Dutch Supreme Court Sees Game Objects As Goods

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dutch Supreme Court Sees Game Objects As Goods

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @09:35AM from the you-stole-my-cloudsong dept.

thrill12 writes "The Dutch Supreme Court ruled on January 31st that the taking away of possessions in the game Runescape from a 13-year-old boy, who was threatened with a (real) knife, was in fact theft because the possessions could be seen as actual goods. The highest court explained this not by arguing it was software that was copied, but by stating that the game data were real goods acquired through 'effort and time investment,' and 'the principal had the actual and exclusive dominion of the goods' — up until the moment the other guy took them away, that is."

136 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by LostCluster · 2012-01-31 09:35 · Score: 5, Informative

They left out an important fact in the summary... he didn't lose the things under the rules of the game, he lost them because the suspect threatened him with a knife. This puts it in the same category as "give me your password or else" threats. Maybe robbery might be the wrong charge to give him, but there's got to be something illegal about gaining game objects by real-world threats.
1. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by ForgedArtificer · 2012-01-31 09:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Never mind that, there's got to be something illegal about threatening someone with a knife.
  
  --
  The right to offend is central to the right to free speech.
2. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Kenja · 2012-01-31 09:43 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Pft... knives are only like a D6 damage. Not much of a threat.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
3. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by balzi · 2012-01-31 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly!
  I don't get why he got 144 hours of community service - surely armed "robbery", or at least armed something, deserves something more severe?
  
  --
  "I split coffee all over my wife's nightie .... serves me right for wearing it" -Speelberg, no 'Spar
4. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  Theft seems the right term to me as the real owner was denied their use/possession.
5. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Samantha+Wright · 2012-01-31 09:46 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Well, it is when you're his age. The kid only has half hit dice!
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
6. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by CanHasDIY · 2012-01-31 09:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Never mind that, there's got to be something illegal about threatening someone with a knife.
  True that.
  
  The real story here: how fucked up is the world that kids are threatening to shiv each other over goddamn digital trinkets? What's next, kids killing each other over Xbox games?
  
  ... Aw, fuck.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
7. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Darinbob · 2012-01-31 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe there were multiple charges involved? Assault is not the same as assault with theft. The suspect was also still a juvenile at the time of the crime.
8. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by ForgedArtificer · 2012-01-31 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing new about that, kids have threatened kids over possessions since time immemorial.
  Someone getting beat up in school for their lunch money is pretty much a cliché now, it's brought up so often.
  
  --
  The right to offend is central to the right to free speech.
9. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Whatsisname · 2012-01-31 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  It will be interesting to see if someone attempts a lawsuit later if a threat and stealing take place entirely within the virtual world, e.g. some PvP game, and whether this ruling will be used as precedent.
10. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by poetmatt · 2012-01-31 09:55 · Score: 2
  
  Yep, this article has zero to do with game objects.
  It's more like they're saying "if they threaten you in real life and you transfer something under duress it's still a theft"
  Which has zero bearing on the physical or non. This has been pretty much been settled and answered in judiciaries around the globe for a long time.
11. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by DM9290 · 2012-01-31 09:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Pft... knives are only like a D6 damage. Not much of a threat.
  Thats a big knife! I think you're thinking of a short sword.
  
  --
  No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
12. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by SydShamino · 2012-01-31 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, I'm disappointed. I started reading the comments hoping to learn that we could now prosecute ninjalooters...
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
13. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  Whether or not goods were taken is the difference between "aggravated assault" and "armed robbery."
14. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by wbr1 · 2012-01-31 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Very low AC from a t-shirt as well.
  
  --
  Silence is a state of mime.
15. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by msheekhah · 2012-01-31 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  but when you're six, you only have d6 + con hit points
  
  --
  Mark Anthony Collins
16. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by iamhassi · 2012-01-31 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  Pft... knives are only like a D6 damage. Not much of a threat.
  Thats a big knife! I think you're thinking of a short sword.
  No, short sword is 3 or better. With knife you have to roll a 4 or better.
  
  --
  my karma will be here long after I'm gone
17. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by mwvdlee · 2012-01-31 10:24 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I rarely see any of my monthly wages in cash, it just gets added to the "total" number in my bank account.
  In practice, money isn't much more tangible than in-game goods and most would say taking away money is theft, even if it was taken from a bank account.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
18. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by LordLucless · 2012-01-31 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  It was a +3 Nerdslayer dagger
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
19. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by CanHasDIY · 2012-01-31 10:30 · Score: 2
  
  Beating someone up for money is one thing; murdering them because you lost a game of Halo, or you're too lazy to find your own Chaos Talisman, is an entirely different situation.
  
  I lost plenty of games of Tekken back in the day, but not once did I even consider bleeding the other guy for beating me.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
20. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by CimmerianX · 2012-01-31 10:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Knives are a 1d4 roll my friend.
21. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 10:38 · Score: 0
  
  It still sets an incredibly dangerous precedent for developers. With balance patches be considered vandalism? If the was a knife threat let that be the charge, are threats of violence and possession of a weapon not serious enough crimes without adding in theft of something whose value should be in obtaining it?
22. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by squidflakes · 2012-01-31 10:49 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Whelp, there goes EVE.
23. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  You're missing the point. These virtual items are goods for the purpose of discerning robbery from assault. A patch threatens no one in particular.
  Now if a game admin were shaking down people, then that would be a new case to be decided.
24. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by ForgedArtificer · 2012-01-31 11:08 · Score: 2
  
  All I mean is, it's a very old story. People keep acting like senseless violence was invented at about the same time as video games; it couldn't be further from the truth.
  All throughout history there have been incidents of people - adult and child alike - drastically, physically overreacting to things. I remember two of my friends nearly going a few rounds over whether they were looking at a picture of the front or the back of a pokémon.
  The BIG difference today is that we have an extremely efficient mass media system that just wants to shock your pants off, because sensationalism sells, and they have access to news from the entire world.
  Consider where these kids lived and then try to imagine if you'd even have heard about this "back in the day" - then go back another 20-30 years and try to imagine whether THEY would have heard of it.
  But because of our modern mass media, you're reading a story about one human being out of seven billion knifing another human being about seven billion - and asking yourself what's wrong with the world today.
  Perhaps a better question to ask yourself is: what's wrong with ME when I apply the statistically insignificant actions of one person (again, one in seven billion, that means he represents 0.0000000000143% of the population) to an entire generation?
  
  --
  The right to offend is central to the right to free speech.
25. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Talderas · 2012-01-31 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  And the guy had 6+con hit points as a 1st level commoner. So the bully has to have at least 4 points of strength over the kid to be able to kill him with a single stab unless he rolls a 19 or 20 on his attack roll and confirms the critical.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
26. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by CanHasDIY · 2012-01-31 11:25 · Score: 2
  
  Perhaps a better question to ask yourself is: what's wrong with ME when I apply the statistically insignificant actions of one person (again, one in seven billion, that means he represents 0.0000000000143% of the population) to an entire generation?
  Well, gee, Wally, when you put it that way, I guess what's "wrong" with me is that I'm human, and thus prone to sensationalism and statistical error. We all can't be infallible machines that happen to be immune to social norms like you seem to think yourself.
  
  For the record, I hail from an area in which, 20-30 years ago, kids brought guns to school daily and no one (who wasn't a rabbit or squirrel) ever got shot. Of course, back then we didn't get into fisticuffs arguing about whether we were looking at the front or the back of an animal, we just shot the damn thing, skinned it, and threw it in the stew.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
27. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by ForgedArtificer · 2012-01-31 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry about that; I meant "yourself" as a generalization, not an attack on you specifically.
  I'm trying to make a point, not start a fight. I know we're all fallible creatures. Otherwise, what'd be the point?
  What I'm trying to say is that I'm against any individual or group blaming video games for violence.
  
  --
  The right to offend is central to the right to free speech.
28. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  ... daggers are 1d4 and threaten a crit on 19-20 for x2
29. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by noh8rz2 · 2012-01-31 12:12 · Score: 2
  
  You guys need to duke this out like adults, with shivs and bows.
30. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Splab · 2012-01-31 12:34 · Score: 2
  
  Came here for this. Very first thought I had when reading the subject - don't pop a dutch in Eve :-)
31. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  A simple dagger, sir, does 1d4.
  I would much rather pack a long sword (base dmg 1d8 vs. small/med, 1d12 vs. large).
32. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 13:02 · Score: 0
  
  Well it's not really that different to threatening someone with a knife and forcing them to transfer money from their bank account to yours.
  The money is virtual too, no real money is exchanged.
  It's still robbery either way.
33. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by FatdogHaiku · 2012-01-31 13:20 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Bailiff, whack his pee pee!
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
34. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Whibla · 2012-01-31 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  Unless the summary has been changed, and I see no edit addendum you appear to have failed your speed reading / skimming test:
  
  ...from a 13-year-old boy, who was threatened with a (real) knife...
  And, despite most of the comments I've read so far, this is something new (tm). Money stolen from you (or your bank) at knife point has a real world equivalent and use. Car keys stolen from you at knife point have a physicality, and real world use. A book stolen from you at knife point has a real world, physical, existence.
  This ruling puts (some) virtual items on the same footing. Now, I don't think this is an earth shattering precedent, but it is interesting for a couple of reasons: It goes some way towards legitimising virtual currencies (with attendant tax implications); it raises questions regarding the sale of virtual (game) goods, between players in mmo's, in violation of the tos of the game (according to first sale doctrine, and hence with additional legal implications); and it drives home the point, as if it really needed it, that 'on a computer' is not a valid distinction for avoiding laws, or something that requires new laws.
  In reality I do suspect that none of the above (except maybe the taxable side of online 'earnings' will ever arise from this, but it is, to my mind anyway, still interesting, and not nothing. A rare display of common sense from a judge, if nothing else.
35. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 14:22 · Score: 0
  
  Being 19 at sentencing and the crime happening the previous year he'd be 17 or 18 by then, not exactly what I'd call a kid. Some people simply have really bad issues, I went to class with a guy that as a 19yo stabbed a 17yo to death with 15-20 knife wounds over two bottles of whiskey. My guess it could have been an xbox game or just about anything, as long as it made him snap. Unlike this guy though, he was committed to a mental institution and was released after some years.
36. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by CanHasDIY · 2012-01-31 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  What I'm trying to say is that I'm against any individual or group blaming video games for violence.
  Agreed.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
37. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 14:49 · Score: 0
  
  Niggers kill each other over shoes, so what you say is a distinct possibility.
38. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 16:13 · Score: 0
  
  Then film it, put it on Youtube.
39. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by thrill12 · 2012-01-31 17:26 · Score: 2
  
  OP here, I left out the knife part originally because for Slashdot I figured the real interesting fact was the "game data equals good" part. The original ruling already had the other person convicted because of the knife thing, but the defense argued that the crime could not constitute actual theft because there were no goods to be stolen. That is what the supreme court overturned, and that is the 'news' part in this story.
  
