Gamer Killed For Virtual Property

The BBC has the story of a young Chinese man who was slain over a virtual property dispute. His killer has been sentenced to life imprisonment. The Guardian Gamesblog has a deeper look at the situation with Terra Novan Ren Reynolds. From the article: "We're becoming a service property marketplace. Is this as good as a manufacturing economy? It doesn't have the moral solidity in a way. You can kind of see that shift in ethical terms. People would think that stealing an album in a shop is immoral, but stealing an mp3 isn't. The idea of property has become more intangible."

Comments

Stealing versus Copying

[GJSchaller]

"People would think that stealing an album in a shop is immoral, but stealing an mp3 isn't. The idea of property has become more intangible."

The key difference here is that the MP3 is copied, not removed. The original owner didn't lose his copy of the file / song when the other person took it, whereas in the case of the shop, the owner can no longer sell that physical media. The first is not viewed as theft becasue the owner doesn't lose it, where the second involves actually losing something. (Of course, if the MP3 was erased after it copied, that would be a different story.)

Re:Stealing versus Copying

[stienman]

The key difference here is scarcity. Unless the MP3 copyright holder can control distribution, the MP3 loses any value.

Decades ago the USA was one of the first nations to disconnect money from gold. US currency is now just as intangible as the MP3's bits, and is becoming moreso as transactions go electronic.

The value is due to the scarcity perpetuated by the control the Federal Reserve has over the creation of paper and coin currency, and further by the government "backing" the currency with a guarantee - "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."

It used to be that information was controlled simply by the fact that it was expensive to move it from place to place and process it. Now that information has become almost infinitely liquid, it has lost much of its value because it is no longer inherently difficult or expensive to deal with.

Just as currency no longer is backed by gold, information is no longer held back by cost.

This actually leads to stronger intellectual laws to provide the market with a crutch as we move forward. Obviously this will change over time, but if it were allowed to suddenly change too quickly the markets would suffer a minor collapse, instead of a slow fall that can be checked as people and businesses adjust.

The key difference here is that the MP3 is copied, not removed. The original owner didn't lose his copy of the file / song when the other person took it

The original owner and the purchasers did lose something, just not what some consider important.

A problem is that the sellers want to sell one copy to everyone, and remove any possibility of a secondary market. The buyers want to re-sell their property. This is being worked out by turning everything into a service, and the reason the market is going to a service economy is that the producers want it so badly. I suspect a middle ground will be found, but only after a consumer backlash/bubble.

-Adam

WTF

[rokzy]

>The idea of property has become more intangible.

er, no thanks.

this is about someone who killed someone else. the reason isn't too relevant and certainly doesn't demand redefining property.

Re:WTF

[mausmalone]

People would think that stealing an album in a shop is immoral, but stealing an mp3 isn't.

Yeah... I'm glad someone tried to associate this with a murder case. Sonofa...

Downloading a copyrighted mp3 isn't stealing. Stealing necessitates depriving someone else of property. Downloading a copyrighted mp3 is copyright infringement.

And, no, copyright infringement isn't stealing. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. That's why there's different laws for it... and why it has its own name and stuff.

Virtual Property Value and Labor Costs

[borkus]

Interestingly, "virtual" property seems to only be traded between someone in an economy with low wages to someone in an economy with high wages.

The value of the theft was about $850-900 USD. Guessing that you have to play for 40 hours to acquire the weapon, that makes the "wage" about $22 an hour (before taxes). For a buyer in a major American market (LA, New York Chicago) that could be easily be below his hourly earings; I imagine that Japan would be similar. For someone in China - even a major city like Shanghai - that is a significant sum of money. Average household income in Shanghai is less than $1,500 USD (11,718 Yuan in 2000). 40, 80 or even 160 hours of play for over a half year's income would be an incredible opportunity.

So the game item has no value. However, the difference in labor costs creates a value in the time spent to produce the item.

Album vs. mp3

[NetCynicism]

People would think that stealing an album in a shop is immoral, but stealing an mp3 isn't.

That's because stealing an album in a shop is immoral, but stealing an mp3 isn't. An album is a physical good; if I steal it from you you can no longer use it. An mp3 is what economists call a non-rival good; if I 'steal' it from you you may never notice and have not been harmed in any way, unless of course you believe in Marx's labor theory of value.

That last gives rise to my personal IP motto - 'intellectual property is Communism.'

Other Interesting Details

[popo]

The article failed to mention that Qiu Chengwei scored a +5 critical hit when he stabbed Mr. Zhu in the chest.

It should also be mentioned that while Mr. Zhu's death was of course due to stabbing -- other factors included his low armor class and a failed saving throw.

Rumours are currently spreading that Mr. Chengwei was wearing +3 boots of stealth when he broke into Mr. Zhu's apartment giving him a distinct melee advantage.

God, not again

[Moraelin]

It was a piece of virtual property, yes, but it was worth (and actually sold for) nearly $1000. By Chinese standards that's more than a family can save in a year.

The fact that it's just bits on a hard drive is irrelevant. Let's say that you wrote a novel on your laptop. Then let's say I copy it off your laptop (e.g., while you're in a meeting at work), put my name on it, and sell the rights to it for some $50,000. (So the monetary value is sorta in the same proportion to what you earn, as that virtual sword was for the Chinese guy.)

Wouldn't you think: "WTF? It was _mine_, not his! Who the fuck gives him the right to take and sell _my_ stuff?"

Now say you came to talk to me about it, and I basically told you "fuck off, sucks to be you, the money is mine now." Because that's what happened between those two people.

Now maybe you'd just gnash your teeth, decide to just hate me now and avoid the christmas rush, and control yourself enough to not commit manslaughter. But then realize that a lot of people don't have _that_ kind of self-control. People get into a homicidal rage for a lot less money every day.

And anyway, the fact remains, virtual or not, Person A took something owned by Person B, sold it, and pocketed the money. A lot of money. Very _real_ money. It wasn't over virtual property, it was over _real_ _money_. Period.

Now I can see how two-bit hack journalists would love to hammer on the "man killed over virtual sword in a game" idiocy. That's the kind of a crap sensationalist headline that sells subscriptions. Whereas "man killed over a shitload of real money" doesn't quite have the same edge.

But seeing the number of responses that treat it like some continuation of an in-game feud, completely ignoring the amount of _real_ _money_ involved, gets depressing at times.