Dutch Teen Arrested for Virtual Property Theft

vuo writes "A story on the BBC website reports that Dutch police have arrested a teenager for robbery of virtual furniture worth roughly $5900. The crime took place in the virtual world/social network Habbo Hotel, a website run by Sulake Corporation. Sulake has 80 million registered users of its sites in 31 countries. ' Habbo users can create their own characters, decorate their own rooms and play a number of games, paying with Habbo Credits, which they have to buy with real cash. "It is a theft because the furniture is paid for with real money. But the only way to be a thief in Habbo is to get people's usernames and passwords and then log in and take the furniture. We got involved because of an increasing number of sites which are pretending to be Habbo. People might then try and log in and get their details stolen."'"

Comments

Virtual jail

[A nonymous Coward]

Will this be handled by a virtual legal system, with other players taking the roles of the police, judges, bailiffs, attorneys, paralegals, etc? Will there be virtual subpoenas, a virtual trial, and possibly a virtual jail for the virtual (alleged) thief?

Re:Virtual jail

[discord5]

virtual jail

Not just any virtual jail, virtual man jail with virtual soap getting dropped in the shower

Re:Virtual jail

[gstoddart]

Will this be handled by a virtual legal system, with other players taking the roles of the police, judges, bailiffs, attorneys, paralegals, etc? Will there be virtual subpoenas, a virtual trial, and possibly a virtual jail for the virtual (alleged) thief?

Where he'll be virtually sodomized by other virtual inmates while waiting for his virtual appeal. =)

At least the summary points out this is actually a case in which you have to essentially steal someone's password, and then steal things they've paid actual money for. This is one of the few rare ones which actually seems to amount of fraud.

I'm still waiting for trials for virtual murder in RPGs as people kill of other player characters for fun.

Cheers

Re:Virtual jail

[oo7tushar]

I'd say yes if it was done by a virtual being but it wasn't. This was real world action in order to steal virtual property purchased with real world currency...so probably a violation of TOS and breaking of some rules by logging in as other people.

Re:Virtual jail

[Eternal Annoyance]

...for which he can virtually wait for an eternity...

Re:Virtual jail

[Firethorn]

At least the summary points out this is actually a case in which you have to essentially steal someone's password, and then steal things they've paid actual money for. This is one of the few rare ones which actually seems to amount of fraud.

Agreed, It might also be prosecutable under identity theft laws as the criminal is using stolen logins - representing himself as somebody else.

I'm still waiting for trials for virtual murder in RPGs as people kill of other player characters for fun

I'm pretty sure that 'virtual' crimes committed in cyberspace that is considered part of the experience, like player killing or even theft in a game that supports it as an 'official feature' will be considered part of the game - to be prosecuted by the laws and rules of the game.

Heck, that was one of the 'features' of a MMRPG I kinda dreamed up using a cyberpunk background - you could own property, build it up. As a consequence other PCs could raid your property and steal stuff. Getting caught would result in in-game consequences.

Re:Virtual jail

[FLEB]

The only sticky point with something like that though, is making the out-of-game punishment equal to the out-of-game cost of the crime (which still exists, even if the "crime" is perpetrated in-game). You'd need to somehow restrict the real person behind the avatar from simply dumping their account and creating a new one to get around the punishment.

Unless, I suppose, wealth was easily regained, and getting robbed was all part of the ebb and flow of the game.

Re:Virtual jail

[Firethorn]

The only sticky point with something like that though, is making the out-of-game punishment equal to the out-of-game cost of the crime (which still exists, even if the "crime" is perpetrated in-game).

My point was that, as long as you aren't committing a 'real world' crime like hacking accounts or violating the TOS by exploiting bugs, if you're playing a MMRPG like 'Mob Wars 2175', While your avatar will be commiting many 'virtual' crimes that are part of the game - even when it's to the detriment of other players, stealing or destroying equipment, capturing territory, etc... It's all part of the game - not something to take to realworld justice systems. Going to court 'Waghh - they stole $100k of my in-game money' will garner a 'tough luck' - much like if the individual had lost the money in a legal poker game. It's a game. You lost. Tough luck.

You'd need to somehow restrict the real person behind the avatar from simply dumping their account and creating a new one to get around the punishment.

This would only be a problem in a 'in game' punishment system.

Being that I was picturing a cyberpunk universe, I was figuring on the ministry of justice being pretty corrupt and ineffectual. 'Justice' would max out around the same as getting killed(IE not much in a MMRPG). Worst case, you can't play that avatar for a couple days(as he's sitting in a prison cell or regrowing in a clone tank). You'd be interested in completing the requirements as reseting your avatar would result in, even if you're dead broke, losing all your skill increases.

Let's say a high level character goes on a spree killing* in a newbie area, killing dozens. He get's sentenced to the 'maximum' penalty of 150 years - or a week of realworld time(going by 1 year sentance = 1 hour realtime). Such a character would have much more than a week invested, so the player isn't likely to dump him.

IE the levels your character has already earned can do more to getting yourself set back up than starting out with $1k at level 1. Even butt naked a high level character would be able to wander into a mid level area and punch enemies to death. This gets him equipment he wouldn't get for a month starting from level 1, then he wanders into a higher level area and, balancing his 'sucky' equipment against higher than normal levels for the area, gets better stuff. Rinse and repeat until he's got 'good' equipment again.

Unless, I suppose, wealth was easily regained, and getting robbed was all part of the ebb and flow of the game.

That was my idea. I'd make it difficult for somebody to lose everything(both the thief facing justice and the victim when the stolen goods aren't recovered), to the point that reseting, on average, wouldn't be worth it. Unless you managed to piss off a clan or vastly higher level character enough that they decide to spend the effort to knock you down and keep you down.

Heck, for victims - purchasing insurance should be a given! ;)

*Thank heavens it's virtual ;)

Re:Virtual jail

[mrchaotica]

Unless, I suppose, wealth was easily regained, and getting robbed was all part of the ebb and flow of the game.

Isn't that the essential distinction between a "game" and "real life" anyway? I mean, the difference between America's Army and enlisting is that you respawn when you get killed in the game. The difference between Monopoly and investing is that you don't become homeless when you go lose. The difference between sports (e.g. baseball, archery) and hunting is that you don't starve when you miss the target.

A game with actual consequences wouldn't be a game anymore!

Re:Virtual jail

[UbuntuDupe]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but returning the stolen property is a matter of a few database commands, once you know what's happened. I'm definitely no bleeding-heart "pity the poor thief" kind of guy, but since there was apparently little damage, punishment should be proportionally small -- not on the order of physical property theft, which is extremely difficult to recover and get restitution for.

Re:Virtual jail

[Anonymous Coward]

I need /b/lackup at the pool.

Long life afroduck.

Re:Virtual jail

[Intron]

theft: "the act of taking something from someone unlawfully"

Questions:

How far was the stolen property taken or is it in fact in the same place?

Did the accused take the stolen property or was it in fact moved by the server?

Is the owner of the server an accomplice to the theft?

Re:Virtual jail

[Lord Kano]

I hope that he doesn't drop the virtual soap.

LK

Re:Virtual jail

[Lord Kano]

so probably a violation of TOS and breaking of some rules by logging in as other people.

No matter what the TOSAdvisor on AOL told you, TOS are not laws. They at best are a contract, if you breach a contract you have to pay money. You don't go to jail for breaking a contract with a private entity.

LK

Re:Virtual jail

[Froboz23]

If someone hacked into my bank account and stole $10,000, that could also be "fixed with a few database commands." It's just bits on a disk, but it also translates to $10,000 in the real world. So it's grand theft, and fraud. Throw the book at the guy.

Re:Virtual jail

[sumdumass]

In a lot of theft cases the items in question don't even need to leave the building. Denying the lawful owner the use of the property can in most cases constitute theft.

The "moved by the server" and many other questions should be answered by the courts when it goes to trial. Apparently, the accused thieves were setting up fake sights and luring people to it. They then convince him to log in and take the login information for use in transferring the property to another account where it is then resold or held for ransom. This isn't a case of waking up with extra stuff in your inventory and asking why. It is a purposeful manipulation of circumstances with the intent of receiving gains that they are not entitled to.

Or at least that is what they are accused of doing. The facts and truth should come out in court when they either contest it, admit to it or somehow plead to it. But it sounds like the charges are from actions in the outside world which seems to negate accidental server screw ups.

Re:Virtual jail

[UbuntuDupe]

No, hacking into your bank account couldn't be fixed with a few database commands, because you couldn't do anything about the stolen money being used to buy goods elsewhere. OTOH, in this game, the stolen furniture can be removed from the thief's position AND returned to the owner.

Re:Virtual jail

[Criterion]

But it is NOT as simple as a few database commands done on a whim. Scammers would *so* work that angle.. the people that hold the database keys would have no idea what outside deal you make with someone to then turn around and scam them back out of it. Everything has to go through the proper channels. With the increasing values of items in places such as Entropia (where a big hoopla is going on currently about a trust scam involving a set of armor worth well in excess of $5k usd.. and that is one of the lower value, high end items) some precedents are going to have to be set. He said she said just won't cut it. If there was proven hacking involved, well then there are laws for that and just because the actual asset movement can be fixed with a database call should not diminish the punishment.

Re:Virtual jail

[Kamineko]

http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2312282

Re:Virtual jail

[DarkMantle]

"Not just any virtual jail, virtual man jail with virtual soap getting dropped in the shower

You mean dropped in the virtual shower.

Re:Virtual jail

[FLEB]

It depends on the game. If killing and theft are a significant part of the game, a properly balanced game will make it so being on the receiving end of a kill isn't that bad. Either you respawn with a penalty, or characters are disposable enough not to matter.

If you have some sort of game where it takes extensive time or real money to build in-game advantages, and these advantages can be permanently "stolen" through brute theft or killing, an in-game punishment would not serve as a useful deterrent, unless it reflects the out-of-game investment lost by the victim. Unless steps are taken that involve real-life difficulty, restriction, or hardship, the "punished" player could just spawn a new disposable character and go on antother killing spree.

Granted, the power balances and mechanisms should be worked into the planning of any respectable game.

Re:Virtual jail

[FLEB]

Okay, so it would be a naturally criminal game. I could see that.

Black-Market Virtual Goods...

[Fireflymantis]

I wonder how much a stolen virtual chair is worth on the virtual black-market?

But really... I got to wonder what is exactly is the point of this 'theft' from the point of view of the guy who did it. Is there really money in trying to somehow re-sell any of this, or was it just for laughs?

Re:Black-Market Virtual Goods...

[Anonymous Coward]

At a minimum, the thief did not have to pay for the furniture. The victim would have to pay more real money to replace the stolen furniture. It's theft whether the thief uses, sells the furniture, or burns it. It's not his and he took it.

Re:Black-Market Virtual Goods...

[Fireflymantis]

Although I agree on your points, I was rather inquiring as to what this person's motives were when committing the act. Maybe it was just yet another pissing contest for something like 4chan. :(

What of Photoshop?

[Cathoderoytube]

You don't hear about anybody getting arrested for downloading copies of Photoshop anymore these days. Thankfully I can still download whatever illegal software I want and not get caught, but if I pinch a copy of a digital couch that can't actually be used for anything other than an avatar to sit on I'm looking at hard time.

Funny how life works.

Re:What of Photoshop?

[sdhankin]

When you download a copy of Photoshop, it's a copy. The site you download it from still has it.

These guys didn't make a copy - they took the original. They now have it. The original owner does not.

Phishing and fraud are irrelevant. I you phish or otherwise fraudulently obtain someone's bank account number and PIN, and subsequently empty their account of their "virtual money" (it's all just bits, right?) you have stolen from them. It is theft, pure and simple.

I really doubt the bank would "just restore the backups" in that case.

Re:What of Photoshop?

[Cathoderoytube]

I see your point. However, in my day we had system administrators who could do something like get a new couch to replace the old one (since the couch is still digital and can be copied an unlimited amount of times) then go after the person who stole the couch to begin with and delete their account and blacklist them from the game. This is still all technically not real and shouldn't be subjected to the same laws as in the real world. Getting somebodies bank info online then draining their account has more real life implications than losing an image of a couch that can easily be replaced. I have no sympathy for anybody who gets their virtual possessions virtually stolen. I say kudos to the people who stole the things, they're helping point out just how bloody stupid paying real world money for fake commodities is.

Re:What of Photoshop?

[JesseMcDonald]

These guys didn't make a copy - they took the original. They now have it. The original owner does not.

These guys didn't "take" anything: they fraudulently misrepresented themselves as someone else in order to gain access to a server. That's the only part they're actually guilty of, although they would, of course, be liable for any costs resulting from this fraud.

Phishing and fraud are irrelevant. I[f] you phish or otherwise fraudulently obtain someone's bank account number and PIN, and subsequently empty their account of their "virtual money" (it's all just bits, right?) you have stolen from them. It is theft, pure and simple.

No, it's still fraud, and the victim of the fraud is the bank. (If you look carefully you'll find that deposits, unlike the contents of a safety-deposit box, belong to the bank until they are withdrawn, not the depositor.) How the bank's misfortune at being defrauded affects the depositor depends entirely on the account agreement in place.

Re:What of Photoshop?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you completely retarded? When people are setting up fake sites to gather PRIVATE passwords and usernames from real people, I don't give a good goddamn for what site it is. This is highly illegal, unquestionably immoral, and the cocksuckers should rot in jail for it.

Re:What of Photoshop?

[Bloodoflethe]

These guys didn't "take" anything: they fraudulently misrepresented themselves as someone else in order to gain access to a server. That's the only part they're actually guilty of, although they would, of course, be liable for any costs resulting from this fraud.

I am pretty sure that when a piece of property, virtual or otherwise, is removed from someone's account it is considered to have been "taken." Whether it was taken from the person whose avatar sat on said couch or it was taken from the company who administers the virtual world may be up for debate, but the act of taking is not. What bothers me is how the couch could possibly be worth the quoted amount. I mean, did this person seriously spend $5,900 real world dollars on this thing? If so, does he need a son?

Re:What of Photoshop?

[sdhankin]

These guys didn't "take" anything: they fraudulently misrepresented themselves as someone else in order to gain access to a server. That's the only part they're actually guilty of, although they would, of course, be liable for any costs resulting from this fraud.

If I fraudulently gain access to your bank account, yes, that's fraud. And that's indeed what these folks did. So far neither of us have committed theft. If I then remove money from your account, that's theft. Similarly, after gaining access to the account, they moved items from the original room to their own room. That's theft. That's why I said the phishing/fraud was irrelevant - it was what they did after they gained access to the account that mattered.

Re:What of Photoshop?

[AgentSmith]

[OK Mods, start your engines. Here's some flamebait!]

When you download a copy of Photoshop, it's a copy. The site you download it from still has it.

Um, this is crap. It's the same crap old argument being ponied around on /. about massing file sharing.
Let's break it down like this.

I'm Adobe. I hire programmers to design a product.
I sell that product to make a living and pay the costs of my business.
When someone does not buy my product and makes a copy of it they are
stealing the compensation (ie. denying me money I would have received from that product).

Let's not sugar coat this and not call it stealing. Just because the law hasn't caught up to this
doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

And let's not feed everyone a line of crap about "Oh, I never would have bought it so I don't count toward potential loss."

Also, if you want to cite the fact that Adobe charges prices higher than the market can bear? You can have your protest
during your bitorrent of Adobe products, but call it what it is --stealing.

Same thing for this fella who 'stole' potential money. Any time real world money is involved in a virtual world
it's going to be this way.

For example:
I pay Real World money for virtual furniture (The absurdity of this can be discussed later.)
    which now gives my virtual furniture Real World value.
Thief steals my account (Fraud) and then takes my virtual furniture without authorization to where
I don't have access to it. Because it has value, he could potential sell it for Real World money.

Indirectly, the thief might as well fraudulently obtained my bank account authorization and transfered money straight from
my account to his. It's all on the same bank server, but do I have access to it? No. Can he spend my money, if he doesn't get caught? Yes.

Do we now see the problem in both situations?

Re:What of Photoshop?

[sdhankin]

When you download a copy of Photoshop, it's a copy. The site you download it from still has it.

Um, this is crap. It's the same crap old argument being ponied around on /. about massing file sharing.
Let's break it down like this.

I'm Adobe. I hire programmers to design a product.
I sell that product to make a living and pay the costs of my business.
When someone does not buy my product and makes a copy of it they are
stealing the compensation (ie. denying me money I would have received from that product).

Let's not sugar coat this and not call it stealing. Just because the law hasn't caught up to this
doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

Sigh. No, it is not crap. I was pointing out the difference between copying something and taking the original. Nowhere in my post did I state whether or not copying licensed copyrighted software is stealing. Nor did I make any judgements about whether it was right or wrong.

I was just establishing the difference between taking something that belongs to someone else (and therefore depriving them of it) and copying it (even if you have no right to do so).

Clear?

Argh, it's intangible!

[Joe the Lesser]

The Habbo admins/GMs/whatever can recreate the furniture for free! (I should hope so) So nothing is lost!

If there's an issue with people hacking the game, deal with it in terms of hacking, not 'theft'.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[4D6963]

The Habbo admins/GMs/whatever can recreate the furniture for free!

Isn't it a bit like saying "The US Mint can print as many bills as they like!" ?

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, the stability of the second most important currency in the world is a bit more important than some sad reality game frequented by losers.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[Corbets]

And it's not really hacking, which any of the low-UIDs here can tell you originally referred to tinkering. Cracking might be a better term.

Quite being so pedantic and accept that the meanings of words in any language change over time, and that time has become smaller and smaller in the modern age of communication.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[91degrees]

Well, if I understand correctly, these virtual items are bought and sold for real money, so they certainly have a value. And he deprived the owners of the items whilst gaining it himself.

It could be seen as analogous to an illegal bank transfers, but that really seems to be in a completely different league from this. Prosecuting him for wire fraud would be horribly unfair. Aside fromt that, it is a valid point that these "items" are really quite intangible.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[Firethorn]

Isn't it a bit like saying "The US Mint can print as many bills as they like!" ?

I'd tend to say that it is right along that saying - with the same caveat that that would mean that since there's more furniture in the market due to their replacing it, that the value of any given piece of furniture would decline(inflation).

Though I'll note that as a monetary system, it's a good thing that it's virtual. Furniture is up there with the huge stone rings used as money by some tribes in history for unportability.. ;)

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[Anonymous Coward]

The bank admins/GMs/whatever can recreate the money for free! (I should hope so) So nothing is lost!

If there's an issue with people hacking the bank, deal with it in terms of hacking, not 'theft'.

In a world where money is getting less and less tangible, I see no reason to differentiate someone keeping thier money in a stock portfolio, or (stupdily) investing in digital representations of items.
It's become obvious these things have value to someone, simply creating more devalues everyone elses items.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[4D6963]

Not really, the stability of the second most important currency in the world is a bit more important than some sad reality game frequented by losers.

My point wasn't based on the importance of things, it was mainly about inflation, as in, the loss of value of something (money/virtual furniture) if it's reproduced more than it should.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[ichigo 2.0]

Especially as their business model seems to consist of selling these virtual items to their customers, so inflation is a real problem.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[mrchaotica]

No, because they can also delete the stolen goods.

Oh yeah, and also it's a damn game, not real life!

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[vertinox]

Isn't it a bit like saying "The US Mint can print as many bills as they like!" ?

Under the current system that is pretty much true.

But otherwise, most online services still retain ownership of the virtual items. Which is why Sony can force Ebay to take down virtual gold auctions.

Lastly, for virtual items to have value they must be backed by something of worth. That could be actual property or ownership (like the shares on the stock exchange) or just plain old fashioned money.

As in... I print off a piece of paper with the phrase "this is worth a million dollars" on it and it gets stolen, I can't go to the judge and demand someone to be charged with a theft a million dollars.

Now if I paid, a million dollars for that piece of paper, then perhaps I would have a case. You would have to prove that you paid a million dollars for it and it was an agreed upon value through a contract and it would hopefully stick because that the piece of paper has been backed with money. (Keep in mind if I bought a million dollars of stocks and the next day the company folded then I couldn't sue for theft)

(IANAL and all that)

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because bills are made up of carbon atoms and useful to everyone, and virtual furniture is stored as ones and zeros on a database somewhere, and probably a few other places as backups, and is useful to a bunch of wierd freaks that would pay money for stuff like that.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[BiggerIsBetter]

Well, if I understand correctly, these virtual items are bought and sold for real money, so they certainly have a value. And he deprived the owners of the items whilst gaining it himself. No, because they're not buying virtual items. Sure it superficially seems that way, but they're really paying for services (eg, the server time to generate the representation of the item)... so there's no "owner" of the item as such, because there's no item (virtual or otherwise) to own.

I'll concede that the service does have value, but any beef is between the host and the client who is using their resources to the detriment of their other players.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[MikeFM]

No, because more bills creates an issue for the system, more data doesn't. It's easy to delete the stolen objects, or just return them to their rightful owner, and just ban the user that stole them. Making this a criminal issue is stupid.

Next time someone steals a handful of Monopoly money when I grab a soda I'm going to have to press charges I guess. Afterall, I paid real money to buy that Monopoly money so snatching it must be a real crime. Doh.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[Sibko]

Isn't it a bit like saying "The US Mint can print as many bills as they like!" ? What? No. It's not even close. What the crack are you smoking? To mint a coin you need physical materials. There's a finite amount of nickel and copper in the Earth, the supply is not limitless.

This, on the other hand, is completely different. An admin can almost literally wish 10 billion dollars worth of furniture into the game at a moments' notice. He could make a chair worth 5 cents or 5 trillion cents. Making another chair requires him to input a short character string. It's nothing like real life theft.

Your trolling score: 3/10

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[Quarters]

Yes, something was lost. If they make replacement furniture then the virtual economy has been diluted by $5900 (or whatever it was). This reduces the real-world value of everyone's in-game property. If Habbo did this every time a theft happened then the virtual economy would crash and people would be out a lot of real-world money.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit you've got to be either trolling or pathologically stupid.

Why would you need nickel or copper to make small green pieces of paper? We don't care about coins any more.

If you're concerned about the worlds supply of paper and ink running out any time soon due to the printing of money then I suggest you go back to economics class.

Oh, and look at that, the captcha for now is 'classes'.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[ColdSam]

You're ignoring the time it takes the admin to verify that data theft occurred and to recreate that object. That time is also a limited resource.

And you don't think the government couldn't also just digitally add another 10 billion dollars to the money supply if they chose to?

You get defrauded by a Nigerian scammer? No problem, just send an email to the treasury and ask them to wire the same amount of money back into your bank account. That would be a lot more efficient than trying to prosecute the scammers, wouldn't it?

Your analogy comprehension score: 3/10

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[Criterion]

It's just oh so easy to say something like that looking in from the outside. Thing is it doesn't work that way. A real crime was committed, thus a real crime should be prosecuted. When you're dealing with RCE systems, the admins will NOT go around willy nilly deleting and giving stuff back. Too many angles scammers can play like that. It does not work that way, nor should it.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[Anonymous Coward]

My original point still stands. Inflation in a petty game is really of no import. Inflation of a major currency is.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[Criterion]

You are completely and totally losing the plot with any kind of RCE environment. That E on the end of RCE stands for *E*conomy, something that would go bust should the admins tinker the wrong way with it, leaving them with a bunch of pissed off customers with no trust that their items will retain value selling out and a sinking ship headed to bankruptcy. Regardless of how lightly you might take the value of these properties I can assure you that there are many people that take it quite seriously. And as far as him making it worth 5 cents or 5 trillion cents.. well, I don't do Habo, but I do know that supply and demand set the price in other places. Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them since they are in limited supply and only available via trade with another user... and sometimes that is a whole wad of cash. Tens of thousands of USD in some cases as these items are allowing the lucky few that have them to earn quite a nice salary with them. The last withdrawal I heard about recently was $70k usd.. and that was only one of many withdrawals that individual has made. Tell me if somebody phished your info and took something of yours that you paid $30k for that it's nothing like real life theft.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[4D6963]

No, because bills are made up of carbon atoms and useful to everyone, and virtual furniture is stored as ones and zeros on a database somewhere

Actually most money is stored as ones and zeros too.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[Flambergius]

Oh yeah, and also it's a damn game, not real life!

I hate to see stupid shit like that get modded Insightful. There's no Real Life that is distinct from online activities that take place in Habbo Hotel or Second Life.

There's a good case to be made that in an actual game, like WoW or Monopoly, breaking the games rules (i.e. cheating) shouldn't be against the law. But Habbo Hotel is not a game. It is a virtual environment but activities that take place there are real. It is of course not a trivial issue, in terms of law, how those activities map on to our traditional system of justice. However, they do map there somewhere, because they are part of the bloody real life.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[ichigo 2.0]

For the company in question, inflation in their game is likely a bigger problem than inflation of a major currency. That you personally don't care was already understood.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[Alsee]

Oh yeah, and also it's a damn game

Ummm, were you referring to Habbo? Or the US Mint?
Chuckle.

-

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[edmicman]

But you can't in turn *take* the money back from the Nigerian scammers. Why can't the admins remove the "stolen" furniture from the accused accounts, and "return" it to the rightful owners? And then ban the faulty parties from the system?

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[edmicman]

But why couldn't you get that $30k item back? It's purely digital, it'd be trivial to restore things to as they should. Supply and demand shouldn't come in....they're not making a new copy for you, they'd be removing the stolen copy and returning it to how it should be.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[magarity]

The US Mint can print as many bills as they like
 
Counterfeiting is illegal. The US Mints only make coins; any bills they printed would have to be with their color laser printer. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing prints the bills.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[ColdSam]

The admins can (and should) remove the stolen items, but that takes time and therefore money (probably far more money than the item is worth). But is that (even with banning) enough of a deterrent to other would-be scammers/hackers? I don't think so.

To push the analogy even further, that would be like punishing a car thief by forcing him to return the car and telling him to stay out of town.

Re:Argh, it's intangible!

[Criterion]

You have to prove it was stolen, because THEY have to know it was stolen so they know you are not scamming someone else. File police reports and do the whole "real life" thing, which was my whole point. This is the only way the companies themselves keep from being scammed, and the point behind the "all trades are final" deal.

Backups?

[eviloverlordx]

I guess restoring from backups is out of the question.

Re:Backups?

[Criterion]

When you're dealing with a real cash economy platform that constantly changes.. you bet your booty it is for anything less than catastrophic hardware failure.

The future's broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the Future is excellent, but the virtual purchasing part of the future is not excellent. If you spend real money on imaginary stuff you are like the emperor in that story about the streaker. It's stupid. You could spend it on a lap-dance. Or a few bacardi breezers for a slapper.

Jurisdictional nightmare.

[Corpuscavernosa]

Does anyone else think this is all getting just a little bit silly?

Is someone going to be virtually fined or virtually imprisoned over this? It would be kinda cool to have your virtual character locked up in the clink and have to deal with virtual prison issues that plague real prisons. I wonder how virtual gang-prison-ass-rape would play out.

It will be really interesting to see how the laws develop in this arena. Who has jurisdiction to hear this matter? If the server is in Germany, the "theif" is in South Africa, and the "victim" is in Canada, what's the venue?

What laws are applied?

Re:Jurisdictional nightmare.

[Goobermunch]

Not in this case, no.

From the summary, it's clear that the individual was fraudulently obtaining access information to other people's accounts. He was then using that information to access their accounts and "steal" data for which they had paid real money.

As a result, he obtained the value of the data without paying for it. Moreover, he also prevented his victims from enjoying the value of the data they'd purchased.

This is really a pretty simple wire fraud situation. The only interesting part about it is that instead of stealing money out of a bank account (or obtaining a deed to a piece of property), he's stealing virtual furniture that someone else already paid for. The net effect, however, is the same. The victim is denied the benefit of something for which he or she paid actual money.

That's theft.

--AC

Re:Jurisdictional nightmare.

[CommunistHamster]

However, the "stolen" sofa can be immediately returned to the original owner at no cost to anybody, unlike an actual sofa.

Re:Jurisdictional nightmare.

[KudyardRipling]

Whichever jurisdiction has the harshest punishment for the particular crime. Drugs? Malaysia! Graffiti? Singapore! Political dissent? North Korea! Sodomy? Iran! DIY Cruise Missile? New Zealand! Being poor? United States!

[obnoxious statement not available at this time]

Re:Jurisdictional nightmare.

[Criterion]

Except if they do that instead of using.. you know.. the law, people WILL find a way to game that. RCE platforms are strange like that. This is not your fathers WoW.

Re:Jurisdictional nightmare.

[mqduck]

I wonder how virtual gang-prison-ass-rape would play out. Now this is the kind of MMORPG I could get into.

Virtual Theft?

[Adam Zweimiller]

Should the charge not be some kind of hacking/cybercrime for stealing and/or cracking other peoples accounts, rather than for "virtual theft". The crime should be no different than hacking, and the victims should be able to demand restitution of the virtual goods.

Re:Virtual Theft?

[illegalcortex]

I imagine the charge (if any) will be the hacking/phishing. Most of that article is made up of the Habbo spokesman talking, not of any statements by the Dutch legal system. That just doesn't make as "interesting" of an article to read.

It's equivilant to real stuff though..

[sunami]

It is a theft because the furniture is paid for with real money.

That virtual property has real world value. Hence, theft.

Re:It's equivilant to real stuff though..

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because some kids are stupid enough to spend their parents money on this crap doesn't mean it has value - it's just a few flags set in the user's accounts, and the kids think it's cool to have a picture of a particular sofa for the picture of their avatar to appear to sit upon, within the larger image of a graphical chatroom environment. None of which they actually own, and none of which has any value to anybody except the company getting rich off these gullible children.

I'm the king of the playground

[Anonymous Coward]

Kid: Teacher, little Jimmy stole my idea.
Teacher: Well Steve, tell Jimmy to play nice.
Kid: but he stole my IP.
Teacher: You can't steal ideas Steve, now go back outside and play.
Kid: Jimmy is a pussy, I'm going to fucking kill Jimmy.
Teacher: Put that chair down!

So does that mean

[Anonymous Coward]

He'll go to virtual "pound me in the ass" prison?

It's SO Grey

[techpawn]

It's theft because a company exchanged money for goods. But it's not theft because it happened online and nothing was "really" stolen?

I think we're the wrong people to be debating the merits of this. We won't steal physical media but most have no qualms about downloading data even if it is protected by license or copy write. Is phishing and cracking the wrong in this case? Well of course, but have we jailed people for stealing WoW accounts/items yet?

Re:It's SO Grey

[Fieryphoenix]

It's not theft... more like fraud. Money was not exchanged for goods. You can hold goods. Virtual property cannot be a good. Rather, it seems that a service, namely, the service of modelling and displaying virtual furniture in the Habbo environment, was exchanged for money. The imposter lied by representing himself as the owner of the account and placing an order, through whatever control system manipulates virtual objects there, that said service be transferred to another party, thus depriving the purchaser of the service. Hence fraud.

Re:It's SO Grey

[techpawn]

But TFS points out

Dutch police have arrested a teenager for robbery of virtual furniture worth roughly $5900

So this service rendered a virtual good that was taken. So, yes add fraud to the list of charges but that doesn't change that fact that someone paid for furniture (no matter how fictitious) and this young person "broke in" and removed the furniture.

Re:It's SO Grey

[Fieryphoenix]

I'm deliberately splitting hairs, here, which is exactly what one must do evaluating law. The actual meaning of the word good is a physical object. Theft is the act of taking an actual physical object from its lawful owner. Just because you and are able to understand each other speaking about virtual objects and virtual actions using the same words we use to describe actual objects and physical actions, does not make them into them. But it's an analogy only. In actual fact what is happening here is the manipulation of a computer to alter databases, where said manipulation happens to result in spatial renderings of images that mimic physical processes. Charging with theft in a legal sense would be just as incorrect as charging with robbery if the criminal's avatar held a virtual gun. But the charge of fraud is entirely consistent... fraud has nothing whatever to do with physicality. I will repeat. There was NO good that was taken. There was no theft. Theft is not the right word for the crime that occurred, and a law against theft cannot be reasonably applied. Now, it may be in the Netherlands' legal system that the same laws which criminalize theft also criminalize what happened... I am not a Dutch a lawyer, couldn't say. But even if they did, describing this as theft, in the English language, is mistaken. Good enough perhaps for casual conversation and rapid communication, but not for actually thinking about the law.

Re:It's SO Grey

[CommunistHamster]

A standard case of phishing, then?

Re:It's SO Grey

[Kreigaffe]

stealing a WoW account could be jailable, I'd THINK... but items?

naw, man, naw. naw.

if that were true anybody that plays WoW and wound up being their guild vault would be in jail for embezzlement and theft and all kinds of other things. .... uhm, i would imagine..

Re:It's SO Grey

[Fieryphoenix]

I would say it looks like phishing was done to get the information needed to defraud. Two criminal acts, woohoo!

Really pushing it

[Shivetya]

They are so asking for the various government angencies to step in and tax them.

If any of these virtual items change hands they what will be their defense? If you can go to jail for stealing virtual items surely you can be taxed for selling them as well.

then again, is this more of a crime of stealing passwords than virtual items?

If I were the perp...

[C10H14N2]

I'd FAR prefer to be run up on the $5,900 "virtual theft" charge than the Federal PMITA hacking charge.

rules 1 and 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Man he should of called for /b/lackup

Re:rules 1 and 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Now this is a story all about how my Life got flipped turned upside down And I'd like to take a minute just sit right there I'll tell you how I become the prince of a town called Bel-Air

Pool is closed

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to AIDS.

Re:Pool is closed

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't habeeb it...

Re:Pool is closed

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick of all the MOTHERFUCKIN' chairs in this MOTHERFUCKIN' room, desu.

Re:Pool is closed

[Anonymous Coward]

So I uh.... I heard you like Mudkips?

Re:Pool is closed

[Anonymous Coward]

'Anonymous' Cowards on Slashdot eh?

Why dont you have a seat over there.

Tag this "anti-feature".

[Anonymous Coward]

As restricting an object to be copied even if it would be trivial to do so is an anti-feature.

Virtual crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure hope they arrest those administrators for infecting the players with the digital AIDS that can be found in the pool.

Habbo Hotel

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

So what this is not is someone taking things using legitimate, or even buggy, in-game mechanics. Rather it is getting someone's password, whether legally or not, and then taking their in-game items without the account owner's permission.

I'm fine with that.

I wonder if Butters struggles whether to ask Daddy to pay for Habbo Hotel or Hello, Kitty! Online Adventures.

This is completely insane

[pclminion]

How the fuck can there be theft in a world where the game administrators can reinstitute the guy's property WITH THE PUSH OF A BUTTON? It's not like this kid has "deprived" anybody of anything that can't be instantly recreated. Hell, applying the word "create" is even too generous.

The lunatic who spent $5900 on "virtual furniture" needs to be committed to a small, padded cell until he can get a grip on reality. And if the game admins refuse to give the furniture back to him, toss them in jail for fraud. And charge the kid with cracking, that's all he did.

This isn't cute. It's fucking nuts, and it scares the crap out of me that people are losing their grip on reality and people might go to prison for it. Holy shit.

Re:This is completely insane

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck can there be theft in a world where the game administrators can reinstitute the guy's property WITH THE PUSH OF A BUTTON?

Because the determining factor of whether it's theft is not how easily or quickly the pilfered goods are replaced. The FDIC could replace my bank's funds WITH THE STROKE OF A PEN if it was robbed; that doesn't mean robbing it wouldn't be theft.

The lunatic who spent $5900 on "virtual furniture" needs to be committed to a small, padded cell until he can get a grip on reality

Right, because only crazy people spend money in ways you don't personally approve of. Having different values from you means one is losing their grip on reality.

Re:This is completely insane

[Goobermunch]

Actually, from TFA, I get the impression that he nabbed a total of $5900 worth of property from several different users.

Also, its theft because he's taking something (data) for which someone (the other users) paid value. In the process, he gets value for which he did not pay, and also denies the others the value that they paid.

Sure, an admin can create a new virtual item, but that doesn't balance things between him and his victims.

--AC

Re:This is completely insane

[jeffasselin]

There's a difference in whether the supply of goods is artificially constrained (I mean, the company in this case could give every piece of furniture to everyone with little to no cost to them), restrained through actual physical constraint (stealing gold for example, a substance which is difficult to find/extract/produce), or restrained through the need of a system to retain a certain balance (like money for example).

If every user of that game/virtual world suddenly got everything free, it might affect that company's pockets, but it wouldn't destroy the world economy, right?

Re:This is completely insane

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a very huge and very significant difference between replacing your virtual freaking dinner table and replacing hundreds of millions of dollars of REAL currency that is pretty much the measuring stick of a global economony.

And yes, if you spend $6000 on virtual furniture, you are fucking nuts... or retarded. Perhaps retarded nuts or nutty retarded. Whatever. Take your pick.

Re:This is completely insane

[pclminion]

Because the determining factor of whether it's theft is not how easily or quickly the pilfered goods are replaced. The FDIC could replace my bank's funds WITH THE STROKE OF A PEN if it was robbed; that doesn't mean robbing it wouldn't be theft.

That's because the FDIC takes a hit when it does that. Tell me who suffers financially when the game administrators set everything back to the way it was? Did the kid do something stupid, obnoxious, illegal? Yeah, definitely. He committed a computer crime. Calling it theft is insane.

Right, because only crazy people spend money in ways you don't personally approve of.

Only crazy people spend their money on things which are valueless. Only a crazy person spends money on a virtual item which can be replicated thousands of times with no effort at all. Virtual objects are not containers of value. He might have thought his virtual furniture was actually WORTH $5900 but how can that possibly be the case when it can be copied literally an infinite number of times in a microsecond?

Re:This is completely insane

[pclminion]

Sure, an admin can create a new virtual item, but that doesn't balance things between him and his victims.

How does it not balance things? The kid goes to jail/probation for cracking (his ACTUAL crime), so he's punished. The freak with the furniture gets his "property" back. What is lacking here?