  --
  Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
40. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by currently_awake · 2012-01-31 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  Not in D&D. Those do d3. What game has them do a full d6?
41. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by currently_awake · 2012-01-31 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  In game it's like losing a baseball game and they take your trophy for not losing any games.
42. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by meerling · 2012-01-31 19:10 · Score: 1
  
  There have been a couple of cases in Korea where someone was killed over an argument in an online game, or theft of equipment in an online game.
43. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by meerling · 2012-01-31 19:19 · Score: 2
  
  Knife d3, Dagger d4, Short Sword d6, Great Sword 2d6
  or
  Knife d3, Dagger d4+1, Short Sword d6, Great Sword 2d8
  or
  Knife or Dagger +1, Short Sword +2, Great Sword +5
  
  It all depends on which game system you're using, in some of them you can kill anyone with a single good hit. (Of course there are plenty of others where it'll take about an hour to whittle away someone with a knife before they start feeling wounded...)
  
  Yes, I couldn't resist the geek-points :D
44. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by meerling · 2012-01-31 19:21 · Score: 1
  
  No such thing. The only wizards that know how to make one of those would rather destroy the world before crafting that abomination. :D
45. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by TheLink · 2012-01-31 19:24 · Score: 1
  
  Digital trinkets? Those numbers in bank accounts and stock market shares are digital trinkets too. The only difference is whether the courts and governments decide they are different or not.
  When enough people think a stamp, a pokemon card, or a stockmarket share or a bunch of digits in a computer are valuable, it is valuable.
  Denying it can cause bigger problems, like the case years ago in China when some guy "borrowed" another guy's "virtual sword" and then sold it (for a significant amount of real money). The victim went to the cops first, but apparently the cops just laughed, so in the end the victim handled it himself and murdered the perp. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/mar/31/china.internationalnews
  Not saying it was right to do so. But if someone borrowed something precious of yours, then sold it off (breach of trust/betrayal), and when you find out, just offered you the cash (presumably less than what you think it was worth), and you go to the cops who then laugh at you, I'd think you would be rather pissed off.
  In contrast some places handle it better: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10207486
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
46. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by ozmanjusri · 2012-01-31 19:29 · Score: 1
  
  kids are threatening to shiv each other over goddamn digital trinkets?
  Why would that surprise you?
  The *IAAs have persuaded your government to roll back hundreds of years of hard-won freedoms over equally ephemeral digital representations of sound and images.
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
47. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by meerling · 2012-01-31 19:29 · Score: 1
  
  Not so much. The in game theft or con is just a matter of the game. You can kill the online character a million times, and only piss off the player. So long as he doesn't go ballistic and pop a vein or something, no real harm done.
  
  This case has the kid, the actual real world human, being threatened with a knife, aka - actual potential death of the person or at least some really nasty boo-boos. Not so much different than sticking a knife to someone and forcing them to withdraw money from an ATM. After all, it was just digital data that got shifted around, it's just that the ATM also exchanges that data into physical currency, but since most of the worlds currencies are not backed by any physical value, it's not a lot different than online goods.
  
  I know it's not the traditional way of looking at it, but it deserves some thought.
  (And before anyone suggests it, no I don't think virtual goods should be taxed, only tax the profits you make in the real world by selling them. Otherwise it's like taxing your cousins promise to give you $100 on your birthday before you get it.)
48. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Tatarize · 2012-01-31 19:36 · Score: 1
  
  Add to that the fact that you can sell many of those items for real cash money. And that when property rights are denied there are real and serious problems.
  There have been cases where Person A borrows a sword from Person B. Person A sells said sword on Ebay for $500. Person B contacts the police. Police say person B has no recourse. Person B kills Person A.
  It's really a problem that such things are not rightly classed as property under current law just because of the digital nature of the good.
  
  --
  
  It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
49. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by TheLink · 2012-01-31 19:41 · Score: 1
  
  No, because those would be losses due to an "Act of God" (where God = the gods of the game). That said I believe people have tried to sue God before. ;)
  
  To me it a knife threat doesn't even have to be involved for something wrong to have been done. If someone borrowed your virtual sword on the understanding that he would return it in good condition, but that someone refuses to give it back or sells it, then it is theft. You no longer can use the sword.
  
  Unless of course you have both agreed to play a game where such behaviour is considered part of the game (e.g. EVE Online), in which case, you should have no legal redress (that said, could getting the courts involved be considered part of the game too? ;) ).
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
50. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by St.Creed · 2012-01-31 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  That gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "do you think you're lucky, punk?" :)
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
51. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Mabhatter · 2012-01-31 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  It's no legally different than the "balance patches" made in the banking sector lately....
  That said, if more people start to think of in-game items as "theirs" the might think of OTHER People's stuff as NOT theirs.
52. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by St.Creed · 2012-01-31 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't know you could go to someone IRL, hold a knife to their throat, and have that considered part of the game.
  Wow, EVE is *really* hardcore! :)
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
53. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by St.Creed · 2012-01-31 22:28 · Score: 1
  
