Virtual goods-Not actually Jagex's?

[stonewall337]

According to most people's understanding of the Jagex (and likewise, Blizzard's) TOS the account remains the property of the respective company, at all times. However, what about items on the account? Are they likewise the companys? What about cases of theft or fraud? Is that a crime? Whilst some may say no, and whilst some games may restore items at their discretionary leave (reserving the rights to chose under what circumstances to do so) others say YES, it is a crime, or else it should be.

 

Many people here have probably heard the story of the school kid, who was held up at knife point in the Netherlands in 2008, in order to gain access to his RuneScape account and goods. http://insertfunnyname.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/dutch_supreme_court/

 

This crime was two fold, first it was assault. (Defintion: an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact) This is undisputed, and rather besides the point. The kid was held at knifepoint.

 

Second, it was a type of robbery, either armed robbery involving use of a weapon or aggravated robbery involving use of a deadly weapon or something that appears to be a deadly weapon. I'm not sure if the laws and definitions are the same in other countries.

 

Robbery implies, no it requires the illegal seizure of anothers property. But was Jagex the ones being robbed? No, it was the kid. "Finally, the court found ... that while the Runescape Terms and Conditions did retain ownership of all virtual property in the game and grant a right to use, the goods in question were under the “exclusive dominion” of the victim. The court thus compared the goods to a passport, which is “the undisputed property of the State of the Netherlands,” but can be rightfully possessed by its holder and can be stolen by a thief."

 

This ties into my main points, are/should thefts and fraudulent activities in an MMORPG be considered criminal activities, and are virtual goods then really owned by the company?

 

To the first point, I will lead with this amazing article posted in the Emory Law Journal, titled "Life, Libery, and the Pursuit of Swords and Armor: Regulating the Theft of Virtual Goods". http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1012886

 

The author argues that, under current law, virtual goods can be considered property, and as such can be regulated, and theft subjected to criminal charges. The article is rather long, so I won't try and explain everything here (Any interest in a guest Times article perhaps?)

 

On to my second point: Are virtual goods actually owned by the game company? According to the TOS, yes. however, in a case several years ago "Bragg v. Linden Lab" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_v._Linden_Lab) the court ruled that since the TOS was a contract of adhesion, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion#Contracts_of_adhesion) they were NOT binding in this case. As such, does this set reasonable precedent to declare online accounts, and the property they contain more then simply a "rental"? Does the fact that their is significant time, effort, and the ability to derive an actual value in the real world for these goods and accounts also tie into the argument to show that these are more then the MMO's property, but those of the actual player?

 

I am not arguing what is better for gamers. I am not arguing that one is good or bad. I am simply showing cases, and as much logic as my brain can muster at 5:30 AM to ask what people decide off the evidence. (please no baseless opinions like "OMFG that ruining teh game".)

 

Should online property be subject to criminal law, and if so, does it become the person's personal property? Or can one of these conditions exist without the other? What do you think? Would there be interest in a more in depth thought of a more specific part of this train of reasoning to read or for a Times article? Let me know. Also, if their are any questions about the Emory article, let me know, and I'll ask the author.

 

 

ALSO INTERESTING: http://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=law_pubs "Beyond Griefing: Virtual Crimes." this talks about a lot of instances of fraud/theft/etc similar to those which occur in RuneScape.

[stonewall337]

To counterfeit means to illegally imitate something. So if virtual goods were actually property, and as such subject to criminal law, then yes, duping items could be considered a form of counterfeiting. A very interesting point to consider.

[Beaumonde]

I'm not sure some of the details which made the Linden Lab lawsuit viable would work equally when applied to RuneScape. In Second Life (the actual MMORPG that was the subject of the dispute) the virtual land is given an actual cash value, tied to real world currency. Because Jagex can argue that nothing in RuneScape can be bought, sold, or valued in real world currency, their claim that they unilaterally own the items themselves is much stronger. If Jagex owns all the items, transfer of items between accounts, even by force, would not be theft, because they were and always will be in possession of their rightful owner (Jagex).

[RU_Insane]

According to most people's understanding of the Jagex (and likewise, Blizzard's) TOS the account remains the property of the respective company, at all times. However, what about items on the account? Are they likewise the companys? What about cases of theft or fraud? Is that a crime? Whilst some may say no, and whilst some games may restore items at their discretionary leave (reserving the rights to chose under what circumstances to do so) others say YES, it is a crime, or else it should be.

 

Many people here have probably heard the story of the school kid, who was held up at knife point in the Netherlands in 2008, in order to gain access to his RuneScape account and goods. http://insertfunnyname.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/dutch_supreme_court/

 

This crime was two fold, first it was assault. (Defintion: an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact) This is undisputed, and rather besides the point. The kid was held at knifepoint.

 

Second, it was a type of robbery, either armed robbery involving use of a weapon or aggravated robbery involving use of a deadly weapon or something that appears to be a deadly weapon. I'm not sure if the laws and definitions are the same in other countries.

 

Robbery implies, no it requires the illegal seizure of anothers property. But was Jagex the ones being robbed? No, it was the kid. "Finally, the court found ... that while the Runescape Terms and Conditions did retain ownership of all virtual property in the game and grant a right to use, the goods in question were under the “exclusive dominion” of the victim. The court thus compared the goods to a passport, which is “the undisputed property of the State of the Netherlands,” but can be rightfully possessed by its holder and can be stolen by a thief."

 

This ties into my main points, are/should thefts and fraudulent activities in an MMORPG be considered criminal activities, and are virtual goods then really owned by the company?

 

To the first point, I will lead with this amazing article posted in the Emory Law Journal, titled "Life, Libery, and the Pursuit of Swords and Armor: Regulating the Theft of Virtual Goods". http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1012886

 

The author argues that, under current law, virtual goods can be considered property, and as such can be regulated, and theft subjected to criminal charges. The article is rather long, so I won't try and explain everything here (Any interest in a guest Times article perhaps?)

 

On to my second point: Are virtual goods actually owned by the game company? According to the TOS, yes. however, in a case several years ago "Bragg v. Linden Lab" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_v._Linden_Lab) the court ruled that since the TOS was a contract of adhesion, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion#Contracts_of_adhesion) they were NOT binding in this case. As such, does this set reasonable precedent to declare online accounts, and the property they contain more then simply a "rental"? Does the fact that their is significant time, effort, and the ability to derive an actual value in the real world for these goods and accounts also tie into the argument to show that these are more then the MMO's property, but those of the actual player?

 

I am not arguing what is better for gamers. I am not arguing that one is good or bad. I am simply showing cases, and as much logic as my brain can muster at 5:30 AM to ask what people decide off the evidence. (please no baseless opinions like "OMFG that ruining teh game".)

 

Should online property be subject to criminal law, and if so, does it become the person's personal property? Or can one of these conditions exist without the other? What do you think? Would there be interest in a more in depth thought of a more specific part of this train of reasoning to read or for a Times article? Let me know. Also, if their are any questions about the Emory article, let me know, and I'll ask the author.

 

 

ALSO INTERESTING: http://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=law_pubs "Beyond Griefing: Virtual Crimes." this talks about a lot of instances of fraud/theft/etc similar to those which occur in RuneScape.

 

As per the passport example (I think it's called an analogous ground), I would think the items in fact still belong to Jagex. What happened is that the items were coerced out of a player's rightful possession. In that sense, they were 'stolen' from the player. I didn't read the first article you linked to, just the abstract. But I'm guessing it discusses possible legal protections against violation of rightful possession, which is a reasonable suggestion. There probably exists in the Jagex TOS some stipulation outlining the player's lawful use of Jagex property.

 

Ah, here we go:

 

You agree that all intellectual property or other rights in any game character, account and items are and will remain our property. Jagex owns all rights in the Jagex Products, and you are only granted permission to use such products, subject to and in accordance with these Terms and Conditions.

 

From the fourth paragraph under the section entitled "Intellectual property rights".

