| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Krios Ahzek
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
434
   |
Posted - 2012.02.01 00:32:00 -
[31] - Quote
holy **** I'm deleting my skyrim thief save
Posting time! Come on, grab your friends. We'll go to very distant lands. |
Rene Fullchest
Sigillum Militum Xpisti
Fatal Ascension
12
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 01:18:00 -
[32] - Quote
This has come up before. I am surprised that so many seem to think this is something new.
The EULA clearly states that all items IN the game belong to them, not to the players. Any money a player pays to CCP is ONLY for access to their game servers.
Given CCP's own terms of use, and despite whatever ruling some Dutch court makes, it does not apply to the vast majority of Eve players. It sets no precedents whatsoever.
As many have said, the 'crime' appears to have been a real world crime, not an in-game crime. |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
112
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 01:31:00 -
[33] - Quote
Quote:THE HAGUE - The grabbing of a virtual amulet and mask in an online computer is stolen. Virtual assets have value because much time and effort has gone to collect the goods. - Close approximation of the translation of the ruling, for your amusement.
TIIP: The Incredible Invisible Poster |
Anya Ohaya
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
90
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 01:33:00 -
[34] - Quote
Maybe they were prosecuted for robbery rather than theft.
Robbery and Theft are not quite the same thing. Robbery is taking something using force, violence, threats etc. The victim does not need to be the owner of the goods in question. If you mug a postman and steal the mail it's still considered robbery.
Edit:
From this article it seems they used a knife. They were lucky to get off with community service - in some jurisdictions aggravated robbery carries a life sentence. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration
Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
307
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 02:31:00 -
[35] - Quote
Gawwwwd. What a BS thread. In the US this might kick up several of the charges to Felonies due to accessing systems outside of the state as a component of the crime, but aside from several obvious criminal charges the attackers in that article would face, that kid would be in a very actionable position for a litany of civil suits against them. (Read: the victim would make the attackers bleed money out of their a**es for life) You don't need a special law for that.
n-b-4 troll thread moved to OOPE...
All GëíGêçGëí Ships | GëíGêçGëí - sñÜpüÅpü«sÑçsªÖpü¬péópéñpâåpâá | <-- Links to ShowInfo in-game
FX7 - No Tax... No Rules... No Problem |
Caellach Marellus
Nephtys Ventures inc
423
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 03:12:00 -
[36] - Quote
The property stolen isn't the reason for the charge here, it's the means used to procure it.
If the kid was held to ransom in game through game mechanics there's no issue.
This has now become my worst example of metagaming though, WoW's internet sabotage group from 2006 have finally been beaten.
Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
NaturalBeast
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
20
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 07:28:00 -
[37] - Quote
If we are talking about the MSNBC story, then its pretty obvious. This more about the way the items were obtained outside of game.
Quoted from the article: "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."
Frankly I am a bit surprised the kid only got 144 hours of Community service for pulling a knife. Maybe the judge wasn't a fan of Runescape.
|
Samantha Utama
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
48
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 09:09:00 -
[38] - Quote
Finally, risk vs reward for hi-sec ganking has been fixed.  |
fgft Athonille
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 12:55:00 -
[39] - Quote
being a handsome lawyer i can assure you that the violence that occured is the reason for the proceedings, not the ivrtual items |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
379
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 13:13:00 -
[40] - Quote
Not having read the article I'll guess that this is about increasing penalties for real world crimes without directly doing so. *shrugs*
We want breast augmentations and sluttier clothing in the NeX! |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
2350
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 13:19:00 -
[41] - Quote
Just wait until some court deem it illegal to kill someone in-game...
Altho don't worry, The Calm Veldspar Retirement Home can accommodate all you pirates and evildoers [:D]
/c
|
|
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin
122
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 14:07:00 -
[42] - Quote
Stealing in game items from players is part of the game and therefore cant be stealing - you are roleplaying a theif if you steal.
That and the fact the lisence agreement says that all components of the game including any and all items are the propety of CCP.
You pay to login, people dont quit and demand their DB info be Zipped up and emailed to them :P |
Serene Repose
Perkone
Caldari State
209
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 14:20:00 -
[43] - Quote
I can't believe it's actually against the law in the Netherlands to break into someone's house, tie them up, beat them up, and force them to do something against their own will. The nerve of some countries! Haven't they heard of Freedom of Mayhem? It's in our Lebbenty-Sebbenth Amendment. " Congress shall not abridge any citizen's right to wreak havok upon any fellow citizen(s)."
