Originally posted by Blodpls

"the court treated the Runescape goods as though they were material items"

They have been convicted of stealing real world items it clearly says so in the article.

Whatever the court has decided in a lot peoples judgement it is clearly be a very bad decision.  Courts do not always reach the correct conclusion.

In this case most people in my estimation would say that they have not.

Lets see how far this new precident gets, it won't get very far in my opinion.

"Treating Runescape goods as though they were material items" is a far stretch from being "convicted of stealing real world items". You really need to step back for a second and realize what it is you're saying. A lot of people believe it's a very bad decision because of people like you, who clearly don't understand the depth of what's going on.

We HAVE to be able to prosecute people in situations like this. If a guy comes to your door and threatens you with a knife to give him your account, you'll want some kind of criminal punishment. To see him let off because of some technicality like "the items aren't real" is a tragedy, because the crime is very real.

I (and others) have already told you this a half dozen times though, and here you are still spouting the same "ZOMG ITS NOT THEFT" panic-mongering trash.

Originally posted by Aethios

Originally posted by Blodpls

"the court treated the Runescape goods as though they were material items"

They have been convicted of stealing real world items it clearly says so in the article.

Whatever the court has decided in a lot peoples judgement it is clearly be a very bad decision.  Courts do not always reach the correct conclusion.

In this case most people in my estimation would say that they have not.

Lets see how far this new precident gets, it won't get very far in my opinion.

 

"Treating Runescape goods as though they were material items" is a far stretch from being "convicted of stealing real world items". You really need to step back for a second and realize what it is you're saying. A lot of people believe it's a very bad decision because of people like you, who clearly don't understand the depth of what's going on.

We HAVE to be able to prosecute people in situations like this. If a guy comes to your door and threatens you with a knife to give him your account, you'll want some kind of criminal punishment. To see him let off because of some technicality like "the items aren't real" is a tragedy, because the crime is very real.

I (and others) have already told you this a half dozen times though, and here you are still spouting the same "ZOMG ITS NOT THEFT" panic-mongering trash.

Going to someone's door and threatening them with a knife is already covered by a whole variety of other crimes that would not involve making virtual game items into real world items in the eyes of the law.

They have been convicted of stealing real world items, it is not a far stretch as it clearly says that the court treated them as material goods.

I am not saying they should not be punished, I am saying that charging people with theft is not the way to do it.  This is a game, the items do not exist, have no real world value and the data they comprise of belongs game provider.

Originally posted by Blodpls 

I am not saying they should not be punished, I am saying that charging people with theft is not the way to do it.  This is a game, the items do not exist, have no real world value and the data they comprise of belongs game provider.

The crime is, essentially, a theft. If he came to threaten you in order to steal something, whether that something is real or not, it is a theft. They exist in some form, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about them. The "data" that they are part of does belong to the developer, but access to the items has still been taken away, as in the example I gave earlier.

Theft does not require that the object have actual monetary value, only that the object have some value to the person it was taken from. Does the kid still "have" the items? No. That's theft.

Originally posted by Juankis

Just hoping they learned their lesson.

apnews.myway.com/article/20081021/D93V0RF00.html

 Will tell you what is theft, when a game like AOC takes your coin off you and produces a game like they have and gets away with it, they should be given 2,000 hours imho. MMO's are by far the worst value for money of any type of goods we buy.

We the gamers should get more protection from these digital bandits, who feed us eye candy to buy products then fail to do what it says on the box...Funcom are the real crimminals imho.

Originally posted by Aethios

Originally posted by Blodpls 

I am not saying they should not be punished, I am saying that charging people with theft is not the way to do it.  This is a game, the items do not exist, have no real world value and the data they comprise of belongs game provider.

 

The crime is, essentially, a theft. If he came to threaten you in order to steal something, whether that something is real or not, it is a theft. They exist in some form, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about them. The "data" that they are part of does belong to the developer, but access to the items has still been taken away, as in the example I gave earlier.

Theft does not require that the object have actual monetary value, only that the object have some value to the person it was taken from. Does the kid still "have" the items? No. That's theft.

The kid didn't have the items beforehand he only had access to the service of using them, therefore they cannot be stolen.

If it's only "essentially a theft" then that's not good enough, in order to prosecute somebody it should actually be theft.

I give up, read Iceman32's post, your view on what constitutes theft is far too simplistic.
 

Originally posted by Blodpls

Originally posted by Aethios

Originally posted by Blodpls 

I am not saying they should not be punished, I am saying that charging people with theft is not the way to do it.  This is a game, the items do not exist, have no real world value and the data they comprise of belongs game provider.

 

The crime is, essentially, a theft. If he came to threaten you in order to steal something, whether that something is real or not, it is a theft. They exist in some form, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about them. The "data" that they are part of does belong to the developer, but access to the items has still been taken away, as in the example I gave earlier.

Theft does not require that the object have actual monetary value, only that the object have some value to the person it was taken from. Does the kid still "have" the items? No. That's theft.

 

The kid didn't have the items beforehand he only had access to the service of using them, therefore they cannot be stolen.

If it's only "essentially a theft" then that's not good enough, in order to prosecute somebody it should actually be theft.

I give up, read Iceman32's post, your view on what constitutes theft is far too simplistic.
 

Do you even know what the word "essentially" means? Please, seriously, just stop. You keep saying I'm being "simplistic" or whatever, but you keep pointing me at a post that you didn't even write and, ironically, that I agreed with, and then made my own example. Did you even read it? You've been carefully dodging every decent example made since the beginning of the thread.

If you can't support your own position, then stop trying. I won't think any less of you, honestly, I just think it's silly to keep debating with someone who has nothing to say.

Originally posted by Aethios

Originally posted by Blodpls

Originally posted by Aethios

Originally posted by Blodpls 

I am not saying they should not be punished, I am saying that charging people with theft is not the way to do it.  This is a game, the items do not exist, have no real world value and the data they comprise of belongs game provider.

 

The crime is, essentially, a theft. If he came to threaten you in order to steal something, whether that something is real or not, it is a theft. They exist in some form, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about them. The "data" that they are part of does belong to the developer, but access to the items has still been taken away, as in the example I gave earlier.

Theft does not require that the object have actual monetary value, only that the object have some value to the person it was taken from. Does the kid still "have" the items? No. That's theft.

 

The kid didn't have the items beforehand he only had access to the service of using them, therefore they cannot be stolen.

If it's only "essentially a theft" then that's not good enough, in order to prosecute somebody it should actually be theft.

I give up, read Iceman32's post, your view on what constitutes theft is far too simplistic.
 

Do you even know what the word "essentially" means? Please, seriously, just stop. You keep saying I'm being "simplistic" or whatever, but you keep pointing me at a post that you didn't even write and, ironically, that I agreed with, and then made my own example. Did you even read it? You've been carefully dodging every decent example made since the beginning of the thread.

If you can't support your own position, then stop trying. I won't think any less of you, honestly, I just think it's silly to keep debating with someone who has nothing to say.

"Consider this. You bought tickets to a football game, and after parking and walking up to the building, you are robbed at knife point as you are coming into the building. Was that not a theft? I don't think anyone would argue that the guy is stealing your seat, since he is obviously stealing your tickets, which give access to the seat. Is that not the same thing here?"

I did read your example and I do not agree that is the same thing at all, no court would convict of anyone of stealing your seat, that would be ridiculous, they would be convicted of stealing the tickets. Just as in this case they should have been convicted of extortion or of stealing the service, which is analogous to the ticket.  If can provide an example of such a case feel free to prove me wrong. 

It is not anyway the same as this situation.

Originally posted by Blodpls 

I did read your example and I do not agree that is the same thing at all, no court would convict of anyone of stealing your seat, that would be ridiculous, they would be convicted of stealing the tickets.

That's exactly what I'm saying. The tickets represent access to the seat, which provides a service (watching the game). Likewise, virtual items represent access to whatever ability or status is granted by the item, which is part of the service provided by the game itself, which we pay money for. Without the items, the game is diminished, and so the investment we put into it has, in part, been wasted.

There was no such case, I was just using it as an example, but it's a good and valid example and I think you'll agree, when you slow down and think about it for a few minutes. At any rate, I think this whole discussion is fascinating when there is actually material to read and discuss.

Originally posted by Aethios

Originally posted by Blodpls 

I did read your example and I do not agree that is the same thing at all, no court would convict of anyone of stealing your seat, that would be ridiculous, they would be convicted of stealing the tickets.

 

That's exactly what I'm saying. The tickets represent access to the seat, which provides a service (watching the game). Likewise, virtual items represent access to whatever ability or status is granted by the item, which is part of the service provided by the game itself, which we pay money for. Without the items, the game is diminished, and so the investment we put into it has, in part, been wasted.

There was no such case, I was just using it as an example, but it's a good and valid example and I think you'll agree, when you slow down and think about it for a few minutes. At any rate, I think this whole discussion is fascinating when there is actually material to read and discuss.

The game item is not the service, it is the entertainment, i.e. the football game. 

If somebody was prosecuted for this it would be for stealing the actual ticket.

I never heard of anyone being prosecuted for stealing someones enjoyment of something, except maybe under noise prevention laws and similar things.  In such cases they are still being prosecuted for the actual act of breaking noise limits, not for ruining your TV watching.

So yes I agree prosecute them for stealing part of the service (part of the ticket) but do not prosecute them for stealing the items, this is meerly entertainment and is not real.

