As far as the "not stealing anything" argument goes, I think we're not seeing the forest through the trees...

 

 

 

To begin with, yes, everything - your avatar, your account, your items - belongs to Jagex, however, you are still de jure the maintainer of that account, avatar, and items. This means that, while you haven't actually bought anything, you still own the amount of time and effort put into it.

 

 

 

You've got to stop and consider that the kid put his time, effort, and [his parent's] money into that account, ergo it is conceivable that he holds some stake in the items, so long as he remains in good standing with Jagex. What the other two boys were trying to do was to steal his efforts into the account (not the actual items, although it reads like such!), and claim them as their own. That'd probably fall under some statute, but I'm no lawyer - I just pay attention to the ToS.

 

 

 

In summation: Jagex owns the account and items, but you put the time and effort into them to make them desirable/high theft targets, so you can at least take the attempt on your stolen efforts to a court (in the Netherlands, at least).

 

 

 

By the by, community service for threatening a kid with a knife? What the hell. Give that kid 6 months in prison, a 2 year ban from a computer, or both. They let the little bastard go with a slap on the wrist...

quote from main page

 

your account and everyone on it belongs to jagex and by clicking on our terms and conditions you are accepting these terms.

 

:? nothing was stolen from anyone because none of them owned it.

 

but the beating was definatly worthy of jungement

 

yep and there parents = #-o

quote from main page

 

your account and everyone on it belongs to jagex and by clicking on our terms and conditions you are accepting these terms.

 

:? nothing was stolen from anyone because none of them owned it.

 

but the beating was definatly worthy of jungement

 

yep and there parents = #-o

 

Well my passport belongs to the dutch goverment too...

 

 

 

Yet theft of id is considered 1 of the most heavy crimes. Stealing of "borrowed" goods is just as much stealing as stealing of "owned" goods...

I don't get it.

 

are they in trouble for stealing imaginary items alone? cos I would've got them in trouble for violence and using a knife.

160 and 200 hours dont seem like alot, but its good to see that a punishment was given.

 

 

 

Now only the kid who lost his items needs them back. :x

I saw this on another site prior to this one, I lol'd irl but well, sucks to be those kids. That should teach them :)

Man, of all games... Why?

I can't wait to see how this turns out, by the way:

 

 

 

*Me fighting someone*

 

Them: If you PK me, I'll sue you for stealing my stuff.

 

Me: I don't live in Holland, NOOB.

 

Them: :shock:

There's a serious flaw in these arguments here that the Lawyers are bringing up. Neither of those kids own their accounts or the items on it. Therefore, it's out of their jurisdiction to punish them for a transfer from one account to another, even if it was done maliciously.

 

 

 

Runescape Terms and Conditions (Intellectual Property Rights): You agree that all intellectual property or other rights in any game character, account and items are and will remain our property.

 

 

 

The kids can't be charged with theft and the victim can't charge them with theft because he was never in possession of the goods. Aggravated Assault and/or Assault with a Deadly Weapon, maybe, but the theft charges are inapplicable. Jagex gives you the right to "borrow" the items; you don't own them.

 

 

 

By that logic, the RWT rule is meaningless.

 

 

 

"Game items must only be exchanged for other items/services within the game. Exchanging game items for items or other benefits in other online games, real-life money or other real-life benefits is not allowed. "

 

 

 

If the ownership of a game item isn't changing (since according to your argument they belong to Jagex), then it's hardly being exchanged. You can't exchange something if you don't lose anything, and the other person doesn't receive anything...

 

 

 

I fail to see how that applies. RWT still applies because the seller is selling goods he has no right to sell. And you are exchanging the right to borrow the item from Jagex. You aren't exchanging ownership rights. In this case, the tangible property is your right to borrow it from Jagex, which is only transferable by trading other borrowed rights from Jagex. I suppose it really doesn't matter. This was a court in Holland (or the Netherlands, whatever you want to call it), and that doesn't mean that the same arguments will hold up in America, Europe, or other countries.

Even if dutch laws pass it, Who says it will be put into english law from which jagex originates?

Hypothetically...

 

 

 

You borrow someone's car.

 

 

 

You didn't pay for it, you only pay for the gas it uses, and fill up the tank when you're done with it...

 

 

 

But right as you go into the Gas Station to pay the bill, the car gets stolen... The Gas Station isn't going to let you leave woithout paying for the gas, afterall, its not their fault the thieves forced you into giving up your car keys (and hence, the car)

 

 

 

Who is the owner of the car? Not you. It was from the person you borrowed it from. Do the thieves now not deserve punishment because now THEY drive the car?

