These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Convicted for ingame stealing
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Daisai
Daisai Investments.
#1 - 2012-02-01 10:42:54 UTC
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/31/online-game-theft-earns-real-world-conviction

The url is just a random page i found googling about that news.
However its kinda funny that they were arrested for stealing in game items, that this theft was done with real life only increased the punishment.

I wonder if something like this would ever have any effect on a game like eve online.
Also the reason im posting it here is pretty obvious since this is the place to talk about in game crimes.
Sutskop
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2012-02-01 10:52:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Sutskop
The point here is not stealing ingame items but the real life threats imho.
/edit: CCPs opinion about this is pretty clear. Nothing belongs to you, everything belongs to them, so you cannot get stolen what is not yours.
Daisai
Daisai Investments.
#3 - 2012-02-01 10:55:09 UTC
Sutskop wrote:
The point here is not stealing ingame items but the real life threats imho.


No they were convicted for stealing.
The fact that they used physical force and threats added on the punishment they got.
Esha Ditrix
#4 - 2012-02-01 11:01:04 UTC
Intresting read.
Considering they actually beat and threatened the poor kid in RL, the argument about the RL value of the items is not really relevant, except for measuring the length of the sentence.(assault with a deadly weapon is still a crime as far as i know, theft or no theft ?)
But seriously, how desperate would u have to be, to actually pull a knife on someone to get some pixels, lols...

Its not an exploit, if the game lets you do it...
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#5 - 2012-02-01 11:05:00 UTC
There is a thread in eve gen about this already.

The only reason that went to the courts is because of physical attack.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)
Dowla Daupor
Deltole Deltole Deltole
#6 - 2012-02-01 11:15:34 UTC


Somebody sounds worried . . .
Daisai
Daisai Investments.
#7 - 2012-02-01 11:17:13 UTC
Lady Spank wrote:
There is a thread in eve gen about this already.

The only reason that went to the courts is because of physical attack.


As you can read in this article and others which are more detailed the defense claimed that the charges of theft had no grounds because they claimed virtual items can not be considered gooods you can steal.
The reason why appealed to the highest court is not because of the threaths its because of the charges of theft.
Daisai
Daisai Investments.
#8 - 2012-02-01 11:46:59 UTC
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#9 - 2012-02-01 12:06:49 UTC
Kids shouldnt be allowed to play PC games Roll

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude
Ubiquitous Forum Alt
#10 - 2012-02-01 13:10:31 UTC
Daisai wrote:
Lady Spank wrote:
There is a thread in eve gen about this already.

The only reason that went to the courts is because of physical attack.


As you can read in this article and others which are more detailed the defense claimed that the charges of theft had no grounds because they claimed virtual items can not be considered gooods you can steal.
The reason why appealed to the highest court is not because of the threaths its because of the charges of theft.


You do know that "appealed" is a term for the DEFENSE trying to OVERTURN the decision of a lesser court right? NOT the term for someone BEGINNING legal proceedings.....

The case WENT TO court because of the physical, RL attack. If the prosecution somehow FAILS to obtain a lasting conviction it will be because they tried to throw the stupid theft charge in ON TOP of the clearly valid crime.

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?
seany1212
M Y S T
#11 - 2012-02-01 13:14:53 UTC  |  Edited by: seany1212
It is because they took him round the kids house and threatened him with knives in order to transfer the item, there's a big difference between joining a virtual corporation and taking stuff with no real life human presence and going round someone's house and forcing someone to hand something over, those of you thinking its relating to direct virtual theft are ********, if they had of hacked the kids account no court action would have been taken, its the fact that they went round someone's house to do it Roll

EDIT: if anything a kidnap charge should have been thrown in there too
Ubiquitous Forum Alt
#12 - 2012-02-01 13:49:02 UTC
seany1212 wrote:
It is because they took him round the kids house and threatened him with knives in order to transfer the item, there's a big difference between joining a virtual corporation and taking stuff with no real life human presence and going round someone's house and forcing someone to hand something over, those of you thinking its relating to direct virtual theft are ********, if they had of hacked the kids account no court action would have been taken, its the fact that they went round someone's house to do it Roll

EDIT: if anything a kidnap charge should have been thrown in there too


Theft aside, if you could prove who hacked the account I do believe hacking itself is a crime in most countries......

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?
Jokus Balim
Miner At Heart
#13 - 2012-02-01 13:51:16 UTC
Daisai wrote:
As you can read in this article and others which are more detailed the defense claimed that the charges of theft had no grounds because they claimed virtual items can not be considered gooods you can steal.
The reason why appealed to the highest court is not because of the threaths its because of the charges of theft.


But the court reasons that the verdict is actually theft for three reasons, one of them is this:
Quote:
- the rules of RuneScape do not cover obtaining objects in the manner that occurred in this case: the objects were taken from the victim outside the context of the game itself.

Extract from the judgement 3.5

It would not have been theft if they had used ways to obtain the items which are within the game. So it's pretty important
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#14 - 2012-02-01 13:54:19 UTC
This case would only apply to other in-game thefts as long as physical force was used to actually commit the crime, from the look of it.

If the judge were to apply the same thing to something like Eve Online where in-game theft is prevalent (along with scams, ganks, pod killings, market manipulation, all-out war, etc.), then the case will only hold if the victim was physically forced to give up his/her in-game possessions. If no physical force was used, then perhaps hacking could be grounds for theft, but even that brings more questions such as how the hack was committed (I won't go into further detail).

If neither physical force nor hacking was committed, then there is no case in my opinion. In Eve Online, we all make it very clear that you WILL lose your possessions either through corp theft, ganks, can-flip baiting, wars, etc. (all of which are perfectly legal in the game). If you didn't get that message during your first week on Eve (be it through NPC corp chat, forums, fan sites, etc.), then don't come crying to the RL local police when your internet spaceship goes boom or when your in-game CEO ditched the corp with some of your assets.

Adapt or Die
Tommy Shanks
#15 - 2012-02-01 14:57:45 UTC
That's not ingame stealing anymore than physically punching a dude in the face while the two of you are playing mortal combat is ingame assault.
Daisai
Daisai Investments.
#16 - 2012-02-01 16:21:45 UTC
Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:
Daisai wrote:
Lady Spank wrote:
There is a thread in eve gen about this already.

The only reason that went to the courts is because of physical attack.


As you can read in this article and others which are more detailed the defense claimed that the charges of theft had no grounds because they claimed virtual items can not be considered gooods you can steal.
The reason why appealed to the highest court is not because of the threaths its because of the charges of theft.


You do know that "appealed" is a term for the DEFENSE trying to OVERTURN the decision of a lesser court right? NOT the term for someone BEGINNING legal proceedings.....

The case WENT TO court because of the physical, RL attack. If the prosecution somehow FAILS to obtain a lasting conviction it will be because they tried to throw the stupid theft charge in ON TOP of the clearly valid crime.


Read the link i posted.

Summary of judgment

Taking a virtual amulet and mask from another player in the RuneScape game environment amounts to theft in this case.

Consequence of the judgment

The defendant’s conviction is now final. Because the reasonable time requirement was exceeded, the Supreme Court reduced the alternative sanction to 144 hours’ community service.
Ubiquitous Forum Alt
#17 - 2012-02-01 16:24:24 UTC
Daisai wrote:
Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:
Daisai wrote:
Lady Spank wrote:
There is a thread in eve gen about this already.

The only reason that went to the courts is because of physical attack.


As you can read in this article and others which are more detailed the defense claimed that the charges of theft had no grounds because they claimed virtual items can not be considered gooods you can steal.
The reason why appealed to the highest court is not because of the threaths its because of the charges of theft.


You do know that "appealed" is a term for the DEFENSE trying to OVERTURN the decision of a lesser court right? NOT the term for someone BEGINNING legal proceedings.....

The case WENT TO court because of the physical, RL attack. If the prosecution somehow FAILS to obtain a lasting conviction it will be because they tried to throw the stupid theft charge in ON TOP of the clearly valid crime.


Read the link i posted.

Summary of judgment

Taking a virtual amulet and mask from another player in the RuneScape game environment amounts to theft in this case.

Consequence of the judgment

The defendant’s conviction is now final. Because the reasonable time requirement was exceeded, the Supreme Court reduced the alternative sanction to 144 hours’ community service.


Yeah, ok, so it held up DESPITE their focus on THE WRONG POINT.

Nonetheless, read my post, it WENT TO COURT because of the physical attacks, without those it would have been thrown out. And you STILL don't seem to understand the definition of an "appeal"

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.
#18 - 2012-02-01 16:41:39 UTC
You clearly havent really been reading much.

Yes without the attacks on him it probably never would have been brought to court.
Only he was convicted for THEFT with assault, which they went to the supreme court for because they claimed stealing ingame items isnt theft.


Btw here is the case from 2008 where they were convicted.
http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/resultpage.aspx?snelzoeken=true&searchtype=ljn&ljn=BG0939&u_ljn=BG0939
seany1212
M Y S T
#19 - 2012-02-01 16:42:41 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Spitfire
Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:
Daisai wrote:
Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:
Daisai wrote:
Lady Spank wrote:
There is a thread in eve gen about this already.

The only reason that went to the courts is because of physical attack.


As you can read in this article and others which are more detailed the defense claimed that the charges of theft had no grounds because they claimed virtual items can not be considered gooods you can steal.
The reason why appealed to the highest court is not because of the threaths its because of the charges of theft.


You do know that "appealed" is a term for the DEFENSE trying to OVERTURN the decision of a lesser court right? NOT the term for someone BEGINNING legal proceedings.....

The case WENT TO court because of the physical, RL attack. If the prosecution somehow FAILS to obtain a lasting conviction it will be because they tried to throw the stupid theft charge in ON TOP of the clearly valid crime.


Read the link i posted.

Summary of judgment

Taking a virtual amulet and mask from another player in the RuneScape game environment amounts to theft in this case.

Consequence of the judgment

The defendant’s conviction is now final. Because the reasonable time requirement was exceeded, the Supreme Court reduced the alternative sanction to 144 hours’ community service.


Yeah, ok, so it held up DESPITE their focus on THE WRONG POINT.

Nonetheless, read my post, it WENT TO COURT because of the physical attacks, without those it would have been thrown out. And you STILL don't seem to understand the definition of an "appeal"


This, the end write-up was focusing on the wrong point, the judge would have seen it as physical threats in order for the theft to occur regardless of whether it was to do with an ingame item or not.

Stealing in-game items out-of-game is not the same as stealing in-game items in-game Roll,

*snip* Please keep it civil. Spitfire
Daisai
Daisai Investments.
#20 - 2012-02-01 16:49:53 UTC
Seems reading is difficult for you.

Quote:
Stealing in-game items out-of-game is not the same as stealing in-game items in-game


The whole point of this case is that now it is considered theft.
123Next pageLast page