  You're opening up a big can of worms here.
  the IRS has already looked at the possibility of taxing virtual goods. This was held to be impossible but given this ruling, I'm not so sure there's no legal option to go and do exactly that. How'd you like to add all your virtual cash to your next tax statement? And would the subscription money be deductible? Inquiring minds want to know :)
  And indeed, for EVE: what if you're scammed *in game* out of your goods? EVE considers this part of the game - but the Dutch High Court may see it in a different light now.
  I think IP lawyers are having a field day right now. Because this opens up so many ambiguities. And that's what they thrive on.
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
54. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by St.Creed · 2012-01-31 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, responding to myself: I just found the verdict (Dutch): http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/detailpage.aspx?ljn=BQ9251
  Very interesting part of the verdict is this (my translation):
  "Relevant is also that the rules of the game in RuneScape do not allow for a method of obtaining these goods as happened in this case. The act of removal has been committed outside the context of the game. So this is not about virtual acts in a virtual world, but factual acts that influence a virtual world."
  So EVE should be okay, because it's all in the game. But if people come to your house and threaten you, it's going to be robbery and theft.
  They also dealth with the argument that the victim wasn't the owner but only had a license. The court says that it is not about who operates the servers, but who has the right to determine what happens to the goods. In this case it was the account holder, as was obvious because the others had to force him to transfer goods, in order to be able to do something with them. As an example they used passports: the Dutch State owns ALL Dutch passports in existence (you only get the right to carry it but you don't own them), but the bearer of the passport can still report the document as stolen, because he no longer has the use of it.
  So licenses are not as important as having the goods available. Wow, this puts a new and interesting take on things like guaranteed uptime! Is that depriving people of the right to their property? WoW is down for maintenance right now - can I sue them?
  A very interesting verdict.
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
55. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by EJB · 2012-01-31 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  The question that the judges answered in the ruling was, whether the crime of "theft" was committed by defendant.
  That's article 310 of the Dutch penal code, translated (IANAL) as "He who takes a good that belongs wholly of partly to another person, with the intent to appropriate it in an illegal manner, will be, as being guilty of "theft", punished with a prison term of at most 4 years or a monetary fine of the fourth category"
  His defense argued that what was 'stolen' could not be seen as 'goods' as defined by article 310. Also important to note is that if something is a 'good' under that article does not necessarily mean that it is also a 'good' for any other law or purpose.
  The Dutch highest court does not look at the entire case again, it will only look at certain aspects of it (questions of law) and not of fact.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_Netherlands
  A lower court already concluded that the defendant was guilty of articles 310 and 312 (theft accompanied by violence --> robbery).
  So since the high court concluded that the in-game possessions were goods according to the law, it automatically had to conclude that theft and theft accompanied with violence were committed. And I personally don't see why not, as this is clearly a robbery.
  Luckily we don't have mandatory minimum sentences in Holland so judges have a lot of freedom to look at the circumstances when considering the punishments.
  Things like how much or what kind of violence was used, how old the defendant was, whether he is a repeat offender, etc.
  We don't actually have to twist to meaning of the word "robbery" and call it something else when the minimum punishment seems too high, because some politician who can't stick to his own business forced judges to ignore the circumstances.
56. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by AlphaFreak · 2012-01-31 23:21 · Score: 0
  
  You, sir, are a nazi retard, and YOU should be awarded with a for-life sentence working as a janitor in the visitors centre of Auswitz concentration camp, so you can learn every day of your stupid life the consequences of that stupid thinking of yours.
  Or, directly, given a bullet in your head.
57. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-01-31 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  Not applicable. That's in-game mechanics. This is real life extortion.
  
  If you sit on Ama-gank-me gate passive tanking the guns and bubble some noob flying through in his new AF, that's all part of the game. If you go around to his house and demand 100m ISK and all his faction modules or you'll beat him with a wrecking bar, that would be a similar to this situation.
  
  Besides, natural justice is the law in Eve. If you get ganked, you fleet up and go get some revenge.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
58. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Jedi+Alec · 2012-02-01 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but unless I manage to get an *actual* real life Mega Pulse Laser II and manage to use that to convince someone to hand over his Nightmare...I reckon I'm in the clear..
  And yes, I'm dutch ;-)
  
  --
  
  People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
59. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Elldallan · 2012-02-01 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  Servers being down for maintenance would also be considered as "part of the game" so no you cannot sue them for denying you access to your goods.
60. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  They left out an important fact in the summary... he didn't lose the things under the rules of the game, he lost them because the suspect threatened him with a knife. This puts it in the same category as "give me your password or else" threats. Maybe robbery might be the wrong charge to give him, but there's got to be something illegal about gaining game objects by real-world threats.
  In the US you can be charged with attempted robbery even if you don't have anything they are trying to get. For example, if someone with a knife says "give me all your cash" and you don't have any, that's still attempted robbery even though the goods don't exist in any form at all. The only real difference between robbery and attempted robbery is valuing the damages, and we can award damages from the time and effort invested in obtaining a virtual item without classifying it as a "good" in the sense the Dutch have.
  The problem here is how the Dutch define robbery, so I'm not surprised they've had to come up with this.
61. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Askmum · 2012-02-01 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  That is what you get in the Netherlands for armed robbery. Even though sencences have gone up in recent years, they still are low compared to other countries.
  And keep in mind it's a 13 year old kid. It has to be something very serious to lock up kids at that age.
62. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Whibla · 2012-02-01 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, thank you for the clarification. (Would have been easier to see if you'd replied to my post rather than its parent, but it's the thought that counts)
  And, in that case, apologies to LostCluster, for my lack of faith ;-)
  I do still agree that the interesting thing about this ruling is the equivalence of game data & goods.
63. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by St.Creed · 2012-02-01 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Good point.
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
64. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... oops, it's the story by Hentes · 2012-02-01 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Most MMO games don't allow selling of digital "properties" so that reasoning would not hold up in court. If it wasn't a criminal case the guy could sue for emotional damages at most. But in this case the fact that threating someone with a knife happened in order to "obtain" virtual "goods" made the verdict harsher.
Aren't they actual goods per law? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 09:40 · Score: 1

