Chinese Justice

[Darian]

Online Gamer Stabbed for Selling Cyber-Saber

Sort of an interesting situation here, and it could, in the end, have bearing on the question of who owns in-game item content/cash -- the game provider or the customer.

[Occhidiangela]

Online Gamer Stabbed for Selling Cyber-Saber

Sort of an interesting situation here, and it could, in the end, have bearing on the question of who owns in-game item content/cash -- the game provider or the customer.
[right][snapback]72472[/snapback][/right]

creating a dilemma in China where no law exists for the ownership of virtual weapons

What dilema?

More and more online gamers were seeking justice through the courts over stolen weapons and credits, the newspaper said.  "The armor and swords in games should be deemed as private property as players have to spend money and time for them," Wang Zongyu, an associate law professor at Beijing's Renmin University of China, was quoted as saying.

Kuh rap, professor. In latin, it is called "caveat emptor." How about one not clog courts with trivial crap like this and let them deal with murder . . . over trivial crap like this! :lol:

But other experts are calling for caution. "The 'assets' of one player could mean nothing to others as they are by nature just data created by game providers," a lawyer for a Shanghai-based Internet game company was quoted as saying.

No new law in China about this virtual property issue is needed, IMO. To paraphrase Otter (Animal House) "You screwed up, you trusted him." Access was given to something which someone held as valuable, and the "friend" betrayed a trust. Sorta like me leaving a bottle of expensive scotch on the counter when my father in law comes over. :lol: Of course, I won't kill him over it, I'll know better next time, eh?

Murder due to an interpersonal dispute is, however, covered by law in most nations. Looks to me like someone will be spending a bit of time in jail. Is there a "Black Hole of Beijing?"

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

  Sorta like me leaving a bottle of expensive scotch on the counter when my father in law comes over.  :lol:  Of course, I won't kill him over it, I'll know better next time, eh?

Occhi
[right][snapback]72513[/snapback][/right]

*snickers*

Been there, done that. And a tip to you: He probably knows where the liquor cabinet is, so you might want to store that bottle elsewhere, on his next visit, now that he knows that it might be available. (Another lesson I learned the hard way. ;) )

[Occhidiangela]

*snickers*

Been there, done that.  And a tip to you:  He probably knows where the liquor cabinet is, so you might want to store that bottle elsewhere, on his next visit, now that he knows that it might be available.    (Another lesson I learned the hard way.  ;) )
[right][snapback]72688[/snapback][/right]

Hehe, not being an elf, he gets no plusses for finding secret doors. Also, when the regular scotch is seen, the search ends. :D

We live and learn.

Occhi

[Guest]

What happens in the game stays in the game(unless youre an idiot killer.).

Legally as long as the game company says they own the game content anything you do in the game(barring hacks and exploits) will have no real world legal ramifications.



I think a lot of internet geeks keep trying to exaggerate the signifigance of virtual property in order to add signifigance to the time they spend playing meaningless online games.

[Zarathustra]

I think a lot of internet geeks keep trying to exaggerate the signifigance of virtual property in order to add signifigance to the time they spend playing meaningless online games.
[right][snapback]72704[/snapback][/right]

*watches the hammer hit the nail on the head*

Too few seem to realize when playing these games that they are just that: GAMES.

[Munkay]

I think a lot of internet geeks keep trying to exaggerate the significance of virtual property in order to add significance to the time they spend playing meaningless online games.

Now if they only would spend time exaggerating the use of proper English to justify all the time they waste communicating incoherent gibberish.

But maybe I should just give up, it appears that English has been 'pwneD!' :P

Cheers,

Munk

Ps. Ghostiger, though we've had spats about proper English, this post is not intended as a jab towards you.

[Artega]

Sort of an interesting situation here, and it could, in the end, have bearing on the question of who owns in-game item content/cash -- the game provider or the customer.
[right][snapback]72472[/snapback][/right]

According to the EULA or TOS (one of the two, or maybe both), Blizzard owns all of "your" in-game content.

[Occhidiangela]

According to the EULA or TOS (one of the two, or maybe both), Blizzard owns all of "your" in-game content.
[right][snapback]72712[/snapback][/right]

Something along the lines of "all your items are belong to us" I guess . . .

Maybe this should be established as an industry standard, and referred to as TUZWA (The Ubiquitous Zero Wing Authority) or some such thing.

Occhi

[Malakar]

This is kind of a general response to the thread.

Most theft of real life property is trivial. What more do you really need than food and, in cold places, clothes? Yet theft is illegal.

The only difference I see is that game theft usually requires that you do something stupid to open yourself up. But from the thieve's point of view, the act is the same.

I wouldn't mind the law covering game theft - no skin off my back. More scum in jail is fine by me.


P.S. Obviously this is no justification for killing someone...

[Guest]

I sure would mind.

The laws governing theft in the game are the rules of the game and retaliation by other players.


I would never play a game where the company running it said my actions in game had real world legal consequences(other than for hacking which is really an out of game action).

[Drasca]

I mind too.

"Virtual Property" indeed. What do you think stocks are? Bonds? Legal tender? Paper money? People scoffed at those, and still do some time.

With private servers, we have the problem of accoutability of ownership. Its as abused as the first form of western banks, and isn't backed up by government approval.

What do we need? Proof of ownership, in a notorized form.

Caveot Emptor doesn't apply 100% in this country. Why should 'virtual' property and services be any less legitimate? Accountable?

Loaning to friend? Yes, that was stupid. A matter of trust. Why you cannot sue though? Mainly because its difficult to track. Soon as virtual servers can be held both acceptable in society and transactions easily trackable to individuals, it should be no different than any other form of semi fluid currency.

How safe, how legitimate, are banks? They're only so from being so established.

[Guest]

That doesnt make sense,



You dont seem to understand that as long as the game company says they own everything in the game, then all responsibilty for matters in the game stop when you leave the game.

To have game matters lead to real world responsibility would require all parties involved to contractually stipulate so.
The Agreement you "sign" to when you log into WoW - stipulates exactly the opposite.

[Drasca]

The Agreement you "sign" to when you log into WoW - stipulates exactly the opposite.
[right][snapback]72789[/snapback][/right]

Note, this isn't just WoW, nor was the OT about WoW. Its for all MMorpgs. Some have an all-merchandising inclusive ToS, some don't. We'll see what holds up in future judicial systems and legislation. Its still virtual property, and I believe ownership of that property will eventually come into dispute enough to come to court.

[Darian]

Note, this isn't just WoW, nor was the OT about WoW. Its for all MMorpgs. Some have an all-merchandising inclusive ToS, some don't. We'll see what holds up in future judicial systems and legislation. Its still virtual property, and I believe ownership of that property will eventually come into dispute enough to come to court.
[right][snapback]72833[/snapback][/right]

/nod

That was pretty much what I was getting at with this. The moment any jurisdiction ever hears a property theft case between two parties -- one of them not being the game provider -- and issues a ruling which in any way favors the "victim" or punishes the thief... the jig is up, as from that point forward no game will be able to claim that in-game property belongs to them.

(Well, a game could respond to such a thing by suddenly closing up shop in the jurisdiction in question, but that's awfully hard to do with the internet.)

NB: I'm actually quite opposed to anything which would tend to make legal the out-of-game acquisition of in-game cash and items, and I think that people who'd make a real-world case that they've been stolen from when if anything it should be "his character stole from my character" need to get a grip. However, the fact that Bob can "steal" from Joe's character without Bob's character being involved sort of clouds this.

[Guest]

Thats not quite true. "the moment any jurisdiction ever hears a property theft case between two parties "

Its quite possible that it could be heard in a game that didnt have a TOS claim ownership of everything by the game. That would mean that it didnt apply to the majority of games which have such notes in the TOS.

Its also probable that a higher court would throw out the ruling.





On a seperate but related and more probable note, I could see in game harrassment going into a real court.

[Occhidiangela]

On a seperate but related and more probable note, I could see in game harrassment going into a real court.
[right][snapback]72851[/snapback][/right]

What do you mean by harassment? General in game griefing? Account theft? Calling one another names? Spreading lies about another player via a "global" in game chat? Libel? Slander?

You don't see very many cases in court for welching on golf bets, nor handicap abuses. Why? There is already a recognized authority to arbitrate such disputes. In tournaments, (I refer here to amateur, since PGA is also a recognized governing body) there is a tournament committee to adjudicate such disputes. One has to agree to their authority to compete in the tournament. I*n non tournament matches, both parties understand "caveat emptor" on a golf wager. That said, if the Tournament committee acts fraudlently, then a case for fraud can be made. Fraud is fraud, regardless of the arena.

I expect that in an MMORPG, a leisure activity, disputes would be remanded to the authority of the "tournament committee" which of course is the company who runs the game. Jurisdiction should be held at "Game Master Level" or "Owner of the World" level. The ability to enforce rules is almost complete, unless one is up against a very talented hacker/cracker. Most of the cases I have heard of are the copyright infringement matters, where monetary loss/damage can be shown. When the game activity spills into RL activity (see the murder story a few years back in re Lineage) you are dealing with RL crime, for which there are RL statutes and procedures. The mitigation "he screwed me over in a computer game" is hardly going to stand up in court if you took a baseball bat to his head.

Consider the past few years, where certain assaults on the ice in NHL games have gone to court. (McSorley's is the latest I recall.) In each of those cases, the behavior was not only well outside the rules of the games, but criminal assault. It was also well documented on film, and well witnessed.

In an MMORPG setting, how visible is such harassment or abuse? How proveable is it in court of law, given that a defense attorney may be able to cast doubt regarding the authenticity of any amount of Computer generated evidence? How can one "prove" that a log file or screen shot has not been tampered with? How does one know it is unedited?

I'd personally rather see Game Authorities handle in game disputes. Our courts are busy enough as it is on more pressing matters than games.

Occhi

[Guest]

The world is changing - thanks largely to whiney teenagers and school slayings.

I was refering mainly to griefing and name calling. In some parts of the country restraining orders are becoming way to popular. I see potential for this to eventually rear its head in online games - mainly as more and more idiots lose their grasp on reality.

[Drasca]

I'd personally rather see Game Authorities handle in game disputes.  Our courts are busy enough as it is on more pressing matters than games.
[right][snapback]72918[/snapback][/right]

Except, game authorities in MMorpgs have proven themselves inept, unwilling to change, and distant to the needs of whole classes of people. As long there's a profit, all corruption is swept under the rug. Whoever makes decisions over at blizzard won't care if person A is griefing Person B so long enough of both are still paying money. Pleas for help against injustice fall on deaf ears.

Remember what that whole capitalist monopoly thing was about?

[savaughn]

That was pretty much what I was getting at with this.  The moment any jurisdiction ever hears a property theft case between two parties -- one of them not being the game provider -- and issues a ruling which in any way favors the "victim" or punishes the thief... the jig is up, as from that point forward no game will be able to claim that in-game property belongs to them.
[right][snapback]72838[/snapback][/right]

Disagree. They will still be able to claim that right - they will simply have to close the definition so it circumvents the initial ruling. Remember, the only way this can go to court is civil, not criminal. The rulings made continue to be civil. Any ruling, thus, would only apply as "end-user" vs. "end-user" and proving perponderance of evidence in such a case would unlikely be seen to have any impact on "end-user" vs. "owner".

Plus, if Blizz chooses to make a move, it's EULA lets it play in both the civil and criminal arenas - not that it's ever likely to do so. Most corporations do NOT want to bring their EULA to court. These things are on shakey ground, legally. To date, no one has brought either MS's EULA or the GNU copyleft to court (that I know of). Show me a reasonable challenge to MS's EULA and I'll show you a case that will be settled out of court.