| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Daisai
Taurus Quantum Technologies
Taurus Quantum Dynamics
10
   |
Posted - 2012.02.01 10:42:00 -
[1] - Quote
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/31/online-game-theft-earns-real-world-conviction
The url is just a random page i found googling about that news.
However its kinda funny that they were arrested for stealing in game items, that this theft was done with real life only increased the punishment.
I wonder if something like this would ever have any effect on a game like eve online.
Also the reason im posting it here is pretty obvious since this is the place to talk about in game crimes. |
Sutskop
PILSGESCHWADER
Monkey Circus
39
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 10:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
The point here is not stealing ingame items but the real life threats imho.
/edit: CCPs opinion about this is pretty clear. Nothing belongs to you, everything belongs to them, so you cannot get stolen what is not yours. |
Daisai
Taurus Quantum Technologies
Taurus Quantum Dynamics
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 10:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sutskop wrote:The point here is not stealing ingame items but the real life threats imho.
No they were convicted for stealing.
The fact that they used physical force and threats added on the punishment they got. |
Esha Ditrix
It Burns When I Right Click Orbit
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 11:01:00 -
[4] - Quote
Intresting read.
Considering they actually beat and threatened the poor kid in RL, the argument about the RL value of the items is not really relevant, except for measuring the length of the sentence.(assault with a deadly weapon is still a crime as far as i know, theft or no theft ?)
But seriously, how desperate would u have to be, to actually pull a knife on someone to get some pixels, lols...
Its not an exploit, if the game lets you do it... |
Lady Spank
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
1391
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 11:05:00 -
[5] - Quote
There is a thread in eve gen about this already.
The only reason that went to the courts is because of physical attack.
(a¦á_a¦â) ~ http://getoutnastyface.blogspot.com/ ~ (a¦á_a¦â) |
Dowla Daupor
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 11:15:00 -
[6] - Quote
Somebody sounds worried . . .
|
Daisai
Taurus Quantum Technologies
Taurus Quantum Dynamics
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 11:17:00 -
[7] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote:There is a thread in eve gen about this already.
The only reason that went to the courts is because of physical attack.
As you can read in this article and others which are more detailed the defense claimed that the charges of theft had no grounds because they claimed virtual items can not be considered gooods you can steal.
The reason why appealed to the highest court is not because of the threaths its because of the charges of theft.
|
Daisai
Taurus Quantum Technologies
Taurus Quantum Dynamics
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 11:46:00 -
[8] - Quote
Here is a link of the verdict.
http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie/Hoge-Raad/Nieuws/Pages/Taking-virtual-amulet-and-mask-in-RuneScapegame-is-theft.aspx |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
558
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 12:06:00 -
[9] - Quote
Kids shouldnt be allowed to play PC games  |
Ubiquitous Forum Alt
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 13:10:00 -
[10] - Quote
Daisai wrote:Lady Spank wrote:There is a thread in eve gen about this already.
The only reason that went to the courts is because of physical attack. As you can read in this article and others which are more detailed the defense claimed that the charges of theft had no grounds because they claimed virtual items can not be considered gooods you can steal. The reason why appealed to the highest court is not because of the threaths its because of the charges of theft.
You do know that "appealed" is a term for the DEFENSE trying to OVERTURN the decision of a lesser court right? NOT the term for someone BEGINNING legal proceedings.....
The case WENT TO court because of the physical, RL attack. If the prosecution somehow FAILS to obtain a lasting conviction it will be because they tried to throw the stupid theft charge in ON TOP of the clearly valid crime.
I don't log in - I don't need to.
My very existence griefs people.
They see my name, and they instinctively fill with rage and indignation.
Deny it all you want - but if you didn't care, you wouldn't have posted, would you? |
seany1212
eXceed Inc.
No Holes Barred
77
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 13:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
It is because they took him round the kids house and threatened him with knives in order to transfer the item, there's a big difference between joining a virtual corporation and taking stuff with no real life human presence and going round someone's house and forcing someone to hand something over, those of you thinking its relating to direct virtual theft are ********, if they had of hacked the kids account no court action would have been taken, its the fact that they went round someone's house to do it
EDIT: if anything a kidnap charge should have been thrown in there too |
Ubiquitous Forum Alt
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 13:49:00 -
[12] - Quote
seany1212 wrote:It is because they took him round the kids house and threatened him with knives in order to transfer the item, there's a big difference between joining a virtual corporation and taking stuff with no real life human presence and going round someone's house and forcing someone to hand something over, those of you thinking its relating to direct virtual theft are ********, if they had of hacked the kids account no court action would have been taken, its the fact that they went round someone's house to do it EDIT: if anything a kidnap charge should have been thrown in there too
Theft aside, if you could prove who hacked the account I do believe hacking itself is a crime in most countries......
I don't log in - I don't need to.
My very existence griefs people.
They see my name, and they instinctively fill with rage and indignation.
Deny it all you want - but if you didn't care, you wouldn't have posted, would you? |
Jokus Balim
Capital Destruction
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 13:51:00 -
[13] - Quote
Daisai wrote:As you can read in this article and others which are more detailed the defense claimed that the charges of theft had no grounds because they claimed virtual items can not be considered gooods you can steal.
The reason why appealed to the highest court is not because of the threaths its because of the charges of theft.
But the court reasons that the verdict is actually theft for three reasons, one of them is this:
Quote:- the rules of RuneScape do not cover obtaining objects in the manner that occurred in this case: the objects were taken from the victim outside the context of the game itself.
Extract from the judgement 3.5
It would not have been theft if they had used ways to obtain the items which are within the game. So it's pretty important
|
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
175
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 13:54:00 -
[14] - Quote
This case would only apply to other in-game thefts as long as physical force was used to actually commit the crime, from the look of it.
If the judge were to apply the same thing to something like Eve Online where in-game theft is prevalent (along with scams, ganks, pod killings, market manipulation, all-out war, etc.), then the case will only hold if the victim was physically forced to give up his/her in-game possessions. If no physical force was used, then perhaps hacking could be grounds for theft, but even that brings more questions such as how the hack was committed (I won't go into further detail).
If neither physical force nor hacking was committed, then there is no case in my opinion. In Eve Online, we all make it very clear that you WILL lose your possessions either through corp theft, ganks, can-flip baiting, wars, etc. (all of which are perfectly legal in the game). If you didn't get that message during your first week on Eve (be it through NPC corp chat, forums, fan sites, etc.), then don't come crying to the RL local police when your internet spaceship goes boom or when your in-game CEO ditched the corp with some of your assets. |
Tommy Shanks
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 14:57:00 -
[15] - Quote
That's not ingame stealing anymore than physically punching a dude in the face while the two of you are playing mortal combat is ingame assault. |
Daisai
Taurus Quantum Technologies
Taurus Quantum Dynamics
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 16:21:00 -
[16] - Quote
Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:Daisai wrote:Lady Spank wrote:There is a thread in eve gen about this already.
The only reason that went to the courts is because of physical attack. As you can read in this article and others which are more detailed the defense claimed that the charges of theft had no grounds because they claimed virtual items can not be considered gooods you can steal. The reason why appealed to the highest court is not because of the threaths its because of the charges of theft. You do know that "appealed" is a term for the DEFENSE trying to OVERTURN the decision of a lesser court right? NOT the term for someone BEGINNING legal proceedings..... The case WENT TO court because of the physical, RL attack. If the prosecution somehow FAILS to obtain a lasting conviction it will be because they tried to throw the stupid theft charge in ON TOP of the clearly valid crime.
Read the link i posted.
Summary of judgment
Taking a virtual amulet and mask from another player in the RuneScape game environment amounts to theft in this case.
Consequence of the judgment
The defendantGÇÖs conviction is now final. Because the reasonable time requirement was exceeded, the Supreme Court reduced the alternative sanction to 144 hoursGÇÖ community service. |
Ubiquitous Forum Alt
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 16:24:00 -
[17] - Quote
Daisai wrote:Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:Daisai wrote:Lady Spank wrote:There is a thread in eve gen about this already.
The only reason that went to the courts is because of physical attack. As you can read in this article and others which are more detailed the defense claimed that the charges of theft had no grounds because they claimed virtual items can not be considered gooods you can steal. The reason why appealed to the highest court is not because of the threaths its because of the charges of theft. You do know that "appealed" is a term for the DEFENSE trying to OVERTURN the decision of a lesser court right? NOT the term for someone BEGINNING legal proceedings..... The case WENT TO court because of the physical, RL attack. If the prosecution somehow FAILS to obtain a lasting conviction it will be because they tried to throw the stupid theft charge in ON TOP of the clearly valid crime. Read the link i posted. Summary of judgment Taking a virtual amulet and mask from another player in the RuneScape game environment amounts to theft in this case. Consequence of the judgment The defendantGÇÖs conviction is now final. Because the reasonable time requirement was exceeded, the Supreme Court reduced the alternative sanction to 144 hoursGÇÖ community service.
Yeah, ok, so it held up DESPITE their focus on THE WRONG POINT.
Nonetheless, read my post, it WENT TO COURT because of the physical attacks, without those it would have been thrown out. And you STILL don't seem to understand the definition of an "appeal"
I don't log in - I don't need to.
My very existence griefs people.
They see my name, and they instinctively fill with rage and indignation.
Deny it all you want - but if you didn't care, you wouldn't have posted, would you? |
Daisai
Taurus Quantum Technologies
Taurus Quantum Dynamics
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 16:41:00 -
[18] - Quote
You clearly havent really been reading much.
Yes without the attacks on him it probably never would have been brought to court.
Only he was convicted for THEFT with assault, which they went to the supreme court for because they claimed stealing ingame items isnt theft.
Btw here is the case from 2008 where they were convicted.
http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/resultpage.aspx?snelzoeken=true&searchtype=ljn&ljn=BG0939&u_ljn=BG0939 |
seany1212
eXceed Inc.
No Holes Barred
77
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 16:42:00 -
[19] - Quote
Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:Daisai wrote:Ubiquitous Forum Alt wrote:Daisai wrote:Lady Spank wrote:There is a thread in eve gen about this already.
The only reason that went to the courts is because of physical attack. As you can read in this article and others which are more detailed the defense claimed that the charges of theft had no grounds because they claimed virtual items can not be considered gooods you can steal. The reason why appealed to the highest court is not because of the threaths its because of the charges of theft. You do know that "appealed" is a term for the DEFENSE trying to OVERTURN the decision of a lesser court right? NOT the term for someone BEGINNING legal proceedings..... The case WENT TO court because of the physical, RL attack. If the prosecution somehow FAILS to obtain a lasting conviction it will be because they tried to throw the stupid theft charge in ON TOP of the clearly valid crime. Read the link i posted. Summary of judgment Taking a virtual amulet and mask from another player in the RuneScape game environment amounts to theft in this case. Consequence of the judgment The defendantGÇÖs conviction is now final. Because the reasonable time requirement was exceeded, the Supreme Court reduced the alternative sanction to 144 hoursGÇÖ community service. Yeah, ok, so it held up DESPITE their focus on THE WRONG POINT. Nonetheless, read my post, it WENT TO COURT because of the physical attacks, without those it would have been thrown out. And you STILL don't seem to understand the definition of an "appeal"
This, the end write-up was focusing on the wrong point, the judge would have seen it as physical threats in order for the theft to occur regardless of whether it was to do with an ingame item or not.
Stealing in-game items out-of-game is not the same as stealing in-game items in-game , OP does not see this and seems to aim it at the thieves in C&P, this is not Out Of Pod Discussion, biomass please along with the rest of your crying posts:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=search&postedby=Daisai
|
Daisai
Taurus Quantum Technologies
Taurus Quantum Dynamics
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 16:49:00 -
[20] - Quote
Seems reading is difficult for you.
Quote:Stealing in-game items out-of-game is not the same as stealing in-game items in-game
The whole point of this case is that now it is considered theft.
|
seany1212
eXceed Inc.
No Holes Barred
77
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 16:53:00 -
[21] - Quote
Daisai wrote:Seems reading is difficult for you. Quote:Stealing in-game items out-of-game is not the same as stealing in-game items in-game The whole point of this case is that now it is considered theft.
Says the person who did not read the part where it said "In this case" |
Daisai
Taurus Quantum Technologies
Taurus Quantum Dynamics
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 16:54:00 -
[22] - Quote
seany1212 wrote:Daisai wrote:Seems reading is difficult for you. Quote:Stealing in-game items out-of-game is not the same as stealing in-game items in-game The whole point of this case is that now it is considered theft. Says the person who did not read the part where it said "In this case"
the "in this case" applies to the naming of the 2 items. |
seany1212
eXceed Inc.
No Holes Barred
77
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 16:57:00 -
[23] - Quote
Daisai wrote:seany1212 wrote:Daisai wrote:Seems reading is difficult for you. Quote:Stealing in-game items out-of-game is not the same as stealing in-game items in-game The whole point of this case is that now it is considered theft. Says the person who did not read the part where it said "In this case" the "in this case" applies to the naming of the 2 items.
No it relates to the charge of theft, please please please try to take someone to court that steals your in-game items in-games because i'd love to see you go broke trying to put together an actual case |
Daisai
Taurus Quantum Technologies
Taurus Quantum Dynamics
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 16:59:00 -
[24] - Quote
seany1212 wrote:Daisai wrote:seany1212 wrote:Daisai wrote:Seems reading is difficult for you. Quote:Stealing in-game items out-of-game is not the same as stealing in-game items in-game The whole point of this case is that now it is considered theft. Says the person who did not read the part where it said "In this case" the "in this case" applies to the naming of the 2 items. No it relates to the charge of theft, please please please try to take someone to court that steals your in-game items in-games because i'd love to see you go broke trying to put together an actual case
Go explain then to all those websites that posted this article that they are all wrong and you are right.
Please do me a favor like that.
|
seany1212
eXceed Inc.
No Holes Barred
77
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 17:04:00 -
[25] - Quote
Daisai wrote:
Go explain then to all those websites that posted this article that they are all wrong and you are right.
Please do me a favor like that.
Just because you probably didnt read it all and i've made you look stupid enough:
http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie/Hoge-Raad/Nieuws/Pages/Taking-virtual-amulet-and-mask-in-RuneScapegame-is-theft.aspx
Judgement of the Supreme court paragraph
"Within the game environment the victim had exclusive de facto control over the objects in question. He lost that control as a result of the actions of the defendant and his co-accused.
The Supreme Court concluded that these actions amounted to theft." |
Daisai
Taurus Quantum Technologies
Taurus Quantum Dynamics
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 17:12:00 -
[26] - Quote
seany1212 wrote:Daisai wrote:
Go explain then to all those websites that posted this article that they are all wrong and you are right.
Please do me a favor like that.
Just because you probably didnt read it all and i've made you look stupid enough: http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie/Hoge-Raad/Nieuws/Pages/Taking-virtual-amulet-and-mask-in-RuneScapegame-is-theft.aspxJudgement of the Supreme court paragraph "Within the game environment the victim had exclusive de facto control over the objects in question. He lost that control as a result of the actions of the defendant and his co-accused. The Supreme Court concluded that these actions amounted to theft."
seany1212 wrote:Stealing in-game items out-of-game is not the same as stealing in-game items in-game
Now read 1 more time.
Try it , i know you can.
|
seany1212
eXceed Inc.
No Holes Barred
77
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 17:16:00 -
[27] - Quote
Daisai wrote:seany1212 wrote:Daisai wrote:
Go explain then to all those websites that posted this article that they are all wrong and you are right.
Please do me a favor like that.
Just because you probably didnt read it all and i've made you look stupid enough: http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie/Hoge-Raad/Nieuws/Pages/Taking-virtual-amulet-and-mask-in-RuneScapegame-is-theft.aspxJudgement of the Supreme court paragraph "Within the game environment the victim had exclusive de facto control over the objects in question. He lost that control as a result of the actions of the defendant and his co-accused. The Supreme Court concluded that these actions amounted to theft." seany1212 wrote:Stealing in-game items out-of-game is not the same as stealing in-game items in-game Now read 1 more time. Try it , i know you can.
Everybody in this thread has grasped the purpose of that case but you, I'm actually becoming less intelligent just conversing with you, and I thought my intelligence was pretty low |
Lysaeus
Lead Farmers
Kill It With Fire
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 17:18:00 -
[28] - Quote
Have fun trying to get everyone in Jita local convicted of fraud. |
Daisai
Taurus Quantum Technologies
Taurus Quantum Dynamics
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 17:24:00 -
[29] - Quote
seany1212 wrote:Daisai wrote:seany1212 wrote:Daisai wrote:
Go explain then to all those websites that posted this article that they are all wrong and you are right.
Please do me a favor like that.
Just because you probably didnt read it all and i've made you look stupid enough: http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie/Hoge-Raad/Nieuws/Pages/Taking-virtual-amulet-and-mask-in-RuneScapegame-is-theft.aspxJudgement of the Supreme court paragraph "Within the game environment the victim had exclusive de facto control over the objects in question. He lost that control as a result of the actions of the defendant and his co-accused. The Supreme Court concluded that these actions amounted to theft." seany1212 wrote:Stealing in-game items out-of-game is not the same as stealing in-game items in-game Now read 1 more time. Try it , i know you can. Everybody in this thread has grasped the purpose of that case but you, I'm actually becoming less intelligent just conversing with you, and I thought my intelligence was pretty low
That your a moron is pretty clear yes.
Let me explain it one more time for you.
http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/resultpage.aspx?snelzoeken=true&searchtype=ljn&ljn=BG0939&u_ljn=BG0939
"Het bestanddeel 'goed' als bedoeld in artikel 310 van het Wetboek van Strafrecht
De officier van justitie heeft - kort gezegd - ter zitting aangevoerd dat de virtuele amulet en het virtueel masker goederen zijn die onder het bestanddeel 'goed' als bedoeld in artikel 310 van het Wetboek van Strafrecht vallen en de raadsman heeft ter zitting het tegenovergestelde bepleit. "
If you cant translate that or understand that explains pretty much why you still dont get it.
"Er is een aantal criteria waaraan moet worden voldaan, wil er sprake zijn van een goed in de zin van genoemd artikel.
Allereerst is van belang of een goed voor de bezitter ervan waarde heeft. Deze waarde hoeft niet in geld uitgedrukt te kunnen worden. "
If you keep reading after that you basicly might perhapse understand it.
|
Ronald Ray Gun
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 17:31:00 -
[30] - Quote
I think the OP is deliberately missing the point to sensationalise the linked article. This also has zero implications for theft in Eve. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |