Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 17:08:00 -
[1]
How about forgetting about the media and looking at the actual verdict?
They were convicted solely for the theft of the items, which the court deems equal as real life goods, and they were deemed innocent of the assault and violence.
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 22/10/2008 16:58:28
Originally by: Marchocias Just to recap - this basically hasn't got anything to do with online virtual property, and is an issue to do with coercion at knifepoint.
Actually that did not have anything to do with it, under Dutch law any virtual goods that have value in one way or another are treated as real-life property.
http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Gerechten/Rechtbanken/Leeuwarden/Actualiteiten/Veroordeling+voor+diefstal+van+virtuele+goederen+uit+het+online+computerspel+RuneScape.htm
That last part is roughly translated as:
"The stolen goods consist of a virtual amulet and a virtual mask. According to the court, these virtual goods are goods as stated in article 310, thus making the offence actual theft."
From verdict:
"Article 310 has the purpose to protect civilian property. This should be kept in mind when questioning if virtual goods are goods as mentioned in the article. There are several criteria which must be met. First it is important that the good has value for the owner. This value does not have to be expressed in money.
In the current society, virtual goods from the game RuneScape are deemed important. For large amounts of online gamers these goods have value. The more virtual items a players has, the stronger he is in the game. In addition, these virtual items are traded for real life money, on the internet and on the schoolyard.
In this case, both the mask and the amulet have value for the suspect and his companion as well as the prosecutor.
In addition, it is important to note that a good does not have to be corporeal. According to jurisprudence, non-corporeal goods such as electricity and virtual money are goods. The virtual amulet and virtual mask are not corporeal goods, although they can be perceivable. In accordance with jurisprudence, this is not a limitation to treat them as goods..." ---
Thanks for all that supported me. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you.
|