Smokestack lightnin' shinin' just like gold. |
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
325
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 17:30:00 -
[44] - Quote
What is interesting in this case is that the courts ruled that the virtual items had an intrinsic value to the victim. This is despite the fact that the EULA clearly states that the virtual items are owned by Jagex Games Studio. This has the potential to set precedent which overturns portions of EULAs in virtually every MMO out there.
Now for a game like EVE Online, we won't have to worry about virtual thefts being prosecuted, because virtual thefts are a part of the game itself - similar to how you can't prosecute someone for theft when they capture your queen in a game of chess.
But what this might mean is that CCP might have a certain degree of responsibility to make sure we have access to our virtual items. |
Kara Roideater
Perkone
Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 17:43:00 -
[45] - Quote
Taedrin wrote:What is interesting in this case is that the courts ruled that the virtual items had an intrinsic value to the victim. This is despite the fact that the EULA clearly states that the virtual items are owned by Jagex Games Studio. This has the potential to set precedent which overturns portions of EULAs in virtually every MMO out there.
Now for a game like EVE Online, we won't have to worry about virtual thefts being prosecuted, because virtual thefts are a part of the game itself - similar to how you can't prosecute someone for theft when they capture your queen in a game of chess.
But what this might mean is that CCP might have a certain degree of responsibility to make sure we have access to our virtual items.
It's amazing how many EULA cultists in this thread are missing this point and failing to see that the ruling does actually represent a threat to their idol. |
Wacktopia
Noir.
156
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 17:49:00 -
[46] - Quote
Saraya Velcrow wrote:according to this dutch news article click hereStealing virtual items in games is considered By the dutch supreme court real theft and thus a criminal act punishable by law. What does CCP think about this i guess a countries supreme court overrules TOS from ccp ??
I think you missed the subtlety of the 'means'...
Stealing of virtual items through game-related means (e.g an in game scam) IS NOT THEFT
Stealing of virtual items through non-game-related means (e.g hacking someone's password) IS THEFT
Quote:Suspect and co-defendant forced the victim to violence and threats of violence to login to his account in the online game Runescape and virtual objects to leave (dropping) in the virtual game environment.
From here. (NOTE: You will need to un-screw the & bits from the URL. 
Just in case any bears are creaming their knickers thinking that getting freighter-ganked is somehow illegal IRL.
Apparently we're getting censored now. |
Ronald Ray Gun
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 18:06:00 -
[47] - Quote
Deliberately misleading thread title is go! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
4746
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 18:33:00 -
[48] - Quote
Taedrin wrote:What is interesting in this case is that the courts ruled that the virtual items had an intrinsic value to the victim. This is despite the fact that the EULA clearly states that the virtual items are owned by Jagex Games Studio. This has the potential to set precedent which overturns portions of EULAs in virtually every MMO out there. Well, it could make RMT legal, for oneGǪ
Basically, the precedent set simply means that, even though the items stolen don't exist, it's still (armed?) robbery rather than simple assault. There's probably some legal tongue-twisting that can be made to retain the status quo without actually diminishing the precedent: the company still owns the virtual items as the EULA claims, but the right to access and use said items is what's being robbedGǪ or some such.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Kara Roideater
Perkone
Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 18:46:00 -
[49] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Taedrin wrote:What is interesting in this case is that the courts ruled that the virtual items had an intrinsic value to the victim. This is despite the fact that the EULA clearly states that the virtual items are owned by Jagex Games Studio. This has the potential to set precedent which overturns portions of EULAs in virtually every MMO out there. Well, it could make RMT legal, for oneGǪ Basically, the precedent set simply means that, even though the items stolen don't exist, it's still (armed?) robbery rather than simple assault. There's probably some legal tongue-twisting that can be made to retain the status quo without actually diminishing the precedent: the company still owns the virtual items as the EULA claims, but the right to access and use said items is what's being robbedGǪ or some such.
The judgement is quite explicit that the goods belong to the individual, as they have to for the relevant section of the legal code to apply. Status as a good that can be owned is apparently determined by de facto control, with the court locating ownership with the individual and not with the company that owns Runescape. But most significant is that they found virtual items to be goods with value and that the value derives from the time and effort spent acquiring them. If that analysis rolls out beyond Holland then it could cause a serious headache for all MMO companies. |
Zeomebuch Nova
Metalworks
11
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 18:54:00 -
[50] - Quote
Where is your god... ehem... your EULA now! |
Kara Roideater
Perkone
Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 18:55:00 -
[51] - Quote
Article 310 of the Criminal Code
'Any person who removes any good belonging wholly or partially to any other person with the intention of unlawfully appropriating it is guilty of theft and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding four years or a fourth category fine.'
The judgement found that a crime had been committed under this law, so a) the items are goods, b) they belonged in whole or part to the victim, c) they were unlwafully appropriated. I guess some mileage could be extracted from if it was claimed that the goods only belonged to the victim in part but nothing in the judgement summary gives any impression that the court proceeded under an assumption other than of whole ownership. |
000Hunter000
Missiles 'R' Us
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 18:56:00 -
[52] - Quote
First i LOLLED!
But then when i read it... oh brother... they beat the kid and forced him to log on and drop off his stuff so another char could take it..
Now i agree this is RL violence so it's only fair the guy got his stuff back... but now another hypothetical case...
A lil kid is threatened ingame by someone that if he doesn't eject from his ship, he will find him in RL and kill him.
Now i know most of u think, OMG just petition/ignore/kill him ingame/whatever.
But we all know some people are more vulnerable then others so i do think this could happen.
I do hope though this isn't a covert way to get ccp to ban canflipping though! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
4746
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 18:59:00 -
[53] - Quote
HmmGǪ as a point of comparison, what happens if someone, say, car-jacks a leased car (the closest real-good equivalent I could think of)?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Micheal Dietrich
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 19:06:00 -
[54] - Quote
000Hunter000 wrote:
A lil kid is threatened ingame by someone that if he doesn't eject from his ship, he will find him in RL and kill him.
Now i know most of u think, OMG just petition/ignore/kill him ingame/whatever.
RL threats in game are automatically a ban-able offense. |
000Hunter000
Missiles 'R' Us
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 19:10:00 -
[55] - Quote
I know, but if u watch newsitems and stuff, i just think depending on teh situation and person it could be possible... Even in eve...  |
Zyress
Deaths Head Brigade
Gryphon League
25
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 19:12:00 -
[56] - Quote
Pretty interesting stuff, I can see a rl assault and battery charge, but the conviction was for thievery, which was not the rl crime but the virtual crime. It does set an interesting precedent. Of course if you aren't in the Netherlands, I don't suppose it matters at all. |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
40
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 19:38:00 -
[57] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:good luck flying lawers to duschland.
luftwaffe will shoot them down if the flak doesn't get them :) |
Pak Narhoo
Knights of Kador
407
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 19:43:00 -
[58] - Quote
Since you signed the EULA before entering the game you agree that nothing in game belongs to you but CCP.
So who are you stealing from or what got stolen from who?
You have to cut the ops team some slack, trolling the player base with made up downtime estimates is the only fun they get around here.-á(CCP Nullarbor) |
Ehn Roh
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 20:21:00 -
[59] - Quote
Saraya Velcrow wrote:according to this dutch news article click hereStealing virtual items in games is considered By the dutch supreme court real theft and thus a criminal act punishable by law. What does CCP think about this i guess a countries supreme court overrules TOS from ccp ??
It's only "stealing" in real life when it's not a game mechanic and/or real life crimes are not involved (as in this case). There have been similar cases from, surprisingly, China. You're being silly and you know it. |
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
328
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 23:35:00 -
[60] - Quote
Tippia wrote:HmmGǪ as a point of comparison, what happens if someone, say, car-jacks a leased car (the closest real-good equivalent I could think of)?
I'm just an internet lawyer, but something completely different would probably happen.
1) Thief is guilty of Grand Theft Auto, the car s/he stole was not his/her own
2) "Victim" does not actually own the car, s/he is still bound by the terms of his contract to return the car to the leaser.
3) Fortunately, as part of the terms of the contract, the "victim"s insurance pays for the theft of the car. The leaser gets their car back, and the victim's insurance probably goes up because they made a claim.
I'm a little surprised that this didn't fall under the category of extortion instead of robbery. But this isn't the United States we're talking about, so who knows. If it was extortion, then the implied ownership of virtual property would be a non-issue, since extortion (in the US at least) only requires that the victim be coerced into performing some sort of unpleasant action. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |