Virtual stealing, court convicts

[RoswellCrash]

Will this effect the Thieving skill then?

 

It's pretty nice to see, and once again shows how the Melee skills are overpowered them using a knife, he was probably a Ranger or Mage. Poor kid didn't stand a chance.

 

Another point I'd like to make us how these two boys went to all this trouble, yet only had one computer. This is clearly evident by how they made him drop the items so they could then log in from the computer to claim them, fail.

[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.

 

If I was Jagex I would leave any country agrees with this. This opens a can of worms for Jagex that can lead to lawsuits for unfair bans which would be virtually unheard of if players really didnt own anything ingame

 

Do you agree that unfair bans are okay, because "Jagex owns the data?"

 

Again, let me pose a different question. A web host provides service. Is it acceptable for the web host to delete all of your data and close your account, despite having paid in advance and not having broken the ToS?

[RoswellCrash]

Just pointing out, outright bans are extremely uncommon.

 

Bans are normally the result of repeat offences nowadays, and by rights they can terminate your service based on any breach of rules so people that are outright banned unfairly would only have a case if they had never broken a rule before, which is uncommon.

[Cow]

I don't really see what the issue is with the theft charge. That (presumably fury amulet and one of the halloween masks) had an intrinsic value to the 13 year old, even if they didn't belong to him. He still had possession of them and could choose who to give them to or what to do with them. I think looking at it from the sense that it went from one jagex account to another that jagex wasn't stolen from is missing the point.

 

Pretty [bleep]ed up to be threatening someone with a knife over a halloween mask I'd have gone for a partyhat

[RoswellCrash]

Pretty [bleep]ed up to be threatening someone with a knife over a halloween mask I'd have gone for a partyhat

 

2008 ish? Mask set was about 40mil...

[Cow]

Pretty [bleep]ed up to be threatening someone with a knife over a halloween mask I'd have gone for a partyhat

 

2008 ish? Mask set was about 40mil...

And a partyhat like 80m :D

I just think its kind of surreal that a 15 year old kid would rob someone at knifepoint for a freaking game item (or anything, really). Gf future. I wonder if courts could order him to log onto rs and return the item lol

[RoswellCrash]

People have done worse for less. I imagen worse cases have gone unreported.

[RoswellCrash]

I don't agree, I can't see anyone winning a case for being banned on a game that clearly states it can terminate your account at anytime.

[Cow]

I don't agree, I can't see anyone winning a case for being banned on a game that clearly states it can terminate your account at anytime.

 

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”

 

Im not dutch so I couldn't test it out

 

Would the fact that being banned means he willingly violated the games rules, while his classmate or whatever stealing them at knifepoint not, impact the case?

Like, would a court likely allow such a case in court? Can you sue a restaurant or something for kicking you out if you cause a major disturbance? Are these scenarios even relevant?

[Kaida23]

My point, all things in runescape are on Jagex's server NOT YOUR COMPUTERS CLIENT. THEREFOR ALL TRANSFERS BETWEEN ACCOUNTS ARE NOT CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP SINCE IT HAS NEVER LEFT JAGEX'S SERVER/POSSESSION.

Then I pose a question: if two people live in the same apartment building, with appliances supplied by the owner of the building, and one breaks into the other's apartment and takes the stove down to his appartment is it theft? It wasn't owned by either, and didn't leave the building.

 

We're not talking about a change in ownership, we're talking about the wrongful taking of something that has value to the person who lost it. Yes, we don't actually "own" anything in RS, but Jagex gives us control of a character and their items to do with as we will within the bounds of the ToS. Forcing someone to give away control of one of those items (or even the character itself) can be considered a form of theft, and now legally is in the Netherlands.

 

Just because something exists digitally doesn't mean it's not in my possession and can't be stolen. As more and more is done online, and actual physical items become less and less common (I almost never carry cash anymore, so all of my money exists as nothing more than data in my bank's computers. Of course, so does all my debt so if anything ever wipes that data out Visa is screwed :lol: ), problems like this are going to become more common. Personally, I'm glad to see that at least one court is willing to recognize this and change accordingly.

[Quyneax]

My point, all things in runescape are on Jagex's server NOT YOUR COMPUTERS CLIENT. THEREFOR ALL TRANSFERS BETWEEN ACCOUNTS ARE NOT CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP SINCE IT HAS NEVER LEFT JAGEX'S SERVER/POSSESSION.

...

and now legally is in the Netherlands.

...

Basically this. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is theft, meaning that the definition (in law) of theft now explicitly includes digital items, also when stored on someone else's server and only temporarily provided to you as service. You can keep arguing that it shouldn't be that way, but until another court (with jurisdiction in the Netherlands) rules otherwise or the law gets changed, it's simply the case that they can be stolen and you can be convicted for theft of digital items in the Netherlands.

[Thus]

It's not so much who owns the items, but how much time was put into obtaining use of said items.

[cultjunky]

But the court didn't rule on 'ownership'.

 

The court ruled that the item had an "intrinsic" value. This was exemplified by the lengths the two perpetrators went to, to obtain the said items. As such, previous court decisions could not be overturned on the grounds that a theft didn't occur. Had the courts ruled that as it was a virtual item and so a theft couldn't occur, the assault charges would also have been over turned.

 

In other words, the victim placed a personal value on the items as he had spent X amount of time to obtain them. The perpetrators agreed that there was a value to the items, but as they couldn't be bothered to spend X amount of time obtaining them, they committed a criminal act.

