If I were to take your money in a game of monopoly then should I be prosecuted knowing that it's all going back in the box at the end of the game anyway? Most people would find concept of prosecuting someone for this quite ridiculous.
It doesn't all go back in the box at the end of the game, though. Runescape is a persistent world like any other, and these kids knowingly tricked a third into giving them extremely valuable items that they will be able to use forever. The sad part is that now there's no way to give these items back (unless Jagex already has, though I doubt it) since open trade was removed at the beginning of this year. The kids received community service, but knowing the Runescape community I would be willing to bet they are still snickering about it to this day, and telling themselves it was totally worth it.
Well it does "go back in the box" when the game ends. It's no different than me being charged with kidnaping somebodys imaginary friend.
If you threatened them with a knife, beat and kicked them repeatedly, and told them you would further injure or kill them unless they gave you their friend, I'm pretty sure you'd still go to prison.
The issue here isn't WHAT the kids stole, it's that they stole at all, as well as the method. They obviously felt that it was worth stealing, so in their minds and in the victim's mind, the crime is very real. Don't trivialize the seriousness just because you don't understand.
This is what they should have charged with, note the difference between this and straight foward theft. It covers "when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion"
It is a completely different offence and accurately depicts what they have done. They have coerced this person into providing them with the service of transfering this ficticious item which is copywrited by the game provider into their account.
If I were to take your money in a game of monopoly then should I be prosecuted knowing that it's all going back in the box at the end of the game anyway? Most people would find concept of prosecuting someone for this quite ridiculous.
It doesn't all go back in the box at the end of the game, though. Runescape is a persistent world like any other, and these kids knowingly tricked a third into giving them extremely valuable items that they will be able to use forever. The sad part is that now there's no way to give these items back (unless Jagex already has, though I doubt it) since open trade was removed at the beginning of this year. The kids received community service, but knowing the Runescape community I would be willing to bet they are still snickering about it to this day, and telling themselves it was totally worth it.
Well it does "go back in the box" when the game ends. It's no different than me being charged with kidnaping somebodys imaginary friend.
If you threatened them with a knife, beat and kicked them repeatedly, and told them you would further injure or kill them unless they gave you their friend, I'm pretty sure you'd still go to prison.
The issue here isn't WHAT the kids stole, it's that they stole at all, as well as the method. They obviously felt that it was worth stealing, so in their minds and in the victim's mind, the crime is very real. Don't trivialize the seriousness just because you don't understand.
This is what they should have charged with, note the difference between this and straight foward theft. It covers "when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion"
It is a completely different offence and accurately depicts what they have done. They have coerced this person into providing them with the service of transfering this ficticious item which is copywrited by the game provider into their account.
Argue semantics much?
The point I was trying to make is exactly what you said, although I was using different words to describe it. People are freaking out because ZOMG THEY STOLE VIRTUAL ITEMS AND WERE PUNISHED, when it's obvious that the punishment was for the violent crimes and not the theft (or whatever you want to call it in this case). Arguing about whether it's a theft or an extortion is pointless since that's not the issue here at all.
For a lot of people it is the issue because making virtual items into real in the world items in the law opens up whole big can of worms.
It has implications for taxation and all sorts of other areas that most gamers would find abhorrent. In fact the US are discussing ways of implementing taxation for them, your lucky roll in a raid could end up tipping you over the capital gains tax limit, forcing you to write a big fat cheque to government. Actually you won't be making any raid rolls because if you are rolling for real world items then that will be considered gambling under the US law and the game provider will be liable for arrest under federal anti gambling laws.
just to clarify this (im dutch) the court ruled that there was indeed a case of stealing 'real goods' PLUS abusing the kid who owned the goods. The judge said that the runescape goods represent real value and, for that reason, can be stolen.
Is there not politcal uproar about this in Holland? It makes a mockery of the law.
Ofcourse not. Virtual items are not being "taxed" here like someone suggested. This whole even discourages kids to do things like this, so why should there be an uproar about it?
i agree with Blodpls, just like monopoly money you don't really get to keep anything anyway. I mean we've all had games where we play for years. When you decide to stop playing that game, and your account expires, does the company mail you anything?.....nope, its just gone.
besides that, I can talk you into giving me something, and if you do its not stealing since you "gave" it to me. Maybe i missed something, but what kind of threats did they make that scared the little kid over the internet?
If anyone needs to learn a lesson, its the kid that got swindled. He should learn that in real life and in games that there is always someone who wants to get over on you. Next time...be smarter
i agree with Blodpls, just like monopoly money you don't really get to keep anything anyway. I mean we've all had games where we play for years. When you decide to stop playing that game, and your account expires, does the company mail you anything?.....nope, its just gone. besides that, I can talk you into giving me something, and if you do its not stealing since you "gave" it to me. Maybe i missed something, but what kind of threats did they make that scared the little kid over the internet? If anyone needs to learn a lesson, its the kid that got swindled. He should learn that in real life and in games that there is always someone who wants to get over on you. Next time...be smarter
blame for the victim?
Hmm the girl in the skimpy outfit, shes asking for it, its her fault she got raped.
The people whose house got robbed? They had nice stuff, they were asking to get robbed.
The kid who got killed by a drunk driver? He got what he had comin to him, if he didnt want to get hit by a car he shouldnt have been walking next to the road.
I agree with one of the posters. In the end it's like Monopoly. It all goes back in the box at the end of the day. For an mmorpg such as runescape, within years to come it will come to an end and be over and everything in the game will be lost.
I do think they got what they deserved but the punishment was a little harsh for stolen virtual goods. I've sold accounts before and taken them back because idiots don't change certain information that they should have changed upon purchasing the account. Information I told them to change, eh. Even though that's a whole other field of stealing and is even worse, fact is I shouldn't be charged and sentenced to community service or jail for stealing something ON A GAME. A game where it's illegal to sell accounts or buy accounts in the 1st place.
I think when people scam in games they should never be punished by law for their actions. Banned from the games IP and everything, certainly.
Funny comparing it to monopoly 'it all goes back in the box at the end of the day' yep, but lets face it, so will you, and me, and everyone else, a big coffin shaped one. So monopoly could also be considered a bit like life, in about as loose a connection as being able to compare it to a virtual item, and stealing from someone (dead or alive for that matter) is a crime. The punishment fitted the crime, they 'stole time' from someone, so have a punishment that takes some of their time away. fitting if you ask me.
So... if the virtual items you have, don't matter to you, why don't you just give them all away tomorrow? or destroy them or... ? they matter, its why people play these games, to 'get stuff' and join in a community. maybe kids should be a bit more street wise, but kids aren't, they are kids. Maybe everything should be 'no drop' in games for under 15's but then they won't be street wise until later in life, too much nannying is a bad thing. lets face it, they all learnt a lesson, and if it stops 1 person out there in their tracks from scamming 1 other person, it was worth it. It was also worth it for the people concerned, the 'scammee' has learnt a lesson that will be helping him in life, and hopefully, so have the other two...
About the monopoly analogy, you can't compare an ended game with an ongoing game. You should compare it with an ongoing Monopoly game, where two players force another to give them his property. Then, if that game would go on for years like in an MMO, it would be the same case, the two players would be forced to restore him his properties. Of course, with a game that just lasts for a couple of hours it's not wort to go to court and such a trivial thing would never be accepted.
Is there not politcal uproar about this in Holland? It makes a mockery of the law.
Ofcourse not. Virtual items are not being "taxed" here like someone suggested. This whole even discourages kids to do things like this, so why should there be an uproar about it?
Because as I said earlier if they are real items then it puts them into a completely different legal category. You cannot have only the parts of the law that benefit you apply, the whole of the law will apply.
For example you pay money (your subscription), you then take part in a game of chance and you win or lose real world items, this is what a mmorpg is under this new definition. Another term for this is gambling.
I don't live in the US so it wouldn't effect me, but gambling of this kind over the interenet is illegal in US so what does this mean for game development in the future? It means that the kinds of games we like to play won't be possible, to us it's harmless fun but to some people it will be an evil that must be stamped out.
This is just one example off the top of my head of the kinds of implications that making game items into real world items may have.
Edit: After looking it up it games of chance are gray area under the Wire Act which deals with internet gambling as it's not a sport (or is gaming a sport?) but this is the kind of murky legal world that it would open mmorpgs up to.
Even though that's a whole other field of stealing and is even worse, fact is I shouldn't be charged and sentenced to community service or jail for stealing something ON A GAME.
But you should get a far worse punishment indeed if you beat the guy and threatened him with a knife.
Why do people keep missing that critical information here? This is not about theft, virtual or otherwise. This is about school bullies getting out of hand, and the courts putting them in their place. People are making a big deal out of an everyday crime. The court doesn't care what was stolen, they just want to make a point that they won't tolerate this behavior.
You guys who keep saying that virtual items are not "what this is about" or are beside the point are probably right about the prosecution's point. But the point of the posters who are complaining is precisely about the issue of whether virtual items are to be considered real and whether this will set a precedent for that.
On that issue, of whether virtual items will be held to be the same as real by courts in various countries, that fact that in this one case some kids may have needed to be punished is entirely beside the point.
It all depends on what point you are talking about, whether two accused children in the Netherlands were wrong or whether all of us are about to be taxed on virtual gold piece income.