I would like to apologize to Ian_Hawkmoon and Dr. Richard Bartle.

You were right and I was wrong.

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/1930622

Logic and reason has failed me and it's a sad day for me.

Originally posted by mrguy123

Wow. What a terrible idea. Virtual goods should NOT and NEVER be considered real.

LOL you people must live a very troubled life denying things happening right before your eyes.

Here let me help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

Hope they severly punish them in public, l think caning or something similar would be effective.

I don't know much about Dutch Law, or any law for that matter, but is it possible that a theft charge is the only way they could compel them to return the stolen items?

Perhaps this is the reason the reason they didn't simply charge them with extortion or something similar.

Here's a question:  Would you agree that the items should be returned to the victim?

If yes, that seems to make the case that they are goods that can be stolen.

I really don't think this will lead us down a slippery slope.  In game PvP or trade won't be affected, because that all takes place within the rules of the game, and is part of the game.  It's like the difference between losing money in a game of poker and having your pocket picked while you're at a poker table.  One's part of the game, the other's a crime that took place outside the game, such as the one being prosecuted in this story.

Would it interest you guys to know that if it wasn't for the contract you "sign", that there'd be next to no question by the courts that virtual items hold value and are the property of the player who earned them?  But since you signed that contract, you are willingly giving up your stake in the value or in essence "agreeing" with the developer that the virtual item holds no value.  Read up real carefully on the section in EULAs dealing with rmt in mmos and you will see what I'm talking about.  When you can't play a mmo unless you agree that virtual items hold no value, do you need any more proof that they indeed hold value?  Because of course if they didn't have value you wouldn't need to sign a contract that forces you to pretend virtual items hold no value.

To make this a bit easier (and really no flame intended here), if you can't recognize the inherent real world value of virtual items, then you simply have no clue about the law, not to mention an extreme lack of common sense.  I highly recommend a law class at your local community college to get up to speed...

so how far is this from virtual lives being considered "of value".

murder charges for griefers??? being charged for taking a "virtual life".

who can't see that this opens a can of worms thats better left alone?

If they are going to start doing this then it's going to make things like the following situation possible:

I have subscribed to a TV channel to watch a particular series and at the climax someone drives past my house and their car backfires causing me to miss the crucial line in the final episode.  I then successfully sue that person for either stealing my TV (a bit far fetched maybe unless they walked in front of the TV and absorbed the light being omitted from it) or vandalism of my personal property i.e. my subscription service and the free movement of the sound from my TV speaker to my lug hole.

The sound emitting from the TV speaker is just as intangible as a virtual item so why not?

Utterly retarded.  If people want to live in a world like that then they are fools.

Dont know if its been mentioned already but they beat the kid up and tortured him to force him to give them the items...

Fact is this, it's a GAME. The developers should take action before it gets to the law. These 2 kids should have been banned and the boy have his things returned to him. If it's a matter of the court system showing them it's not ok to 'bully' others in games, than let's take it another step. Let's start giving community service to those who setup shops in-game on lineage 2 for example wanting 1,000,000 adena for a feather, and someone accidentally buying it thinking it was 1,000 adena. That's being bullied! No, the kid was stupid enough to buy it. It's that simple. I blame the kid here. Maybe I need to get more details on the boy being 'coerced' into giving the items to the 2 other boys, LOL.

Unless they are holding him at gunpoint or making threats to his life than that doesn't exactly mean he was 'coerced'. I think this case is retarded and if mmorpg's starting making laws to the games than there would be SO MANY cases out there. Part of the game sometimes is dealing and staying away from scammers and thiefs. The game is a hobby. Even though precious time is spent on games they are still games and should be treated as such. Especially when it's against the law in just about every game to sell anything in the game for actual real world money because it's the property of that company, not the player.

It wasn't actually the players property anyways, it was the company who owned the stolen goods. Paypal won't even help you in cases where it's virtual items, even though that's different all I'm saying is they have a point. Gaming is gaming. Even though games are a multi billion dollar operation now...well to tbh if the kid was paying a monthly fee it could be a LITTLE different. But I still think until I get more details that the kid is to blame for actually giving the items up. If someone threatens me online etc... I will tell them to stfu and ignore them. In this case, did the 2 boys actually know this boy in real life?

There ends the sandbox and player self regulated game model.

Way to confuse real life with virtual life.

---

Dont know if its been mentioned already but they beat the kid up and tortured him to force him to give them the items...

---

This makes the story completely different, doesn't it?

Originally posted by merv808

so how far is this from virtual lives being considered "of value".

murder charges for griefers??? being charged for taking a "virtual life".

who can't see that this opens a can of worms thats better left alone?

Funny you should ask .  Just saw this article yesterday.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/piano-teacher-jailed-after-killing-virtual-hubby/2008/10/24/1224351495764.html