 

 

 

Translate the car with the extra gas to the time and effort you put in to get said Amulet and Mask, the original owner to Jagex, and the account it was stolen from to yourself...

 

 

 

TADAA!

160 and 200 hours dont seem like alot, but its good to see that a punishment was given.

 

 

 

Now only the kid who lost his items needs them back. :x

 

 

 

He got them back ;)

I fail to see how that applies. RWT still applies because the seller is selling goods he has no right to sell. And you are exchanging the right to borrow the item from Jagex. You aren't exchanging ownership rights. In this case, the tangible property is your right to borrow it from Jagex, which is only transferable by trading other borrowed rights from Jagex. I suppose it really doesn't matter. This was a court in Holland (or the Netherlands, whatever you want to call it), and that doesn't mean that the same arguments will hold up in America, Europe, or other countries.

 

 

 

No, the seller isn't selling any goods. He doesn't HAVE any goods. You can't sell something if you don't have anything, and you can't buy anything if you aren't getting anything and the seller isn't losing anything.

 

 

 

That's not an exchange. The owner of the items/accounts has remained the same the entire time.

 

 

 

Exchange, Verb:

 

 

 

to give up (something) for something else; part with for some equivalent; change for another.

 

 

 

You are not giving up anything since you don't own anything. You are not parting with anything since you don't own anything. You aren't changing it to another since you have nothing to start with, you are merely RECEIVING.

 

 

 

The other person is not exchanging it for a Runescape object, since he is not receiving anything in return. Exchange is the wrong word to use. By the actual letter of the rule, the rule can not actually be broken as far as Runescape items go, because it is impossible to exchange them.

 

 

 

The rule also doesn't mention anything about borrowing anything from Jagex. The rule says, "Game Items must only be exchanged [...]" Game items can not be exchanged, and therefore this rule is moot with the current wording.

Although I believe virtual theft is a crime, it doesn't relate to Runescape. It only refers to games in which the virtual items actually have a value and are property of the players (there are some which use this system, but RS isn't one of them).

 

 

 

Accounts and Items within Runescape are the property of Jagex, the players merely move them about within Jagex's ownership. They are not goods since they hold no real-life value proposed by Jagex.

 

 

 

I fail to see how that applies. RWT still applies because the seller is selling goods he has no right to sell. And you are exchanging the right to borrow the item from Jagex. You aren't exchanging ownership rights. In this case, the tangible property is your right to borrow it from Jagex, which is only transferable by trading other borrowed rights from Jagex. I suppose it really doesn't matter. This was a court in Holland (or the Netherlands, whatever you want to call it), and that doesn't mean that the same arguments will hold up in America, Europe, or other countries.

 

 

 

No, the seller isn't selling any goods. He doesn't HAVE any goods. You can't sell something if you don't have anything, and you can't buy anything if you aren't getting anything and the seller isn't losing anything.

 

 

 

That's not an exchange. The owner of the items/accounts has remained the same the entire time.

 

 

 

Exchange, Verb:

 

 

 

to give up (something) for something else; part with for some equivalent; change for another.

 

 

 

You are not giving up anything since you don't own anything. You are not parting with anything since you don't own anything. You aren't changing it to another since you have nothing to start with, you are merely RECEIVING.

 

 

 

The other person is not exchanging it for a Runescape object, since he is not receiving anything in return. Exchange is the wrong word to use. By the actual letter of the rule, the rule can not actually be broken as far as Runescape items go, because it is impossible to exchange them.

 

 

 

The rule also doesn't mention anything about borrowing anything from Jagex. The rule says, "Game Items must only be exchanged [...]" Game items can not be exchanged, and therefore this rule is moot with the current wording.

 

 

 

Yes, but you forgot the other thing you exchange real life money for: Services. The action of moving around Jagex's property is a service which the customer pays for. RWTing is not a buy/sell trade, even though it appears to be, it is a service.

Well seems a logical decision.

 

 

 

There are copyright laws against stealing music and movies which can also be considered "virtual" files. Those are possessions of the company, and the company used time and money to get the music/movie.

 

 

 

Our RuneScape items are something we put time, and possibly money to get. If someone forces us to give them up, is that not theft?

 

 

 

Something that bugs me though is that Jagex explicitly states in the Terms and Conditions that our accounts and items in them remain THEIR property. So I believe JAGEX should have the final say.

wow, this'll be interesting.That's just pathetic though, beating someone up and threatening them with a knife for RS items...

Agreed. Bannage please?

 

 

 

As for considering the theft of virtual points or accounts or whatnot, I am not sure if it should be a crime. Jagex states that they own your account, so can somebody really be punished for taking it from you when you don't even own it?

