Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

Dutch court ruling on kids forcing another to hand over RS goods
#1
Posted 04 July 2011 - 08:44 AM
[ Display Name History ]

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

#2
Posted 04 July 2011 - 09:18 AM
[ Display Name History ]

Jagex'd out of my untrimmed hp cape on 6/14/2011.
#3
Posted 04 July 2011 - 09:25 AM
[ Display Name History ]

Looks like this one
http://forum.tip.it/...l-theft-a-crime
#4
Posted 04 July 2011 - 10:11 AM
[ Display Name History ]

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

#5
Posted 04 July 2011 - 10:13 AM
[ Display Name History ]

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


#6
Posted 04 July 2011 - 10:22 AM
[ Display Name History ]

I find it sick that you would go as far as threathen someone with a knife for runescape goods...
#7
Posted 04 July 2011 - 10:31 AM
[ Display Name History ]

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.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.
#8
Posted 04 July 2011 - 10:35 AM
[ Display Name History ]

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.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.
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.
#9
Posted 04 July 2011 - 10:37 AM
[ Display Name History ]

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.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.
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?

#10
Posted 04 July 2011 - 10:43 AM
[ Display Name History ]

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.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?

#11
Posted 04 July 2011 - 10:45 AM
[ Display Name History ]

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.
#12
Posted 04 July 2011 - 10:52 AM
[ Display Name History ]

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)

#13
Posted 04 July 2011 - 10:55 AM
[ Display Name History ]

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.
#14
Posted 04 July 2011 - 10:57 AM
[ Display Name History ]


#15
Posted 04 July 2011 - 11:01 AM
[ Display Name History ]

Ring World - 1 Dutch Courts - 0
#16
Posted 04 July 2011 - 11:03 AM
[ Display Name History ]

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).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.
The persons didn't steal a thing from him, they did steal his time and work spend on the game.
#17
Posted 04 July 2011 - 11:05 AM
[ Display Name History ]

2480+ total
#18
Posted 04 July 2011 - 11:05 AM
[ Display Name History ]

Jagex owns your account and everything on it. Jagex still owns it when the kid pulled out his knife.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).
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.
The persons didn't steal a thing from him, they did steal his time and work spend on the game.
Deal with it.
#19
Posted 04 July 2011 - 11:07 AM
[ Display Name History ]

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.

#20
Posted 04 July 2011 - 11:08 AM
[ Display Name History ]

Where did I say jagex doesn't?Jagex owns your account and everything on it. Jagex still owns it when the kid pulled out his knife.
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).
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.
The persons didn't steal a thing from him, they did steal his time and work spend on the game.
Deal with it.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users