 

In other words, Jagex in all circumstances owns the property, they just give you permission to use it, as long as you abide by the terms and conditions. This is the most Jagex has a legal obligation to:

 

If, acting reasonably, we consider that our Terms and Conditions have or may have been breached, or that there has been fraudulent, unlawful or abusive activity, or that it is necessary in order to prevent or stop any harm or damage to us, to any Jagex Product, to other players or the general public, we may Stop (defined as including all or any of: locking, temporarily or permanently banning, or temporarily or permanently muting the account) any or all accounts for Jagex Products which we think are connected with the offender subject to such right of appeal as is specified on our website and/or restrict access to any content-uploading or other feature of our service and/or restrict access to or delete virtual currency or anything acquired by means of virtual currency. Such actions may result in loss of membership credit and/or loss of real money paid as part of any item / account trading or other prohibited transaction (emphasis mine).

 

It seems robbery (coercing someone out of rightful possession) would fall under the category of prohibited transaction. In this case, if Jagex believes it necessary to 'prevent or stop any harm or damage to us [...] to other players, or the general public', these are the actions Jagex will be able to undertake unless otherwise compelled by law. Note that while no legal protections exist against coercing a player to relinquish his rightful possessions, there are several actions Jagex can take after the fact. So the question of how necessary it is to provide these protections isn't urgent in that sense, since Jagex can probably argue that the mechanisms existing in place now are sufficient enough to punish or backtrack damage caused by such actions. That, and Jagex doesn't guarantee protection against theft in terms of codifying property in favor of the players. It's not hard to see why Jagex wouldn't want to do that, even on a limited scale.

[Makoto_the_Phoenix]

I can only echo what RU_Insane said; the items still belong to Jagex. Only Jagex in any reasonable case can demonstrate a legitimate claim to exclusivity.

[stonewall337]

Yes, I don't necessarily make a claim as to which is good/right, or even which stance I take, as I'm not quite sure all the legal grounds yet (still looking into it). The other question is "should online theft of property be considered criminal" (see Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Swords and Armor.)

 

As well, the law article states that online goods are MORE then intellectual property (c. pages 23-30 or so). Not sure if that changes how the TOS would work in real life, but its interesting to note that under current definitions, online goods could actually be defined as property (Thus leading up to the question of ownership).

 

This is all mainly for an interesting conversation, and thoughts, implications aside.

[stonewall337]

I was talking to the author of the Emory Law Journal article (she's a good friend of mine who I raid with.) and she stated that it is her belief, under current law, that virtual goods are NOT IP, but actual goods. As such, because it is a contract of adhesion, the TOS do NOT apply (They are not legally binding) as therefore, virtual goods actually DO belong to the player, and not the game company.

[strilmus]

But then....game currencies would be analogous to real currencies, and then holy crap. If such a thing were to be possible, then how would games protect their economies?

[stonewall337]

That isn't the right question. The implications are not as important as whether or not their is an actual legal reason to believe that virtual goods are actual property, subject to criminal law, and actually owned by the player.

[Karvinen]

I'm not sure some of the details which made the Linden Lab lawsuit viable would work equally when applied to RuneScape. In Second Life (the actual MMORPG that was the subject of the dispute) the virtual land is given an actual cash value, tied to real world currency. Because Jagex can argue that nothing in RuneScape can be bought, sold, or valued in real world currency, their claim that they unilaterally own the items themselves is much stronger. If Jagex owns all the items, transfer of items between accounts, even by force, would not be theft, because they were and always will be in possession of their rightful owner (Jagex).

Loyalty items are bought for real money (the membership fee).

[Logdotzip]

I'm not sure some of the details which made the Linden Lab lawsuit viable would work equally when applied to RuneScape. In Second Life (the actual MMORPG that was the subject of the dispute) the virtual land is given an actual cash value, tied to real world currency. Because Jagex can argue that nothing in RuneScape can be bought, sold, or valued in real world currency, their claim that they unilaterally own the items themselves is much stronger. If Jagex owns all the items, transfer of items between accounts, even by force, would not be theft, because they were and always will be in possession of their rightful owner (Jagex).

