is a part of the game, even if goods are valuable, is it still theft?
You open up a huge can of worms if you allow real world laws into virtual worlds.
Your Italy example is meaningless because that's no a virtual world.
The lesson here is that everything is worth what somebody will pay for it... and in virtual worlds, game items hold value just like a dollar bill does
And, again, no one said anything otherwise. So, no, that's not the "lesson."
Conclusion: If you steal or destroy someone's valued assets, you are behaving unethically and ought to be punished by law.
So, by this definition, any time anyone kills another character in one of these worlds, you ought to be punished by law. Sorry, I don't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Virtuality is a nonissue
It's not the same thing. This would be a better analogy:
Say I build up a valuable character in the game, and someone corners me in the real life, and demands that I hand the controls over to that person.
If the guys only threatened the boy, and hadn't used violence, it would still count as theft to me.
I see your point, indeed, what you state isn't theft, but that isn't the case here. It wasn't done from within the game. These two kids came up to the other kid, and threatened him.
Also, it's a misconception that the boy sued... no he reported the crime to the police who then took action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Virtuality is a nonissue
Then that's assault if they threatened you.
And then the game itself can handle returning the character to you. It's important to understand the distinctions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consider the venue
Then again, looking at worldwide markets today, I wonder how much of the world's wealth can be considered "real".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh i fear for the world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh i fear for the world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who gives them authority?
Your characters don't live in the real world. They don't exist in the real world. They aren't under the jurisdiction of any real world courts. Otherwise, as Mike said, you'll start having murder charges for in-game duels. Or, if you consider your came characters your property, you'll have theft charges for killing those characters. And maybe charges of slavery for 'owning' those characters.
Yes, what the kid did was wrong. Yes, he should be punished. But no, they shouldn't be able to charge him with theft. Perhaps blackmail or extortion or something.
Anyways, the theft actually occurred in the US, as that's where Runescape's servers appear to be located, so even if you want to say real world courts can have jurisdiction, I think it's hard to say the Dutch court had jurisdiction in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ohhh! Good question!
Just curious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ohhh! Good question!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ohhh! Good question!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ohhh! Good question!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ohhh! Good question!
If you steal from a real person, whether you're stealing something virtual or real, it could be theft. For example, if they'd coerced his account details from him and then changed his password, that could be described as stealing his account, even though it has no physical existence. If you steal from a virtual person, no real court should be involved as long as that's all that took place. Keep in mind that I'm saying any real illegal activities surrounding any such "stealing", such as threats or violence, would still be perfectly fair game legally. But if you don't do anything illegal in the real world, and only steal from someone who doesn't really exist, that "crime" should be dealt with in the game/virtual world/whatever.
Did I get something wrong there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brilliant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No slippery slope...
That's not the issue.
The problem is that online games - just like real life - have plenty of people who try to cheat the system (whatever that system happens to be, and games can vary greatly) to get an advantage. The argument that the assets involved are worthless is invalid, as I argued in my previous comment.
Now we get to what's right and wrong.
Murder, stalking, slavery etc. are not illegal IF THEY ARE PART OF THE GAME, and no lawyer will question that, for all you dunces trying to argue a slippery slope. It doesn't matter what you CAN do in the game, be it kidnapping or robbery or genocide.
BUT, if you try to cheat the system, by holding a kid at knifepoint in RL or by e-mailing somebody a virus with a keylogger, it IS more than just assault and battery - it's cheating a system, just like robbing a convenience store is cheating our real life system of wages and commerce. We have no legal precedent to punish this kind of cheating, probably because its consequences are so minor compared to robbing someone in real life - but that doesn't make such behavior ethical or unworthy of legal recourse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No slippery slope...
It is no more than assault or battery. The transfer of goods within the virtual world can be totally controlled by those who control the virtual world. So they can handle the return of the goods, and the kids should be charged only with assault (and potentially battery).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No slippery slope...
Sending is a virus is nothing like robbing a convenience store and both of those are very different from assualt and battery. They have nothing to do with one another. They are very different crimes with different charges associated with them.
Even if that were true, wouldn't it be up to the game owner to press charges for the 'cheating' inside of their game?
Theft did not occur. Virtual items that belonged to the game owners were transferred within the world of the game owners. The item belonged to the game owner in the first place and belonged to the game owner after the transfer. No theft occurred.
If the game owners cancel someone's account, is that also theft of all of their virtual items?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolute nonsense. No rules within the game world speak about what happens when in the real world someone threatens you with physical force. Real physical force and the threat thereof and all its repercussions are an issue for the real world courts.
The criminality occurred in the *real* world, not the virtual one. It's an issue for real courts. The violence lead directly to the theft. The very REAL theft of a virtual object, not a virtual theft thereof.
This isn't the case of a Rogue class using "pick pockets" to steal a magic item from a Wizard. Once again: The criminality happened in the real world, and as such it must be dealt with with real-life courts. The theft wasn't virtual, the theft wasn't part of the gameworld, the theft was a REAL-WORLD theft of a virtual object.
It's the opposite that I find absurd: you believing that virtual courts must be instituted in-game to deal with real-life coercion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The assault, yes. But it's still not theft. If it is considered theft, then how is it different than in-game theft?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let's see, it's different from in-game theft for two main reasons that I can see:
1) Within the game, it's NOT theft. It's a simple transfer of resources, legal and acceptable. If you were some guy who somehow conned me into giving you my amulet and mask in the game, that's still not theft - that's me being stupid and losing my stuff. It's a gift, or a lopsided trade, as far as the game and those who control it are concerned.
2) In-game theft would be part of the game system, and everybody has the same rules applied to them regarding it. Using real-life force to take somebody's stuff is not part of the system. Granted, the game system isn't as important as our real-life legal/financial system, but the thieves are still working OUTSIDE the system to take somebody's stuff: therefore, theft.
Mike, I still get the feeling that you don't believe that virtual property is actually valuable. And in this particular case, you're probably right, because the "property" isn't really owned by the players. But take a look at this:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_/ai_n17104652
An excerpt: 'After claiming the mall for US$70,067 the young Epsilon said, "I believe the Port Atlantis Mall is a great investment for the future. Entropia Universe is growing all the time and Port Atlantis is a meeting place for new players."
The malls will provide instant cash revenue to their new owners.'
This is virtual property in a game, worth tens of thousands of dollars, and it makes considerable real money for its owner/players. Now, instead of an amulet and a mask that the kid could've illegally ebayed for $5, what if it was a $70k virtual property that some dude was forced to sign over to a robber? Is the game publisher still 100% responsible for investigating what happened and addressing the victim's complaint? Granted, there are probably much greater safeguards in place for Entropia Universe (I HOPE), but the principle remains the same. Stealing a pack of Mentos wont' put you in jail for as long as stealing the crown jewels will, but you'll still get in trouble. Having a double standard for virtual property is not appopriate, in my mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nope, I believe it's *quite* valuable. But that still doesn't make it theft in the real world.
This is virtual property in a game, worth tens of thousands of dollars
There's a lot more behind that Project Entropia story, btw, but I never said that virtual property isn't valuable. In fact, I think it's quite valuable.
But the point is that it should be taken care of *in* the game.
Having a double standard for virtual property is not appopriate, in my mind.
It's not a double standard. It's a single standard. What happens in the game should be dealt with in the game. What happens out of the game can be dealt with out of the game.
That's a single standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If i had know that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The game owner can NOT handle any compensation, first, because the assault took place in real life. The virtual theft was a result of this crime, and because it's entirely out of the sphere of the game developer's power, there's no way for them to prove that any theft occurred. Even if they could, the game publishers run into the "printing money to reimburse robbery victims" dilemma. This is more likely to happen in virtual systems than in real life, but it's still not likely.
To whoever said that "if the game owner shuts down your account and you lose your character, can you charge them with theft?":
The answer is obviously no, because the publisher already reserved the legal right to do such things. Still feels like you've been stolen from, but that's irrelevant. Chances are you've been banned for a legitimate violation of the EULA, and you're really just suffering the only kind of punitive measure that game publishers can dish out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would think that a conviction on assault charges should be evidence enough for the gaming administrators to fix the problem.
And who said anything about "printing money." They can just remove the amulet from the guys who got it and give it back to the original owner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could apply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is this "still not theft"? Would beating up and taking someone's CD's be theft? CDs are mere data, how is this any different? The fact that the kid could get the data back does not suddenly make the theft not a theft. As I state above, the victim getting his stolen stuff back is not a defense to theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, a CD is a physical product. That is not within a virtual world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thought Experiment
In these games such as Runescape, or SecondLife, you are custodian of a set of bits and bytes on a server.
Unless the person was able to convert the Amulet into something physical, such as Currency, it should have been difficult to prove something was actually stolen, because the bits and bytes still exist on a server somewhere, but in reality, the custodian of the digital asset changed.
Maybe due to invested time in gameplay, the "victim" may believe that the asset has an intangible value convertible to currency, but in reality it doesn't have a market value outside of those playing the game.
Kids these days need to get back into the real world- go outside and PLAY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike jumping the gun...again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike jumping the gun...again
Hmm. Increasingly? I wrote the post based on the AP article, same as I've done for years. No changes at all. I read the entire story, and I wrote it up based on that.
That's been the point of Techdirt all along, and why we leave the comments open. We never claim to be journalists. We never claim to have the whole story. We have the comments open so people can add more details, as they often do, and we quite often will update a post (as we did this time) with those details.
So... um... why are you saying something's changed? We've always been this way, and I see no reason to change.
techdirt is becoming more like a grocery tabloid paper than any reputable news story-like site
Fascinating. We're not journalists, and never claimed to be. But can you point me to a single fact we got wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Virtual Goods = No Law???
SOOOO...
If I manage to convince you to give me your Paypal password and then transfer all your "virtual" money to my account, is that theft? after all, its just online!
No? just because paypal is real money?
What happened if some objects in these games trade for real money in the real world (say, via ebay?)
Where do you draw the line?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Virtual Goods = No Law???
Uh. Money is a scarce good. It's not in a virtual world. It's in the real world.
This isn't difficult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whats yours is mine?
All of these idiotic comments above that belittle the courts, (and the child who seeks justice) w/out looking into the matter first would undoubtedly change their mind if the 13yr old was their child.
1. Said child plays a game.
2. Manages to get some popular ingame items.
3. Is threatened repeatedly by two others.
4. Relinquishes the items.
5. Seeks justice.
6. Receives justice.
7. Becomes punchline for the immature.
I find it to be an absolutely crying shame that I am in the smaller percentile when I say that #7 does not belong.
We as a community simply should not need to negate others feelings with humour when we don't understand.
If you see a similar situation in the future, dedicate some time to learn the facts and make an educated decision... or just shut up and trust that the courts have acted accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whats yours is mine?
1. Said child plays a game.
2. Manages to get some popular ingame items.
3. Is threatened repeatedly by two others.
4. Relinquishes the items.
5. Seeks justice.
6. Receives justice.
7. Becomes punchline for the immature.
Uh, no. Man. The point is that they sought justice for the WRONG THING. I have no problem with them seeking justice for ASSAULT or BATTERY (if there was battery), but it was NOT THEFT.
I find it to be an absolutely crying shame that I am in the smaller percentile when I say that #7 does not belong.
Please, actually read what we said before you slam us for saying it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm, maybe because the ...
Hmmm, maybe because the items in question are difficult to ascertain and additionally they hold some value to those involved.
Are you trying to say that the items in question are difficult to understand or that they are hard to obtain?
Getting to use an in-game item is not the same as owning an in-game item. Really, it's not. You have to agree that the entire virtual world and the characters and items in it belong to Jagex before you can even play the game. It's part of the Terms of Service. So it's very clear that this child did not own the amulet or mask.
When the jerks forced him to transfer those items, they were simply transferred from one pocket of Jagex ownership to another. No one stole anything from Jagex. No theft occurred.
I have three kids. I am a gamer. I can certainly sympathize with the people in question. I think it's a shitty situation. I think those kids need a stiff sentence and therapy for the assault and the underlying purpose. But they didn't steal anything from the boy or Jagex. And that is exactly how I would feel if it was my child.
Furthermore, I don't think that anyone is making fun of the victim. There have been some derisive comments toward the idiots who were so wrapped up in the game that they assaulted someone, but I haven't seen anyone make any noises about the poor kid who just wanted to play some Runescape.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry to tell you Mike but a ...
Sorry to tell you Mike but a magic amulet is by definition a VERY scarce good. I played Runescape for 2 years and i coudn't get one. Trust me, this is definitely theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
heheheheheh, you guys, lol, ...
heheheheheh, you guys, lol, lollollollol, your so noob, lo. wtf, man i might go ot prison for awile, LOL.
but seriously, its just a game, if they did actually assualt, the kid, thne yeah, assault, but wtf? i mean, yeah, that would piss me off, but, seriosuly, lol, jsut play the game some more, and btw, magic amulet, one of the easiest items in the game to get,
Azrael = epic Phail
Packie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But then still that 'virtual ...
But then still that 'virtual theft' had to be reported somewhere?
And there's where the sentence of the judge comes in. Otherwise I could just claim that that amulet was mine, and demand that the owners of the Runescape game return it to me, because I claim you stole it from me (while in all actuality I probably sold the item to you).
It would inherently fall to a he-said-she-said problem. I doubt that the makers of any game would like to get that kind of headache.
The game only 'sees' a valid transaction between two characters. It doesn't know what happened in real life prior to that transaction. Nor does it have to.
So instead, the assault should have been added to the charges, next to the theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fortunately you are just from ...
Fortunately you are just from the US, otherwise I'd feel slighted by the first sentence in your comment. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You said this would happen next...
You said this would happen next Mike. Who knew it would be so fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least this one may be charged correctly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do you guys figure this?
_____
assault and battery
–noun Law.
an assault with an actual touching or other violence upon another.
_____
theft
/θɛft/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [theft] Show IPA Pronunciation ,
–noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking or carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
For assault, or assault and battery, you must physical threaten, or touch someone else. For theft, you must take someones goods away from them.
For those of you who feel this is not theft; To put this in other terms, lets say you bought stock in google, and I made you transfer those stocks to my account for free, you think I should not be charged with theft?
This kid bought a piece of someone elses property, and it was extorted from him, it's theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This just doesn't make sense. Assault and battery should have been the charge. Depending upon the level of injury, even attempted murder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]