 

I have a feeling that this went to appeal as this was considered, in effect, armed robbery. That is a very serious crime, one which will stay on the perpetrators records for a long time, will diminish any future job prospects, university acceptance, mortgage applications, you name it. That may seem a little harsh, to be dubbed an armed robber before hitting puberty. However, how long before the 'successful' perpetrators moved on to obtaining real goods with knives?

 

 

Besides, if there isn't an intrinsic value in RS items, then give me a Phat for 1gp, lol.

[RU_Insane]

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?

 

Pirating music gets you physical data onto your computer/devices. Stealing runescape gold doesnt download it to your computer, its still on Jagex's server.

 

You didnt force a transfer of that data since it has never moved, only way your argument is valid is if you showed up to Jagex HQ with a external hard drive and tried to beat them up for not giving it to you.

 

My point, all things in runescape are on Jagex's server NOT YOUR COMPUTERS CLIENT. THEREFOR ALL TRANSFERS BETWEEN ACCOUNTS ARE NOT CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP SINCE IT HAS NEVER LEFT JAGEX'S SERVER/POSSESSION.

 

Even in the game Second Life where you buy property with real money. You know what your really buying? Server usage. They can kick you at any time since you dont own anything your only renting the server space. If push ever came to shove such as if Jagex started selling gold for cash, this is what they would argue too.

 

I understand your argument but all your account on RS is, is rented server space. For free you can get x amount of space (a character who can level x amount of skills, and have y amount of bank space) for a monthly fee you are allowed more data (name recorded and shown on the high scores, more skills, more quests, etc.).

 

Jagex's terms of service for the rented server space (ie: all data of your account) are their rules, monthly payment for added space (members content), etc. and if you break any of those conditions they can ban you (delete your information) at anytime.

 

If you never have had a website I wouldnt expect you to understand how this works

 

You didnt force a transfer of that data since it has never moved

 

In fact, you did force a transfer. Though the data may remain on Jagex's servers all the same, it was still transfered between accounts stored on the server -- forcefully.

 

Possession isn't the same as property. While those virtual items are in practical terms, under your current possession, as you *use* them to accomplish certain tasks in game, realistically it is Jagex's legal property insofar as they compose part of the in-game server space and thus Jagex has the legal right to 'rent' that server

space to you in exchange for monetary recompense. This is where the distinction ends. The only relevant issue is how this server space translated to inherent value on the part of the individual.

 

The whole point of the case is that those items necessarily had value independent of their virtual nature because the individual had invested time and labor into obtaining those items. It does not matter that those items are legally the property of Jagex; that was never contested. But by coercing the individual to transfer the items to another person, it constitutes theft because the labor he invested was stolen. His labor has actual value is what matters. It's irrelevant that what he worked toward still belongs to someone else, or the fact it's contained within a virtual space. It would be unfair if the court decided that his labor had no value because the items were transfered within a space that belongs to Jagex ... who could seek justice in that case? Realistically, no damage had been done to Jagex, right?

 

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)?

 

I think I can answer this question, too. We can classify time invested into playing the game by the TOS as 'legitimate labor'. Although this has no bearing on the fact that the player cannot legally claim property, all items obtained by legitimate labor are rightfully in the individual's possession, notwithstanding the fact that Jagex can reclaim these items at any time. If you earn items in-game with the intention of breaking the TOS using them, that's an illegitimate use of your labor and further, your account, by virtue of the fact that the ToS states that you cannot trade in-game items for real ones. Now it does not matter that you invested your time into it, because it's Jagex's property ... and you attempted to sell something that is *not* yours.

 

Property always takes precedent over possession.

 

In the first case, the claim is valid because it concerns legitimate labor i.e. something that Jagex allows. That is, the items taken (not 'stolen') were in the individual's rightful possession (but not his property) because he had earned them. The items are not the robber's rightful possession because he had obtained them by force -- something Jagex would not allow.

 

In the second case, the items aren't in the individual's rightful possession because he had obtained them using methods ToS does not allow. So no, despite this landmark case, the ToS would still be violated in cases of real-world trading.

 

Of course, the RuneScape ToS isn't a substitute for valid interpretations of criminal or property law. Rather, I'm trying to illustrate claims that the courts would agree with concerning property law, had Jagex used ToS as a basis for their claim (for example, pressing charges against a player who engaged in RWT).

 

EDIT: cultjunky summed the case up very well, but I feel that my post goes into some further detail.

[Karvinen]

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.

 

If I was Jagex I would leave any country agrees with this. This opens a can of worms for Jagex that can lead to lawsuits for unfair bans which would be virtually unheard of if players really didnt own anything ingame

 

Do you agree that unfair bans are okay, because "Jagex owns the data?"

 

Again, let me pose a different question. A web host provides service. Is it acceptable for the web host to delete all of your data and close your account, despite having paid in advance and not having broken the ToS?

 

Jagex has a line in there saying that they can ban you for any reason they feel like it. I personally wouldn't go to any web host who has such a line.

 

Unfair bans are okay in runescape's case because they have that line in their terms of service. However if a court recognizes that you own the items/account it would supersede their terms of service and could result in a lawsuit for Jagex for "stealing".

They don't have that line in their terms of service. It would be against The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, so even if they had it in the terms of service, it would have no legal meaning. Because RuneScape is a paid service, consumer protection laws apply.

 

Here's a non-exhaustive list of terms which may be considered unfair: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2083/schedule/2/made.

 

This applies to "terminate-for-any-reason" terms:

 

making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone;