These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Convicted for ingame stealing
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ubiquitous Forum Alt
#61 - 2012-02-03 14:09:33 UTC
CAPS FOR EMPHASIS P

I apologize if the impression is mistaken...but I feel as if I'm talking to a bunch of half-wits the way people keep trying to 'argue' with my by rephrasing exactly what I just said and spitting it back at me as if its a new point....Shocked

As well as people like Kara Roideater who CBA to bother reading anything or performing any rational thought processes for themselves, but are still happy to whine and complain that they don't trust what I'm saying for no particular reason...Roll

I don't log in - I don't need to. My very existence griefs people. They see my name, and they instinctively fill with rage and indignation. Deny it all you want - but if you didn't care, you wouldn't have posted, would you?
Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
#62 - 2012-02-03 14:26:30 UTC
You are talking to a bunch of halfwits. Anyone who possibly thinks this crime has any correlation with Eve's game play should just unsub and remove eve from their pc immediately.

Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel **IG OOPE **
Princess Bride
SharkNado
#63 - 2012-02-03 15:02:20 UTC

Pfft. The Dutch.

-Skwisgaar Skwigelf

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/
Telegram Sam
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#64 - 2012-02-03 16:53:59 UTC
Hypotheticals, with the same basic set of facts (Player A threatens Player B in RL, forces A's in-game character to transfer in-game items to B's ingame character):
1) What if the item being transferred was a Second Life resort worth $5,000 real money?
2) What if it were a Titan, worth $X in RMT?

Is it theft then? I think so, clearly for 1). The item being robbed had dollar value. The game itself has built-in real money transactions. Forcing someone to transfer an item is not much different than forcing him to use his/her card to withdraw money at an ATM.
For 2), it's the same. The Titan has isk value. Isk value is convertible to PLEX. PLEX are convertible to real money. Same result, Player B was robbed of real money, so it's theft.
Ubiquitous Forum Alt
#65 - 2012-02-03 16:59:27 UTC
Telegram Sam wrote:
Hypotheticals, with the same basic set of facts (Player A threatens Player B in RL, forces A's in-game character to transfer in-game items to B's ingame character):
1) What if the item being transferred was a Second Life resort worth $5,000 real money?
2) What if it were a Titan, worth $X in RMT?

Is it theft then? I think so, clearly for 1). The item being robbed had dollar value. The game itself has built-in real money transactions. Forcing someone to transfer an item is not much different than forcing him to use his/her card to withdraw money at an ATM.
For 2), it's the same. The Titan has isk value. Isk value is convertible to PLEX. PLEX are convertible to real money. Same result, Player B was robbed of real money, so it's theft.



My hypothetical car was worth $50,000. It still wasn't theft. The 'owner' (the rental company in the hypothetical, Jagex in the real case) HAS the item, just like they did before the incident.

Robbery? - YES
Theft? - NO


PS: RMT is against the rules, even if you DID own it (which you don't) - thats like trying to prosecute someone for stealing the cocaine you were going to sell illegally behind your house...

I don't log in - I don't need to. My very existence griefs people. They see my name, and they instinctively fill with rage and indignation. Deny it all you want - but if you didn't care, you wouldn't have posted, would you?
Ubiquitous Forum Alt
#66 - 2012-02-03 17:01:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Ubiquitous Forum Alt
Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:
Telegram Sam wrote:
Hypotheticals, with the same basic set of facts (Player A threatens Player B in RL, forces A's in-game character to transfer in-game items to B's ingame character):
1) What if the item being transferred was a Second Life resort worth $5,000 real money?
2) What if it were a Titan, worth $X in RMT?

Is it theft then? I think so, clearly for 1). The item being robbed had dollar value. The game itself has built-in real money transactions. Forcing someone to transfer an item is not much different than forcing him to use his/her card to withdraw money at an ATM.
For 2), it's the same. The Titan has isk value. Isk value is convertible to PLEX. PLEX are convertible to real money. Same result, Player B was robbed of real money, so it's theft.



My hypothetical car was worth $50,000. It still wasn't theft. The 'owner' (the rental company in the hypothetical, Jagex in the real case) HAS the item, just like they did before the incident.

Robbery? - YES
Theft? - NO


PS: RMT is against the rules, even if you DID own it (which you don't) - thats like trying to prosecute someone for stealing the [elicit substance which apparently cannot be named on these forums - highly illegal nearly everywhere] you were going to sell illegally behind your house...


Edit: Replaced the randomly censored drug name....Shocked

Real edit: also missed the edit button...oops, you get my point P

I don't log in - I don't need to. My very existence griefs people. They see my name, and they instinctively fill with rage and indignation. Deny it all you want - but if you didn't care, you wouldn't have posted, would you?
Telegram Sam
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#67 - 2012-02-03 18:07:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Telegram Sam
Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:
Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:
Telegram Sam wrote:
Hypotheticals, with the same basic set of facts (Player A threatens Player B in RL, forces A's in-game character to transfer in-game items to B's ingame character):
1) What if the item being transferred was a Second Life resort worth $5,000 real money?
2) What if it were a Titan, worth $X in RMT?

Is it theft then? I think so, clearly for 1). The item being robbed had dollar value. The game itself has built-in real money transactions. Forcing someone to transfer an item is not much different than forcing him to use his/her card to withdraw money at an ATM.
For 2), it's the same. The Titan has isk value. Isk value is convertible to PLEX. PLEX are convertible to real money. Same result, Player B was robbed of real money, so it's theft.



My hypothetical car was worth $50,000. It still wasn't theft. The 'owner' (the rental company in the hypothetical, Jagex in the real case) HAS the item, just like they did before the incident.

Robbery? - YES
Theft? - NO


PS: RMT is against the rules, even if you DID own it (which you don't) - thats like trying to prosecute someone for stealing the [elicit substance which apparently cannot be named on these forums - highly illegal nearly everywhere] you were going to sell illegally behind your house...


Edit: Replaced the randomly censored drug name....Shocked

Real edit: also missed the edit button...oops, you get my point P

Just because the MMO game company has the item, it doesn't necessarily follow that it owns it. Or that the players are renting it or borrowing. Once the game company has allowed its in-game items to be traded for real money, it has lost ownership of them. The game company has effectively introduced virtual in-game items into the real world market. Those items are now commodities like any other, changing hands between individuals based on legal money transactions. The "title" and control of the item is being transferred from one person to another, in exchange for something with real value. Those conditions imply transfer of legal ownership. That's under English-American property law principles, at least.

The interesting thing about the Dutch court decision is, they used a "time and effort" test. They said the kid's time and effort spent in getting the virtual items created the ownership interest.

Edit: Due to forum buttom misfire.
Ubiquitous Forum Alt
#68 - 2012-02-03 21:27:56 UTC
Telegram Sam wrote:
[quote=Ubiquitous Forum Alt]
Just because the MMO game company has the item, it doesn't necessarily follow that it owns it. Or that the players are renting it or borrowing. Once the game company has allowed its in-game items to be traded for real money, it has lost ownership of them. The game company has effectively introduced virtual in-game items into the real world market. Those items are now commodities like any other, changing hands between individuals based on legal money transactions. The "title" and control of the item is being transferred from one person to another, in exchange for something with real value. Those conditions imply transfer of legal ownership. That's under English-American property law principles, at least.

The interesting thing about the Dutch court decision is, they used a "time and effort" test. They said the kid's time and effort spent in getting the virtual items created the ownership interest.

Edit: Due to forum buttom misfire.


In second life that may be true - I've never played it.

In EVE, Runescape, and most other MMORPG games, however, it EXPLICITLY STATES in the EULA that the game company "retains ownership" of all in-game items and monetary units - you are essentially renting them for the fee of your monthly subscription, and they also reserve the right to take each and every one of them away from you at any time without needing to give a reason. You *do not own anything* in EVE.

(obviously if CCP randomly took everyones stuff away everyone would quit and they'd go out of business - but nobody could SUE them for it and expect to win anything, because they would not have violated any laws)

I don't log in - I don't need to. My very existence griefs people. They see my name, and they instinctively fill with rage and indignation. Deny it all you want - but if you didn't care, you wouldn't have posted, would you?
Telegram Sam
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2012-02-03 22:53:33 UTC
Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:
Telegram Sam wrote:
[quote=Ubiquitous Forum Alt]
Just because the MMO game company has the item, it doesn't necessarily follow that it owns it. Or that the players are renting it or borrowing. Once the game company has allowed its in-game items to be traded for real money, it has lost ownership of them. The game company has effectively introduced virtual in-game items into the real world market. Those items are now commodities like any other, changing hands between individuals based on legal money transactions. The "title" and control of the item is being transferred from one person to another, in exchange for something with real value. Those conditions imply transfer of legal ownership. That's under English-American property law principles, at least.

The interesting thing about the Dutch court decision is, they used a "time and effort" test. They said the kid's time and effort spent in getting the virtual items created the ownership interest.

Edit: Due to forum buttom misfire.


In second life that may be true - I've never played it.

In EVE, Runescape, and most other MMORPG games, however, it EXPLICITLY STATES in the EULA that the game company "retains ownership" of all in-game items and monetary units - you are essentially renting them for the fee of your monthly subscription, and they also reserve the right to take each and every one of them away from you at any time without needing to give a reason. You *do not own anything* in EVE.

(obviously if CCP randomly took everyones stuff away everyone would quit and they'd go out of business - but nobody could SUE them for it and expect to win anything, because they would not have violated any laws)

It's not that simple. From the actions of the parties, legal rights can be created that trump the text of a EULA, a contract document, a lease, etc. OK, with that, over and out for me....Smile
Ubiquitous Forum Alt
#70 - 2012-02-04 02:11:17 UTC
You go right ahead and let me know when CCP signs a contract granting you ownership of your own items....

I don't log in - I don't need to. My very existence griefs people. They see my name, and they instinctively fill with rage and indignation. Deny it all you want - but if you didn't care, you wouldn't have posted, would you?
Daisai
Daisai Investments.
#71 - 2012-02-04 13:13:01 UTC
Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:
You go right ahead and let me know when CCP signs a contract granting you ownership of your own items....


Reading is difficult isnt it?
The verdict doesnt speak of ownership it speaks of " rightholder’s control ".

And : " Within the game environment the victim had exclusive de facto control over the objects in question. "

" He lost that control as a result of the actions of the defendant and his co-accused.
The Supreme Court concluded that these actions amounted to theft."

Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#72 - 2012-02-04 14:44:40 UTC
Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:
You go right ahead and let me know when CCP signs a contract granting you ownership of your own items....


A court could decide to grant ownership of digital property, no EULA trumps the legal system. In fact many EULAs don't have a leg to stand on comparing to consumer protection legislation.

Is it likely a court would decide that? Hard to say but its without a shadow of a doubt that they could.
Telegram Sam
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#73 - 2012-02-04 14:48:55 UTC
Oops, retraction. My analysis was wrong, at least for EVE. Ingame items are put on the real world dollars market-- but illicitly. Which is wrongdoing, and no legal right can arise from wrongdoing. It's different from MMOs where you pay dollars to buy a sword, resort or whatever.
Ubiquitous Forum Alt
#74 - 2012-02-04 16:22:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Ubiquitous Forum Alt
Daisai wrote:
Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:
You go right ahead and let me know when CCP signs a contract granting you ownership of your own items....


Reading is difficult isnt it?
The verdict doesnt speak of ownership it speaks of " rightholder’s control ".

And : " Within the game environment the victim had exclusive de facto control over the objects in question. "

" He lost that control as a result of the actions of the defendant and his co-accused.
The Supreme Court concluded that these actions amounted to theft."


Almost as hard as using google for 2 seconds to do a minute amount of research:

World English Dictionary wrote:

theft (θɛft)

— n
1. criminal law the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession


Theft requires ownership. The court was wrong, because the defense attorney was too stupid to bring the EULA into evidence to have the theft charges dropped in the appeal, and it is not the judges' job to FIND the evidence for themselves, they just analyze the evidence brought in by the attorneys.