Personally, I think any virtual reality game that will willingly take thousands of your real dollars in return for a few bits in a stick of RAM somewhere is committing fraud, but hey... I don't play these games. And just to preempt your comparison with the stock market or whatever... There are LAWS in place which are meant to help financial instruments to retain their value. I can't just diddle a number in a computer and triple the number of shares of Apple I own. THAT'S ILLEGAL. But the game administrator could quite easily and legally make a billion copies of this guy's "expensive furniture" and sell them for dirt cheap, massively devaluing his "investment." Like I said, only a completely insane person would spend their money this way.

Now, if you want to talk about laws which elevate virtual property to a status similar to electronic funds and financial instruments, then we are playing a whole different game. But until that LEGAL PROTECTION is in place I will continue to believe that anybody spending money this way is completely nutso.

Re:This is completely insane

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this any different from someone stealing your name and password, logging into your personal computer, and stealing your Itunes files, destroying the originals in the process?

The thief still benefits, the victim is still out. Yes, Apple could resend those files with the push of a button, but that fact does not change the fact that it was indeed, theft.

Re:This is completely insane

[pclminion]

How is this any different from someone stealing your name and password, logging into your personal computer, and stealing your Itunes files, destroying the originals in the process?

No different at all. But notice that the scenario you describe ISN'T THEFT EITHER. Destroying somebody's property is called VANDALISM. Perhaps COMPUTER CRIME.

Re:This is completely insane

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because the FDIC takes a hit when it does that.

No, it's theft because the rightful owner is deprived of their goods, however temporarily.

Tell me who suffers financially when the game administrators set everything back to the way it was?

Labor cost of GM to investigate the complaint and resolve the problem. Development cost to create the tools the GM needed to do that job. Probably others that I haven't thought of. Not that it matters, because again, the cost and difficulty of replacing the goods is not a factor in determining whether the authorized aquisition of those goods theft.

Did the kid do something stupid, obnoxious, illegal? Yeah, definitely. He committed a computer crime.

And after committing that crime (the illegal access to the account), he committed a separate crime of theft.

Calling it theft is insane.

It isn't. He acquired something to which he had no lawful claim, and in so doing deprived the rightful owner of its use. That's theft, period.

Only crazy people spend their money on things which are valueless

If people are willing to spend money on something, then it has value. What you really mean is, "Only crazy people spend their money on things which are valueless TO ME", which is more insane than dropping six grand on a collection of bits.

Only a crazy person spends money on a virtual item which can be replicated thousands of times with no effort at all.

Digital music files.

Virtual objects are not containers of value.

They are if people are willing to pay for them. The definition of value is what someone is willing to give up in exchange for something. Incidentally, a bank account is a virtual object.

He might have thought his virtual furniture was actually WORTH $5900 but how can that possibly be the case when it can be copied literally an infinite number of times in a microsecond?

Nothing can happen an infinite number of times in a microsecond or any other finite unit of time, so your use of "literally" is merely a dishonest attempt to inflate the importance of your fallacious claim. Nitpicking aside, the stuff WAS worth $5900 because he (and other people who have bought stuff in the game) were willing to pay $5900 (or whatever) for it. If I set up an online storefront and charge $100 for virtual foozles, and people come by and buy the foozles for $100 a pop, then virtual foozles damned well are worth $100 (at least), and no amount of complaining will change that.

Re:This is completely insane

[pclminion]

No, it's theft because the rightful owner is deprived of their goods, however temporarily.

THERE ARE NO GOODS. This is a row in a database.

Digital music files.

Digital music files have legal protection. It's called COPYRIGHT. This gives them ACTUAL VALUE. Try again, though.

Incidentally, a bank account is a virtual object.

The bank is not legally allowed to alter how much money is in my account. NOT THE CASE HERE. The game administrators could create thousands of these items instantly. That would devalue the investment. They could delete the item from virtual space entirely. Did this guy sign a contract saying that couldn't happen? The problem here isn't the fact that it's virtual. The problem is that there is nothing to stop the virtual object from being FUCKED WITH.

Nothing can happen an infinite number of times in a microsecond or any other finite unit of time

Of course it can. I have a variable called "Number Of Pieces Of Virtual Furniture." I set this to -1, which is a value I have declared to mean, "Infinity." Poof, there are now an infinite number of pieces of virtual furniture. Fuck, who needs a variable? There are an infinite number BECAUSE I SAY SO -- I choose to implement it that way.

If I set up an online storefront and charge $100 for virtual foozles, and people come by and buy the foozles for $100 a pop, then virtual foozles damned well are worth $100

They are worth $100 until you choose to say that you possess an infinite number of these items, which causes their value to drop to zero. Only a LAW which PREVENTS you from doing this will allow the items to retain their value.

Re:This is completely insane

[Anonymous Coward]

Kudos for fighting the good fight, hoss. These consumers have bought into the ultra-capitalist worldview that their masters espouse through the media, but that doesn't make it real. You see that.

Re:This is completely insane

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a very huge and very significant difference between replacing your virtual freaking dinner table and replacing hundreds of millions of dollars of REAL currency that is pretty much the measuring stick of a global economony.

The difference is one of scale, not in the nature of the act. Replace "your virtual freaking dinner table" with "a stick of gum shoplifted from a gas station" and the above is no less true. That doesn't mean stealing the gum wasn't theft.

Re:This is completely insane

[TheSkyIsPurple]

If someone steals my truck, does no damage to it, and returns it a week later with a full tank of gas and a thank you note... should that person not be charged with theft?

I got my truck back.
During that week it was gone, I didn't have it... much like this guy won't have his virtual furniture until an admin returns it.

Dunno... doesn't seem so cut/dry.

Re:This is completely insane

[ichigo 2.0]

THERE ARE NO GOODS. This is a row in a database.

I think the "ownership" of these virtual items is better viewed as a license to have them in the virtual world. So in this case the privilege to have access to said virtual items in their servers is what has been "stolen".

Digital music files have legal protection. It's called COPYRIGHT. This gives them ACTUAL VALUE. Try again, though.

This does not give any value to the files themselves, which are just rows of bits on a hdd. The license to legally use the files is what has value. The only difference is that digital music files have inferior DRM compared to the virtual items in the virtual game, and can thus be copied with ease by users.

Re:This is completely insane

[Cajun Hell]

In real life, scarcity is real. The rules that enforce it, were created by no one. You lack your truck after it is stolen, because that's how the universe works. We blame God, except he's untouchable.

In the game, scarcity is fake and arbitrary. The rules that enforce it, were created by the game designers. They could have just as easily written it so that whenever someone steals your virtual furniture, you still have it. Blame God again, except God has a name and you can point at him.

Blame the rulemakers. I think the game designers are a party to this "crime".

But you chose to play the game; nobody chose to play in life. Thus, the victim also shares some of the blame, when this happens inside a game.

Re:This is completely insane

[jjohnson]

Years of downloading MP3s has warped your moral definition of theft. It's not the practical "deprivation of use by the rightful owner" that makes it theft, it's the "taking without right" that makes it theft. Besides, while the admins *could* replace the stolen virtual furniture, they probably won't because they don't know how to deal with proving that someone's stuff got stolen, and avoiding opening another avenue for fraud of reporting fake theft.

I'll admit that the fact that it's virtual, and the deprivation of use is minimal if not non-existant, does tend to mitigate the crime. But at root it's theft.

Re:This is completely insane

[Dahamma]

But you chose to play THE STOCK MARKET; nobody chose to play in life. Thus, the victim also shares some of the blame, when this happens inside THE STOCK MARKET.

So, if someone puts money in a brokerage account and it gets hacked, is it the victim's fault, too?

Re:This is completely insane

[denzacar]

Besides, while the admins *could* replace the stolen virtual furniture, they probably won't because they don't know how to deal with proving that someone's stuff got stolen, and avoiding opening another avenue for fraud of reporting fake theft. In that case... there is no case?

Can't prove something got stolen, soooo... like... it didn't?
Excellent! Everybody is happy!

No... wait... no they are not.

The fucking degeneric that bought 5600$ of virtual IKEA isn't.
Now... I don't care how fucking rare that couch was, how many virtual golden baby-leprechauns had to be killed to make that couch - anyone, and I mean ANYONE that pays 5600$ on virtual furniture should be banned from the gene pool. Or better yet - from the real world.

5600$?

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU SPEND 5600$ ON VIRTUAL FURNITURE!

Its not like it is a +50 sword or +200 armor that exists like... one of each in the entire virtual universe.
I mean... I can imagine a event that took months to unfold, and the winner of which got that one unique super-item that no one will ever be able to get again.
And like... with that item you are like a super-god or something...
Maybe. Maybe I could accept that as semi-non retarder behavior.

But virtual furniture?
What does it do?

Give you +5% chance of virtual orgasm when you are having virtual sex with your virtual girlfriend?
Or 10% chance that you will find that special virtual channel with virtual shows that you really like, while virtual channel surfing on your virtual TV?
It generates virtual change that you can use in the virtual world to buy virtual soda?

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU VALIDATE SPENDING 5600$ ON VIRTUAL ITEMS LIKE THAT!!!

And where does that user get the balls to report something like that?
Hello!!!

Its on par with a guy walking into a mall with a giant dildo in his hand, walking up to the counter and wanting a replacement because the part of it fell off and got stuck in his anus.
Or walking in with a keyboard complaining that it lacks "ANY" key.

5600$ of virtual furniture... Good god...

Re:This is completely insane

[pclminion]

So, if someone puts money in a brokerage account and it gets hacked, is it the victim's fault, too?

The "reality" of electronic currency is created by LAW. If somebody takes the money out of your account electronically, there is REAL WORLD HURT because the laws of the land say that "Money cannot be created out of thin air, except by the goverment." Therefore somebody has to PAY in order for you to get your money back. I don't see how I can make the concept any clearer -- virtual property can only have true value if laws, backed by force, declare that it does. Without those laws, virtual property is worthless, and anybody who pays real currency for such property is certifiable.

Re:This is completely insane

[pclminion]

Years of downloading MP3s has warped your moral definition of theft.

Years of hanging out in your mother's basement has warped you idea of what constitutes reality. We all depend every day on "virtual" objects to act as if they are real. The money in your bank account, the database which indicates how many shares of Intel stock you own. The only reason any of this is "real" is because we have laws which say so. Without the laws, it is all NOTHING. I'm not even getting into the comparison between copyright infrigement and theft, here. There was no copyright, there was no physical property, THERE WAS NO CRIME AT ALL, except the crime of breaking into a secure computer system.

Morality doesn't even enter the question. The fact is, this game isn't real, the objects people purchase with true currency in the game aren't real, they do not enjoy legal protection of any kind, and anybody who spends money on something which can be taken away, legally, in the blink of an eye, is an idiot.

Re:This is completely insane

[MWoody]

I don't entirely disagree with you, but I must point out that your example is a bit flawed. Lets extrapolate to real life: governments print money. It retains its value only because it is a limited commodity and because it is traded for goods and services.

If you get money stolen in real life, does the mint print you up new money to replace it? No. Why? Because the surest way to devalue a good whose value exists entirely in its scarcity is to create more.

When you realize that most real money these days is itself intangible, existing entirely within networks of communicating banks and such, the analogy becomes even clearer.

Re:This is completely insane

[Criterion]

"the game administrator could quite easily and legally make a billion copies of this guy's "expensive furniture" and sell them for dirt cheap, massively devaluing his "investment." Like I said, only a completely insane person would spend their money this way."

Yes, the admin could indeed do this. The thing I'm seeing is that there is a world of difference between "could" and "would". Now.. *would* an admin do this? Knowing that it would devalue his users investments, in turn completely pissing them off so that they sell out and the company would fall to bankruptcy? Hmm.. I would have to say no. You yourself say that you don't participate in these types of platforms, so you obviously can't see all the angles. I believe we are in a period of a paradigm shift such that virtual property will gain status as you mentioned. There is no reason to spit on those of us who are having fun (and making money to boot) by riding the bleeding edge. Some people spend money that way just because... *gasp*... they enjoy it. Imagine that, maybe everybody doesn't think the same way you do.. and maybe that's not a bad thing. Paying for entertainment... who'da thunk it.

Re:This is completely insane

[jwdb]

If every user of that game/virtual world suddenly got everything free, it might affect that company's pockets, but it wouldn't destroy the world economy, right?

It wouldn't destroy the real world economy but it would destroy the in-game economy, which, besides affecting the company, might also affect players as well.

Re:This is completely insane

[Anonymous Coward]

THERE ARE NO GOODS. This is a row in a database.

There are no PHYSICAL goods. That doesn't matter, though. It still has value and can still be stolen.

Digital music files have legal protection. It's called COPYRIGHT. This gives them ACTUAL VALUE. Try again, though.

Actual value? Wait, you said "Only a crazy person spends money on a virtual item which can be replicated thousands of times with no effort at all.". Music files can and do get replicated thousands of times with no effort at all, copyright or no copyright. So you've already ceded the point that being virtual doesn't magically negate value.

The bank is not legally allowed to alter how much money is in my account. NOT THE CASE HERE. The game administrators could create thousands of these items instantly. That would devalue the investment. They could delete the item from virtual space entirely. Did this guy sign a contract saying that couldn't happen? The problem here isn't the fact that it's virtual. The problem is that there is nothing to stop the virtual object from being FUCKED WITH.

That doesn't change the fact that someone was willing to pay for those items, and that they therefore have value. Merely by postulating some future circumstance which would, in your words, "devalue the investment", you admit that there is value right now. Value, again, is what people are willing to pay.

Of course it can. I have a variable called "Number Of Pieces Of Virtual Furniture." I set this to -1, which is a value I have declared to mean, "Infinity." Poof, there are now an infinite number of pieces of virtual furniture. Fuck, who needs a variable? There are an infinite number BECAUSE I SAY SO -- I choose to implement it that way.

Oh, so instead of performing an infinite number of one-time copy actions ("copied literally an infinite number of times in a microsecond"), you meant a singular act of removing an upper limit and expressed it poorly. Well, you still can't even make the decision to do that, let alone actually do it, in a microsecond. It wasn't hyperbole because you said it was "literally" true. So you were not only lying to inflate your emotional argument, you were incompetently lying to inflate your emotional argument.

They are worth $100 until you choose to say that you possess an infinite number of these items, which causes their value to drop to zero. Only a LAW which PREVENTS you from doing this will allow the items to retain their value.

As above, you can't argue that they can lose value without accepting that they have value to begin with. Furthermore, it's absurd to assume that ONLY a legal restriction will allow the items to retain value. My continued voluntary refusal to "free the foozles" will do the job just as well. The $100 foozles don't magically become worthless just because the possibility that I might one day give them away for free any more than they suddenly double in value because it's possible I'll one day raise the price to $200. The foozles, like the in-game furniture, are worth what people are willing to pay for them, no matter how loudly some idiot shrieks that they're worthless.

None of this, by the way, addresses the point of theft. Even if we could agree that the value of the property was objectively zero, taking it from the rightful owner without permission is still theft. Value is not a prerequisite for determining whether an act is theft. It's a handy way of calculating the damage inflicted by the act of theft, but that's not the same thing.

Re:This is completely insane

[dbcad7]

When you realize that most real money these days is itself intangible, existing entirely within networks of communicating banks and such, the analogy becomes even clearer.

And yet the bank WILL replace your money when there are charges to your credit card you didn't make.

Re:This is completely insane

[nibbles2004]

the people who say it's not theft because it can be instantly restored to te rightful owner at no cost.Imagine i steal a bottle of whiskey from a supermarket but they catch me outside and recover the stolen bottle, would i not be arrsted and charge for theft, of course i would. To an extent the value of the item stolen doesnt come into account, stealing a mars bar can just be as serious as stealing a laptop. Also you mention that the guy is a lunatic for spending moey on a chair, which is virtual, but if that chair has a real monatary value then it is as real as me buying a gold futures contract, i never see that gold , it's never in my physical possesion, but it does have value. At the end of the day what is owning property , it's not bricks and mortar, it's really a deed a piece of paper which gives you certain owndership rights over that physical thing.

Re:This is completely insane

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how I can make the concept any clearer -- virtual property can only have true value if laws, backed by force, declare that it does.

Doesn't matter how clear you make it; it isn't true. The value of an item (physical or virtual) is what someone is willing to exchange for it, and what the government thinks about it is irrelevant. You're just flailing around trying to justify your poorly-considered notions about anyone who spends their money on something you don't like.

Re:This is completely insane

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the practical "deprivation of use by the rightful owner" that makes it theft, it's the "taking without right" that makes it theft.

No, it's the combination of the two that makes it theft. Without the deprivation component it's "only" copyright infringement (or perhaps fraud, depending on what was copied and how), which is distinct from theft. The hacker stealing the virtual items has committed theft because the act has both components.

Re:This is completely insane

[pclminion]

The value of an item (physical or virtual) is what someone is willing to exchange for it, and what the government thinks about it is irrelevant.

Exactly. How much would you be willing to pay for this $5900 virtual furniture, knowing that the game world can take it away from you at will, or duplicate it a billion times, or that some hacker can take it away in an instant? I bet you'd pay zero. So how do you prevent the game world from taking it away or duplicating it? Pass a law saying they can't. Pass a law saying that the kid has committed virtual larceny. Otherwise this is all a fantasy.

Claim whatever you want -- your fantasy objects won't protect you from people with real physical force backing them up.

Re:This is completely insane

[pclminion]

Imagine i steal a bottle of whiskey from a supermarket but they catch me outside and recover the stolen bottle, would i not be arrsted and charge for theft, of course i would.

Imagine you pay me $5900 in return for me saying the following words: "You are in possession of a set of virtual furniture, and this is what it looks like: <Describes furniture>".

Okay, maybe that's a little crazy, but who knows. Perhaps there's some person out there willing to purchase this from you. They give you $5900 and now I'll say that THEY are the owners of the furniture. All of this is precisely equivalent to what has happened here, except that instead of a computer saying the furniture exists, *I* say the furniture exists.

Now, some punk comes along and punches me in the stomach and says "You better never say that guy has furniture, ever again, or I will shoot your ass." Of course, not wanting to die, I agree. Next day, you come up to me and ask about your furniture. I say, "Oh, sorry, that furniture is gone, you don't own it anymore."

Now, you are out $5900, and there is no furniture, no reason for any other person to pay you your $5900 back because the furniture doesn't exist. Why not? Because I say it doesn't. I walk away with $5900 in my pocket, you get fucked out of $5900 because you're a psychotic and a moron, and the kid? He's guilty of punching me in the stomach, nothing more.

Now imagine that the kid is arrested and charged with theft because of this very bizarre turn of events. He's arrested with theft because he's threatened me with physical violence in return for not claiming that a certain person has a certain item which doesn't really exist? What?

Can you not see how every aspect of this scenario is COMPLETELY FUCKING INSANE?

Re:This is completely insane

[pclminion]

Imagine that, maybe everybody doesn't think the same way you do.. and maybe that's not a bad thing. Paying for entertainment... who'da thunk it.

To each his own, I agree. But we're not talking a $39.95 monthly subscription. We're not even talking a $100 monthly subscription. That I can even understand. But we're talking $5900 for virtual furniture here.

Compare with bottled water. I also think this is a massive scam, but I don't have any problem with people who want to drink bottled water. As if it's any of my business. But a person who pays $5900 for a bottle of water? I think that's insane behavior. I don't think that makes me prejudiced.

Re:This is completely insane

[ColdSam]

| In real life, scarcity is real. The rules that enforce it, were created by no one.

You've apparently never been engaged. But if you have then you should have no problem if I take your wife's ring, in fact you share some of the blame by participating in the diamond game in the first place. So blame yourself and De Beers, not me.

Re:This is completely insane

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. How much would you be willing to pay for this $5900 virtual furniture, knowing that the game world can take it away from you at will, or duplicate it a billion times, or that some hacker can take it away in an instant? I bet you'd pay zero.

I would pay zero. You would pay zero. Other people (people, not one guy), however, paid a total of approximately $5900. That means the stuff was, in fact, worth $5900, however silly it may seem to us. And silly does not equal insane, so your characterization of the owners has no grounding in reality. There are lots of expensive things that I wouldn't buy even if I can afford them, but unlike you I don't pretend that it means that there's something wrong with the people who do buy them.

So how do you prevent the game world from taking it away or duplicating it? Pass a law saying they can't. Pass a law saying that the kid has committed virtual larceny. Otherwise this is all a fantasy.

No, it isn't. The stuff is worth what was paid for it. The fact that it's within the realm of possibility for it to be devalued later through duplication or deletion does not rob it of the value it has right now. Only if such duplication/deletion occurs will the devaluation happen. Value exists independently of law.

Claim whatever you want -- your fantasy objects won't protect you from people with real physical force backing them up.

Claim whatever you want - declaring that something has no value doesn't make it so. The value of an object (physical or virtual) is set by consumer demand, not by government fiat. You've already admitted that this is true, which means you've admitted to being completely wrong about the value of the furniture.

Re:This is completely insane

[trouser]

The govt. doesn't print money, it prints legal tender.

Re:This is completely insane

[Dahamma]

Exactly!

This guy was talking about *money* - the whole point of my analogy was using brokerage accounts, where you have exchanged your actual *money* for stock, which is basically a completely virtual item based on people's perception of the worth of the company. If you invest in a public company that runs virtual worlds using real money in the economy, and that company tanks because it turns out their economy has collapsed... how is that any different from losing your money on the virtual collapse vs the stock collapse? (Well, I can answer that partly - with a "real" stock you have different channels of legal recourse vs the virtual economy... but if the company goes down the tubes, you are probably SOL either way!)

Re:This is completely insane

[Criterion]

So much ranting about a non-thing. For all we know it was 590 accounts each getting $10 skimmed out. That information is not there so I think it's a bit foolish to presume.

Innaccurate Summary

[clang_jangle]

From TFA: "A spokesman for Sulake, the company that operates Habbo Hotel, said: "The accused lured victims into handing over their Habbo passwords by creating fake Habbo websites."

So this isn't *really* an arrest for theft of virtual property, it's an arrest for fraud (phishing).

Calm down, it's okay

[illegalcortex]

This is just a sensationalist article. The kids won't be charged with "virtual theft", they'll be charge with hacking and phishing to get people's account information, then using that information to access their accounts. No need to get all worried about "virtual property" and such. It's just a Habbo spokesman running off at the mouth.

Re:When

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like a mod took offense to being called stupid. I wonder why.

Pool's closed

[bersl2]

due to an ongoing criminal investigation.

Sorry.

---The Management

Re:Pool's closed

[Stavr0]

THIS.

Pool's closed
due to an ongoing criminal investigation.

I see no jurisdictional problems.

[hey!]

I don't think it is silly. There is no jurisdictional confusion between the virtual and real world because we have an actual, real world crime. If it were a virtual crime we'd have a different situation.

If the game system allowed the user's character to walk into a virtual house and make off with virtual property, then I'd say it's part of the game. Anybody should understand that in the game, virtual property is subject to virtual theft. THAT is a virtual crime, and it should be paid by the virtual character if the player can't avoid being tracked down by the virtual police. The law doesn't have to protect people from losing in a game.

Virtual crime is not tantamount to real crime or fraud, even if virtual elements with real world values are involved, because players who deal in such artifacts are willingly taking on the risk of losing them by playing the game.

If, on the other hand somebody gains access to somebody else's account under false pretenses, we are no longer talking about virtual crime. We are talking about interference in the private affairs of others. If they "stole" something virtual that was bought with $4000 of real money, it deprives people of -- if not a thing, then certainly services that the market values at $4000.

Of course the operator can make good the loss, but it undermines their business. Maybe not by $4000, but some. If their business strategy involves creating a market for virtual goods, then that market depends on scarcity to give those goods value. It becomes a crime rather like counterfeiting. Who is harmed by the production of nearly prefect counterfeit $100 bills in North Korea? Everybody who uses dollars, a little bit. Each counterfeit $100 doesn't necessarily cost anybody $100, provided it is never detected.

So -- I see no jurisdictional issues here. We have a simple crime, it just isn't simple theft. It's more of a crime of intrusion on privacy, to which we can put, I think, a reasonable first order estimate of economic damage.

I think a fuzzy area comes when you have somebody violates a game's TOS and gains real world benefits. Scamming that is entirely in-game, for example, may violate the game's TOS, but is it a crime? Suppose I have a virtual article which is worth $2000 (real world), but I misrepresent it as something worth $5000. Then we trade virtual items, and I receive $5000 (real world) worth of virtual goods. Later, you discover that the article I traded you was not as I represented it to be.

This is a fine line case. Who is it who is doing the trading, me , or my character? If it is me, then I have probably committed fraud. If it is my character, my character has committed fraud, but I have simply played a strategy.

The TOS may or may not make a difference here. If the rules forbid scamming, does this make scamming items with real world value a real world crime? I'm not as sure as in the case of account theft.

It is Identity Theft

[Bryansix]

It is plain and simple. This guy stole somebody elses identity. He deserves to be stripped of his identity. Shave off all of his hair, make his eyes black with contact lenses, and paint his toenails pink to match his tutu. Then let him out into a busy city center.

Some people have too much money

[BlueshiftVFX]

I probably barely have that much in "real" furniture. $5900 in non existent Virtual furniture? thats just sick! have people lost touch with reality? I mean we have people in the world who are barely living off $1 a day and then there are people with so much money that they have to come up with ways to blow it, and on Virtual Furniture? What!?!? so your Computer guy can get busy on the computer couch with some computer girl who's probably another guy anyways? wow, I hope this computer guy isn't to shaken up over this ordeal, maybe he should spend more of his money on computer psychiatric care. Don't get me wrong I hate it when hackers F*ck with my computer, but I'm not sure if I'm madder at the hackers or that people blow money on this kind of thing.

Re:Some people have too much money

[Criterion]

You do realize.. of course.. that the article states that they got more into more than one account. For all we know it could have been 590 accounts stealing $10 worth of stuff out of each. So please, get a grip. You raving ranters are foaming at the mouth and spitting wildly all over the place. Man, I'm glad you people don't make the rules on what people can spend their money on, as I, for one, will spend it on whatever pleases me, not you.

Raise your hand

[matt328]

If you have $5900 worth of furniture in your REAL living room.

Re:Raise your hand

[Gr8Apes]

Not all of us live in our parent's basements...

Re:Raise your hand

[BlueParrot]

If you have $5900 worth of furniture in your REAL living room.

Is that USD or CAD ?

Re:Raise your hand

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't they pretty much the same these days?

The value of the loss

[davidwr]

The "tangible" loss to the defrauded player is the real-world-currency resale value. In this particular game, this may be $0.

The loss to the game operator is the amount of time and energy it took to detect and unwind the transaction and the amortized cost, spread over all fraudsters, of the security overhead of the game.

The intangible losses include the loss of enjoyment of the furniture by its rightful owner and any time and trouble on his part to get the transaction unwound.

This may be far less than the $5900 stated.

This begs the question:
Why would anyone pay $5900 in real money for furniture in a computer game?

some details

[BaatZ]

It's a coverstory in the Dutch newspaper "Het parool". De guys are accused of *Data destruction and *pc-burglary, both are punible. The main hacker is 17 years old, his companions are 15 years old (4 of them). The boys ar prosecuted by the department of justice, seven reports were filed at the police. I doubt those guys will really get nailed for the theft, but there's a considereable amount of work done to get those fishing techniques and hacking. I think those boys do deserve some penalty. But then again, if it's clear that no-one gets damaged by some online crime, i don't think you deserve any more than a reprimande. After all, we all try to get better from the erros others make...

For once it's REAL theft...

[Anonymous Coward]

... of virtual property.

But it actually CAN be called theft this time because the person doesn't have their virtual furniture any more.

GM Dave

[Anonymous Coward]

GM Dave has the solution...

Habbo Hotel?

[Homr Zodyssey]

80 million users?

Why have I never heard of this?

It was my understanding that WoW was the biggest MMO with the most subscribers at around 8 million.

Re:Habbo Hotel?

[meringuoid]

80 million users? Why have I never heard of this?

Because 79 million of them are /b/tards who turned up one day dressed as Samuel L Jackson, announced that the pool was closed, stood around for some time doing very little, and eventually left.

Re:Habbo Hotel?

[Anonymous Coward]

80 million users? Why have I never heard of this? It was my understanding that WoW was the biggest MMO with the most subscribers at around 8 million.

Yeah, paying customers. Habbo Hotel is a browser-based game with free registration and no monthly fees (and pay-for-perks model), so the number of registered users vs. paying customers vs. active users is probably highly skewed and subject to interpretation.

Besides, it's a glorified chat room, not a rat-hunting grind experience where you pour Money into. =)

Re:Habbo Hotel?

[Anonymous Coward]

80 million accounts maybe. But right now thier webpage says "5,088 members online". The numbers don't seem inline.

Re:Habbo Hotel?

[neminem]

Ah! I thought I'd heard of it at some point. Yup, I had indeed, desudesudesu.

Note: I am not, in fact, a /b/tard, though I know a couple; I didn't even heard about the event until a while after it happened, and had to google it a bit to figure out the significance. It was funny, though.

Yeah something smells phishy

[BlueshiftVFX]

Yeah something in this smells a little phishy if you ask me.

ObSteve

[6Yankee]

I wonder how much a stolen virtual chair is worth on the virtual black-market?

Depends. If it's a virtual signed Ballmer original...

Sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

Pool closed due to AIDS.

Habbo is like 'Sim City Chatroom'.

[argent]

You haven't heard of it because it's like something from the '80s, with sim-city style 2-d orthogonal projections, and is targeted towards young kids.

Can my child's Habbo Coins or 'Furni' be stolen?

Not if your child keeps their password secret. Someone else needs to know their password to check into the hotel as them and take their 'furni' or spend their Habbo Credits. Unfortunately, there are always some children who try to trick others into giving out their passwords, or who won't play fair. However, if your child keeps their password secret and uses the safe trading window as instructed, their account and items will remain safe.

[...]

Every conversation in the hotel passes through the Bobba Filter before it appears on the screen. This filters out swearing, racist and sexist terms and other words unsuitable for children. It also filters out email addresses and phone numbers so that they can't be given out. The filter covers Habbo names and missions, as well as room names and descriptions. The filters are updated on a daily basis and contain many hundreds of words and terms.

-- Habbo ~ Help & Safety

Obligatory

[Dusty00]

In virtual Russia, furniture steals you!

"Why would anyone pay..."

[argent]

Why would anyone pay $5900 in real money for furniture in a computer game?

I don't think anyone paid that much individually, but it's amazing how much people will pay for furniture in another computer game...

Beach Club Starter Set - US$39.89
Black Leather by Xen Living Room Set - US$31.56

In Oz you can't 'steal' data :)

[ghostcorps]

You can obtain it by fraud and you can misuse it in a wide variety of ways. But you can not be charged with 'theft' of electronic information... why you ask? Because to be found guilty of theft you must 'deprive' or 'intend to deprive' the owner of that item.

Making a copy is not theft, how you accessed it is another issue entirely.

I assume that is the case here, with some sensationalising for added clicks.

Re:In Oz you can't 'steal' data :)

[Von Helmet]

Except they didn't make a copy, they deprived the owner of that item.

Life imitates fiction

[bsa3]

That's oh so last month. C.f. Halting State by Charles Stross, just published in October.

Jail pool

[Dr. Cody]

That's nothing to joke about. In Habbo prison, even the pool has AIDS.

confession time

[stormguard2099]

Ok, I admit it. i was an accessory to this crime. I helped him put the virtual furniture in the truck....

How virtual is "virtual"?

[mdmkolbe]

Ok, lets run down the list:

• If I go to your bank and take money from your safety deposit box, that's theft.
• If I go to your bank's website and take money from your account, that's still theft. (I think.)
• If I go to your personal computer, make a copy of your data and then delete your copy, is that theft?
• If I go to your game's website and take in-game money from your account, is that theft?

Considering the last one to be theft seem a little silly ("it's just flipping bits"). But if we want to consider taking money from someone's bank account to be theft, how do we distinguish the two?

Re:How virtual is "virtual"?

[adminstring]

By definition, theft involves moving a physical item from point A (where it is under your control) to point B (which is under my control) thereby depriving you of the use of the physical item while allowing me to use the physical item. Therefore...

• If I go to your bank and take money from your safety deposit box, that's theft.
• If I go to your bank's website and take money from your account, that's fraud.
• If I go to your personal computer, make a copy of your data and then delete your copy, that's criminal mischief.
• If I go to your game's website and take in-game money from your account by phishing your password and then logging in as you, that's fraud.
• If I steal in-game money from you within the game through means permitted by the game's programming while logged in as myself, that's part of the game.

The case mentioned in TFA seems to be one of fraud. The suspect allegedly phished for usernames and passwords, then logged in using that information in order to move the furniture out of the virtual residence of the rightful owner (similar to logging in to your bank website using your username and password obtained by phishing, then transferring funds to a different account.)

hey! he get it!

[Criterion]

Yay! :D Great post. Yes, the scamming angle is still a bit fuzzy, but it would, in all the RCE platforms I've experienced be considered as you doing the trading.. but the scam itself can be hard to work out who exactly is being played. First rule is, buyer beware. Know what your buying and what it's worth.. if you don't and overpay that's your own fault. Secondly, who really is being scammed.. the user crying "scam!" (which could in all actuality be a reverse scam on the other person) or the company providing the platform who could be the victim of both the alleged scammer and victim who are in truth working together. It gets... complicated, and this is why most companies take an "all trades are final.. period. end of discussion. have your lawyer contact us for any needed information." stance. This is where the law comes in handy.

Mod parent up please :)

What's new ?

[freaker_TuC]

Yea, I know, some pieces fell automagically from that truck into my livingroom...

Sue Habbo?

[JinkerGM]

The thing that gets me is why isn't anyone looking at Habbo and calling foul. You use real money to buy virtual furniture? Am I the only one who thinks this is more devious that some guy stealing a couch?

Uhhhh....

[JinkerGM]

I haven't read all the comments so maybe someone said this already.

The thing that gets me is why isn't anyone looking at Habbo and calling foul. You use real money to buy virtual furniture? Am I the only one who thinks this is more devious that some guy stealing a couch? I run a small Mac MMORPG and although our policy is we never replace items ever, it costs nothing to play so no lose no foul. Just seems like a big bowl of wrong to me.

Re:Uhhhh....

[Criterion]

While it may seem like a big bowl of wrong to you, to me your thinking is a bit behind the times. There are many real cash economy platforms now that are gaining popularity. Some people see it as business and gain money from it, some as entertainment and gain enjoyment from it. One thing it is not, is old style "inside the box" type of thinking, especially those that want to compare it to a game.. which it most certainly is not.. any more than IRC or message forums are games. These are content platforms upon which games may be played.. in fact may be a central part of the experience in some cases, but much more a hobby or even a job than a game.

It amazes me how much of that behind the times thinking now exists here on slashdot of all places. It used to be just the opposite, this saddens me. :/

Re:Uhhhh....

[Attaturk]

I wish I had some mod points. Well said.

Re:Uhhhh....

[JinkerGM]

Well, I see your point. I guess I'm just too old to understand the attraction to such things.

Re:Uhhhh....

[Criterion]

It's hard to be too old, other than Habbo most RCE platforms are geared towards mature players, 30's, 40's, 50's and up. I am in my 40's and have a business in SL, which is fun in itself due to the creative aspect as I am also a 3d modeling / CAD professional and texture designer, and in turn it pays for my Entropia Universe habit (which is thankfully now becoming self sustaining).

That's stupid and absurd.

[SvnLyrBrto]

By your logic, there are at least half a dozen people who should locked up in prison for the rest of their lives for "murdering" me in EVE Online. For that matter, so should I, because on one of those occasions I had a combat ship in the same system; and I was able to get my pod in place, warp back to the scene of the "crime" and exercise my CONCORD kill rights before the "murderer" fled the scene.

cya,
john

Re:That's stupid and absurd.

[Drey]

If EVE Online killed you in real life when you were killed virtually, then sure. Real people paid real money for virtual goods, which were then stolen virtually. That's still theft. Your counter-example fails, because there's no tie between the virtual world activity and the real world activity.

Re:That's stupid and absurd.

[Flambergius]

Isn't EVE Online PvP? That means that "murdering" is within the rules of the game. If you willingly play a game you also accept the consequences of the game to the decree that those consequences are defined by the game or could reasonably be expected to result from playing. If you play poker online or in a casino, losing money is a reasonable outcome.

If you break the rules of the game, or violate the rules of conduct of a virtual community like Habbo Hotel, then you do risk a criminal liability. However, as being a dick is not a crime in most jurisdictions, you'd have to go pretty far to the point where your conduct is considered fraud, vandalism, harassment or something similar.

I probably wasn't very clear in my original message when I said that that online activities map onto your legal system, but that it is not clear how. Of course activities performed by avatars are not equal to the literally same action performed by a human. They may fit into the same category but as a less severe case (as there's no chance of physical harm occurring) or they may constitute a wholly new category. Most cases of "virtual murder" (*) and the like would probably be cases of destruction of property, vandalism or harassment.

Sexual harassment is probably the easiest to imagine and understand. Threats may be used to force the other player to perform certain emotes or to dress her avatar in revealing clothing, also with anthropomorphic avatars becoming more expressive, say able to touch, there will be cases of "virtual fonding" at least. I don't think anyone would disagree that in these cases the victim would distressing, humiliating and possibly traumatized. The damage done is subjective but it is real. I do think that a virtual boob-grab is a lesser offense than a real one, but both are sexual harassment and thus possibly criminal matters.

From Wikipedia: Sexual harassment is harassment or unwelcome attention of a sexual nature. It includes a range of behavior from mild transgressions and annoyances to serious abuses, which can even involve forced sexual activity. (Dziech et al 1990, Boland 2002) Sexual harassment is considered a form of illegal discrimination in many countries, and is a form of abuse (sexual and psychological) and bullying.

(*) Quick definition for virtual murder: use of abilities provided by the virtual environment to permanently destroy an avatar when not allowed to do so by the rules of conduct in place for that virtual environment. Virtual battery might be more common as it would not require permanent destruction, which may be really hard to achieve (there would be backups, right?).