Slashdot Mirror


Virtual Currency Becomes Real In South Korea

garylian writes "Massively is reporting that the South Korean Supreme Court has stated that virtual currency is the equivalent of real-world money. For those of you who might not be drawing the link, the core there is that selling in-game currency for real money is essentially just an exchange of currency and perfectly legal in South Korea. This could have sweeping implications for RMT operations the world over, not to mention free-to-play games and... well, online games in general. The official story is available online from JoongAng Daily."

42 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. The real reason by sopssa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's lucrative for the government to say that. After all, now they can add tax between exchanges, in top of the service costs too.

    1. Re:The real reason by tacarat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep. Considering that they've been taxing game transactions transparently for years, I guess this is just catching up.

      What? They haven't? Old school arcade players bought additional health in Gauntlet. The tax was rolled into the $0.25 purchase price. Continues (which are basically extra lives in a game) are the same thing. I'm sure there are other examples, but the taxman getting a cut on such "microtransactions" is nothing new. They just needed a way to do it with some of the newer setups.

      Granted, now the problem is that this may have negative ramifications for the games due to the higher level of multiplayer interaction. Would duping become a crime equivalent to counterfeiting and thus carry big jail time?

      --
      "Common sense will be the death of us all"
    2. Re:The real reason by DarkIye · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also, doesn't converting other currencies to virtual currency cause a duplication of the money? I mean, you give the company your Korean won and they have to make you some cash. Well, unless they move the money to you from a virtual vault they own, and to have such a thing they'd have to change the whole system.

    3. Re:The real reason by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not the *government* saying that. It's the courts.

      I have serious doubts about the article summary and title here. Reading the article behind the article, it seems that the courts haven't ruled that in game money is "real", otherwise they'd be taxing in-game transactions. It's just saying that in-game money can be sold.

      It seems reasonable that they should treat the sale of in game things (currency or objects) like any other kind of sale of any other kind of property. Why should you be able to earn in-game money and sell it without tax, while somebody selling the fruits of his labor in something else has to pay tax? Or vice versa?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:The real reason by rarel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Only old people remember that meme.

    5. Re:The real reason by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're probably the only one old enough to remember that.

    6. Re:The real reason by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you better take a hard look at how currency is currently issued by real governments. It's been a long time since the gold and silver standards made money even somewhat real, and even longer since a piece of eight made money ultimately real. Heck, an argument could be made that outside of barter we all use the equivalent of star trek type credits already. All the courts are really saying here is that online currency is a form of property like any other than can be bought and sold.

  2. Currency value manipulation by zerosomething · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So we can sue Linden Labs for currency manipulation cause... oh wait the US does that all the time so I guess it's legal?

    --
    It all starts at 0
  3. Whats the diff? by mishehu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What is the difference between this and the S.K. gov't simply deeming that any money earned on the sale of "virtual currency" would be subject to income tax? That is, assuming they have an income tax there, which I do not know myself. I suspect that the US IRS and respective state gov'ts would take this opinion...

    1. Re:Whats the diff? by Jezza · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I suppose it's OK, if you can pay it with Linden Dollars.

      I seriously don't see how this'll work. Real money has the "I promise to pay the bearer" (or similar) thingy, virtual currencies don't. This seems like a pretty huge difference, I don't think the South Koreans have properly thought about it. Imagine if I did pay my income tax with Linden Dollars... Do I only get virtual health care? (I'm a Brit... I realise in the US this isn't funny).

      As long as I can't buy real things with my virtual money then it's not real money! As soon as I can, well then I guess it is (as long as the goods have title, I have to be able to resell them).

    2. Re:Whats the diff? by stonefoz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't worry, it's still funny here in the US, just for all the wrong reasons. We have "Virtually" the best health care system available, at least that's what they tell me on the TV. Wouldn't want some pinko-commie to actually implement a real health care system. You're right, I shouldn't laugh, someone might charge me for that, it's the best medicine after all?

      --
      I think I just cashed out all my cool points.
  4. Sweet! by Reason58 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Every time you die in-game you can write off the armor repair costs on your taxes!

    1. Re:Sweet! by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know what the S. Korean laws are but in the United States and many other countries gambling losses can be be written off except to cover taxes on gambling gains. There's actually been some complicated discussion about how this applies to professional poker (whether it is a game of skill, and thus a sport or luck based enough to be considered just a form of gamblings). One could potentially make an argument that games like this are close enough to gambling that they would be covered by such laws. I wouldn't be convinced by that argument but given that part of the logic of such laws is to discourage behavior that is seen as potentially addictive, a similar law might make sense here (assuming you consider the laws about gambling losses to be reasonable). Regardless, if they were taxing your in-game gains, you could at minimum probably write off the monthly subscription fee for the game. (Disclaimer: IANAL)

    2. Re:Sweet! by undecim · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sure there are many quests in various MMOs that count as charitable donations

      --
      The Internet has given stupid people the resources of intelligent people.
  5. What implications will this have for the Won? by suso · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder if this will make the value of the South Korean Won drop. Because it would almost make it possible to print money. Of course I guess you'd just need to value different game's currencies differently and then have published exchange rates. Its interesting.

    1. Re:What implications will this have for the Won? by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No more than the ability of the Zimbabwe government to print Zimbabwe dollars, or the Chinese to print yuans, or the US to print US dollars does.

      In other words, none at all, if the game currency is "printed" then the exchange rate will devalue it - just like already happens in every MMO game I've seen.

  6. If this remains the case by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Informative

    They need to do better jobs keeping track of currency levels in different games. As virtual currency becomes more common in game settings, better cryptography needs to be used to make sure that people don't change the numbers. Similarly, there becomes issues with income taxes and the like. In the long run we should probably all switch to cryptographically anonymous currency anyways which can be easily implemented using blind signatures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_signature so that even the bankers don't know who used which bills for which transactions. Unfortunately, many large institutions (such as governments) will likely resist such systems because they lead to a substantial loss of control.

  7. Re:Legal? by zerosomething · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Casinos do it all the time. Private currency isn't illegal

    --
    It all starts at 0
  8. Re:Legal? by revlayle · · Score: 2, Funny

    LOGIC - IT HURTS *sizzzzzle*

  9. Re:Legal? by istartedi · · Score: 2, Informative

    You're probably referring to the "Liberty Dollar".

    Issuing a competing, aka "complementary" currency is not illegal! See, Ithaca hours, the Matole Petole, and a number of others.

    What made the Liberty coins illegal was that they had too close a resemblance to actual US currency, and were being advertised in ways that might lead people to believe they were legal tender. There may have been some other frauds revolving around the organization that sold them also.

    The fact that they minted silver (and maybe gold too, I don't recall) didn't make them illegal. The aforementioned Petole is silver, and nobody bothers them. They don't try to pass their coins off as valid US currency though, just 1.0 oz. fine silver. Nothing illegal about that.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  10. Not really surprising by multipartmixed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Assuming the South Korean currency is not backed something solid (like gold), then their currency is just as virtual as online virtual currency -- it has no actual intrinsic value.

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    1. Re:Not really surprising by pclminion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      their currency is just as virtual as online virtual currency -- it has no actual intrinsic value.

      Neither does real gold, unless you happen to need to make really really thin wires, or build something which is extremely reflective, or actually make use of gold's natural properties in some other way. Don't delude yourself. There is no such thing as "intrinsic value."

    2. Re:Not really surprising by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      their currency is just as virtual as online virtual currency -- it has no actual intrinsic value.

      Neither does real gold, unless you happen to need to make really really thin wires, or build something which is extremely reflective, or actually make use of gold's natural properties in some other way. Don't delude yourself. There is no such thing as "intrinsic value."

      Well, don't delude yourself. Removing the human factor from the equation; nothing has value, intrinsic or otherwise. Gold is perhaps the only material known to man that has, since the beginning of recorded history, maintained a value. Many times during our history this value was greater than that of other men's lives. Just sayin'.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    3. Re:Not really surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      actually make use of gold's natural properties in some other way. Don't delude yourself. There is no such thing as "intrinsic value."

      Of course gold has intrinsic value. Just not very much intrinsic value.

      The vast majority of the current price of gold is due to the fact that people think it has value, which is the same reason the US dollar or Euro has value.

      I like Warren Buffet's quote on gold:

      It gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.

    4. Re:Not really surprising by bmajik · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually Ron Paul, if he were abiding by the Austrian Economics playbook, (as he usually does) would never tell you that gold has "intrinsic" value, because nothing has an "intrinsic" value. Value is determined entirely by the transaction participants according to their own desires, and only at a specific point in time. Today, gold is worth ~1000/troy ounce to most Americans. Next week, post nuclear holocaust, you may have a hard time giving people 1oz of gold in exchange for 1 bag of radiation-free ramen.