If I purchase a song on iTunes, that's a "good."
If I share said song with all of my friends, that's apparently theft according to the RIAA/MPAA.
Why would it be any different than an abstract file/data purchased/acquired in a game?
1. Re:Aren't they actual goods per law? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  If I purchase a song on iTunes, that's a "good."
  No, what you're buying on iTunes is a license
2. Re:Aren't they actual goods per law? by Samantha+Wright · 2012-01-31 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  I'm divided between wanting to point out that your examples were American, and that this is a Dutch case... and being too lazy^Hbusy to confirm that the same precedents exist in the Netherlands. Your choice!
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
3. Re:Aren't they actual goods per law? by Pope · 2012-01-31 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  If I purchase a song on iTunes, that's a "good."
  No, what you're buying on iTunes is a license
  Same thing if you buy a record album. You get a license for the music that is tied to ownership of the physical good. It's been like for decades, but no one seems to have read that part of the liner notes. Hell, it's usually printed right on the label in the middle.
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
4. Re:Aren't they actual goods per law? by dkf · 2012-01-31 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  I'm divided between wanting to point out that your examples were American, and that this is a Dutch case... and being too lazy^Hbusy to confirm that the same precedents exist in the Netherlands.
  The Netherlands is a country that uses a pure statute law system (in common with many other European countries, but different from the US and the UK); precedents are technically not relevant as each case is supposed to be judged from the law as written. However, arguments as presented before a court can be looked at for their persuasive power, especially when those are from the relevant supreme court, even though they have to be reevaluated in terms of the facts of the case every time.
  Legal systems: amazingly complex in subtle ways, even more so than programming languages.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
5. Re:Aren't they actual goods per law? by SlithyMagister · 2012-01-31 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  If I purchase a song on iTunes, that's a "good."
  No, what you're buying on iTunes is a license
  And therein lies the source of the whole fubar mess.
  If I purchase something -- In other words I exchange money for the possession of ANYTHING -- the original owner can no longer expect to control my actions in relation to that item.
  The so-called "licenses" are not valid contracts whatever the courts of whatever country may decide, since there is no negotiation involved.
  Furthermore, they are coercive by their very nature, and the only thing that supports them is the threat of force. That force may be held to be legal -- in some cases, the mere threat of lawsuit cause economic harm to those even suspected of breach of one of these so-called implied agreements.
  The law itself is sometimes the weapon wielded by the enforcers.
  
  The only answer is for everyone to say, out loud, "No thank you" as they click the "I agree" box. If the one-sided "contract" can be held to be legally binding, they such a one-sided rejection of it is equally valid.
6. Re:Aren't they actual goods per law? by icebraining · 2012-01-31 12:19 · Score: 2
  
  If the license isn't valid, then you're truly fucked, because the default copyright terms are even more restricted. I don't know if you want to argue for that...
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
7. Re:Aren't they actual goods per law? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 12:51 · Score: 0
  
  usually with some statement concerning the owner being prohibited to use the media for mass entertainment.
8. Re:Aren't they actual goods per law? by EJB · 2012-01-31 23:12 · Score: 2
  
  One of the really interesting things in this verdict is that the judge explicitly said that forcing something to give you "software, computer data or a PIN code" cannot be seen as theft, because it doesn't leave the 'power of disposal' of the original owner, but instead also becomes at the disposal of somebody else in an unwanted manner. There are other laws that deal with that though.
  So in in this verdict the judge explicitly said that illegal copying is *not* theft, because for theft something needs to be taken away from somebody, and that doesn't happen when something is copied.
  In interesting argument that organizations like RIAA and MPAA that throw around extremely harsh words such as 'piracy' and 'theft' as if it was candy, probably do not want to hear.
Discontinued service by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 09:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

OK, what happens when a game company decides to shut down their MMO server and remove all your objects of "value"?
1. Re:Discontinued service by Bucky24 · 2012-01-31 09:44 · Score: 2
  
  If it was WoW that got shut down we'd have riots in the streets...
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
2. Re:Discontinued service by DogDude · 2012-01-31 09:50 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  People who play WOW couldn't riot. They'd get winded by the time they got to the end of their driveways, give up, and order in some pizza and watch some Netflix.
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
3. Re:Discontinued service by darkwing_bmf · 2012-01-31 09:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's the difference between "contract" law and "threaten someone with a knife" law.
4. Re:Discontinued service by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  OK, what happens when a game company decides to shut down their MMO server and remove all your objects of "value"?
  That's when the said game company releases the sourcecode of their servers and lets the community take over.
  Right?
  Right?....
5. Re:Discontinued service by Dishevel · 2012-01-31 11:07 · Score: 2
  
