Jump to content

Dutch court ruling on kids forcing another to hand over RS goods


sebas379

Recommended Posts

http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie/Hoge-Raad/Nieuws/Pages/Adviesadvocaat-generaalindezaak%E2%80%98RuneScape%E2%80%99.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

sebas379.png

[hide]

First they came to fishing

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't fishing;

Then they came to the yews

and I didn't speak out because I didn't cut yews;

Then they came for the ores

and I didn't speak out because I didn't collect ores;

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[/hide]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

99 HP, Attack, Strength, Defence, Summoning, Ranged, Herblore, Prayer, Agility, Magic, Slayer, Fletching, Fishing, Woodcutting, Mining, and Thieving.

 

Jagex'd out of my untrimmed hp cape on 6/14/2011.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.png

[hide]

First they came to fishing

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't fishing;

Then they came to the yews

and I didn't speak out because I didn't cut yews;

Then they came for the ores

and I didn't speak out because I didn't collect ores;

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[/hide]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :P

sebas379.png

[hide]

First they came to fishing

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't fishing;

Then they came to the yews

and I didn't speak out because I didn't cut yews;

Then they came for the ores

and I didn't speak out because I didn't collect ores;

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[/hide]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

09144a99bb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

banner6jf.jpg

 

jomali.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

sebas379.png

[hide]

First they came to fishing

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't fishing;

Then they came to the yews

and I didn't speak out because I didn't cut yews;

Then they came for the ores

and I didn't speak out because I didn't collect ores;

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[/hide]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

crossed_body.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

09144a99bb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

sebas379.png

[hide]

First they came to fishing

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't fishing;

Then they came to the yews

and I didn't speak out because I didn't cut yews;

Then they came for the ores

and I didn't speak out because I didn't collect ores;

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[/hide]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

j0xPu5R.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

http://sign.tip.it/1/2/79/260/essiw.png

Retired item crew

I would like to be credited as essiw at the website update & corrections forum. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

2480+ total

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

sebas379.png

[hide]

First they came to fishing

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't fishing;

Then they came to the yews

and I didn't speak out because I didn't cut yews;

Then they came for the ores

and I didn't speak out because I didn't collect ores;

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[/hide]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

http://sign.tip.it/1/2/79/260/essiw.png

Retired item crew

I would like to be credited as essiw at the website update & corrections forum. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

It deals with existing precedences where you cant buy "work" put into accounts or items in RWTing.

 

For example I cant make a gold selling site that sells gold and runescape accounts by saying I am selling the work I put into gathering the materials not the gold itself. If I could you better believe that the owners of those sites would have lawsuits up in Jagex face for stealing their work (via bans).

I wasn't talking about the value of the work done in the court case, but I was talking about the value of the work done for the person himself.

http://sign.tip.it/1/2/79/260/essiw.png

Retired item crew

I would like to be credited as essiw at the website update & corrections forum. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if your account gets compromised, and your items are stolen transferred to another account, can you ask Jagex to take action against the hackers? You've had nothing that was yours stolen, after all.

Hell, if you couldn't log into your account the next day, you've lost nothing, right?

 

Is this the implication of the ToS?

6Ij0n.jpg

In real life MMO you don't get 99 smithing by making endless bronze daggers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if your account gets compromised, and your items are stolen transferred to another account, can you ask Jagex to take action against the hackers? You've had nothing that was yours stolen, after all.

Hell, if you couldn't log into your account the next day, you've lost nothing, right?

 

Is this the implication of the ToS?

 

They can get in trouble for illegally getting the persons account information. (same crime the guy who hacked Sarah Palins email was getting charged with) however they cant do crap about the value of the items taken.

 

Again if the value of the gold directly has value, you create a problem for Jagex should players get banned (Second Life had a similar problem when they sold property and banned a player)

 

If the value of the work put into the account has value, you create a problem for Jagex in the same way since Jagex doesnt own the work you put into the game, only the account and items themselves. Wonder what 200 days of time is worth?

 

To the second Life part, maybe a little off, but isn't Jagex creating that same problem for themselves now with the Loyalty program and all?

And to the time part: Dang, that's gonna be interesting if you put it that way. Assuming you mean 200 days WORTH of time that's:

 

200 x 24 = 4800 hours x minimum wage of maybe 3.50 euros (for a kid well under 18 in the Netherlands i think you end up somewhere there at 14, 15 at most)

so 4800 hours times 3,50 makes 16.800.

sebas379.png

[hide]

First they came to fishing

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't fishing;

Then they came to the yews

and I didn't speak out because I didn't cut yews;

Then they came for the ores

and I didn't speak out because I didn't collect ores;

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[/hide]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could argue that they changed Jagex's property in a way Jagex does not want, at knife-point. I'm not sure what the punishment for that is though. It wouldn't be theft, but it'd be damaging goods? Either way it sucks :S.

Supporter of Zaros | Quest Cape owner since 22 may 2010 | No skills below 99 | Total level 2595 | Completionist Cape owner since 17th June 2013 | Suggestions

99 summoning (18th June 2011, previously untrimmed) | 99 farming (14th July 2011) | 99 prayer (8th September 2011) | 99 constitution (10th September 2011) | 99 dungeoneering (15th November 2011)

99 ranged (28th November 2011) | 99 attack, 99 defence, 99 strength (11th December 2011) | 99 slayer (18th December 2011) | 99 magic (22nd December 2011) | 99 construction (16th March 2012)

99 herblore (22nd March 2012) | 99 firemaking (26th March 2012) | 99 cooking (2nd July 2012) | 99 runecrafting (12th March 2012) | 99 crafting (26th August 2012) | 99 agility (19th November 2012)

99 woodcutting (22nd November 2012) | 99 fletching (31st December 2012) | 99 thieving (3rd January 2013) | 99 hunter (11th January 2013) | 99 mining (21st January 2013) | 99 fishing (21st January 2013)

99 smithing (21st January 2013) | 120 dungeoneering (17th June 2013) | 99 divination (24th November 2013)

Tormented demon drops: twenty effigies, nine pairs of claws, two dragon armour slices and one elite clue | Dagannoth king drops: two dragon hatchets, two elite clues, one archer ring and one warrior ring

Glacor drops: four pairs of ragefire boots, one pair of steadfast boots, six effigies, two hundred lots of Armadyl shards, three elite clues | Nex split: Torva boots | Kalphite King split: off-hand drygore mace

30/30 Shattered Heart statues completed | 16/16 Court Cases completed | 25/25 Choc Chimp Ices delivered | 500/500 Vyrewatch burned | 584/584 tasks completed | 4000/4000 chompies hunted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't Jagex write in their ToS that by paying for membership you are "renting" items and gold, then continue to say that if you violate one of their rules the "contract" between yourself and Jagex is null and void, giving them the right to ban you?

riderr_boi26.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Even then, these kids still stole a license, if not the actual good. Similar to stealing a cd key from a video game box at a store, even if you aren't stealing the physical disk.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.