      What Paul and most clever people _will_ tell you is that gold is very useful as a medium of exchange and a store of value within socieites because it is very hard to systematically manipulate [read: inflate], and because it is much better at both functions than "fractional cows".

      It was not an accident that many societies all independantly settled on weights of precious metals as their unit of monetary exchange and value.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    5. Re:Not really surprising by roscivs · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, don't delude yourself. Removing the human factor from the equation; nothing has value, intrinsic or otherwise. Gold is perhaps the only material known to man that has, since the beginning of recorded history, maintained a value. Many times during our history this value was greater than that of other men's lives. Just sayin'.

      That's mostly because gold does a good job at possessing the characteristics of a medium of exchange:

      1. transportability
      2. divisibility
      3. high market value in relation to volume and weight
      4. recognizability
      5. resistance to counterfeiting
      6. memory

      Other materials with similar characteristics have "maintained a value" the same way gold has--not because of any intrinsic store of value.

      --
      ~ roscivs
  11. Guaranteed by Whom? by Tisha_AH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Given that the "currency" (units, seashells, whatever) have some intrinsic value in that you put labor into the creation of some sort of work product there needs to be a guarantee of the currency, someone or some-thing (government, bank, etc...) who backs up that currency with assets. Also an exchange would need to be established to control the conversion of this new currency into other units. If you do not have these mechanisms in place then your new currency is as valuable as wampum was to the American Indians.

    When the European powers moved into the Americas they discovered that wampum was being used as a currency for the exchange of services and commodities and as a means of having portable wealth. The colonies, companies and fur-trappers would bring in mass-produced glass beads from Europe where they had very little value and exchange these to the Indians for furs, food and land. Within a few decades the entire system of wampum devalued itself and had collapsed.

    Virtual currency is just 1's and 0's on a computer (our real currency is more like that now than it ever was). How easy would it be to create the equivalent of glass beads in our virtual wampum on-line society?

    --
    Tisha Hayes
  12. So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can go to a bank in South Korea and exchange my WoW gold for Won? No? Then how about EvE's ISK? No?

    Why could that be? Maybe because the issuers of that "currency" are companies, not countries, and no country on this planet backs it with its real economy? And "forging" it is about as trivial as changing a few lines in a database because no game company follows banking standards concerning security (not to mention auditing)? And let's not talk about Blizzard or CCP letting those printing presses roll whenever they feel like without any oversight from any kind of national bank.

    In short, the whole deal is BS squared.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Actually, the way I read the decision, the answer to your question may be "yes." It does seem like the decision implies that non-state-backed currency is still a legal exchangeable currency. So yes, Korean banks might very well start publishing daily WoW-Won exchange rates. I think you're catching on to why this is an interesting development.

      Regarding the risks to holders of a company-backed rather than a state-backed currency, I don't really see the big deal. I trust Blizzard much more than I would trust the national bank of Zimbabwe, and yet Zimbabwe dollars are traded in international markets and exchange rates are published. According to Oanda's currency converter, a million Zimbabwe Dollars will exchange for exactly US$2,702.70 today. Why are we treating WoW gold differently? It can't be because we trust Mugabe's financial wizards more than we trust Blizzard.

    2. Re:So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by lgw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The supply of the US Dollar is controlled by the Federal Reserve, a private company. It's directors are appointed by the US government, but, still, private company. The US has been pretty bad about "letting the presses roll" over the past year or so - exchange markets sort that out very quickly. These virtual currencies are more stable than a great many national currencies. EvE's ISK supply is overseen by economic professionals (a smart move by the game company!), also more than can be said for some countries.

      That's the thing about money - it's all pretty much BS, but it works anyway.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:So that means WoW gold is legal tender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think what we need here is a car analogy. A Ford truck is not legal tender, however it has Real value. This court decision just says that in game currency is like Ford trucks. It has real value - it is not legal tender - but because it has value the law has a basis for decisions involving these properties. So any transaction or theft involving in game 'currencies' is handled the same as transaction or theft involving Ford trucks.

  13. Clueless gamer blog gets it wrong by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    The gamer blog has it wrong, the article poster didn't help, and the Slashdot "editors" blew it as usual. Read the article in JoongAng Daily (which they offer in English). The key issue here is that online gambling is illegal in Korea, and two game players were charged criminally for making money from an online game. The Supreme Court of Korea ruled that they were not gambling, so they don't get fined.

    This decision doesn't affect relationships between players and game operators. It's not about EULA enforceability or property rights. It's a criminal law issue. If you trade game currency, you're not going to be fined or go to jail in Korea. Whether a game site can ban you is a separate issue.

