These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

stealing virtual items is also theft in RL (according to dutch supreme court)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#41 - 2012-02-01 13:19:16 UTC
Just wait until some court deem it illegal to kill someone in-game...

Altho don't worry, The Calm Veldspar Retirement Home can accommodate all you pirates and evildoers [:D]

/c

★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#42 - 2012-02-01 14:07:51 UTC
Stealing in game items from players is part of the game and therefore cant be stealing - you are roleplaying a theif if you steal.

That and the fact the lisence agreement says that all components of the game including any and all items are the propety of CCP.

You pay to login, people dont quit and demand their DB info be Zipped up and emailed to them :P

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Serene Repose
#43 - 2012-02-01 14:20:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Serene Repose
I can't believe it's actually against the law in the Netherlands to break into someone's house, tie them up, beat them up, and force them to do something against their own will. The nerve of some countries! Haven't they heard of Freedom of Mayhem? It's in our Lebbenty-Sebbenth Amendment. " Congress shall not abridge any citizen's right to wreak havok upon any fellow citizen(s)."

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Taedrin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2012-02-01 17:30:41 UTC
What is interesting in this case is that the courts ruled that the virtual items had an intrinsic value to the victim. This is despite the fact that the EULA clearly states that the virtual items are owned by Jagex Games Studio. This has the potential to set precedent which overturns portions of EULAs in virtually every MMO out there.

Now for a game like EVE Online, we won't have to worry about virtual thefts being prosecuted, because virtual thefts are a part of the game itself - similar to how you can't prosecute someone for theft when they capture your queen in a game of chess.

But what this might mean is that CCP might have a certain degree of responsibility to make sure we have access to our virtual items.
Kara Roideater
#45 - 2012-02-01 17:43:05 UTC
Taedrin wrote:
What is interesting in this case is that the courts ruled that the virtual items had an intrinsic value to the victim. This is despite the fact that the EULA clearly states that the virtual items are owned by Jagex Games Studio. This has the potential to set precedent which overturns portions of EULAs in virtually every MMO out there.

Now for a game like EVE Online, we won't have to worry about virtual thefts being prosecuted, because virtual thefts are a part of the game itself - similar to how you can't prosecute someone for theft when they capture your queen in a game of chess.

But what this might mean is that CCP might have a certain degree of responsibility to make sure we have access to our virtual items.


It's amazing how many EULA cultists in this thread are missing this point and failing to see that the ruling does actually represent a threat to their idol.
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#46 - 2012-02-01 17:49:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Wacktopia
Saraya Velcrow wrote:
according to this dutch news article click here
Stealing virtual items in games is considered By the dutch supreme court real theft and thus a criminal act punishable by law.

What does CCP think about this i guess a countries supreme court overrules TOS from ccp ??




I think you missed the subtlety of the 'means'...

Stealing of virtual items through game-related means (e.g an in game scam) IS NOT THEFT

Stealing of virtual items through non-game-related means (e.g hacking someone's password) IS THEFT

Quote:
Suspect and co-defendant forced the victim to violence and threats of violence to login to his account in the online game Runescape and virtual objects to leave (dropping) in the virtual game environment.


From here. (NOTE: You will need to un-screw the & bits from the URL. X

Just in case any bears are creaming their knickers thinking that getting freighter-ganked is somehow illegal IRL.

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
Ronald Ray Gun
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#47 - 2012-02-01 18:06:11 UTC
Deliberately misleading thread title is go!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#48 - 2012-02-01 18:33:08 UTC
Taedrin wrote:
What is interesting in this case is that the courts ruled that the virtual items had an intrinsic value to the victim. This is despite the fact that the EULA clearly states that the virtual items are owned by Jagex Games Studio. This has the potential to set precedent which overturns portions of EULAs in virtually every MMO out there.
Well, it could make RMT legal, for one… Lol

Basically, the precedent set simply means that, even though the items stolen don't exist, it's still (armed?) robbery rather than simple assault. There's probably some legal tongue-twisting that can be made to retain the status quo without actually diminishing the precedent: the company still owns the virtual items as the EULA claims, but the right to access and use said items is what's being robbed… or some such.
Kara Roideater
#49 - 2012-02-01 18:46:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Kara Roideater
Tippia wrote:
Taedrin wrote:
What is interesting in this case is that the courts ruled that the virtual items had an intrinsic value to the victim. This is despite the fact that the EULA clearly states that the virtual items are owned by Jagex Games Studio. This has the potential to set precedent which overturns portions of EULAs in virtually every MMO out there.
Well, it could make RMT legal, for one… Lol

Basically, the precedent set simply means that, even though the items stolen don't exist, it's still (armed?) robbery rather than simple assault. There's probably some legal tongue-twisting that can be made to retain the status quo without actually diminishing the precedent: the company still owns the virtual items as the EULA claims, but the right to access and use said items is what's being robbed… or some such.


The judgement is quite explicit that the goods belong to the individual, as they have to for the relevant section of the legal code to apply. Status as a good that can be owned is apparently determined by de facto control, with the court locating ownership with the individual and not with the company that owns Runescape. But most significant is that they found virtual items to be goods with value and that the value derives from the time and effort spent acquiring them. If that analysis rolls out beyond Holland then it could cause a serious headache for all MMO companies.
Zeomebuch Nova
Undrinkable Grog Inc.
#50 - 2012-02-01 18:54:07 UTC
Where is your god... ehem... your EULA now!
Kara Roideater
#51 - 2012-02-01 18:55:58 UTC
Article 310 of the Criminal Code
'Any person who removes any good belonging wholly or partially to any other person with the intention of unlawfully appropriating it is guilty of theft and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding four years or a fourth category fine.'

The judgement found that a crime had been committed under this law, so a) the items are goods, b) they belonged in whole or part to the victim, c) they were unlwafully appropriated. I guess some mileage could be extracted from if it was claimed that the goods only belonged to the victim in part but nothing in the judgement summary gives any impression that the court proceeded under an assumption other than of whole ownership.
000Hunter000
Missiles 'R' Us
#52 - 2012-02-01 18:56:33 UTC
First i LOLLED!

But then when i read it... oh brother... they beat the kid and forced him to log on and drop off his stuff so another char could take it..

Now i agree this is RL violence so it's only fair the guy got his stuff back... but now another hypothetical case...

A lil kid is threatened ingame by someone that if he doesn't eject from his ship, he will find him in RL and kill him.

Now i know most of u think, OMG just petition/ignore/kill him ingame/whatever.

But we all know some people are more vulnerable then others so i do think this could happen.



I do hope though this isn't a covert way to get ccp to ban canflipping though! Lol
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#53 - 2012-02-01 18:59:22 UTC
Hmm… as a point of comparison, what happens if someone, say, car-jacks a leased car (the closest real-good equivalent I could think of)?
Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
#54 - 2012-02-01 19:06:00 UTC
000Hunter000 wrote:


A lil kid is threatened ingame by someone that if he doesn't eject from his ship, he will find him in RL and kill him.

Now i know most of u think, OMG just petition/ignore/kill him ingame/whatever.





RL threats in game are automatically a ban-able offense.

Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel **IG OOPE **
000Hunter000
Missiles 'R' Us
#55 - 2012-02-01 19:10:41 UTC
I know, but if u watch newsitems and stuff, i just think depending on teh situation and person it could be possible... Even in eve... What?
Zyress
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#56 - 2012-02-01 19:12:30 UTC
Pretty interesting stuff, I can see a rl assault and battery charge, but the conviction was for thievery, which was not the rl crime but the virtual crime. It does set an interesting precedent. Of course if you aren't in the Netherlands, I don't suppose it matters at all.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#57 - 2012-02-01 19:38:47 UTC
Nova Fox wrote:
good luck flying lawers to duschland.

luftwaffe will shoot them down if the flak doesn't get them :)
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
#58 - 2012-02-01 19:43:25 UTC
Since you signed the EULA before entering the game you agree that nothing in game belongs to you but CCP.
So who are you stealing from or what got stolen from who?
Ehn Roh
#59 - 2012-02-01 20:21:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Ehn Roh
Saraya Velcrow wrote:
according to this dutch news article click here
Stealing virtual items in games is considered By the dutch supreme court real theft and thus a criminal act punishable by law.

What does CCP think about this i guess a countries supreme court overrules TOS from ccp ??




It's only "stealing" in real life when it's not a game mechanic and/or real life crimes are not involved (as in this case). There have been similar cases from, surprisingly, China. You're being silly and you know it.
Taedrin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2012-02-01 23:35:02 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Hmm… as a point of comparison, what happens if someone, say, car-jacks a leased car (the closest real-good equivalent I could think of)?


I'm just an internet lawyer, but something completely different would probably happen.

1) Thief is guilty of Grand Theft Auto, the car s/he stole was not his/her own
2) "Victim" does not actually own the car, s/he is still bound by the terms of his contract to return the car to the leaser.
3) Fortunately, as part of the terms of the contract, the "victim"s insurance pays for the theft of the car. The leaser gets their car back, and the victim's insurance probably goes up because they made a claim.


I'm a little surprised that this didn't fall under the category of extortion instead of robbery. But this isn't the United States we're talking about, so who knows. If it was extortion, then the implied ownership of virtual property would be a non-issue, since extortion (in the US at least) only requires that the victim be coerced into performing some sort of unpleasant action.