Stealing ingame is illegal

[DeletedUser1121]

There has been an interesting verdict today by the Dutch court of appeal (highest court in Holland). Two kids got convicted for stealing items from another boy in the game Runescape.

Judicial finding of fact, evidence adduced and qualification
The Court of Appeal convicted the defendant of, briefly stated, the theft with violence, together with another person, of a virtual amulet and mask belonging to another person in the online game RuneScape.
From the evidence adduced at the appeal, it may be concluded that the defendant and his co-accused coerced the victim, using violence and the threat of violence, to surrender virtual objects in the game of RuneScape that had cost him time and effort to obtain. He was made to log into his RuneScape account and 'drop' the objects in the virtual game environment. The defendant was then able to use his own RuneScape account to appropriate the items dropped by the victim.
The appeal court held that this constituted a criminal offence under article 310 in conjunction with article 312 of the Criminal Code.

This is very interesting and could possibly even have an impact on this game. The complete verdict can be found here: http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisat...preme-Court/Pages/Extractfromthejudgment.aspx

What do you think? Is the judge right in this verdict? Are virtual items as valuable as real items because they take time and effort to obtain?

 

[DeletedUser]

The judge is friggin' nuts. Here I am playing Monopoly, I want Park Place but this buttwad is refusing to sell it to me, so I threaten to rip off his head and pull out his scrotum through his neck if he doesn't hand it to me. The little weasel hands Park Place to me, fingers trembling, tears a'running.

Next thing you know, I'm serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole.

 

[nashy19]

I don't think the virtual stuff technically belongs to them but it sounds like the person was effectively mugged.
Surely it would be illegal for me to put a knife to someone and force them to give me a copy of their Minecraft server data or something.

 

[DeletedUser28032]

It depends really on whether or not real money was used in order to buy said virtual item because if someone has taken something from you that you have paid for then its theft whether its virtual or not.
I once heard of something similiar where a Korean man lent a virtual magic sword to another man in a game who then promptly went and sold it on eBay for real money.
Needless to say the original owner of the sword was somewhat dischuffed about this and so preceeded to hunt down and kill the other man in real life.

 

[DeletedUser]

I played RuneScape. Their terms of service and conditions state that anything related to the game, including your account and any item your account has belongs to Jagex. They've enforced this when 'bots' became too much of a problem. Trading items for 'real world cash' is against the policy. I believe the object is to get the items for yourself instead of buying the items... makes it 'fairer'.

The reason I agree with the judge is they used force to receive the items. Which is the equivalent of mugging.
Jagex might sue the defendants for breach of terms and conditions since they stole the items. *shrug*

 

[DeletedUser16008]

The judge is friggin' nuts. Here I am playing Monopoly, I want Park Place but this buttwad is refusing to sell it to me, so I threaten to rip off his head and pull out his scrotum through his neck if he doesn't hand it to me. The little weasel hands Park Place to me, fingers trembling, tears a'running.

Next thing you know, I'm serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole.

lmao, careful HS your beginning to sound like me.... however i concur its absolutely nuts someone can get a criminal record for a virtual game item. +1

 

[DeletedUser]

The judge is friggin' nuts. Here I am playing Monopoly, I want Park Place but this buttwad is refusing to sell it to me, so I threaten to rip off his head and pull out his scrotum through his neck if he doesn't hand it to me. The little weasel hands Park Place to me, fingers trembling, tears a'running.

Next thing you know, I'm serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole.

Damn, I'm done with Monopoly. I don't want to go to jail for embezzlement.

As for the OP, if they threatened him with bodily harm IRL that SHOULD be a crime. If they threatened to PK him on the other hand, the judge is on crack.

 

[DeletedUser17649]

The judge is friggin' nuts. Here I am playing Monopoly, I want Park Place but this buttwad is refusing to sell it to me, so I threaten to rip off his head and pull out his scrotum through his neck if he doesn't hand it to me. The little weasel hands Park Place to me, fingers trembling, tears a'running.

Next thing you know, I'm serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole.

Perhaps if you'd hit him a couple of times first and threatened with more.
"... coerced the victim, using violence and the threat of violence ..."

The objects monetary value is unimportant, it was a mugging.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

Supposed I went to a credit card company and threatened one of the workers to kill his family or beat the crap out of him repeatedly if he/she did not give me the account numbers and details enough so I could use them of Hellstromm or Victor. Now those account numbers don't belong to them and the information is just data, but isn't coercing the person to give something up in real life more the problem here (until I use the credit card and account numbers)?

The interesting thing here is that it appears this guy was already convicted and this judge more or less reasoned why to uphold the previous conviction. Some areas do not have double jeopardy protections so it might be a situation where the original case failed and the prosecutor tried again with an appeal but from the link, it sounds like it was the court rejecting the plaintiff's appeal.

 

[DeletedUser]

They did not convict the kids of a mugging, they convicted them of a theft. As Chac indicated, Runescape owns all "virtual items," accounts, etc. Thus, it is simply not possible to steal the items. They had a defending attorney who didn't do his homework.

It's like the Monopoly game I mentioned above. The game belongs to a third party, not to the dipwad I threatened, nor to me. At the most, you can attempt to charge me with assault (good luck with that). But as the game, and all its respective parts, belong to the owner of the Monopoly game, I cannot effectively "steal," nor perform a "mugging," to temporarily obtain possession of an item from a person who doesn't own the item.