  To be fair they would also send lots of angry emails.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
6. Re:Discontinued service by viperidaenz · 2012-01-31 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Because the community will spend the millions of dollars every year to run the servers...
7. Re:Discontinued service by icebraining · 2012-01-31 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  Where exactly do you think the company gets the money to do that, if not from the community of players?
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
8. Re:Discontinued service by gmhowell · 2012-01-31 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  People who play WOW couldn't riot. They'd get winded by the time they got to the end of their driveways, give up, and order in some pizza and watch some Netflix.
  End of the driveway? We'd get winded halfway up the stairs. </basementjoke>
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
9. Re:Discontinued service by DogDude · 2012-01-31 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  That's much, much better than mine.
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
10. Re:Discontinued service by gmhowell · 2012-01-31 18:27 · Score: 1
  
  That's much, much better than mine.
  I play WoW. I know of what I speak.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
11. Re:Discontinued service by viperidaenz · 2012-01-31 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  By the users in the community who bought the game from them?
12. Re:Discontinued service by rdebath · 2012-01-31 19:26 · Score: 1
  
  Not only that, if you live in a rented house and are robbed. You are the official victim even if it's some of your landlord's stuff that's stolen.
  But this doesn't change that the stuff belongs to the landlord when you move out (or get evicted).
  Still, I ain't sure this is right for virtual stuff belonging to a virtual-land lord.
13. Re:Discontinued service by Tatarize · 2012-01-31 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  Your objects value are determined by what they are valued at. They are worth what people are willing to pay for them. With the shut down of a game service the objects would become devoid of value because their value is only as part of the game which no longer existed, effectively the game shutdown would cause an economic collapse of the value items of the game.
  If the MMO simply stole your stuff because they wanted to, you should be allowed to sue them for the value of the items. Somebody might well give you real money for those actual items. But, if they shut down, all the items are without value at all because nobody would pay you anything for them even if transferring the items from one deactivated account to another were actually possible.
  
  --
  
  It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
14. Re:Discontinued service by TheLink · 2012-01-31 19:49 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe "nothing" if it's legally considered an Act of (Game) God ;).
  
  If someone stole your in-game objects, then sure, same thing as if someone stole stockmarket shares, the money in bank accounts, changed some digital land title registration... Unless of course the theft is considered part of the game (ala EVE Online).
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
15. Re:Discontinued service by AmiMoJo · 2012-01-31 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  The question still remains though, especially if the company charges for extras like many do. If you bought a load of virtual goods from them and the next day they announced that the severs would shut down in a week you might have a case.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
16. Re:Discontinued service by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-01-31 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  If it was WoW that got shut down we'd have impotent nerd rage in the MMO Champion forums...
  FTFY.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
17. Re:Discontinued service by bWareiWare.co.uk · 2012-02-01 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  They have your prior agreement in the terms and conditions.
Amie Street by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 09:44 · Score: 1

So when Amie Street was sold to Amazon and I lost my song collection, it was theft. I just feel sorry that it would be too expensive to sue a US company for a non US citizen.
wow by johnvile · 2012-01-31 09:44 · Score: 1

I've invested loads of 'effort and time (and) investment,' in loads of stuff that got me no where. I wish I was Dutch. At least the courts would be on my side.

--
"What Are They Gonna Do When Were All Using Freenet"
1. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  Too true. Not that I think threatening someone with bodily harm is ok, but these types of assertions by the courts perfectly exemplify how ignorant of reality with regards to economics the state is and how arbitrary and contradictory such definitions are. Defining goods as a function of 'effort and time investment' is fine so long as one uses that definition consistently and correctly. One could define love as rape for all I care, so long as that definition isn't then used to talk about how romantic love is. Unfortunately, that is exactly how laws work; they set up definitions not through deductions from axioms, but through political power. The inevitable contradictions that arise are patched as best as can be done, but such constructs are still poor simulacra of reality. It often reminds me of the Ptolemaic solar model and how complicated it became in order to approximately describe how things really are as seen from Earth.
now taxable :) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 09:48 · Score: 0

So if the courts have not classified these as objects, could they now not be TAXed since everything as an object is taxable :)
1. Re:now taxable :) by residieu · 2012-02-01 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Does that make my WoW account a tax-deductible business expense?
Re:For Sale! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 09:49 · Score: 0

Farmville called, they said something-something patent lawyer.
This seems bizarre by maroberts · 2012-01-31 09:51 · Score: 2

The knife threat and kicking were obviously a form of assault/ bodily harm and should have easily swamped in terms of sentencing any charges for a very minor act of theft.
I am very surprised that the Supreme Court simply didn't say that the issue of whether virtual items are real property or not was moot in view of the more serious offences committed by the defendants.

--
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
1. Re:This seems bizarre by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  yeh I would assume a robbery is still counts a robbery even if the victim doesn't have any money
2. Re:This seems bizarre by Carik · 2012-01-31 10:01 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It could be that the judge wanted to tack on more time... since it looks like he could only impose community service (possibly because everyone involved was a minor?), it may have given him an option to impose a harsher sentence.
  I could easily see that: "OK, the max I'm allowed to impose on a minor for a single offense is 100 hours, and that's for threats of violence. But you deserve more punishment, so what else can I do? Oh... you also stole something. That's another 44 hours. If I could think of anything else to add, I would, so count yourself lucky, kid, and don't do it again."
3. Re:This seems bizarre by rhysweatherley · 2012-01-31 10:22 · Score: 2
  
  The theft is MOTIVE. Assault with a deadly weapon or threatened assault can have many motives: robbery, jealously, bigotry, random act of cruelty, etc. The motive helps determine the type of sentence handed out. If reassigning game objects under threat isn't a theft-related motive, then what is it? Which sentencing rules should the court apply? The court in this case chose to be conservative and stick with ordinary theft - it would be up to the Dutch government to create a wholly new "virtual theft" sentencing category if there was some reason to do so. Frankly I don't see how forcible transfer of game objects differs from someone threatening me if I don't electronically transfer the contents of my bank account - that's also a virtual number in a computer somewhere. So I think that this is the correct approach for courts to take.
4. Re:This seems bizarre by currently_awake · 2012-01-31 17:43 · Score: 1
  
  If you declare the game stuff stolen then the kid gets it back. That's a very real benefit for him.
5. Re:This seems bizarre by Meeni · 2012-01-31 18:41 · Score: 1
  
  Sentences are usually not cumulative in european law. But I don't know about the specifics of Netherland.
6. Re:This seems bizarre by St.Creed · 2012-01-31 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  They aren't cumulative. But they can be different, which was the case here.
  However, that wasn't the reasoning apparently. This went through several different courts and by the time it ended, the sentence got reduced due to it taking so long.
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Subjective value. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 09:53 · Score: 1

People find value in the configuration of electrons in any given medium valuable for different reasons.
Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 09:55 · Score: 1

Money is created electronicly by central banks. No real "printing" only virtual. If you threatened somebody with a knife at their throat and forced them to electronicly transfer $10,000 it's the same thing.
Re:For Sale! by NalosLayor · 2012-01-31 10:00 · Score: 0

As messed up as Reddit already is, can you imagine what that place would be like if they allowed users to transfer karma from one person to another? No need to make it do anything, just allow it to flow. The site would implode in a week.
So... by forkfail · 2012-01-31 10:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

Jail time for ninjas?
Import tariffs for overseas gold farmers?
Sales tax on the WoW auction house?
Income tax on raid loot?

--
Check your premises.
1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, but it would be in-game jail time and in-game currency taxes, since the acts happen within the game.
  In the case here, however, the act of theft (or rather armed robbery) was committed IRL.
2. Re:So... by houghi · 2012-01-31 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Extension of ACTA to include these kind of thefts.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
3. Re:So... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-31 11:53 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Yes, yes, yes, and yes!
  Are you running for president, by chance?
4. Re:So... by Sir_Sri · 2012-01-31 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  The tax situation is why gold selling is almost always frowned upon. If it had a legitimate exchange to real world money you might have the tax any gains (sort of depends on the rules around gambling income wherever you live). It would get very ugly very fast.
Same Questions, Different Systems by andersh · 2012-01-31 10:08 · Score: 1

The US uses Common Law, that's a very different system from the Civil Law (Roman) system used in most European countries (with the exception of the UK and Ireland).
Precedents don't have the same value in other legal systems, or rather they don't have to. You can't apply American law to European courts :)
1. Re:Same Questions, Different Systems by Obfuscant · 2012-01-31 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  Precedents don't have the same value in other legal systems, or rather they don't have to. You can't apply American law to European courts :)
  
  And yet we have SCOTUS occupants who want to apply European law to US courts.
2. Re:Same Questions, Different Systems by pseudofrog · 2012-01-31 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
  
  All justices have mentioned foreign laws in their opinions, and none have ever stated that they want European laws to apply to the US.
This is kind of a grey area. by Dutchmaan · 2012-01-31 10:11 · Score: 1

The crux of the argument IMHO is whether or not the person from whom the data was taken still had access to the data after the fact. Data is tricky because it can be both taken or copied depending on who has control over the data. In a game, data can be stolen from one individual because he has no access to the data after the fact stemming from the fact that the game creator likely has control of the data on their servers.
It guess it could be best viewed as, if somone electronically transfers funds from your bank account, it would be considered theft. No physical property was taken, but at the same time you lost access to your 'wealth'.
1. Re:This is kind of a grey area. by Fjandr · 2012-01-31 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  This is probably the best analogy to use since hard currency is becoming much less frequently used. Your "wealth" is entirely data until you actually go and have it converted into something physical (whether currency or other goods). The fact that this particular data had no mechanism for conversion to tangible property isn't really relevant; it still had some form of measurable worth, and the controller of it was deprived of its use via threats of physical violence.
2. Re:This is kind of a grey area. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  The fact that this particular data had no mechanism for conversion to tangible property isn't really relevant
  Not only that, but it could, at least theoretically, be converted to tangible property. In-game items being sold for cash is not unheard of. If it has potential cash value, it's real property.
3. Re:This is kind of a grey area. by EnempE · 2012-01-31 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  The important point here is that something that does not physically exist, and the person never had any physical possession of, as the data resided on a server somewhere, that were not obtained in exchange for real world goods, services or currency were considered to have an intrinsic value. This is important because the player did not create the items, but only had them attributed to him through the act of playing the game. It acknowledges that something can have a value even if it cannot be measured in any physical sense, and that depriving one of that value is a form theft.
Even if they are good... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 10:31 · Score: 0

You own your download/cd/record that doesnt give you rights to reproduce it except for backup/archival purposes.
Sheldon by spyder-implee · 2012-01-31 10:35 · Score: 2

Sheldon would be very happy with this ruling.

--
Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
Interesting... by DaveHowe · 2012-01-31 11:06 · Score: 1

Given that jagex have always stated that in-game objects are theirs, and can't be (eg) sold outside the game, I wonder if having a court ruling to the contrary will (again for example) make disabling accounts for real-world trading "theft" by jagex?

--
-=DaveHowe=-
1. Re:Interesting... by St.Creed · 2012-01-31 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  The court argued that, despite what Jagex would *like* to be the case, the goods were in practice sold on eBay. And that was what counted for determining whether they had value. I think Jagex's lawyers (and those of other MMORPGS) are going to be spending some time on this verdict.
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
No Islands of Law by andersh · 2012-01-31 11:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

You don't seem to understand my point, this is not about sovereignty, the reason you can't apply American law to European courts is because the systems are vastly different. It's like using Imperial measurements in a Metric country, or even better like speaking Russian in China.
For example the Common Law principle of caveat emptor, "buyer beware", does not work the same in most European systems, where there are other balances, duties and rights for both seller and buyer. The equations are different, therefore different results.
Laws and their interpretations are not formed in a vacuum, international sources are considered, but not applied directly in most countries. They can function as guidance or useful examples. After all the UK is the original source of your legal system, laws, methods, rights and oldest precedents. You don't seem to mind those? Never mind the international treaties and conventions on trade and standardization.
Now, who's pushing that ACTA set of laws on Europe?
Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 17:22 · Score: 0

Glad I'm not there. :) If I were, and anything done representing an expenditure of time and effort is suddenly considered to have value, regardless of the motivation for doing it... I would owe my ex-wife for all the sex we had... especially since it turned out she was a whore... gosh I'd owe her a fortune!
The Law of Unintended Consequences suggests that court may have to revisit this nonsense, because what they just did was make anything done for any motivation potentially lucrative. Meaning there could be not only income tax on game winning, loot, trades resulting in more value for one party than another... but what about all the assaults, batteries, and murders that take place in cyberspace? Can you imagine...
"So you have like, a level 56 Paladin?"
"Yeah, and a Sword of Mygar, it's pretty sweet!"
"How many experience points does he have?"
"Here, look... 56,012, 278 E.P."
"Do you know what the average number of E.P. you get for each kill?"
"I think about 25."
(56012278 over 25 is 2240491.12 ) "Okay, you're under arrest. Place your hands on your head. You have the right to remain silent..."
"What?!? Let go of me! What did I do?!? Seriously!"
"You're going to be charged with 2240491.12 counts of murder... all the goblins, orcs, flying killer whatchamacallits you killed... you're going to burn, pal... we'll probably just round it to 2240490, though. Makes the paperwork easier."
Yeah, something like that.
Murder in Azeroth by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 19:46 · Score: 0

How soon can we see the first WoW murder trial?
I was killed recently without any cause and can't wait to get back at the bastard. And preferably get his house for it.
This is a good judgment by rdebath · 2012-01-31 20:51 · Score: 2

It is a reasonable position for the court to take, but I don't think it's completely correct.
The difference between this and your bank account is that this is an unregulated account directly controlled by a company that the victim has a direct contract with. A bank account is not controlled to the same extent; a bank cannot just increase the numbers in the account without decreasing another or getting into a lot of trouble.
It is reasonable for the court to take measures to get this transfer reverted or corrected. Whereas a bank transfer is likely to have been converted into physical cash and so be very difficult to reverse.
It all comes down to real world consequences. Does the victim have a reasonable chance of recovering the objects of value that were given to the attacker. If the objects had no value (eg: they can be recreated or recovered on demand) it becomes an attempted robbery or just threats/assault. If the objects have value, (eg: acquired through 'effort and time investment,') but the victim can obviously get the things back it's a really dumb attempted robbery. Only if the attacker takes something of value away is it a robbery.
So in this case we have a foreign company in an industry that's notoriously unresponsive, so yes it looks like something of value that they couldn't get back and I too think a full robbery charge may well be justified in this case. But definitely not in general.
1. Re:This is a good judgment by St.Creed · 2012-01-31 22:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Verdict (in Dutch, you will need to translate it): http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/detailpage.aspx?ljn=BQ9251
  It's well-written and quite long. They went into all of the arguments in detail, including those you mention. It's a very interesting read.
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
It's not my can... it's an actual can by Tatarize · 2012-02-01 08:58 · Score: 1

I'm not supposing this stuff idly as a great what if. People are buying and selling these goods for real money (which is valued at what people value it at too), and when they are actually robbed in a way unassociated with game dynamics they seek restitution if the police won't help them they will help themselves. People have died over the theft of virtual goods. That people spend cash, sweat, and blood in the market necessarily says it's a real market. Shrugging your shoulders because it's hard and forcing it into realms of black markets because people are valuing bits in a computer, is not going to help things.

--

It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
Re:Discontinued service6 by icebraining · 2012-02-01 09:02 · Score: 1

Most MMORPGs - like Runescape, in TFA - aren't bought, people subscribe to them. If the company killed their servers and released the source, and "the community" started a donation based server, why wouldn't people just pay them instead?
As an example, my brother plays one of those oriental themed MMORPGs and there are numerous unofficial servers (effectively run by "the community") financially supported by the players.

--
Dilbert RSS feed