Soverignty - Intellectual property would be the indirect translation. Which virtual goods are not, as shown. Thus, it does not apply.

THAT ACCOUNT IS JAGEX'S BUT GODDAMN I AM SO GLAD THAT AGS IS MY PROPERTY IN REALITY.

 

 

[bleep]ing. Woot.

I think there was a Tip.it Times article from years ago (literally) that touched on some Inland Revenue's looking into taxing virtual gp. If the gp has no monetary value and absolutely belongs to JAGEX, and as such I don't have to pay tax on it, I'm all for it.

Not much to say about the actual ownership of items as you guys have plundered that reasonably well but I wholeheartedly agree with what the Dutch court decided as to the value of the items. You hear the terms like "pixel-hugging" or "it's information with no value," etc. often enough but I've never seen truth in that. Two main things: 1) to me, it doesn't matter who legally owns the items - ownership basically means value, to someone. 2) It's as simple as understanding the concept of abstraction. Even real world currency, while represented for example by "solid" coins and bills in many cases is still an abstraction - we apply the value that those things have and it takes someone, or many people, to retain that illusion of value. By that logic you could call someone a "fermion hugger" by seeing value in their real-world substances, except the "universe" owns the constituent information, including that of the person in the first place...if you follow my (needlessly?) philosophical metaphor.

 

We most often define value by the work and energy applied to derive something, so of course virtual items can and do have real value - and that can clearly be argued in court.

 

 

P.s. I'm "new" here, as in I haven't shown my face on the forums in several years, so hello everyone :)