Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Dutch Court Punishes Theft of Virtual Property

Posted by timothy on Thu Oct 23, 2008 04:04 PM
from the pick-a-fight-your-first-day-with-the-toughest-avatar dept.
tsa writes "Last week, the Dutch court subjected two kids of ages 15 and 14 to 160 hours of unpaid work or 80 days in jail, because they stole virtual property from a 13-year-old boy. The boy was kicked and beaten and threatened with a knife while forced to log into Runescape and giving his assets to the two perpetrators. This ruling is the first of its kind for the Netherlands. Ars Technica has some more background information." In Japan, meanwhile, a woman has been arrested for "illegally accessing a computer and manipulating electronic data" after (virtually) killing her (virtual) husband.
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by VeNoM0619 (1058216) on Thursday October 23 2008, @04:06PM (#25488395) Journal
    It's funny and sad...how imaginary pixels can run people's lives to do horrible things in a physical world.
    • by Waste55 (1003084) on Thursday October 23 2008, @04:19PM (#25488683)

      It's funny and sad...how imaginary pixels can run people's lives to do horrible things in a physical world.

      Imaginary?! What are these tiny dots I keep starting at while I type?! Someone must have slipped something into my drink! ;)

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        The parent must have suggested we stick to a one dimensional arrangement of pixels where there is no such thing as an imaginary dimension. Just like you should only use good old fashioned real numbers, everything else is just sinister.

    • by TeacherOfHeroes (892498) on Thursday October 23 2008, @04:29PM (#25488903)

      Its not as if real money is any more tangible when its sitting in a bank account.

      Are things like wow gold really anything more than the electronic equivalent of gift certificates nowadays or banks that printed their own bank notes way back when? Surely the theft of either of those would be taken seriously - I don't see why this should be any different.

      • by Pikiwedia.net (1392595) on Thursday October 23 2008, @04:58PM (#25489357) Homepage
        I'm in big trouble! I've commited murder in numerous games, used weapons of mass destruction in civilization.
      • by vux984 (928602) on Thursday October 23 2008, @05:44PM (#25490069)

        Its not as if real money is any more tangible when its sitting in a bank account.

        Good point.

        Are things like wow gold really anything more than the electronic equivalent of gift certificates nowadays or banks that printed their own bank notes way back when?

        Not "more". LESS.

        Surely the theft of either of those would be taken seriously - I don't see why this should be any different.

        Because you don't "own" your WoW account. Its not your "property" to start with. You are paying Blizzard for access to THEIR GAME. And according them, everything in your account is THEIRs.

        So if blizzard decides X is too powerful or valuable or whatever they can, at their option, simply remove them from the game, or substitute another item, or change the parameters of the item, etc, etc. And you can't say squat. They can also simply 'ban' you.

        The same simply isn't true of your bank account. Your bank can't just decide you aren't a customer, and close your account. Transfering your funds to another account, or perhaps even just "deleting" them.

        So while we EXPECT the contents of our bank account to be treated as real property. We don't really expect the contents of our WoW account to be held to the same legal standard. And I'm not sure we WANT to.

        If Blizz catches you cheating, and bans you, should you be allowed to sue them for "damages"?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          In that case, perhaps we don't make "theft" of online property a crime, but we allow people to sue in tort for it. Tort has always been the great, equitable equalizer throughout history. Why not permit a suit to be filed in this case, too?

          Be careful of slippery slope arguments here. I saw someone above say that treating WoW gold as real could lead to treating avatars as real people. Sure, it could conceivably lead to that result. However, consider this:

          Coveting your neighbor's wife is not illegal. However,

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Can you give me a good reason why you shouldn't be able to? Don't give me the hogwash about "it's their world." Without a license provision, estoppel should give you the right to sue them. The elements of estoppel are:

            1. Defendant induced an expectation on the part of the Plaintiff
            2. Plaintiff relied on the expectation
            3. Were the expectation false, the Plaintiff would be harmed

            It seems to me that in this case, absent a license/contract provis

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Message from the netherlands, and this has been in the news for a couple of days over here as well.
          The i aint going into whether or legal system is good, if our priorities are screwed up, whether our sentences are too high or too low, but just a little feedback from the dutch sources.
          please dont hold me for not using the proper words for everything, i will try to explain this as good as I can.
          The sentence the 2 boys got was for stealing property with violence.
          The motivation of the judge was that like with r

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          It seems to me that if someone has given you their username and password, then you implicitly are entrusted with the authority to login and do the things that person can do. Including things like routine maintenance; creation and deletion of avatars.

          Deleting someone's avatar when they don't want it to be done may be despicable, but if they gave the credentials, and failed to explicitly revoke the authorization, it seems the person's access was authorized...

