Virtual stealing, court convicts

[cultjunky]

I couldn't believe this when I first read it, a young boy bullied for his Runescape loot.

 

THE HAGUE, Netherlands The amulet and mask were a 13-year-old boys virtual possessions in an online fantasy game. In the real world, he was beaten and threaten with a knife to give them up.

 

The Dutch Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the theft conviction of a youth who stole another boys possessions in the popular online fantasy game RuneScape. Judges ordered the offender to perform 144 hours of community service.

 

Only a handful of such cases have been heard in the world, and they have reached varying conclusions about the legal status of virtual goods and whether stealing them is real-world theft.

 

The suspects lawyer had argued the amulet and mask were neither tangible nor material and, unlike for example electricity, had no economic value.

 

But the Netherlands highest court said the virtual objects had an intrinsic value to the 13-year-old gamer because of the time and energy he invested in winning them while playing the game.

 

The court did not release the offenders name, only his year of birth 1992. It said he and another youth beat and kicked the boy and threatened him with a knife until he logged into RuneScape and dropped the objects in 2007.

 

One of the thieves, who was also playing the game, was then able to pick up the items, making them his virtual property. Both were convicted by a lower court in 2009, but only one of them had appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

http://thechronicleherald.ca/world/57498-stealing-virtual-world-theft-real-life-top-dutch-court-rules

 

Good to see the courts taking this sort of thing seriously

[Zerker_Jane]

I think it was more the IRL threat than the virtual theft that led to this decision.

[1_havok]

I think it was more the IRL threat than the virtual theft that led to this decision.

 

Just read in the times 'found guilty of theft and ordered to perform community service' page 31.

 

If that had been in the UK, would most likely be assault and possibly burglary!

[sees_all1]

Not sure how they can deem this theft... JaGEx still owns both.

[1_havok]

Not sure how they can deem this theft... JaGEx still owns both.

 

In English law, it would not matter that he cannot succeed.

 

If you want to be confused, it is possible to steal your OWN stuff..

[Mercifull]

Interesting court decision, surely i'd have convicted them of the threatening behaviour rather than the actual theft. The ToS explicitly say the goods/items arent really yours to be stolen from.

[cultjunky]

Interesting court decision, surely i'd have convicted them of the threatening behaviour rather than the actual theft. The ToS explicitly say the goods/items arent really yours to be stolen from.

 

 

I think this was the crux of the appeal. That virtual items are intrinsically 'yours'. The convicted individual had appealed on the grounds that as the goods 'stolen' were virtual, he could not be found guilty of theft, as they don't really exist. He didn't appeal the 'mugging' aspect of the crime. The interesting precedent for me is that the goods have an "intrinsic value". RWT's give a real world value to virtual goods, thereby imbuing the virtual goods/cash an intrinsic value.

[Jolletzu]

So defend was that they don't have any value... how wrong he is....

[Kaida23]

It's good that the law is starting to recognize the amount of time and effort put into acquiring items in an online game, and how that lends real value to those items.

[Carl]

Isn't this very old news...?

[Kaida23]

Isn't this very old news...?

The original conviction was 2 years ago, but it was appealed to the Netherlands Supreme Court which finally ruled yesterday.

[Quyneax]

Isn't this very old news...?

The original conviction was 2 years ago, but it was appealed to the Netherlands Supreme Court which finally ruled yesterday.

The Hoge Raad is the final institution in this case I think. It has interpreted the law since it was asked to do so, and it concluded that the law does in fact forbid stealing RS items. Which means any future cases can be dealt with much more easily, since there is no doubt about whether the law means this or that.

[Pinata]

The amulet and mask were a 13-year-old boys virtual possessions in an online fantasy game. In the real world, he was beaten and threaten with a knife to give them up.

 

Honestly, people like that make no sense to me.

[Dire_Wolf]

Good going. I am liking netherlands more and more.

[Thus]

Do we know how much time those convicted got?

[Ts_Stormrage]

Isn't this very old news...?

The original conviction was 2 years ago, but it was appealed to the Netherlands Supreme Court which finally ruled yesterday.

The Hoge Raad is the final institution in this case I think. It has interpreted the law since it was asked to do so, and it concluded that the law does in fact forbid stealing RS items. Which means any future cases can be dealt with much more easily, since there is no doubt about whether the law means this or that.

 

 

There is one higher court a situation like this could go up to, and that is if 2 EU nationals of different countries are involved and the law and/or precedents of cases similar to this one are getting different verdicts in different countries... The European Court of Justice is based in Luxembourg and rules on matters of EU law and the implementation of it... It is still pioneering territory as no country has ever given the law out of its own hands to a supra-national body... The United Nations just deals in country vs country issues, where as the ECJ can actually get involved to the personal level, as long as it involves EU law...

 

The Netherlands is part of the EU as one its founding (and most prosperous) members, and the first one in the EU where such a case of virtual item theft has ever made it to court...

 

A good start is what I call this :)

 

Good going. I am liking netherlands more and more.

 

I could tell you a hundred reasons why to like this country that these guys just MADE themselves for every single reason out there why not to... And that's without being chauvinistic...

 

Do we know how much time those convicted got?