I don't log in - I don't need to. My very existence griefs people. They see my name, and they instinctively fill with rage and indignation. Deny it all you want - but if you didn't care, you wouldn't have posted, would you?
Daisai
Daisai Investments.
#75 - 2012-02-05 11:27:26 UTC
Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:
Daisai wrote:
Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:
You go right ahead and let me know when CCP signs a contract granting you ownership of your own items....


Reading is difficult isnt it?
The verdict doesnt speak of ownership it speaks of " rightholder’s control ".

And : " Within the game environment the victim had exclusive de facto control over the objects in question. "

" He lost that control as a result of the actions of the defendant and his co-accused.
The Supreme Court concluded that these actions amounted to theft."


Almost as hard as using google for 2 seconds to do a minute amount of research:

World English Dictionary wrote:

theft (θɛft)

— n
1. criminal law the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession


Theft requires ownership. The court was wrong, because the defense attorney was too stupid to bring the EULA into evidence to have the theft charges dropped in the appeal, and it is not the judges' job to FIND the evidence for themselves, they just analyze the evidence brought in by the attorneys.



Ok a judge who knows the Dutch law was wrong and a forum troll like yourself knows better.
Right....
Taedrin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2012-02-05 19:59:19 UTC
Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:
Daisai wrote:
Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:
You go right ahead and let me know when CCP signs a contract granting you ownership of your own items....


Reading is difficult isnt it?
The verdict doesnt speak of ownership it speaks of " rightholder’s control ".

And : " Within the game environment the victim had exclusive de facto control over the objects in question. "

" He lost that control as a result of the actions of the defendant and his co-accused.
The Supreme Court concluded that these actions amounted to theft."


Almost as hard as using google for 2 seconds to do a minute amount of research:

World English Dictionary wrote:

theft (θɛft)

— n
1. criminal law the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession


Theft requires ownership. The court was wrong, because the defense attorney was too stupid to bring the EULA into evidence to have the theft charges dropped in the appeal, and it is not the judges' job to FIND the evidence for themselves, they just analyze the evidence brought in by the attorneys.


Courts use a LEGAL definition of "theft", not a dictionary definition. Furthermore, EULAs do not dictate law - even if the EULA is completely enforceable.
VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#77 - 2012-02-06 00:25:53 UTC  |  Edited by: VKhaun Vex
Four pages of arguing semantics -LEGAL semantics in ENGLISH for the Netherlands no less /facepalm- with no point what so ever.

Charges Twilight fans with Ka-bar -Surfin's PlunderBunny LIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEE PIIIEEEECCCCEEE!!!!!!! -Taedrin Using relativity to irrational numbers is smart -rodyas I no longer believe we landed on the moon. -Atticus Fynch
Ubiquitous Forum Alt
#78 - 2012-02-06 03:21:09 UTC
Four pages of illiterate people arguing semantics no less P

I'm done trying to explain it, if you guys are literally that dumb, you deserve whatever legal expenses you incur trying to exploit your "new" legal rights....Shocked

I don't log in - I don't need to. My very existence griefs people. They see my name, and they instinctively fill with rage and indignation. Deny it all you want - but if you didn't care, you wouldn't have posted, would you?
VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2012-02-06 10:43:28 UTC
Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:
Four pages of illiterate people arguing semantics no less P


lol no, sorry. You don't get to step back now and act like you're above them.
You're doing the same thing they are.

Charges Twilight fans with Ka-bar -Surfin's PlunderBunny LIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEE PIIIEEEECCCCEEE!!!!!!! -Taedrin Using relativity to irrational numbers is smart -rodyas I no longer believe we landed on the moon. -Atticus Fynch
Ubiquitous Forum Alt
#80 - 2012-02-06 12:17:20 UTC
VKhaun Vex wrote:
Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:
Four pages of illiterate people arguing semantics no less P


lol no, sorry. You don't get to step back now and act like you're above them.
You're doing the same thing they are.


Pssst, trying to start your own 4 page pointless argument about other peoples' 4 page argument doesn't make you cool, it makes you a hypocrite Blink

I don't log in - I don't need to. My very existence griefs people. They see my name, and they instinctively fill with rage and indignation. Deny it all you want - but if you didn't care, you wouldn't have posted, would you?