They can still be prosecuted for violence ;)

 

Yes, but you forgot the other thing you exchange real life money for: Services. The action of moving around Jagex's property is a service which the customer pays for. RWTing is not a buy/sell trade, even though it appears to be, it is a service.

 

 

 

You misread the rule.

 

 

 

Game items must only be exchanged for other items/services within the game. Exchanging game items for items or other benefits in other online games, real-life money or other real-life benefits is not allowed.

 

 

 

A can only be traded for A or B.

 

 

 

That does not mean B can only be traded for A or B.

the punishment should have been for the threatening and beating, not for the item stealing. Victimizing a little kid is grounds enough for that punishment.

what is the world coming to where kids will do that for a game??

 

 

 

and for all of you that think that stealing online items shouldn't be a crime consider this, what determins soemthings value? is it the fact that someone says that its worth something or is it the time spent getting it?

 

 

 

heres a great example. how much do you think the american dollar and other non gold standard currancies are worth? do you value it because of the time you spend earning it? or because someone tells you its worth something. the fact is non gold standard currancies are only paper and ink with the only thing telling you how much they are worth is the county itself and yet o how the police jump when a bank is robbed.

really good what the jugde (or however its called ^^) gave them punnishments, if it was me who could decide what punnishments they got they would have had way longer punnishments though. that people go this low for a game... and on top of it those items are really easy to get (i believe they said it was an amulet of strenght and black mask, might be mistaken tho)

what is the world coming to where kids will do that for a game??

 

 

 

and for all of you that think that stealing online items shouldn't be a crime consider this, what determins soemthings value? is it the fact that someone says that its worth something or is it the time spent getting it?

 

 

 

heres a great example. how much do you think the american dollar and other non gold standard currancies are worth? do you value it because of the time you spend earning it? or because someone tells you its worth something. the fact is non gold standard currancies are only paper and ink with the only thing telling you how much they are worth is the county itself and yet o how the police jump when a bank is robbed.

 

 

 

 

 

^ Has a very good point.

 

 

 

Do you really think your 5 dollar us bill is worth the paper it is printed on?

The game belongs to Jagex.

 

All items within the game are owned by Jagex.

 

 

 

So this law would not be applicable to Runescape, but other sites where virtual goods are traded.

I wonder what Jagex's response to all this is? They are being awfully quiet...

Has anyone stopped to think about the wider implications of this yet?

 

 

 

"They" (IE. they who control public opinion through the media and are slowly but surely eroding internet freedoms) are policing the internet at an increasing rate.

 

 

 

I don't know about the US press but in England, ne'er a week goes by without a column/double page spread on the dangers of the internet. "YOUR KIDS ARE IN DANGER FROM PAEDOPHILES", "RAPE ON YOUTUBE" and headlines of the same ilk are regularly seen.

 

 

 

What purpose does all of this serve? I ask you all to do a small bit of research on Google and Youtube about some new plans proposed for the internet. Some high-ranking businessman in the world of communications, aswell as some other well-placed sources claim that there are plans to make the internet a 'subscription' service, much in the same way pay-per-view cable TV is today. There have also recently been various mergers and takeovers between large, well known internet names (Google and Youtube being one such example). If you look to the higher echelons of business, you will see that many companies both on the internet and other, are owned by the same few groups of people. I urge you all to do some research for yourselves on this subject.

 

 

 

This all relates to the original topic when you look at the wider picture. There is a systematic assault on the internet coming from all sides. It is a very dangerous thing when the governments of any country start legislating on the internet... History shows us that when the government acts, it acts with a heavy hand. Broad, highly interpretable laws are passed that act as blanket laws for a multitude of 'crimes'. The recent British "anti-terrorism act" being one such example. ANYONE, can be arrested for a broad array of offenses, the least of which being "Acting suspiciously". How, may I ask, is that a criminal act in a 'free' society?

 

 

 

To punish these children for stealing someone's 'online property' they would have to recognise said property as having REAL value in the REAL world. Yes, your time does equal money but only when a contractual agreement has been co-signed by two corporate entities (look up the legal definition of a "person") agreeing that one is giving their time to the other, in exchange for currency. Arguing that in this instance it has worth doesn't correlate with this basic tenet of commerce. I also think assigning value to something that isn't tangible is VERY dangerous.

 

 

 

Why could they not have charged the kids with crimes relating to abduction, carrying dangerous weapons with intent etc etc? They want to get their grubby little hands on the internet that's why!

 

 

 

I'm sorry for the kid in question too BTW, growing up in a scummy part of London I was a victim of knife muggings/violence a few times and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.