          C++ programmers (MMORPG programmers) will now

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            So if i beat the crap out of you till you *give* me your PIN number, I then have permission to take the money?

            FTA, beatings were involved.
        • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Thursday October 23 2008, @08:30PM (#25491925)
          Well, I didn't read the FA, but it sounds like this is probably more about the fact that these two assholes beat and robbed another boy. Even minus the theft, they'd still have been in trouble for assaulting someone, and virtual or not, they took that which did not belong to them.

          It's a bit of a stretch to say, well, it should be taxed because a couple of bullies got charged with stealing it. And the actual crime here occurred in meatspace, not in the virtual environment.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              Most countries have (often quite recently) added hacker paragraphs to their criminal law which make deletion, manipulation or even plain access to somebody else's (private) data against their will an offense. Even if he gave her the password, he didn't want her to access his account anymore. Yes, it was stupid not to change the password (just like it is stupid to break up with a girlfriend and tell her to simply leave the key to your apartment you gave her in the mail box) - but stupidity is not a crime nor
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              So... if you break up with someone and they use the house key you forgot you gave them the time that you needed them to water your plants to break in and cut the crotch out of all your clothes and pour bleach in all your plant pots you'd be fine with that. Cos' you know, you gave them that key - so you gave them implicit permission to leave a fresh steming turd under your pillow...
              The guy in this story forgot 1 basic rule - if you break up with someone, no matter how amicable it is, change _all_ your passw
        • by Vastad (1299101) on Friday October 24 2008, @12:44AM (#25494149)

          What do you mean no presence? And why would you focus on the virtual goods or currency itself? Why ignore the context?

          Would you tell thousands of players of MMOs that their sense of fair play is misguided because players that use gold farming services and items bought with "real" currency don't have a "presence" in the real world?

          What about how these gold farming services are provided? Does anyone actually know how its done? How do we know there isn't some sort of sweatshop set-up in some neighbourhood in Guangdong where the "farmers" toil at a desk with no worker's rights and no health plans of any sort and being paid a pitiful percentage of what's charged?

          real money can buy real things

          What does "real money" represent? It's a unit representation of our time and labour which we then exchange for goods and services. So just what do you think people going to gold farming services are buying? They are paying for time and labour of course! Just so they don't have to invest their own. How is the time and labour invested to get that certain mount or special weapon in an MMO "not real" in meatspace? Isn't it obvious why honest players are in uproar and how some brat teen doesn't want to work that hard?

          As VoidCrow says, if you have a huge surplus of virtual currency, you can sell it for real currency. I'd say that qualifies for presence beyond the game itself. If it didn't, gold farming services wouldn't be profitable. I don't understand why you were modded up at all.

    • by Simonetta (207550) on Thursday October 23 2008, @05:03PM (#25489445)

      I've come to trust the Dutch as a serious and civilized people, so I suspect that it more the kicking, beating, and menacing with a knife that got these bozos punished; not the 'theft of imaginary pixels'.

    • by lysergic.acid (845423) on Thursday October 23 2008, @06:00PM (#25490275) Homepage

      The boy was kicked and beaten and threatened with a knife while forced to log into Runescape and giving his assets to the two perpetrators.

      so the kid was physically assaulted with a deadly weapon, but the court decided to charge the perpetrators for stealing the victim's Runescape items? is it just me or are the court's priorities just a little screwed up?

      i'd much rather lose some virtual money/items than get stabbed or beat up. christ, the company that runs Runescape can just restore the the items back to the kid who was robbed. heck, they could just create new items to give to him. it's not like it costs them anything to make those items.

        • by lysergic.acid (845423) on Thursday October 23 2008, @06:32PM (#25490699) Homepage

          i think that shows how skewed our culture's value system is.

          it's considered worse for a teenage computer geek to hack into a business network our of curiosity, unintentionally impeding commerce for a few days (which the company analysts will claim has cost tends of millions of dollars in damages), than it is for someone to rape or murder another person. the legal punishment for non-malicious curiosity-motivated computer crimes are far worse than the sentences given to violent offenders.

          this seems completely unbalanced to me. do most people really think non-malicious computer crimes (i'm not talking about spamming, spreading viruses, DDoS, etc.) are worse than things like rape/murder/assault/etc? it also seems like the courts treat financial damages to the corporate sector far more severely than murder & rape, the victims of which are usually the poor. what do other think about the relative severity of these different types of crimes?

      • by A Pancake (1147663) on Thursday October 23 2008, @05:30PM (#25489875)

        How did this get modded insightful?

        For the most part religious people are brought up to believe their specific religion.

        There is a rather large difference between being raised and indoctrinated to believe something all your life compared to taking a video game seriously.Even the most fanatic 14 year old still knows what he's playing is not real and deep down may know it doesn't matter.

        This has nothing to do with virtual property and everythign to do with some brat teen having a sense of entitlement that preceeds his understanding of consequences.

        The decision wasn't likely "Hey, this is so important to me personally that I need to use violence to achieve this goal" but more likely "Our whole group of friends plays Runescape and if we do this we can be the best and everyone will love us." The only thing virutal property or virtual worlds would have played into it is that the perps may have expected to get off easy if caught because no real property was stolen.

  • by GaryPatterson (852699) on Thursday October 23 2008, @04:07PM (#25488423)

    Surely the first case would have revolved around the attack by the two boys, using the knife, threats and all that. I mean, that's a pretty straightforward criminal act right there without going further to look at the proceeds of crime (data).

    I know, read the article, read the article. It's early, and I'm skimming headlines.

    • by Artraze (600366) on Thursday October 23 2008, @04:14PM (#25488565)

      I think the point is that the theft counted as part of the offense. In other words, rather than being viewed as assault, it was viewed as a mugging.

    • by AlXtreme (223728) on Thursday October 23 2008, @04:18PM (#25488677) Homepage Journal

      Surely the first case would have revolved around the attack by the two boys, using the knife, threats and all that. I mean, that's a pretty straightforward criminal act right there without going further to look at the proceeds of crime (data).

      They were also charged for the violence, conditional jail-time of 1 and 2 months. Source [www.nu.nl] for the dutchies.

    • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Thursday October 23 2008, @04:22PM (#25488751)

      It does seem odd. To make that fair the judge should have
      the bailiff beat the attackers with a night stick
      and then sentence them to a virtual jail.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      I agree totally. In the article, not *once* they mention if there would be charges or sentence for the violence. It's obviously bad enough that this kids stole something (vritual or not), but I would think that the important part was the violent one.

      Does anyone know how many kids are bullied in schools everywhere by someone, so they can get their epic ultra-leet items? and getting away with it?

      I have no idea about the latter, but it's sure as hell not anywhere near 0%. So stealing virtual items it's
    • by anomnomnomymous (1321267) on Thursday October 23 2008, @04:30PM (#25488919)
      The question was wether the virtual asset could be considered as a 'real' asset: And thus robbery could be charged.
  • Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) on Thursday October 23 2008, @04:07PM (#25488427) Homepage

    Last week, the Dutch court subjected two kids of ages 15 and 14 to 160 hours of unpaid work or 80 days in jail, because they stole virtual property from a 13-year-old boy. The boy was kicked and beaten and threatened with a knife while forced to log into Runescape and giving his assets to the two perpetrators

    Uh, so it was about virtual property and not about, uh, anything else?

    • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)

      by borizz (1023175) on Thursday October 23 2008, @04:47PM (#25489199)
      On the radio, they quoted the judge as saying that virtual property gives joy, you've worked to earn it and in this case, if one person has it another can't have it (well, the admins could easily clone it, but that's beside the point). So in essence, they said it's a lot like real tangible property.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            Under this new Dutch ruling, I don't know. I hope they'll make an exception for when the game mechanics allow you to. In the Dutch case, the steal was not done by any programmed means for stealing, but just by putting a knife to someones body part and force them to use in-game give or drop. However, I'm not sure. We certainly have our share of I-don't-understand-the-internet-and-computers, Ted Stevens style judges.
  • wtf? (Score:5, Funny)

    by easyTree (1042254) on Thursday October 23 2008, @04:08PM (#25488433)

    They kicked/beat/threatened him with a kife and the most important crime was IP-theft. wtf. Did I mention 'wtf' ?

    • Indeed wtf. Courts should have only punished the kids for the violence part. Makes you wonder whats the dutch will do when D3 scammers trick 13 year old kids into dropping items.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        I'm not sure whether the Dutch also charged the kids with assault, but I think the focus of the story, which has appeared in a couple other places on the net, is repeatedly that the judge made a point to allow the prosecution to push a theft charge for the virtual goods. I too am perplexed however that the bigger focus is on stealing the pixels and not beating the kid up and threatening him with a lethal weapon. But I guess it's the former that is newsworthy because it's setting a precident - there's noth

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        My knowledge about the justice system isn't great but at least I know that there is a difference between assault and robbery ... In germany you can get away with 6 month for assault but can expect a minimum sentence of 1 years for robbery.
  • Theft is theft (Score:4, Insightful)

    by clarkkent09 (1104833) * on Thursday October 23 2008, @04:08PM (#25488439)
    This ruling is the first of its kind for the Netherlands

    I doubt that. I'm sure there were other cases of teenagers being convicted for stealing something in the Netherlands. It was something of value, otherwise they wouldn't have wanted it so badly, and the victim was deprived of it. Obviously, there is the issue of beating and threatening with a knife, but even if that wasn't the case it wouldn't be any less of a theft than if they stole some physical object. Can someone tell me what is the complicated issue that tfa is talking about? Seems pretty straightforward to me.
      • Re:Theft is theft (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LandDolphin (1202876) on Thursday October 23 2008, @04:45PM (#25489167)
        "How do you steal an item that doesn't really exist (a.k.a. virtual)?"