There are also a lot of people making assumptions here and not making the same assumptions as each other. I think the person who said the victim made a mistake assumed the victim was only threatened by people over the internet who had no way to learn his real identity and could not actually harm him. Others who disagree seem to be assuming that the accused did know the victim's real identity and had a very real ability to follow through on threats or may have actually engaged in real world physical violence against the victim.
I haven't been able to figure out which of these scenarios is being alleged by the prosecution and obviously it makes a lot of difference. In every legal system I know about, threats that are obviously unable to be carried out are not criminal. Threats that can be carried out are criminal acts.
The people complaining about treating this the exact same way as theft of real items are right that it is simply the wrong criminal charge. It isn't just semantics. A charge of extortion or uttering threats probably has no implications for a change in the legal treatment of online games. A charge of theft may set a precedent that does in fact lead to not only taxation of virtual items, but leads courts astray into absurdities such as trying to determine how to apply other real world laws to virtual worlds. I mocked this in my previous post about treating PvP as murder. Killing someone's character in PvP in a game which allows this and in fact encourages it, obviously is not murder since no real person has been killed. "Stealing" virtual items in a game which legally are property of the game developers is obviously not "theft" either since the virtual items haven't really changed hands. The items are safe and sound in the dev's game server computer the whole time. If someone did take a copy of them to another computer that still wouldn't be the crime of "theft" it would be more like hacking and copyright infringement.
I know that to most people these details seem totally irrelevant, but in the practice of law, they are critical. That's the reason the law specifies so many specific crimes and has such complicated definitions of them. Otherwise why bother with terms like first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, vehicular homocide, petty larceny, grand theft, grand theft auto, extortion, slander, libel, etc.
1st degree, 2nd degree, whatever. Why not just have one crime: "Wrongful Act" and not bother with all this? Whether you understand the reasons or not, there are very good reasons for having laws that are very specific, and define and punish different crimes differently.
There are a lot of cases that set iimportant precedents just because a prosecutor charged somebody with the wrong crime in a minor case. The most obvious example was the 1984 flag burning case. If I recall correctly it took place in Houston, Texas in 1984 while the Republican Party Convention was going on there. Leftist political protesters were there as usual and one of them, who was a communist, tore down a US flag from a flagpole in front of a bank and burned the flag as a protest.
He was charged with desecrating a US Flag which had recently been prohibited by a Texas law. The case went to court, was appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court which ruled the law unconstitutional. Politicians went berzerk, congress started trying to pass laws about it, an effort was undertaken to amend the US Constitution to erode the 1st Amendment protections on political protest just to make flag burning illegal.
And yet, the flag belonged to the bank. The guy who burned it STOLE it. In that case, he SHOULD HAVE been charged with theft. The whole ridiculous circus that followed from that precedent was unnecessary.
We are lacking many of the most basic facts about the Dutch case, but it definitely sounds like the same kind of thing where there is a real danger of an unbelievably stupid precedent that is, yes, "beside the point" of why the prosecutors brought charges, but could adversely affect millions of people for no good reason. All because a prosecutor may have chosen the wrong charge to prosecute them on.
Games played:
Runescape -------------- www.runescape.com Magic of the Gods ------ www.magicofthegods.com Saga of Ryzom ---------- www.ryzom.com World of Warcraft ------- www.worldofwarcraft.com
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - A Dutch court has convicted two youths of theft for stealing virtual items in a computer game and sentenced them to community service.
Only a handful of such cases have been heard in the world, and they have reached varying conclusions about the legal status of "virtual goods."
The Leeuwarden District Court says the culprits, 15 and 14 years old, coerced a 13-year-old boy into transferring a "virtual amulet and a virtual mask" from the online adventure game RuneScape to their game accounts.
"These virtual goods are goods (under Dutch law), so this is theft," the court said Tuesday in a summary of its ruling.
Identities of the minors were not released.
The 15-year-old was sentenced to 200 hours service, and the 14-year-old to 160 hours.
........ you gotta be f*cking kidding me.............and for Runescape....
This is ridiculous. It's a friggin computer game.... doesn't the company that sells or provides the game own the items?
I'm not saying that what the two kids did was nice... but there are better solutions to this, even when kids steal REAL life items....
The only time you should get in trouble is if you make real world money for someone elses intellectual property rights like what happened in Everquest a few years back when the guy sold houses on ebay.
The accounts should cancel at maximum! No court should be interfering in a game world unless there's intellectual proprty rights being violated, virtual stalking, or online sexual misconduct with a minor going on!
I guess i'll avoid pvp games if im gonna get charged with murder! LOL
Played : WOW, LOTRO, COH/COV, EQ2, SWG, and WAR. Playing EVE Online and AOC. Wtg for SW:TOR and WOD
1) Stealing a piece of paper is stealing, petty theft though it is , its still stealing. The item stolen could be a used and dirty sock worth a penny, and it would still be petty theft.
----
2)Monopoly money is not a virtual item.Its a tangible item.
-----
3)In the case of the vitual item stolen, it "doesnt go back into the box".The box in this case would be the account owned by the player,from which the player could continue to access and use the item from as per the service he pays for.
This is much more of a case of the item being taken from the owners box (possession) and being placed in another box that the owner cant access.Hence the theft is also a form of theft of service.
As such, it can also be counted as theft of service.As the player who owned the item, did so as part of a service he paid REAL money for.And by the item being taken from him against his will,said item being a part of a paid for service,theft of service has occurred.
If i was to purchase a prepaid phone card, and it was stolen and used in full or part by another person, it would be theft.There is no difference here.
If i was to purchase a movie on a pay per view service, and someone forced me to let them watch it, same thing.Theft.OR if they hijacked my connection and watched it that way,denying me the ability to watch it.Again, theft.
I could pay for access to a seminar, and have someone else wihtout my permission show up and use my access and again its theft.
And before some nutjob tries to say that this is the same as losing an item in combat, its not.As combat can be a part of the service which can result in a loss that by accepting the service and paying for it, he voluntarily puts himself at risk of loss this way.
This is of course HUGELY different than the item being stolen,UNLESS such item theft is allowed by the terms of the service.Which i am more than willing to bet isnt the case.
-----
Now in Eve,there would be a defense IF the bullying and threatenining was ingame only.If so, that would simply be a risk that comes with the service being paid for.Part of said service in fact as made plain by the devs.
BUT if in either case the threats and bullying took place outside the game,its again theft.
------
As much as those like minded to the offenders may want it to be otherwise,the courts got it right so far.
It is clear to most people that I mean within the context of the game. The person is taking the monopoly money from the victim and using it within the game.
I specifacally stated that all the money goes back in the box at the end of the game,.
I did not say that the game money was being physically removed from the owners possession.
You cannot remove vitrual items from peoples possesion because they are meerly a database entry on the game providers server and do not exist in real world.
Im sorry, you can try as much as you want to dream up some defense for this, but your wrong.
Its obvious your either unwilling to admit they broke the law, or simply dont understand the law.
Ill say it again.The item was at the very least, part of a paid for service.By removing that item from the use of the player against his will and the terms of the service,they stole part of that paid service from the victim.
Im sorry, you can try as much as you want to dream up some defense for this, but your wrong. Its obvious your either unwilling to admit they broke the law, or simply dont understand the law. Ill say it again.The item was at the very least, part of a paid for service.By removing that item from the use of the player against his will and the terms of the service,they stole part of that paid service from the victim. That makes it theft.
Fair enough theft of service may apply, so why didn't they charge him with that?
Why not prosecute for stealing the service instead of the items?
Like extortion that is an entirely different offense and would not set a precedent for turning virtual items into real world items so would be acceptable to me.
Your argument is no different to mine.
Edit: The definition of theft that I am looking specifically states that the person must have ownership, which they don't as Jagex owns the data. It also must have a real world value and as selling them which breach the terms and conditions that victim accepted they cannot.
I havent read the case, but i would think the prosecuter used electricty theft as an example .
Electricty theft ,which is actaully fairly common,is theft of a service that equates to the theft of a good.In other words, the service is considered equal to a good.
It has value as a service and is considered a product or good due to the value paid for it.Even though its not tangibly owned by the service payer, his paying for the service gives him standing.
Once the government decided that virtual goods are real, then they can TAX it...
Crap, youre right. On the other hand you should really pay the tax in virtual money.
Still, hacking and emptying someones account is bad and should get the player banned from the game for life. It shouldn't however really be punished in the court of law. It's a friggin game, not real life.
I havent read the case, but i would think the prosecuter used electricty theft as an example . Electricty theft ,which is actaully fairly common,is theft of a service that equates to the theft of a good.In other words, the service is considered equal to a good. It has value as a service and is considered a product or good due to the value paid for it.Even though its not tangilbly owned by the service payer, his paying for the service gives him standing.
Well from available the information they have not been convicted of stealing electricity, the service or anything else. They have been convicted for stealing the actual items, which is why it is in the news.
Anyway as I said earlier theft requires the victim to actually own the thing being stolen, he has signed a EULA that says he doesn't own them. He owns the right to use the service, but that's not what the prosecution was for.
Someone being convicted of stealing electricity has stolen from the provider, not from the person who's house the wires are connected to.
I just saw your edit,and to help you understand ill give you another example.
A person rents a video.He doesnt own said video,the company he rented it from owns it.BUT as per the rental agreement ownership is temporarily transfered to him as per terms of the agreement.
He's responible to those terms, and as such for the item.
Someone steals the video from him.As per the agreement,the ownership was his at the time of the theft.He's responsible for the item.He's the one who has to notfiy the police and press any charges against the thief.
And hes the one who has to make up any loss incurred by the renting company.Unless there is a liability waiver ,of which he's met the requirements.Which usually means he's filed a police report as the temporary owner and proven a theft has taken place.And as such the insurance of the waiver would then cover him.
Comments
It doesn't all go back in the box at the end of the game, though. Runescape is a persistent world like any other, and these kids knowingly tricked a third into giving them extremely valuable items that they will be able to use forever. The sad part is that now there's no way to give these items back (unless Jagex already has, though I doubt it) since open trade was removed at the beginning of this year. The kids received community service, but knowing the Runescape community I would be willing to bet they are still snickering about it to this day, and telling themselves it was totally worth it.
Well it does "go back in the box" when the game ends. It's no different than me being charged with kidnaping somebodys imaginary friend.
If you threatened them with a knife, beat and kicked them repeatedly, and told them you would further injure or kill them unless they gave you their friend, I'm pretty sure you'd still go to prison.
The issue here isn't WHAT the kids stole, it's that they stole at all, as well as the method. They obviously felt that it was worth stealing, so in their minds and in the victim's mind, the crime is very real. Don't trivialize the seriousness just because you don't understand.
It is not stealing, the offence that they have commited is extortion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion
This is what they should have charged with, note the difference between this and straight foward theft. It covers "when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion"
It is a completely different offence and accurately depicts what they have done. They have coerced this person into providing them with the service of transfering this ficticious item which is copywrited by the game provider into their account.
It doesn't all go back in the box at the end of the game, though. Runescape is a persistent world like any other, and these kids knowingly tricked a third into giving them extremely valuable items that they will be able to use forever. The sad part is that now there's no way to give these items back (unless Jagex already has, though I doubt it) since open trade was removed at the beginning of this year. The kids received community service, but knowing the Runescape community I would be willing to bet they are still snickering about it to this day, and telling themselves it was totally worth it.
Well it does "go back in the box" when the game ends. It's no different than me being charged with kidnaping somebodys imaginary friend.
If you threatened them with a knife, beat and kicked them repeatedly, and told them you would further injure or kill them unless they gave you their friend, I'm pretty sure you'd still go to prison.
The issue here isn't WHAT the kids stole, it's that they stole at all, as well as the method. They obviously felt that it was worth stealing, so in their minds and in the victim's mind, the crime is very real. Don't trivialize the seriousness just because you don't understand.
It is not stealing, the offence that they have commited is extortion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion
This is what they should have charged with, note the difference between this and straight foward theft. It covers "when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion"
It is a completely different offence and accurately depicts what they have done. They have coerced this person into providing them with the service of transfering this ficticious item which is copywrited by the game provider into their account.
Argue semantics much?
The point I was trying to make is exactly what you said, although I was using different words to describe it. People are freaking out because ZOMG THEY STOLE VIRTUAL ITEMS AND WERE PUNISHED, when it's obvious that the punishment was for the violent crimes and not the theft (or whatever you want to call it in this case). Arguing about whether it's a theft or an extortion is pointless since that's not the issue here at all.
For a lot of people it is the issue because making virtual items into real in the world items in the law opens up whole big can of worms.
It has implications for taxation and all sorts of other areas that most gamers would find abhorrent. In fact the US are discussing ways of implementing taxation for them, your lucky roll in a raid could end up tipping you over the capital gains tax limit, forcing you to write a big fat cheque to government. Actually you won't be making any raid rolls because if you are rolling for real world items then that will be considered gambling under the US law and the game provider will be liable for arrest under federal anti gambling laws.
Is there not politcal uproar about this in Holland? It makes a mockery of the law.
Ofcourse not. Virtual items are not being "taxed" here like someone suggested. This whole even discourages kids to do things like this, so why should there be an uproar about it?
i agree with Blodpls, just like monopoly money you don't really get to keep anything anyway. I mean we've all had games where we play for years. When you decide to stop playing that game, and your account expires, does the company mail you anything?.....nope, its just gone.
besides that, I can talk you into giving me something, and if you do its not stealing since you "gave" it to me. Maybe i missed something, but what kind of threats did they make that scared the little kid over the internet?
If anyone needs to learn a lesson, its the kid that got swindled. He should learn that in real life and in games that there is always someone who wants to get over on you. Next time...be smarter
blame for the victim?
Hmm the girl in the skimpy outfit, shes asking for it, its her fault she got raped.
The people whose house got robbed? They had nice stuff, they were asking to get robbed.
The kid who got killed by a drunk driver? He got what he had comin to him, if he didnt want to get hit by a car he shouldnt have been walking next to the road.
As long as something has a monetary value, it would be theft to steal it from the one who has the valuables no?
And in todays RMT world, virtual items and money does have a monetary value.
I agree with one of the posters. In the end it's like Monopoly. It all goes back in the box at the end of the day. For an mmorpg such as runescape, within years to come it will come to an end and be over and everything in the game will be lost.
I do think they got what they deserved but the punishment was a little harsh for stolen virtual goods. I've sold accounts before and taken them back because idiots don't change certain information that they should have changed upon purchasing the account. Information I told them to change, eh. Even though that's a whole other field of stealing and is even worse, fact is I shouldn't be charged and sentenced to community service or jail for stealing something ON A GAME. A game where it's illegal to sell accounts or buy accounts in the 1st place.
I think when people scam in games they should never be punished by law for their actions. Banned from the games IP and everything, certainly.
Funny comparing it to monopoly 'it all goes back in the box at the end of the day' yep, but lets face it, so will you, and me, and everyone else, a big coffin shaped one. So monopoly could also be considered a bit like life, in about as loose a connection as being able to compare it to a virtual item, and stealing from someone (dead or alive for that matter) is a crime. The punishment fitted the crime, they 'stole time' from someone, so have a punishment that takes some of their time away. fitting if you ask me.
So... if the virtual items you have, don't matter to you, why don't you just give them all away tomorrow? or destroy them or... ? they matter, its why people play these games, to 'get stuff' and join in a community. maybe kids should be a bit more street wise, but kids aren't, they are kids. Maybe everything should be 'no drop' in games for under 15's but then they won't be street wise until later in life, too much nannying is a bad thing. lets face it, they all learnt a lesson, and if it stops 1 person out there in their tracks from scamming 1 other person, it was worth it. It was also worth it for the people concerned, the 'scammee' has learnt a lesson that will be helping him in life, and hopefully, so have the other two...
Nox
About the monopoly analogy, you can't compare an ended game with an ongoing game. You should compare it with an ongoing Monopoly game, where two players force another to give them his property. Then, if that game would go on for years like in an MMO, it would be the same case, the two players would be forced to restore him his properties. Of course, with a game that just lasts for a couple of hours it's not wort to go to court and such a trivial thing would never be accepted.
Ofcourse not. Virtual items are not being "taxed" here like someone suggested. This whole even discourages kids to do things like this, so why should there be an uproar about it?
Because as I said earlier if they are real items then it puts them into a completely different legal category. You cannot have only the parts of the law that benefit you apply, the whole of the law will apply.
For example you pay money (your subscription), you then take part in a game of chance and you win or lose real world items, this is what a mmorpg is under this new definition. Another term for this is gambling.
I don't live in the US so it wouldn't effect me, but gambling of this kind over the interenet is illegal in US so what does this mean for game development in the future? It means that the kinds of games we like to play won't be possible, to us it's harmless fun but to some people it will be an evil that must be stamped out.
This is just one example off the top of my head of the kinds of implications that making game items into real world items may have.
Edit: After looking it up it games of chance are gray area under the Wire Act which deals with internet gambling as it's not a sport (or is gaming a sport?) but this is the kind of murky legal world that it would open mmorpgs up to.
I thought all virtual items belonged to the game company ultimately anyway.
The only way you could really 'steal' them is by copying them exactly and putting them in another game.
But you should get a far worse punishment indeed if you beat the guy and threatened him with a knife.
Why do people keep missing that critical information here? This is not about theft, virtual or otherwise. This is about school bullies getting out of hand, and the courts putting them in their place. People are making a big deal out of an everyday crime. The court doesn't care what was stolen, they just want to make a point that they won't tolerate this behavior.
You guys who keep saying that virtual items are not "what this is about" or are beside the point are probably right about the prosecution's point. But the point of the posters who are complaining is precisely about the issue of whether virtual items are to be considered real and whether this will set a precedent for that.
On that issue, of whether virtual items will be held to be the same as real by courts in various countries, that fact that in this one case some kids may have needed to be punished is entirely beside the point.
It all depends on what point you are talking about, whether two accused children in the Netherlands were wrong or whether all of us are about to be taxed on virtual gold piece income.
There are also a lot of people making assumptions here and not making the same assumptions as each other. I think the person who said the victim made a mistake assumed the victim was only threatened by people over the internet who had no way to learn his real identity and could not actually harm him. Others who disagree seem to be assuming that the accused did know the victim's real identity and had a very real ability to follow through on threats or may have actually engaged in real world physical violence against the victim.
I haven't been able to figure out which of these scenarios is being alleged by the prosecution and obviously it makes a lot of difference. In every legal system I know about, threats that are obviously unable to be carried out are not criminal. Threats that can be carried out are criminal acts.
The people complaining about treating this the exact same way as theft of real items are right that it is simply the wrong criminal charge. It isn't just semantics. A charge of extortion or uttering threats probably has no implications for a change in the legal treatment of online games. A charge of theft may set a precedent that does in fact lead to not only taxation of virtual items, but leads courts astray into absurdities such as trying to determine how to apply other real world laws to virtual worlds. I mocked this in my previous post about treating PvP as murder. Killing someone's character in PvP in a game which allows this and in fact encourages it, obviously is not murder since no real person has been killed. "Stealing" virtual items in a game which legally are property of the game developers is obviously not "theft" either since the virtual items haven't really changed hands. The items are safe and sound in the dev's game server computer the whole time. If someone did take a copy of them to another computer that still wouldn't be the crime of "theft" it would be more like hacking and copyright infringement.
I know that to most people these details seem totally irrelevant, but in the practice of law, they are critical. That's the reason the law specifies so many specific crimes and has such complicated definitions of them. Otherwise why bother with terms like first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, vehicular homocide, petty larceny, grand theft, grand theft auto, extortion, slander, libel, etc.
1st degree, 2nd degree, whatever. Why not just have one crime: "Wrongful Act" and not bother with all this? Whether you understand the reasons or not, there are very good reasons for having laws that are very specific, and define and punish different crimes differently.
There are a lot of cases that set iimportant precedents just because a prosecutor charged somebody with the wrong crime in a minor case. The most obvious example was the 1984 flag burning case. If I recall correctly it took place in Houston, Texas in 1984 while the Republican Party Convention was going on there. Leftist political protesters were there as usual and one of them, who was a communist, tore down a US flag from a flagpole in front of a bank and burned the flag as a protest.
He was charged with desecrating a US Flag which had recently been prohibited by a Texas law. The case went to court, was appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court which ruled the law unconstitutional. Politicians went berzerk, congress started trying to pass laws about it, an effort was undertaken to amend the US Constitution to erode the 1st Amendment protections on political protest just to make flag burning illegal.
And yet, the flag belonged to the bank. The guy who burned it STOLE it. In that case, he SHOULD HAVE been charged with theft. The whole ridiculous circus that followed from that precedent was unnecessary.
We are lacking many of the most basic facts about the Dutch case, but it definitely sounds like the same kind of thing where there is a real danger of an unbelievably stupid precedent that is, yes, "beside the point" of why the prosecutors brought charges, but could adversely affect millions of people for no good reason. All because a prosecutor may have chosen the wrong charge to prosecute them on.
Games played:
Runescape -------------- www.runescape.com
Magic of the Gods ------ www.magicofthegods.com
Saga of Ryzom ---------- www.ryzom.com
World of Warcraft ------- www.worldofwarcraft.com
Dutch court convicts 2 of stealing virtual items
Oct 21, 1:09 PM (ET)
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - A Dutch court has convicted two youths of theft for stealing virtual items in a computer game and sentenced them to community service.
Only a handful of such cases have been heard in the world, and they have reached varying conclusions about the legal status of "virtual goods."
The Leeuwarden District Court says the culprits, 15 and 14 years old, coerced a 13-year-old boy into transferring a "virtual amulet and a virtual mask" from the online adventure game RuneScape to their game accounts.
"These virtual goods are goods (under Dutch law), so this is theft," the court said Tuesday in a summary of its ruling.
Identities of the minors were not released.
The 15-year-old was sentenced to 200 hours service, and the 14-year-old to 160 hours.
........ you gotta be f*cking kidding me.............and for Runescape....
This is ridiculous. It's a friggin computer game.... doesn't the company that sells or provides the game own the items?
I'm not saying that what the two kids did was nice... but there are better solutions to this, even when kids steal REAL life items....
This is sad and pathetic.
The only time you should get in trouble is if you make real world money for someone elses intellectual property rights like what happened in Everquest a few years back when the guy sold houses on ebay.
The accounts should cancel at maximum! No court should be interfering in a game world unless there's intellectual proprty rights being violated, virtual stalking, or online sexual misconduct with a minor going on!
I guess i'll avoid pvp games if im gonna get charged with murder! LOL
Played : WOW, LOTRO, COH/COV, EQ2, SWG, and WAR.
Playing EVE Online and AOC.
Wtg for SW:TOR and WOD
The monopoly defense is immensely flawed.
1) Stealing a piece of paper is stealing, petty theft though it is , its still stealing. The item stolen could be a used and dirty sock worth a penny, and it would still be petty theft.
----
2)Monopoly money is not a virtual item.Its a tangible item.
-----
3)In the case of the vitual item stolen, it "doesnt go back into the box".The box in this case would be the account owned by the player,from which the player could continue to access and use the item from as per the service he pays for.
This is much more of a case of the item being taken from the owners box (possession) and being placed in another box that the owner cant access.Hence the theft is also a form of theft of service.
As such, it can also be counted as theft of service.As the player who owned the item, did so as part of a service he paid REAL money for.And by the item being taken from him against his will,said item being a part of a paid for service,theft of service has occurred.
If i was to purchase a prepaid phone card, and it was stolen and used in full or part by another person, it would be theft.There is no difference here.
If i was to purchase a movie on a pay per view service, and someone forced me to let them watch it, same thing.Theft.OR if they hijacked my connection and watched it that way,denying me the ability to watch it.Again, theft.
I could pay for access to a seminar, and have someone else wihtout my permission show up and use my access and again its theft.
And before some nutjob tries to say that this is the same as losing an item in combat, its not.As combat can be a part of the service which can result in a loss that by accepting the service and paying for it, he voluntarily puts himself at risk of loss this way.
This is of course HUGELY different than the item being stolen,UNLESS such item theft is allowed by the terms of the service.Which i am more than willing to bet isnt the case.
-----
Now in Eve,there would be a defense IF the bullying and threatenining was ingame only.If so, that would simply be a risk that comes with the service being paid for.Part of said service in fact as made plain by the devs.
BUT if in either case the threats and bullying took place outside the game,its again theft.
------
As much as those like minded to the offenders may want it to be otherwise,the courts got it right so far.
You are not reading what I'm saying.
It is clear to most people that I mean within the context of the game. The person is taking the monopoly money from the victim and using it within the game.
I specifacally stated that all the money goes back in the box at the end of the game,.
I did not say that the game money was being physically removed from the owners possession.
You cannot remove vitrual items from peoples possesion because they are meerly a database entry on the game providers server and do not exist in real world.
Im sorry, you can try as much as you want to dream up some defense for this, but your wrong.
Its obvious your either unwilling to admit they broke the law, or simply dont understand the law.
Ill say it again.The item was at the very least, part of a paid for service.By removing that item from the use of the player against his will and the terms of the service,they stole part of that paid service from the victim.
That makes it theft.
Fair enough theft of service may apply, so why didn't they charge him with that?
Why not prosecute for stealing the service instead of the items?
Like extortion that is an entirely different offense and would not set a precedent for turning virtual items into real world items so would be acceptable to me.
Your argument is no different to mine.
Edit: The definition of theft that I am looking specifically states that the person must have ownership, which they don't as Jagex owns the data. It also must have a real world value and as selling them which breach the terms and conditions that victim accepted they cannot.
I havent read the case, but i would think the prosecuter used electricty theft as an example .
Electricty theft ,which is actaully fairly common,is theft of a service that equates to the theft of a good.In other words, the service is considered equal to a good.
It has value as a service and is considered a product or good due to the value paid for it.Even though its not tangibly owned by the service payer, his paying for the service gives him standing.
Crap, youre right.
On the other hand you should really pay the tax in virtual money.
Still, hacking and emptying someones account is bad and should get the player banned from the game for life. It shouldn't however really be punished in the court of law. It's a friggin game, not real life.
It doesnt matter what you steal, if you steal someone from someone that they have assigned value to, its theft, plain and simple.
They didnt get punished for what they stole, they got punished for stealing.
Pardon my language, but I feel its necessary...
When the fuck did parents quit teaching personal accountability?
Well from available the information they have not been convicted of stealing electricity, the service or anything else. They have been convicted for stealing the actual items, which is why it is in the news.
Anyway as I said earlier theft requires the victim to actually own the thing being stolen, he has signed a EULA that says he doesn't own them. He owns the right to use the service, but that's not what the prosecution was for.
Someone being convicted of stealing electricity has stolen from the provider, not from the person who's house the wires are connected to.
I just saw your edit,and to help you understand ill give you another example.
A person rents a video.He doesnt own said video,the company he rented it from owns it.BUT as per the rental agreement ownership is temporarily transfered to him as per terms of the agreement.
He's responible to those terms, and as such for the item.
Someone steals the video from him.As per the agreement,the ownership was his at the time of the theft.He's responsible for the item.He's the one who has to notfiy the police and press any charges against the thief.
And hes the one who has to make up any loss incurred by the renting company.Unless there is a liability waiver ,of which he's met the requirements.Which usually means he's filed a police report as the temporary owner and proven a theft has taken place.And as such the insurance of the waiver would then cover him.