60 replies to this topic

[sebas379]

http://www.rechtspra...RuneScape’.aspx

I know it's a Dutch website so not many are able to read it, sorry for that but I thought it might be interesting since it concerns RS.

A summary of the case:

2 kids (ages not mentioned in article but i believe I heard earlier they were 14 or 15) took a 13-year-old to the home of one of them.
Here, they abused him and threatened him with a knife to log in and hand over "a mask and an amulet" i believe i read earlier it was a h'ween mask, amulet i dunno.

In short, the court ruled that these virtual goods have both an in-game as a real monetary value and can therefore be seen as "real" goods. That means you can also steal them.
Although the original case was already back in '08, supreme court made above statements 28-6. The final ruling will be made October 4th.

Do you fel this has any consequences, and if so which?

Edit: If required and I have time i'll put up a complete translation. But that will be at the very earliest this evening

[My_Eggs]

Fastest way to make money now: Threaten other players that you know in real life with a knife.

[Hajutze]

Kind of old ... weren't there 2-3 threads about this (I am sure I remember at least 1)
Looks like this one
http://forum.tip.it/...l-theft-a-crime

[sebas379]

Ok, sorry I missed the old thread, did look back a little but not that far:P

But I thought i'd post it since it's a new development in the case.
Anyways. the direction I just thought of is this. If this means RS property has monetary value (which we kind of already knew) and thus this is theft, then what is a macro company doing?
Would you call that running the money press non-stop (like they did in Germany in the late 1920's to counter hyper-inflation)? Or is it something else

Not trying to hyjack my own thread into a botrant:P just a spin of the mind I just ahd

[sebas379]

Fastest way to make money now: Threaten other players that you know in real life with a knife.

Yea guess so, probably better gp/h than running a bot army

[essiw]

edit: nevermind, did miss something.

I find it sick that you would go as far as threathen someone with a knife for runescape goods...

[Stev]

In short, the court ruled that these virtual goods have both an in-game as a real monetary value and can therefore be seen as "real" goods.

But until Jagex introduces micro-transactions, those goods belong to Jagex, not the kid. Therefore, the kid had nothing stolen from him, nor was any of that "real monetary value" even his.

[Omali]

In short, the court ruled that these virtual goods have both an in-game as a real monetary value and can therefore be seen as "real" goods.

But until Jagex introduces micro-transactions, those goods belong to Jagex, not the kid. Therefore, the kid had nothing stolen from him, nor was any of that "real monetary value" even his.

Actually, even when microtransactions do get added, you will still not own the item. You're paying for a license for the item, not the item itself. Everything still belongs to Jagex.

Personally they shouldn't be worrying about who owns what. Let's focus on putting those psychopathic little [bleep]ers away for a long time that would threaten to knife someone over video game goods.

[sebas379]

In short, the court ruled that these virtual goods have both an in-game as a real monetary value and can therefore be seen as "real" goods.

But until Jagex introduces micro-transactions, those goods belong to Jagex, not the kid. Therefore, the kid had nothing stolen from him, nor was any of that "real monetary value" even his.

hmm, ok, but now i'm gonna stretch this one with an example. I borrow your bike, cycle downtown, someone puts a knife to my throat and takes it. Then what? Did they steal from me or you? Or should I see this "borrow" as something different than what you'r talking about?

[Crossed_Body]

hmm, ok, but now i'm gonna stretch this one with an example. I borrow your bike, cycle downtown, someone puts a knife to my throat and takes it. Then what? Did they steal from me or you? Or should I see this "borrow" as something different than what you'r talking about?

They obviously stole the bike from him, since he is the owner. Had they been convicted, they'd have to give him the bike back or a monetary compensation, not you. You could probably demand compensation for getting threatened with a knife, however.

[Stev]

But see, in your example:
Person A lends Person B a bike.
Person C then takes the bike from Person B.

Person B lost nothing of his own possession/value. Person A was the one who lost something of value to Person C.

Now, let's do the same for the RuneScape OP's example. Jagex would be Person A. The difference is that Jagex didn't lose anything of value (The mask/amulet is still theirs). The kid, Person B, also didn't lose anything that was his either because the mask and amulet were not his. In this case, nothing was stolen as Jagex still has possession/ownership of their mask and amulet.

[sebas379]

But see, in your example:
Person A lends Person B a bike.
Person C then takes the bike from Person B.

Person B lost nothing of his own possession/value. Person A was the one who lost something of value to Person C.

Now, let's do the same for the RuneScape OP's example. Jagex would be Person A. The difference is that Jagex didn't lose anything of value (The mask/amulet is still theirs). The kid, Person B, also didn't lose anything that was his either because the mask and amulet were not his. In this case, nothing was stolen as Jagex still has possession/ownership of their mask and amulet.

Indeed you have a point, so on a legal basis there is also nothing you can do about ingame scamming, luring etc even if it involves real world threats. the only thing you can sue them for is then the real-world damage (the knife)

[The Observer]

But see, in your example:
Person A lends Person B a bike.
Person C then takes the bike from Person B.

Person B lost nothing of his own possession/value. Person A was the one who lost something of value to Person C.

Now, let's do the same for the RuneScape OP's example. Jagex would be Person A. The difference is that Jagex didn't lose anything of value (The mask/amulet is still theirs). The kid, Person B, also didn't lose anything that was his either because the mask and amulet were not his. In this case, nothing was stolen as Jagex still has possession/ownership of their mask and amulet.

In a sense you can charge them with mischief causing death.

Mischief can be defined as the prevention of using information or data. The virtual goods are technically information since they're just bits of data on a server. Since they could have caused death and the intent is implied by a knife being used, causing death would still apply even though a death didn't take place.

This is Canadian law, so I'm not sure how it works in the Netherlands. You can get life imprisonment for it here.

Mischief in relation to data
(1.1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully

(a) destroys or alters data;

(b) renders data meaningless, useless or ineffective;

© obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of data; or

(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use of data or denies access to data to any person who is entitled to access thereto.

[Stev]

I'm simply arguing that it was not stealing. . Assault/mischief, yes, but there was no theft.

[Ring_World]

If runescape money has real value why isnt it taxable

Ring World - 1 Dutch Courts - 0

[essiw]

But see, in your example:
Person A lends Person B a bike.
Person C then takes the bike from Person B.

Person B lost nothing of his own possession/value. Person A was the one who lost something of value to Person C.

Now, let's do the same for the RuneScape OP's example. Jagex would be Person A. The difference is that Jagex didn't lose anything of value (The mask/amulet is still theirs). The kid, Person B, also didn't lose anything that was his either because the mask and amulet were not his. In this case, nothing was stolen as Jagex still has possession/ownership of their mask and amulet.

You forgot one thing, at runescape the person could have spend hours and hours to get those items. The person with the bike did not need to spend that many hours to get the bike. It is like you borrowing a house which you live in and someone breaks things of/in your house which the owner of the house (the person you are borrowing it from) has to get refund but has taken hours of you to repear it (or something like that).
The persons didn't steal a thing from him, they did steal his time and work spend on the game.

[highlanders]

Seems like people still don't understand that terms of service are not laws. According to the ToS the items you own are not yours, you're not allowed to sell them, etc. If you break the ToS all that happens is that jagex can ban you from using their service. However selling virtual items in the real world is not against real-world laws, nuance. Hence why they can be taken in account as having a value in court.

[Ring_World]

But see, in your example:
Person A lends Person B a bike.
Person C then takes the bike from Person B.

Person B lost nothing of his own possession/value. Person A was the one who lost something of value to Person C.

Now, let's do the same for the RuneScape OP's example. Jagex would be Person A. The difference is that Jagex didn't lose anything of value (The mask/amulet is still theirs). The kid, Person B, also didn't lose anything that was his either because the mask and amulet were not his. In this case, nothing was stolen as Jagex still has possession/ownership of their mask and amulet.

You forgot one thing, at runescape the person could have spend hours and hours to get those items. The person with the bike did not need to spend that many hours to get the bike. It is like you borrowing a house which you live in and someone breaks things of/in your house which the owner of the house (the person you are borrowing it from) has to get refund but has taken hours of you to repear it (or something like that).
The persons didn't steal a thing from him, they did steal his time and work spend on the game.

Jagex owns your account and everything on it. Jagex still owns it when the kid pulled out his knife.

Deal with it.

[sebas379]

If runescape money has real value why isnt it taxable

Ring World - 1 Dutch Courts - 0

Hold the non existend phone there. doesn't the fact that RWT exists imply it has a monetary value? that would mean you could tax it.

[essiw]

But see, in your example:
Person A lends Person B a bike.
Person C then takes the bike from Person B.

Person B lost nothing of his own possession/value. Person A was the one who lost something of value to Person C.

Now, let's do the same for the RuneScape OP's example. Jagex would be Person A. The difference is that Jagex didn't lose anything of value (The mask/amulet is still theirs). The kid, Person B, also didn't lose anything that was his either because the mask and amulet were not his. In this case, nothing was stolen as Jagex still has possession/ownership of their mask and amulet.

You forgot one thing, at runescape the person could have spend hours and hours to get those items. The person with the bike did not need to spend that many hours to get the bike. It is like you borrowing a house which you live in and someone breaks things of/in your house which the owner of the house (the person you are borrowing it from) has to get refund but has taken hours of you to repear it (or something like that).
The persons didn't steal a thing from him, they did steal his time and work spend on the game.

Jagex owns your account and everything on it. Jagex still owns it when the kid pulled out his knife.

Deal with it.

Where did I say jagex doesn't?