Stealing ingame is illegal

[DeletedUser]

I guess the moral of the story is, if you want to steal something from someone in a game, do not involve the real world in the process of it. If it was all in game, whether the rules allowed it or not, I do not think there ever would have been consideration of a prosecution. It was the real world antics that brought it up.

The in game theft should have not even been considered by real world courts. The real world crime was the assault that actually took place in the real world. It would be up to the moderators of the game to set right the in game injustice. Like you said they should have kept it separate.

The problem is they did allow the court to say in game items are now real world property. This now sets a precedence for a dirt bag lawyer to call in game items as "de facto property", and use this case as precedence. So now don't be surprised if stealing some ones Pokemon is now a jail-able offence.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

The in game theft should have not even been considered by real world courts. The real world crime was the assault that actually took place in the real world. It would be up to the moderators of the game to set right the in game injustice. Like you said they should have kept it separate.

The in game items most certainly belonged in the real world. It was the sole motivation for the real world actions. It speaks directly to the mens rea of the case and is specifically what elevates it from a assault or kidnapping (which if they took him somewhere at knife point against his will and held him captive, could definitely be considered)

The problem is they did allow the court to say in game items are now real world property. This now sets a precedence for a dirt bag lawyer to call in game items as "de facto property", and use this case as precedence. So now don't be surprised if stealing some ones Pokemon is now a jail-able offence.

No, it did not say in game items are now real world property. It said that virtual items can have value that someone can control and real world acts that are unlawful and designed to take that value from you doesn't fail on the non-existence because of in game status. The only time stealing a pokemon could become a criminal offense would be if you tracked someone down in the real world and then broke the law in order to take it. You simply cannot get around the real world elements in this. The act took place in the real world, the stalked him, assaulted him, took him at knife point to his computer and made him transfer something of value to their accounts. The game connection is really ancillary or a technicality at this point.

 

[DeletedUser]

The in game items most certainly belonged in the real world. It was the sole motivation for the real world actions. It speaks directly to the mens rea of the case and is specifically what elevates it from a assault or kidnapping (which if they took him somewhere at knife point against his will and held him captive, could definitely be considered)

I really don't see how theft elevates the crime after Assault with a deadly weapon and kidnapping... If any thing the perpetrators got off easy with some community service instead of being jailed in a juvenile facility until age 18 and transferred to adult prison.

 

[DeletedUser]

I really don't see how theft elevates the crime after Assault with a deadly weapon and kidnapping... If any thing the perpetrators got off easy with some community service instead of being jailed in a juvenile facility until age 18 and transferred to adult prison.

I imagine that the theft element aggravates the assault charge, rather than replaces it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yahoo reports that a court in Holland has convicted two teenagers of stealing virtual items in the popular kids' MMO, RuneScape.
The 15 and 14-year-old culprits forced a 13-year-old boy into a transferring a "virtual amulet and a virtual mask" to their accounts in RuneScape.
The Yahoo report is light on detail, but we understand from our friends at Eurogamer.nl, who read about it in the paper this morning, that the errant teens beat up and kicked the victim, and threatened him with a knife.
The two were convicted to 360 hours of community service between them. "These virtual goods are goods (under Dutch law), so this is theft," said the court in its ruling.
Very few cases of virtual theft have reached the courts in the past - usually, police refuse to take them seriously. This is the first time in Holland that there has been a final ruling in such a case.-http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/dutch-court-convicts-teens-of-virtual-theft

@Eli Makepeace Apparently that's exactly what it did do. They gave them community service over theft of 1s and 0s; instead of charging them with real world crimes.

 

[DeletedUser]

All this talk of 'ownership' is totally missing the point.

Actually, it is the point. The court's ruling was based on an incorrect assumption, the assumption that the kid owned the items in the game, that they belonged to the kid, and that all the kids in this case owned their accounts. Jagex, in the Terms of Service, clearly indicate otherwise. This was not presented by the defense. The court made a ruling without that critical bit of information.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Actually, it is the point. The court's ruling was based on an incorrect assumption, the assumption that the kid owned the items in the game, that they belonged to the kid, and that all the kids in this case owned their accounts. Jagex, in the Terms of Service, clearly indicate otherwise. This was not presented by the defense. The court made a ruling without that critical bit of information.

I dont think they are listening somehow

 

[DeletedUser30834]

No, they are not incorrect assumptions. the court acted within it's purview and made a de facto declaration. IE, he had de facto control of the items. This is well established and means that even though he didn't own it, he controlled it as if he did and it was enough to make the law work.

You can deny it all day long. All you will be doing it repeating how wrong you are.

 

[DeletedUser]

No, they are not incorrect assumptions. the court acted within it's purview and made a de facto declaration. IE, he had de facto control of the items. This is well established and means that even though he didn't own it, he controlled it as if he did and it was enough to make the law work.

You can deny it all day long. All you will be doing it repeating how wrong you are.

Lets just say for a min they did rob him of this "good"; Then why did they ignore the assault with a deadly weapon and kidnapping charges? Why were they only punished with some community service? This case reeks of the court wanting press and precedence for future cases like this.

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually, it is the point. The court's ruling was based on an incorrect assumption, the assumption that the kid owned the items in the game, that they belonged to the kid, and that all the kids in this case owned their accounts. Jagex, in the Terms of Service, clearly indicate otherwise. This was not presented by the defense. The court made a ruling without that critical bit of information.

It hurts me to see an intelligent guy like you so persistently failing to understand this. The court ruled that the plaintiff had 'de facto control' within the definition it itself gives, as Sumdumass has repeatedly pointed out.

IT DID NOT ASSUME THAT THE PLAINTIFF "OWNED" HIS ACCOUNT OR THE ITEMS IN IT - it recognised the victim's right to "uninterrupted enjoyment of exclusive control". Is that so difficult to grasp?

There are laws protecting the enjoyment of fresh air, daylight, human company, pleasant views, reputation, privacy and many other things. Ownership does not come into it.

@WillyPete. You cannot seriously think these kids got 380 hours of community service purely for hi-jacking "the sword or Wandor" or whatever. That sentence looks proportionate to me for a juvenile facing a first conviction for extortion with threat of violence. Robbery with violence is generallly treated as a more serious crime than simple assault, which I assume is why the prosecutor argued that article 310 of the Criminal Code should be applied rather than treat the case as one of gratuitous intimidation without motive of personal gain, and also why the defence challenged this. Otherwise the defendants' challenge makes no sense. I repeat - it is an aggravating circumstance and would merit a greater, rather than a lesser, punishment.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

Lets just say for a min they did rob him of this "good"; Then why did they ignore the assault with a deadly weapon and kidnapping charges? Why were they only punished with some community service? This case reeks of the court wanting press and precedence for future cases like this.

If they did not take his good, then it would be an assault and possible kidnapping but it would be inappropriate to assume the charge wasn't applied as the prosecution found a conviction.

The problem here is more or less a double jeopardy issue to why they seemed to ignore it I guess. The actual conviction contained an element of unlawfully in which the assault would have been covered (how did they unlawfully take the good and appropriate it to someone else? By assaulting the kid and holding him at knife point). To charge them for the assault (and possible kidnapping) on top of the convicted charge would have the effect of convicting them twice for the same offense. Once for the offense itself, and once for the offense itself combined with other actions that made it the charge they where actually convicted of. So the assault was actually addressed, it just didn't come right out and say robbery by assault or whatever to make it obvious. Had the taking of his "good" not existed, it would have likely been more clear. Had the robbery part been an enhancement to the assault law (for instance, robbery in the US usually gets one penalty and the use of a firearm to commit the robbery causes a more strict penalty to be applied) it might be more obvious.

An example of this might be murder where someone was beaten to death. The act definitely would have contained an assault element, but because it would be the means to which the murder took place, you don't see a separate charge for it in the conviction. There may have been an actual assault charge as part of the case before the court but the higher offense would negate it if convicted on it.

As to why they only got community service, that is a guessing game as I do not see any explaination for it anywhere. However, I have noticed that in Europe, there seems to be a mentality of being soft on crime with the focus of punishment being rehabilitation rather then actual punishment as it seems to be in US cultures. Also, age seems to have played an issue here. The kids were barely teens so while they would be old enough to know right from wrong, they may not have fully understood the consequences of their actions in the way a full fledged adult might. I've seen studies that say your frontal cortex, the part of the brain that associates consequences with actions, doesn't stop developing until the age of 22 or so which seems to support that (as well as explain why arbitrary ages are assigned to when someone is an adult).

Knowing this, and the ages of the participants, I would guess to say it played a large role into why they received community service instead of prison terms. But it is not exactly a slap on the wrists either. Supposing they pulled an average of 3 hours a day of non-paid community service 5 days a week, they will be dealing with this for 2 years.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

They got community service because throwing people in jail for anything isnt considered effective or cost effective... 380 hrs is a huge amount to get ...

Actually the whole thing looks to me to be a set up for future cases and virtual stuff.... theft as a crime will ruin your career far more than assault...... so you get in a scrap, so what ? most of us have from time to time and you get a record for it ... no biggie theres plenty of work you can do with it... in fact its a bonus in some work believe it or not.... theft on the other hand means you are a THIEF ... no one wants a thief ... period ... that tag will mess up their lives forever, community service is plenty as punishment for first offence nor is it soft its a massive sentence on their free time and imo far more use than prison at that age. If it had been adults its highly likely as no actual harm was done they would have still been given community service... Holland dosnt like putting people in jail for the sake of it, its not an effective solution longterm for most criminal acts unlike the US which thinks quite alarmingly putting everyone in jail is acceptable and has almost a quarter of the world's jailed prisoners 2.3 million in fact more than any other nation.

Bbw they are minors so wont be doing community service 3 hrs a day 5 days a week it will be 8 hrs at weekends and time during school holidays etc ... as like this will stretch over 3 or 4 years taking education, holiday breaks etc into account, knowing nothing about the kids backgrounds I cant say but it will also affect their education and probably the rest of their life, the kid who went through it isnt going to be traumatised for long and its a lesson in life most go through while young as the bully scenario plays out all over the world and thats what this really is....at the end of the day its not much different than being threatened in the playground to hand over your favourite toy. The only thing making it more serious is the use of a knife.

No i don't have a record ive just employed plenty that do and I can tell you "thief" on a record meant I wouldn't employ them, most anything else ok considered but not a thief.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well the one sure way to make sure a thief stays a thief is to make sure they cannot get a job.

 

[DeletedUser]

How many people do you know have volunteered for 380 hours?

 

[DeletedUser]

Ugh, I can't believe I'm being tasked to do this, but here goes:

The situation is analogous to a park bench.

Here we have Victor sleeping on the park bench. The park, and the bench, belongs to the city. Victor doesn't own bench, it doesn't belong to him, but Victor is in "de facto" control of that bench.

Sumdumbass, on the other hand, wants that bench and decides to threaten Victor.

Poor Victor... aww

So Sumdumbass takes "de facto" control of the bench and Victor ends up in "de facto" control of the spot right next to a dumpster:

So, should Sumdumbass be convicted of theft for stealing the bench from poor ol' Victor?

 

[DeletedUser16008]

LMAO actually i look more like the guy with the bat but meh whatever

 

[DeletedUser30834]

HEllStromm, only a judge can decide if someone is in de facto control. And no, that scenario is not even close to the situation at hand. In the case, the guy had exclusive control even when he wasn't on the game (the park bench). So change it to the city installed the park bench in his back yard and he put a fence and gate around it, and change the thug removing him from it to taking the bench out of his control completely and you might be close.

I know you are having difficulties imagining how this works but please make an effort to at least get close.

 

[DeletedUser]

oh that's a crap rebuttal Sumdumbass. "only a judge can decide if someone is in de facto control."

You already argued what "de facto control" meant, and now you're trying to say only a judge can decide what it means? Talk about trying to play both sides of the fence...

As to your example, it is incorrect. If it were in his backyard, then his "backyard" would be his property... but that is not what happened in this game. The account was not "his," it wasn't his backyard. The account belongs Jagex. The backyard belonged to the city. As to putting a gate and fence around it... as long as you make it abundantly clear that the gate and fence also belongs to the city, I will agree with you. But under your above example, I do not, nor should anyone else.

As long as that guy is on that bench, taking all spots on it, he's the only one that can be on that bench. He "de facto" controls it. Nobody else can be on that bench without making physical contact with him and pushing him out of the way, which is assault.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think its the cities job to remove transiens and homeless drunks from park benches. Maybe this guy is just performing a comunity service.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

oh that's a crap rebuttal Sumdumbass. "only a judge can decide if someone is in de facto control."

You already argued what "de facto control" meant, and now you're trying to say only a judge can decide what it means? Talk about trying to play both sides of the fence...

I think you better check again. I argued the legal concept of de facto control. It is clearly where a judge makes declarations about the facts of a case.

As to your example, it is incorrect. If it were in his backyard, then his "backyard" would be his property... but that is not what happened in this game. The account was not "his," it wasn't his backyard. The account belongs Jagex. The backyard belonged to the city. As to putting a gate and fence around it... as long as you make it abundantly clear that the gate and fence also belongs to the city, I will agree with you. But under your above example, I do not, nor should anyone else.

Well, no. He could rent the property making the back yard the property of the landlord. It would still be his back yard, but not his property. He would still have control of it as if he owned it. You see where you fail with the park bench is that if the guy gets up and goes somewhere else, he loses all control of it. Should the kid with the game items not log in, it keep the items in inventory, no one else can come by and use it.

As long as that guy is on that bench, taking all spots on it, he's the only one that can be on that bench. He "de facto" controls it. Nobody else can be on that bench without making physical contact with him and pushing him out of the way, which is assault.

You are right that it would be assault, you are however wrong about the control. Keep grapsing though, you might just find a situation close enough to resemble this case that you actually find a clue.