In this case, the owner of said items (in the Runescape game) is Jagex. Since Jagex, or any employee of Jagex, was not threatened nor coerced, nor did they at any point lose possession of of said items, no theft or mugging occurred.

Compare it to two kids fighting over control of the Xbox game controller (using taunts or threats). In the end, the Xbox, controller, and the game dvds, belong to their parents (not to either of the kids).

No, the only thing these Runescape kids could be charged with is assault, and then convicted "only" if it can be proven that assault was committed. The Holland appeals court is wrong, but it is due to a failure on the part of the defending attorneys for improperly representing their clients.

edit: the report does not provide any argument regarding purchase of said items. In fact, it indicates the control of said items were obtained through "time and effort." It is quite clear these virtual items were not initially purchased with real cash, nor subsequently sold for real cash.

 

[DeletedUser1121]

The fact that he isn't the owner doesn't matter according to the following

- the victim had exclusive de facto control over the virtual amulet and mask because these could only be accessed by logging into his RuneScape account. Through the actions of the defendant, the objects passed out of the control of the victim and into the control of the defendant. This violated the victim's uninterrupted enjoyment of exclusive control over these virtual objects;

When someone robs me and steals my phone (which isn't mine but owned by the company i work for) i am still robbed. An object that i had in my possession is taken from me. I can not use it anymore.

 

[DeletedUser]

Desi, in your example they stole it from your company. You cannot claim it as stolen property, only your company can do that.

The other problem with your argument is that, as I indicated, the items were not stolen from the company, from Jagex. Your argument is invalid.

Sumdumbass, I read the link provided by OP. The items were not purchased with real cash, nor does possession of those items provide access to real cash. Your argument is also invalid.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

They did not convict the kids of a mugging, they convicted them of a theft. As Chac indicated, Runescape owns all "virtual items," accounts, etc. Thus, it is simply not possible to steal the items. They had an defending attorney who didn't do his homework.

The difference between an assault and mugging is essentially the taking of something of value. Illegally taking something of value from someone is generally considered a theft.

But as Desi pointed out, the law and courts considered the loss of control of the objects exclusively in their control is the same as theft. So if we have to liken it to something,
lets liken it to you borrowing your cousins Xbox, and I through the use of violence and continued threat of violence, force you to give it to me, but surrender it to your cousin before he realizes it is out of your control. Now replace Xbox with Car or Cell Phone, or whatever.

Also, you have to realize, in order for this court to get it wrong, another court in Holland has to get it wrong too. You might not agree with their laws, but obviously the laws as enforced seem to disagree with you.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think they are referring to the time and energy the player used to obtain the use of the items in the game. So really they are granting value to his time and energy and the theft is based on the value of that.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think they are referring to the time and energy the player used to obtain the use of the items in the game. So really they are granting value to his time and energy and the theft is based on the value of that.

Hehe, I should charge the government for the time and energy required of me to stand in their friggin' lines at the DMV. Or perhaps I should charge Sumdumbass for the time and energy required of me to knock some logic into his cranial receptacle.

Back to Sumdumbass --- you are again equating it to items stolen. These items were not stolen. Jagex, the REAL owners, had possession of them the ENTIRE time. Your argument is, yet again, invalid.

 

[DeletedUser]

The court's ruling wasn't based on whether or not the owners of the game lost anything. The items in the game have a value which is assigned to the owners of the game. That is true, no argument. But there is another value assigned to the items. It is the value of the time and energy needed to obtain them in the game. The value of that time and energy is owned by the kid. Those who used force to make him lose the items, used force to make him lose the value of his time and energy. That is what the ruling is about.

 

[DeletedUser28032]

I would say that although the item didn't belong to the boy who had it "Stolen" it was the equivalent of it being rented from Jagex.
Now i don't know how this game plays but if theres any form of subscription in it then he is also losing what he has paid as well as his time. Its the equivalent of somebody forcing you to give away your Golden Colt in The West after you've used a load of nuggets in order to get it.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

They are items stolen insomuch as copyright or patent rights can be stolen. The control of those items is what is being taken. The time and effort notation just shows that he had acquired the control of them and held the right to control them. This is why it is no different from me taking anything you borrowed under the same circumstances and returning it to the owner before they knew I took control of it. If I mugged you and took your work phone, then realizing it was your work phone, returned it to your employer before they knew it was taken (because I have your phone), the mugging doesn't auto-magically disappear. Nor should it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Compare it to two kids fighting over control of the Xbox game controller (using taunts or threats). In the end, the Xbox, controller, and the game dvds, belong to their parents (not to either of the kids).

Everyone make note: if you get a gift from Hellstromm, he still considers himself the owner.

 

[DeletedUser]

Omg! okay well I rarely come to this place, so forgive me for being such a noob I didn't read the whole article, just the excerpt. So I read it and I understand the argument here better now, but as it turns out I still think the most valid aspect of the ruling is the value of the item in terms of the time and energy the kid employed to get it. At least I think that provides the most indisputable grounds for the decision.

The whole idea of whether or not the item can be termed a "good" makes for a really interesting discussion though.