Loyalty items are bought for real money (the membership fee).

 

No, loyalty items are a bonus for purchasing membership.

 

You cannot directly buy loyalty points, and just those. You buy membership, and happen to receive loyalty points with your membership.

[RU_Insane]

That isn't the right question. The implications are not as important as whether or not their is an actual legal reason to believe that virtual goods are actual property, subject to criminal law, and actually owned by the player.

 

The implications are as important. You can never divorce an implication from its effect. If virtual goods are actual property legitimately owned by the player, and not merely possessed by legal permission, than Jagex effectively has no real control over who can and cannot commit transactions involving said goods -- which means the rule against real world trading is rendered null.

 

Unless we take into account that Jagex has legal protections against this. Keep in mind that the goods are only in the player's rightful possession so long as they abide by the TOS -- if you intend to sell those items, they are no longer 'yours', but in fact, Jagex's precedence over them is enforced.

 

The question here becomes, if the TOS is in fact a contract of adhesion, how reasonably can its stipulations be enforced in Jagex's favor? To place it completely in the player's favor is completely unfair to the vendor who rightfully owns and operates not just the items the player merely rents, but the entire game itself. How do you justify the TOS being a contract of adhesion without overlooking this fact?

[stonewall337]

I'm not going off what players may consider right, or logical. I'm going off common law, and law scholars opinions on the facts about virtual goods being more then IP. The fact that a contract of adhesion is not binding does not mean that everything is suddenly unfair for Jagex. It simply means there is a possibility, if tried in court, that the TOS would need to be changed in order to actually be binding. Example, the arbitration clause in the linden lab case.

 

I still stand that the implications are not important to this specific discussion. That isn't the point I'm trying to discuss. Yes, the implications to real life would be game changing, but perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough, and for that I am apologetic. I meant in this discussion, the implications aren't relevant to the discussion, as one can't really tell how things would turn out, and as a result all resulting opinions of the implications would be moot. I'm trying to keep this as one of the more rare, reasonable discussion topics, rather then an opinion topic.

 

Also, contract of adhesion and the ability of one to bind a person varies, it would matter if the Jagex TOS were decided to be thus in court, or if just a part, or how. See Linden Lab.

[Beaumonde]

Something else that would affect a similar case involving RuneScape is that Jagex is a British company and their Terms say:

 

These terms and conditions are governed by English law and any dispute connected with them or Jagex Products will be decided only by the courts of the United Kingdom.

 

So American case law concerning contracts of adhesion isn't really applicable.

[stonewall337]

Something else that would affect a similar case involving RuneScape is that Jagex is a British company and their Terms say:

 

These terms and conditions are governed by English law and any dispute connected with them or Jagex Products will be decided only by the courts of the United Kingdom.

 

So American case law concerning contracts of adhesion isn't really applicable.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_contract_law

[NukeMarine]

It will be fascinating is if "land lords" of virtual realstate are held to some sort of accountability as happens to land lords in the real world. I'm not talking a 1 to 1 relationship, but in the real world there's repurcussions if you try to kick out renters or don't hold up your end of the contract or create a hostile living environment. Just because you own the land doesn't give you 100% say on what happens once you open it up to public renting.

 

With virtual RPG accounts, it's established that these characters have real world value. As such, a character with 200 days of development would hold more value than an account with 1 day of development, even if the cost to rent from Jagex is still the same. Now, you can try to argue that's irrelevant since Jagex says it's property has no real world value. However, there are counters such as items such as drugs that are illegal thus have no legal value, yet hold an inherent value (street value) and is noted with regards to severity of the crime.

 

Remember, Jagex owes a certain responsibility to the people in all the nations it operates. Those nations contain networks that support its servers, protected and aided by all the infrastructure that makes such a set-up possible. Jagex didn't build the roads, building, backbone, powerplants, electrical lines, phone lines, trained people, etc in Britain (or any other country) last I checked. However, it's using those resources in a method to enrich its coffers. A government may consider there's a social contract that should be respected in return for such a situation. Basically, there are servers in the US so the US courts can have a say in how Jagex deals with its customers. Same goes with the other countries.

 

Anyway, I do hope this is explored further in the courts in a positive manner. The nature of the internet is evolving, and the impact of these virtual worlds is being noted by real world governments. Abuse of the customer/business relationship then could have far reaching impact if the right person takes the right case and argument to court.

[Karvinen]

I'm not sure some of the details which made the Linden Lab lawsuit viable would work equally when applied to RuneScape. In Second Life (the actual MMORPG that was the subject of the dispute) the virtual land is given an actual cash value, tied to real world currency. Because Jagex can argue that nothing in RuneScape can be bought, sold, or valued in real world currency, their claim that they unilaterally own the items themselves is much stronger. If Jagex owns all the items, transfer of items between accounts, even by force, would not be theft, because they were and always will be in possession of their rightful owner (Jagex).

Loyalty items are bought for real money (the membership fee).

 

No, loyalty items are a bonus for purchasing membership.

 

You cannot directly buy loyalty points, and just those. You buy membership, and happen to receive loyalty points with your membership.

There's no such thing as free gifts that you get for purchasing something. You're actually purchasing both the main thing you're purchasing and the "gift".

[stonewall337]

It will be fascinating is if "land lords" of virtual realstate are held to some sort of accountability as happens to land lords in the real world. I'm not talking a 1 to 1 relationship, but in the real world there's repurcussions if you try to kick out renters or don't hold up your end of the contract or create a hostile living environment. Just because you own the land doesn't give you 100% say on what happens once you open it up to public renting.

 

With virtual RPG accounts, it's established that these characters have real world value. As such, a character with 200 days of development would hold more value than an account with 1 day of development, even if the cost to rent from Jagex is still the same. Now, you can try to argue that's irrelevant since Jagex says it's property has no real world value. However, there are counters such as items such as drugs that are illegal thus have no legal value, yet hold an inherent value (street value) and is noted with regards to severity of the crime.

 

Remember, Jagex owes a certain responsibility to the people in all the nations it operates. Those nations contain networks that support its servers, protected and aided by all the infrastructure that makes such a set-up possible. Jagex didn't build the roads, building, backbone, powerplants, electrical lines, phone lines, trained people, etc in Britain (or any other country) last I checked. However, it's using those resources in a method to enrich its coffers. A government may consider there's a social contract that should be respected in return for such a situation. Basically, there are servers in the US so the US courts can have a say in how Jagex deals with its customers. Same goes with the other countries.

 

Anyway, I do hope this is explored further in the courts in a positive manner. The nature of the internet is evolving, and the impact of these virtual worlds is being noted by real world governments. Abuse of the customer/business relationship then could have far reaching impact if the right person takes the right case and argument to court.

 

This is completely irrelevant, the character itself is not the same as the virtual goods on the character. Also, no company owes any country anything. They pay taxes, and provide jobs. Its mutual.

[RU_Insane]

It will be fascinating is if "land lords" of virtual realstate are held to some sort of accountability as happens to land lords in the real world. I'm not talking a 1 to 1 relationship, but in the real world there's repurcussions if you try to kick out renters or don't hold up your end of the contract or create a hostile living environment. Just because you own the land doesn't give you 100% say on what happens once you open it up to public renting.

 

With virtual RPG accounts, it's established that these characters have real world value. As such, a character with 200 days of development would hold more value than an account with 1 day of development, even if the cost to rent from Jagex is still the same. Now, you can try to argue that's irrelevant since Jagex says it's property has no real world value. However, there are counters such as items such as drugs that are illegal thus have no legal value, yet hold an inherent value (street value) and is noted with regards to severity of the crime.

 

Remember, Jagex owes a certain responsibility to the people in all the nations it operates. Those nations contain networks that support its servers, protected and aided by all the infrastructure that makes such a set-up possible. Jagex didn't build the roads, building, backbone, powerplants, electrical lines, phone lines, trained people, etc in Britain (or any other country) last I checked. However, it's using those resources in a method to enrich its coffers. A government may consider there's a social contract that should be respected in return for such a situation. Basically, there are servers in the US so the US courts can have a say in how Jagex deals with its customers. Same goes with the other countries.

 

Anyway, I do hope this is explored further in the courts in a positive manner. The nature of the internet is evolving, and the impact of these virtual worlds is being noted by real world governments. Abuse of the customer/business relationship then could have far reaching impact if the right person takes the right case and argument to court.

 

This is completely irrelevant, the character itself is not the same as the virtual goods on the character. Also, no company owes any country anything. They pay taxes, and provide jobs. Its mutual.

 

If you can make a property argument for virtual goods, you can extend the argument towards the character. Companies have a moral obligation to obey the law or face punishment. Of course, this has been ignored many times, but you should understand that "paying taxes and providing jobs" gives companies moral permission to do whatever they like, or that they're not obligated to offer services beyond that point. The issue is much more complex than that -- what about respecting other countries' business regulations in multilateral trade and adapting to foreign corporate cultural norms? What goals and responsibilities are associated with those to ensure that business is conducted sensibly?

 

Your statement can also be flipped to reflect anti-capitalist sentiment:

 

Companies are complacent in the wage-slavery of the working class (providing jobs), and provide monetary compensation to the State to sustain said system of exploitation (paying taxes).

 

In fact, you essentially described the role of the petite-bourgeoise. Try looking it up. Fascinating concept. I didn't know the name for it 'till yesterday but it's certainly interesting.

 

Bottom-line, no company should disavow scrutiny of its business practices merely because it 'provides jobs and pays taxes'. That's a very biased position and also oversimplifies the situation to a significant degree.

[stonewall337]

Morality is relative. My point isn't that there is NO social obligation, rather that its not the position of a company to care about social issues to the extent they disavow profit. Its their job to make a profit. Also, the position of the comment was specifically on virtual goods, were there is common law grounds for arguement. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no such common law ground for the time spend on a character's development.

[RU_Insane]

Fair enough. Given the reasons behind the argumentation though, would you agree that the issue can be extended toward account ownership as well? Time invested into obtaining items is, by definition, time invested into the account. If property rights (to some degree) apply to one, why not the other?

[stonewall337]

I don't know. I'm basing this stance off what legal grounds there are for virtual goods being considered property instead of IP. Personally, yes. But I don't know if there are legal grounds.

[Platinum_Myr]

I think the issue here is simple: I can apply property rights when a third party (non-jagex) steals my items, or threatens me etc. However, if Jagex decides to quit Runescape, or delete my account, I can't have any legal recompense because it still wholly belongs to Jagex.

[stonewall337]

I think the issue here is simple: I can apply property rights when a third party (non-jagex) steals my items, or threatens me etc. However, if Jagex decides to quit Runescape, or delete my account, I can't have any legal recompense because it still wholly belongs to Jagex.

 

Not according to the sources quoted.

[Dacicus]

It will be fascinating is if "land lords" of virtual realstate are held to some sort of accountability as happens to land lords in the real world. I'm not talking a 1 to 1 relationship, but in the real world there's repurcussions if you try to kick out renters or don't hold up your end of the contract or create a hostile living environment. Just because you own the land doesn't give you 100% say on what happens once you open it up to public renting.

The thing is that the landlord IRL doesn't truly own the land, in the sense of having sovereignty over it. The authority he has to manage it comes from the country with such sovereignty, so he has to abide by its laws. If he actually bought the land from the country itself, in the sense of getting sovereignty over it, of course he would be able to do whatever he wanted with it, since he would make the laws. This is all theoretical, since I'm not aware of any country that has ever given sovereignty over some of its land to a private individual.

 

I'm not sure whether a legal concept similar to sovereignty exists for inventions or artistic creations or software, but I think it should. In other words, Jagex would be the only entity with any legal say over what happens to an account, in-game item, etc. (at least, under the current TOS). Clearly, some people don't agree.