Possible punishment for stealing virtual goods

Only in The Netherlands! :-)

Two kids of 14 and 15 may face a punishment of 180 hours of forced labor for stealing virtual goods in a computergame. The two forced a 13yo (using real-life violence at school) to hand over objects to them in the game RuneScape. Final decision of the jurge on october 21. Juridically, it may be interesting whether virtual goods can be stolen according to law, others claim there is indeed a case of robbery as the goods had a certain value to the original owner and he doesn't own them anymore.

Well, if they used violence/menace, the fact the goods are virtual is irrelevant.

This particular case makes sense.

If we could be subject to the law based on game mechanics in a video game I would be in jail forever for the massive amount of stuff I've stolen on UO.. lol

Link?

Good for the Netherlands! Virtual property should enjoy just as much protection as tangible property.

Link: http://frontpage.fok.nl/nieuws/100758/-Taakstraf-voor-diefstal-in-computerspel.html

But that'll be Dutch then..

I think it would be cooler if you could steal real-life goods by threatening to frag someone in a game.

Seems reasnoble to me for the reaons others have already stated.

Darkheart

Well some virtual property has real world tangeable value. I remember when I played Everquest similar characters sold on Ebay for around £1500-£2500. It seems odd to people who aren't massively into online games, and I never did have the heart to sell my own character, but some people really will pay through the teath to have the best in an online environment.

In a sense it's no more unusual than investing in a hobby, and if it saves you a few years of the tedious bits you dont like to get to the content that you do, then I guess it's understandable these things can be worth an aweful lot of real world money.

I guess that's why economies in these games are getting trashed by so-called 'farmers', to the point where a friend of mine recently had a right go at me for buying gold in WoW with almost fanatical zeal, accusing me of supporting an industry that destroys the game mechanics. I didnt want the gold myself, I bought it as a [admittedly somewhat unusual] valentines gift for my WoW besotted other half to help get some epic thingy or other and it was the only means I could help her.

So virtual goods are worth real money. These days, whole games can be purchased virtually and there is certainly tangeable value to the consumer there too. Imagine if you online software account details where stolen and the password changed... Again, a tangeable loss.

There is no doubt that virtual goods do hold real world value these days.

I think your mad if you purchase something you can't touch or feel or has no useful function to your life.

Buying stuff in second life... Gimme a break... It the biggest rip off going.

I'm going to nip down the virtual shops and buy some virtual shoes, for my virtual character. There we go. I've just given money away and i've got nothing in return. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Games, software etc, yes, even online credits for purchase sites, you actually get something you can use.

I say though, good on the people who make money out of these types of things.

I don't think here the issue lies in the goods, but in the fact that the boy was threatened at school and forced to act against his will. When done in adult age, it is a behaviour often tied with criminal acts more serious then robbery.

game money should stay just that
if you dont have enough dosh to buy something in the sims you just dont buy it till you get paid next (which was daily ... god id love to get paid daily instead of monthly :) id even settle on weekly) or earn enough to pay for it
there is no paypall account you can set up and just top it up to help build that dream mansion (lets hope ive not given them an idea)

so these items forced to hand over, if they were epic quest prizes or something that he (and everyone else) could only do once per character, then that item is lost forever and who knows, some epic quest later and he might need that item to progress

the best analogy i can think of at the moment is like having a cracked copy of sonic where the checkpoints no longer give you access to the chaos emerald levels, you can complete the level but wihtout the emeralds not the game

Ridiculous, this.

If one punishes "virtual stealing" then, surely, one must also punish other virtual crimes such as "virtual murder" and "virtual racism" (Goblin scum!), no?

If you don't, the law is blatantly unfair - if you do, the law is crazy.

Umm, no, you suck. This is fine, but they should have acknowledged the real life violence much more.

I googled:

second life lawsuit

*sighs*

and rightly so. (for the intimidation that is)

> If one punishes "virtual stealing" then, surely, one must also punish other virtual crimes such as "virtual murder" and "virtual racism" (Goblin scum!), no?


If they would have only threatened his virtual character then whatever rules exist in the game world would cover it, threats of real life violence make it a crime.

its deffo one up from threatening for lunch money or do my homework or else

It's ridiculous to punish people for threating other people (in real life, mind you, all but "virtual") in order to obtain what they want? So, it's ridiculous as well to punish organized crime for the same reason. The goods are of no concern to the judge: it could have been money, audio CD's, books or action figures and the crime would be the same.

Well, yes - in which case, the crimes are assault and intimidation rather than "stealing virtual goods", no? This being the case, why is the story being reported - and posted here, even - as punishment for virtual theft?

If I beat someone up because I didn't like the colour of their shoes, I wouldn't be punished for not liking their shoes, would I? No, I'd be punished for physically assaulting my victim. Who would then write "Man faces punishment for dislike the colour of another man's shoes!" ? No one. Such an interpretation would be ridiculous.

Yes.

Because someone's tried to put a spin on the story to make it sound like nonsense.

Racism is a crime now?

I'm sure that the threatening as such will be a valid point for the judge to kick those boys' asses. The interesting bit however is whether virtual goods have value juridically, and thus if one can -apart from violence- also be prosecuted for thievery of virtual goods.

You've never heard of racial discrimination? What a sheltered, innocent life you must live. But that can't be true, because aren't you a gun loving, immigrant hating, republican?

Perhaps a better law would state that all gun-toting America-loving capitalists have a legal obligation to shoot illegal immigrants... ;)

Racial discrimination for hiring is illegal, but "racism" isn't a crime in the U.S., and shouldn't be. That's so incredibly vague and could be so easily abused.

Yeah, I know, and I actually agree with you. Actually, the sentence that you quoted from my earlier post was meant to highlight the ludicrousness of it all - not to be taken as a serious statement.

Surely stealing virtual goods is not possible, as in online games, everything on your account is property of the provider and they can pull the plug anytime they like. Just like in WOW.

Go tell the journalist which was trying to hype something out of nothing.

However, I don't know the language and didn't find the news elsewhere: if the boy actually paid for the items, we can truly talk about stealing and extortion, but the title is still journalist babble as anything with an economic value is a good (and software always has been in the last thirty years).


Well, piracy wouldn't be a crime otherwise. Software and data are commonly sold as intellectual property and as such do have economical value, even if it's a futile item on a MMORPG (which after all isn't all that much different from buying a 3D model even though it's only for personal use). It's a bit baffling to read these surprised comments in a forum where most of the people is actually making money (or trying to) out of software, media and the IT industry. however in this particular case, again, I don't think that the goods had much juridical value; however, if the boy paid for the goods and since the distribution method implies that by giving the item to someone else he would not possess it anymore, that's actually extortion which is even worse.

So much hate in the U.S. (and the government is completely screwed.)

I'm moving to Europe!

Its worse there. Heck just a few weeks ago the UK legally adopted shariah law.

O.o

:(

Yup! I just chopped some theive's hands off just five minutes ago.

What was that Mahmood? Oh, I'm not REALLY alowed to chop their hands off!? Oh SHHH***T!

Holy cow... is this for real? it's the same approach which lead to Jesus crucifixion a few years ago.

IMHO if you live in a country, you must accepts it's laws or try to change them as a citizen. If you don't agree and feel that native customs are above the law, move where you feel you belong.

Unfortunately so.

Is this for real?
No. Not legally enforceable.
Read the whole article.

Please don't lie. Quotes from the article:

Hahah, indeed!

No it doesn't.

Yes. But that was illegal, and the reason goldfarmers and powerlevelers are ruining games like WAR.

Reading the Times, like the devil reads the bible? Yes the rulings of Sharia courts are enforcable by law, if both participants agree that the Sharia court is a suitable resolution for both parties. Much like a boxing match or chess game could be used to settle a dispute. It does not mean that Sharia courts have any jurisdiction, and certainly not preceptive jurisdiction.

See? 2 can play at that game.

You are being naive ;) The article clearly says it is legally enforcable, which is contrary to the claim I responded to.

Well, if it is enforcable only if you accept to be ruled under that court, if you agree it's just your choice then...

The way that reads to me is not that if you choose to allow it, you can accept their decision to be legally enforcable, but you choose prior to the ruling whether to allow it and then whatever they say is legally enforceable.

This "punishment" has nothing to do with virtual goods. The punishment is for real-world violence / threats.

If you steal a virtual item in a virtual world with a virtual character, the only possible punishment should be virtual - for example the player's character thrown in a virtual jail, etc. The only time real-world punishment should be introduced is when a real-world illegal activity takes place.

Stealing or any other "crime" within a computer game is all part of the simulated world you accepted to be a part of when you played it. If you're paying a subscription to a MMORPG or something, you have to accept that everything you work towards in the game and try to build up may be lost under the rules of the game, and there's nothing you can do about it in the real world.

and to think jack thompson is now disbarred ;)

I'm sure now that you've let them get this far, they'll be satisfied to let it remain that way, and won't push for more powers.

Thank you for the sharp observation, but my political conscience is strong enough; that's just not the place which endorse this kind of talk, so I stick to the facts (this topic already went off-topic a bit too much).

Anyway, don't push my words that far, as I didn't want to go there but just say that at the moment it isn't as bad as I expected from the post. I didn't imply anything about the political course of the country.

Basically I'm against 'contamination' of the laws via uncommon methods, and in this particular case because (and here were return somewhat on topic) if the victim has a submissive role in an immigrant family he/she could be easily forced to choose a different court (fortunely, the law still isn't applied to penal cases).

Don't be silly. You need to read the article. It is legally enforcable and you should study shariah law and see what rights women have and what punishments are dictated by shariah law for the types of cases they will be handling.


They (shariah courts) have already said they want to and plan to be trying the equivalent of misdemeanor criminal cases in the futute.

But, you are wasting your breath, Leadwerks. The British way is to just "take it".

About time Aus gets another chance to vote for a republic methinks.

It's like nobody reads the entire topic but just a line or two. Both parties must agree to bew ruled under that court; IMO the bad part is that, even though, and I cite myself:



Here is another guy which is boldly assuming to be the only one to know a bit of the world around him. Take a break, I didn't imply either that it's an example of equity and fairness, and if you read the quote and the precedent posts it's quite clear that your attack doesn't make much sense as I was contrary to the whole idea, and not just applied to shariah courts. It's also insulting to assume out of the blue that I'm completely blind in relation to foreign cultures.

As I already said, politics are not allowed here, so I just won't treat the subject on a programming forum.
Anyway, everything got way, way off topic.

http://frontpage.fok.nl/nieuws/101432/-Eerste-straf-voor-virtuele-diefstal.html

Here be the result: them robbers got forced labor for virtual thievery! So, this is raelly for the thievery of virtual goods. The judge says that virtual goods can have the same value to someone as real goods do, and thus thievery of virtual goods can be punished.

I always thought virtual money and virtual items were the property of the company that created the game.

Why? If you're a woman, and don't understand sharia law, you probably shouldn't submit to a sharia tribunal. It's not like you can be subpoenaed to appear before the court. They don't have any jurisdiction or enforcement powers. It's just like every other contract, legally enforceable but you get the change to opt out, by not agreeing to it in the first place.

Actually it is a perfectly valid topic, because under the same laws, just could create a programmers tribunal, with executive power to fine lousy programmers for not indenting properly, providing of course all involved parties agreed to submit to the ruling.

The same could be done for virtual property of course. Companies like Blizzard would in the UK, have a legitimate and enforceable means to deal with gold farmers.

Well that judge is clearly insane and/or technologically illiterate. While it's technically true that virtual goods can have sentimental value, they can't have actual value, as selling the items is generally against the terms of service for a game. Secondly getting your virtual goods back is simply a matter of changing data around, it takes a couple of seconds, and your goods will be returned to you in mint condition, unlike physical property which is just gone. Forever. So what's next? Virtual insurance companies? You're doing it wrong!

They are. Which is why you can't eBay them.