        So, if I take your Credit card and charge it up, I did not steal anything because the physical money never exsisted?

        Or how about MP3's? Do those have any value? There as virtual as anything in a game is. Just 1's and 0's like the items in a game and the money on your credit cards.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I know I'll be taking an unpopular stance on Slashdot in saying this, but I think it needs to be said (not to say I'm correct, but rather that it's another view point).

        I don't believe in imaginary property, but I do believe in virtual property. The distinction is, imaginary property is infinitely reproducible, like an mp3 file. When you can sell the infinitely reproducible, you have a license to print money. It probably would have much larger implications for the economy if all movies and music were sudd

  • sent anyone to jail for Assault and battery?
    I find that..odd.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      We have, but that's not news-worthy. The stealing virtual goods (regardless of how I feel about it) is the new part that is being reported.
  • by LithiumX (717017) on Thursday October 23 2008, @04:08PM (#25488451)
    Erm... while I'm not too horribly offended over the theft of virtual (game) property, the fact that it was a matter of Aggravated Assault is a totally different matter.

    Wait, the knife and beating happened in the real world, right?
  • by Emb3rz (1210286) on Thursday October 23 2008, @04:10PM (#25488477) Homepage

    "Gimme loots or I PK u IRL lol"

  • Digital crime? (Score:5, Informative)

    by psychicninja (1150351) on Thursday October 23 2008, @04:11PM (#25488521)
    The Japanese lady was actually charged for fraudulently accessing the guy's account, not for what she did after logging in.
  • from T2ndFA:

    The woman, who is jailed on suspicion of illegally accessing a computer and manipulating electronic data, used his identification...

    So even the real-life woman playing as the virtual woman is a man? My head is spinning.
  • by J.R. Random (801334) on Thursday October 23 2008, @04:19PM (#25488689)
    If those punks had kicked, beaten and threatened that boy with a knife inside the virtual world of Runescape instead of of because of Runescape it would have been perfectly legal and they'd have gotten his stuff from his corpse and leveled up. Some punks have no common sense.
  • by MWoody (222806) on Thursday October 23 2008, @04:21PM (#25488729) Homepage

    The second link is getting passed around as the Japanese woman "killing" her husband, which (rightly so) sounds ludicrous to most gamers. In reality, she logged into his account and deleted all of his characters and information, an act that is certainly worthy of some sort of punishment. Whether or not it needs to be brought to the attention of real world police is arguable, but quit making it sound like she's guilty of PvP.

  • by RevWaldo (1186281) on Thursday October 23 2008, @06:04PM (#25490345)
    Thus spake Wikipedia -

    Ooka Tadasuke (1677 - 1752) was a Japanese samurai in the service of the Tokugawa shogunate. During the reign of Tokugawa Yoshimune, as a magistrate (machi bugyo) of Edo, his roles included chief of police, judge and jury, and Yamada Magistrate (Yamada-bugyo) prior to his tenure as South Magistrate (Minami Machi-bugyo) of Edo. With the title Echizen no Kami (Governor of Echizen or Lord of the Echizen), he is often known as Ooka Echizen. He was highly respected as an incorruptible judge. In addition, he established the first fire brigade made up of commoners, and the Koishikawa Yojosho (a city hospital). Later, he advanced to the position of jisha bugyo, and subsequently became daimyo of the Nishi-Ohira Domain.

    One of the most famous stories is called "The Case of the Stolen Smell" where he heard the case of a paranoid innkeeper who accused a poor student of literally stealing the fumes of his cooking by eating when the innkeeper was cooking to flavour his dull food. Although his colleagues advised Ooka to throw the case out as ridiculous, he decided to hear the case. The judge resolved the matter by ordering the student to pass the money he had in one hand to his other and ruling that the price of the smell of food is the sound of money.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      in Soviet Russia virtual property steals you!

      That explains the botnets, then!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The only thing sillier is the article itself. The story about the Japanese woman never actually says that she deleted her online "husband's" character, it repeatedly refers to the act as "killing" the avatar. Using the English language in that way should be punishable by a reading by William McGonagall.

      • You know that's a really good point. Does anyone know if this kind of thing has been tested in a US court yet? I'd very much like to know how this sort of reference (killing rather than deleting, stealing rather than moving/copying, etc) would stand up under litigation, or whether it would be able to be used at all. (or whether it would actually be encouraged)