  14. MARINA. by Qui-Gon+Jinn · · Score: 2, Funny

    Transfer all your WoW gold to me, for me.

  15. So fix the headline by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Funny
    "Real Currency Becomes Virtual(ly worthless) in US".

    This message was brought to you by the Fed.

  16. PVP and thieving... by $1uck · · Score: 3, Funny

    So in a game such as EQ (the only MMO I've played) you could kill people (on pvp servers) and take their gold. Clearly this is part of the game, but is it something you could be arrested for now?

    1. Re:PVP and thieving... by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So in a game such as EQ (the only MMO I've played) you could kill people (on pvp servers) and take their gold. Clearly this is part of the game, but is it something you could be arrested for now?

      You're marked as "funny", but I think it's a valid question. If I play a game of basketball with someone, and steal their wallet, that's a crime. How's that different than MMORPG gold theft; because the rules say stealing is okay? Then how is that different from a casino, where "skill" or luck allows either one party to take the money from the other party? Sounds like gambling to me, which is illegal in SK.

  17. Re:Legal? by hrvatska · · Score: 2, Informative
  18. Re:Legal? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, it is illegal. See 18 USC Chapter 25 486:

    486. Uttering coins of gold, silver or other metal

    Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

    Liberty Dollars were not authorized by law, and therefore the minting of same is illegal.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  19. Article misses the mark by mmalove · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Article is horribly misrepresenting the Korean supreme court ruling.

    It claimed such an exchange was not criminal.
    It did not:
    -Create any kind of exchange between virtual/real currencies.
    -Create any kind of obligation on gaming companies to be accountable to player's virtual bank accounts.
    -Negate the EULAs of the majority of games which state RMT is a violation of your use of their services and will result in your account being banned from their servers.

    In other words, Bliz can continue to cancel your WOW account, they just can't arrest you. In Korea.

    -.-

    --
    You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
  20. Re:Let's launder money by roguegramma · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You forgot to add
    WHERE playernickname = 'mynickname'
    in both sql statements.

    It would suck if everyone else also would be Really Rich wouldn't it?

    Also, real banks would use Oracle, not sql server as the database.

    --
    Hey don't blame me, IANAB
  21. Re:Money isn't real by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If by "real" you mean "non-tangible", that's been the case for centuries, and was finally recognized when we went off the gold standard. The Fed alters the money supply, not by printing money, but by altering the amount of money people agree exists.

    If you're a big bank and the Fed loans you a million dollars, nothing tangible changes. Everyone just agrees you have a million dollars at your disposal because the Fed says there is. If they alter their interest rates to make borrowing attractive, suddenly there's lot more money floating around in the economy. If the raise interest rates so you (as a big bank) don't want to have so much debt to them on your books, suddenly you start demanding people you've lent money pay you back so you can pay your bills. That sucks money out of the economy, even though nothing tangible has happened (like zapping a pile of gold with a disintegration ray).

    It's really simple in a completely non-intuitive way.

    But that's not the sense I mean when I say "real money". "Real money" is something anybody with any sense would agree is money. In-game money has many of the characteristics of "real money"; it is liquid, and you can exchange it for some things of value. It lacks the property that anybody of any sense would treat it as "just as good as money", which means you can't trade it for just about anything the way you can real money. You've got to barter it for something else people agree is money before it has that all important universal buying power.

    There's an obvious reason for this. The company that operates the game would literally have system that could generate unlimited amounts of money. Banks can be a *little bit* like that. They can create travelers checks and other documents that say "pay to the bearer such and so", but they have to carry those as liabilities on their books. They can't print as much of this money as they like without altering their ability to pay their obligations to people who demand something "as good as" what the Fed provides. The game company has no incentive to limit the amount of money it creates, other than its impact on game play. If the government gave me the power to make *real* virtual money without any kind of downside, I wouldn't care about what it did to my game.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  22. Re:Legal? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    What part of "intended for use as" do you not understand?

    Liberty dollars are minted with the intended use as current money.

    Since it has been awhile since silver and gold coins have been considered "current money" it would be reasonable to assume that is no longer against the law to mint, utter or pass your own

    Actually, no it would not be reasonable to anything of the sort. The reason it is not reasonable is because the liberty dollars are intended for use as current money, regardless of whether or not the federal government uses silver and/or gold coins as current money.

    for private use.

    But, liberty dollars are not for private use. If they were for private use, then the minters of the liberty dollars would not encourage people to try to pay for things with liberty dollars.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.