 

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2008/10/boys_convicted_of_runescape_vi.php

 

So it was 3 and a half years ago ;) and they got 160 and 200 hours of community service respectively...

 

The mention in the NRC article about Habbo hotel fails to mention the difference between Habbo having stuff bought with real money, whereas RuneScape does not...

[Ginger_Warrior]

If it does go all the way to the European Courts it could have an interesting effect on Jagex's stance on the possession of in-game items. If the amulet and the necklace were the victim's items to be stolen, were they also the victim's items to be sold in exchange for material goods (i.e. cash)?

[Kaida23]

If it does go all the way to the European Courts it could have an interesting effect on Jagex's stance on the possession of in-game items. If the amulet and the necklace were the victim's items to be stolen, were they also the victim's items to be sold in exchange for material goods (i.e. cash)?

Not necessarily. I have a work issued phone, and if someone stole it then they would be charged with theft. The phone isn't mine to do with what I will, it belongs to my company, but the item was stolen all the same.

[Ts_Stormrage]

If it does go all the way to the European Courts it could have an interesting effect on Jagex's stance on the possession of in-game items. If the amulet and the necklace were the victim's items to be stolen, were they also the victim's items to be sold in exchange for material goods (i.e. cash)?

 

Probably not as Jagex owns everything and all things related to RuneScape, and in effect nothing was stolen from Jagex...

 

No this is not between a company and a person, but between two people... Someone making money from the game Jagex owns will still fall under Jagex' rules and dealt with as such... I doubt there will ever be legislation on such things as Jagex essentially doesn't "lose out" on this...

 

Also, the UK (and Ireland, btw) has an opt-out on what's known as the Area of freedom, security and justice, which means, for example, the UK cannot have someone arrested in an EU nation that IS part of that area (currently all EU but Ireland, the UK, Romania and Bulgaria), They have de-facto opted in by being fully cooperative, but this is still done on a case-by-case basis...

 

If you ask me, though, legislation on virtual theft are lagging behind, considering the amount of stuff that goes on in the interwebs these days...

[Randox]

It seems to be increasingly common in modern law that even though in many cases people do not actually own the online property, it can still be stolen in the eyes of the law, because someone other than the rightful owner has still taken it from you. It must be a very interesting legal case though.

 

Anyway, I saw this as I was reading the news last night. I'm a bit surprised that assault wasn't on there, but it was an appeal, and the appeal was probably only for the theft charge, so I imagine the youth was already sentenced for the assault part years ago. It's not often that the news makes me smile, but this was one of those times.

[timmmmm83]

There is one higher court a situation like this could go up to, and that is if 2 EU nationals of different countries are involved and the law and/or precedents of cases similar to this one are getting different verdicts in different countries... The European Court of Justice is based in Luxembourg and rules on matters of EU law and the implementation of it...

Since no questions before passing judgement were asked to the European Court of Justice it ends here imo.

That is how that Court works, via questions before passing judgements in the different EU countries.

Hence making sure the EU legislation is interpreted the same in every EU country.

 

He can however start a procedure at the European Court of Human Rights. If he doesn't start the procedure within 6 months after this sentence, he looses that right.

Precedents are mentionable about bad court ruling being subject to European criticism, but that didn't go any further than a warning from the EU commission.

Which resulted in an altered vision from the High Court in France. (decades later in a different case)

 

It is still pioneering territory as no country has ever given the law out of its own hands to a supra-national body...

Since 1952. In that year the European Court of Justice was created and passes judgement on supranational cases. Also influencing law-interpretation by responding to questions asked by courts from all over Europe.

Not really pioneering business. :lol:

 

 

Feel free to correct me! I'm just a student... :razz:

[Kaida23]

You don't have to be the owner of something to have it in your possession and have someone else steal it from you.

[NukeMarine]

Here's the odd thing, this ruling and Jagex's cases against botting companies show that time and effort put into this virtual world translate to inherent wealth and value. As such, this ruling can be referenced in a lawsuit against Jagex in regards to items destroyed or lost due to actions by Jagex. Now, Jagex could claim that it holds all ownership of all "property" in its game and can do with it what it wants, but how much can that hold up in court when two major cases show that there's much more to these virtual items than just a electronic game.

 

Basically, Jagex could become like the landlord of a housing complex. A landlord may own all the property, but he/she cannot arbitrarily kick people out as he/she sees fit.

[Kaida23]

You don't have to be the owner of something to have it in your possession and have someone else steal it from you.

you have to have something in your possession which you dont in runescape

Why? Because said "thing" doesn't have physical form and only exists as a collection of data? The same could be argued about pirating new movies/music, almost all of which are recorded digitally nowadays, yet if I download a copy of it it's still considered theft even though the original is still in the owner's possession (even though it, too, is a collection of data and all the original owner "has" is a storage device with data on it). It's what the collection of data represents that gives it value, and the forced transfer of that data from one person to another that constitutes theft. If I beat someone up and make them give me their cell phone I'd be charged with both assault and theft, why should the fact that we're talking about a digital item change that?

[Veiva]

The law happens to be more important than Jagex's Terms of Service. Regardless of how they want to represent who owns what, the law supersedes this. If a judge determines that players own the items, not Jagex, then there is nothing Jagex can do, except refuse business to the "offending" country.