Posted in Criminal Law, Runescape, Virtual Law, Virtual Worlds & Games |

Related Posts on Virtually Blind

Theft at Second Life’s “DarkLife” Roleplaying Game; SL’s Open Source Viewer Likely Not to Blame: "The Second Life Herald reported today that "a felony was committed in..." (1 comments)

Blizzard v. In Game Dollar Update: Injunction Entered, Peons Not 4Hire in World of Warcraft Anymore: "Blizzard's lawsuit against virtual item and power-leveling company In..." (50 comments)

Two Experts Suggest Virtual World Profits May Be Taxable Even Before Conversion to Real World Cash: "Though it is widely understood that profits made running a business..." (9 comments)

10 Responses to “Netherlands Court Finds Criminal Liability and Sentences Two Youths for Theft of Virtual Goods”

1. on 22 Oct 2008 at 11:56 am1 Ashcroft Burnham
   

   I do not know a great deal about the Dutch legal system (except that it provides that criminal income is taxed in the same way as ordinary income, complete with allowances for business expenses (balaclavas, baseball bats, etc.)), but the result of the case is equally explicable on the basis of fraud as theft (and, in the absence of documents, one should be very wary of reaching a conclusion that a court of competent jurisdiction – even in the Netherlands – reached a conclusion that is conceptually impossible).

   A virtual asset is not a chattel, and cannot sensibly be treated as such, because it is fundamentally different in character from a physical object, and absurd results would obtain if the rules relating to chattels were applied to virtual assets without modification. A virtual asset might be a chose in action (in other words, a transferable in personam right).

   Those who see computer simulated physical environments as an unprecedented revolution in the fields to which the law needs to be applied, and that virtual assets as a fundamentally new invention, should visit their local stock exchanges, where virtual assets have been happily traded, and recognised as such by law, for well over a century.

2. on 22 Oct 2008 at 4:05 pm2 Peter
   

   http://www.jeuridique.com

   M. Duranske,

   Please find enclosed a link to the case.
   http://translate.google.com/….8&sl=nl&tl=en

   The traduction (google) is kinda bad but It is way better than what I could do. Sorry for the long text. I wouldn’t cut any part of it.

   I will personnaly write a post (in french) on my website about the case. I will try to come back to you with an english summary of my opinion.

   best regards,

   Peter, esq.

   ====

   Full text [in Dutch available here]…

3. on 22 Oct 2008 at 4:40 pm3 Benjamin Duranske
   

   Fantastic, Peter. Thanks. The court really did dive into this stuff, didn’t it? The translation isn’t great, but the court’s approach to virtual goods as “property within the meaning of [the statute]” is very clear.

   From the Google translation:

   In answering the question of whether virtual goods, goods in the meaning of that article, this in order to be considered.

   There are a number of criteria that must be met for there to be a property within the meaning of that article. There are a number of criteria that must be there to be with for a property within the meaning of that article.

   First of all, is important or good for the possessor of value. First of all, is important or good for the possessor or value. This value does not have money to be expressed. This value does not have money to be expressed.

   In today’s society, the virtual goods from online computer game “Runescape” of great significance become. In today’s society, the virtual goods from online computer game “Runescape” or become great significance. For large numbers of online gamers these goods have value. For large numbers of online gamers these goods have value. The more a player virtual goods has, the stronger he is in the game. The more a player virtual goods has, he is in the Stronger The Game. Moreover, the money for virtual goods bought and sold, including via the Internet or on the playground. Moreover, the money for virtual goods bought and sold, including via the Internet or on the playground.

   The case also shows that the mask and the declarant as a talisman for both suspect and co-defendant had value. The case also shows that the claimant and the mask as a talisman for both suspect and co-defendant had value.

   Of interest is that not a mortal need to be. Of interest is that not a Mortal need to be. In the case law has determined that non-material objects – such as electricity and scriptural money – as well as in criminal sense. In the case law has determined that non-material objects – such as electricity and scriptural money – as well as in criminal sense. The virtual amulet and the virtual template as defined in this case are not material goods, although they are noticeable. The virtual amulet and the virtual template as defined in this case are not material goods, although they are able notice. Having regard to the said case law is that no impediment to them as well as provided for in Article 310 of the Penal Code to brands. Having regard to the said case law is that no impediment to them as well as provided for in Article 310 of the Penal Code to brands.

4. on 23 Oct 2008 at 2:27 pm4 Raph's Website » Netherlands say virtual goods are

   [...] Virtually Blind has a take on it as well: That’s interesting, and for better or worse, one small step toward more widespread recognition of virtual goods as something more than just mere ones and zeros owned by the company hosting them. [...]

5. on 26 Oct 2008 at 5:10 am5 VeeJay Burns
   

   I tried the google translation as well, but at times it doesn’t make sense. For that matter, not being legally educated even the Dutch orginal version was hard to understand. Yet I decided to give it a shot and translated about half of the court ruling.

   Here’s the translation of the part you quoted above:

   The Public Prosecutor has, in short, argued in court that the virtual amulet and the virtual mask are goods which fall under the constituent ‘good’ as provided for in Article 310 of the Penal code, whereas the counsel has argued the opposite during the hearing.

   The court is considering as follows. In this case we have to deal with virtual goods, namely a virtual amulet and a virtual mask from the online game “RuneScape”. The following is known ex officio to the court about “RuneScape”. “RuneScape is one of the larger online games and especially popular among the youth. Millions of players, socalled online gamers, from all over the world play the game “RuneScape”. “RuneScape is set in a virtual world in which the players can participate with their carachters. Players may fullfill assignments ( ‘quests’), fight other players and deploy other activities. To this end players can procure ‘items’ such as a mask or amulet. The items each have a value. This value is expressed in this game in ‘coins’, fluctiating on the basis of supply and demand of these items.With those ‘coins’ a player can train skills. The more ‘coins’ a player posesses, the stronger he is in the game “RuneScape”.

   Declarant, suspect and co-defendant each had an account, which gave access to playing “RuneScape” and were also active players of this game. Declarant had in his posesssion a virtual amulet and a virtual mask.

   Article 310 of the Penal Code aims to protect the property of citizens In answering the question whether or not virtual goods are ‘goods’ in the meaning of that article, this aim has to be taken into consideration. There are a number of criteria that must be met for these virtual goods to considered ‘goods’ in the meaning of this article.

   First of all, it is important if a good has value to the posessor. This value does not need to be expressed in money. In today’s society, the virtual goods from the online computer game “RuneScape” have become of significance. To large numbers of online players these goods have value. The more virtual goods a player has, the stronger he is in the game.Moreover, the virtual goods are bought and sold with money, e.g. through the internet or schoolyard. From this case it also shows that the mask and amulet had value to both the declarand and the suspect and co-defendant.

   Of interest is that a ‘good’ need not be material. It has been determined by case law that non-material goods, such as electricity and giro transfers, are labelled ‘goods’ as well in a criminal sense. The virtual amulet and the virtual mask as considered in the case at hand are not material goods, albeith they are noticable. Regarding case law this is no prohibition to declare these as ‘goods’ under the meaning of Article 310 of the Penal Code.

   Furthermore, jurisprudence shows it is an important feature of a ‘good’ in a criminal sense that the taker receives control over the goods in theft and the victim loses actual control of these goods. The posession of a good must be transferrable from one to another. When speaking of posession in a criminal sense, it means having actual power. Case law has previously determined the foregoing is not applicable in case of a PIN number, computer data and phone call minutes in a subscription bundle. In this case the virtual goods, namely a virtual amulet and a virtual mask, were in posession of the declarant. Only he had actual control over these goods. The posession of virtual goods can be transferred, e.g. by moving these goods from one account to another.

   In the case at hand these goods have transferred, namely from the actual control of the declarant to that of suspect and co-defendant. Suspect and co-defendant have transferred the goods from the account of the declarant to the account of the suspect. In this act the declarant has lost actual control over these goods and suspect and co-defendant have obtained actual control over these goods.

   As the virtual amulet and virtual mask as defined in the case at hand meet the aforementioned criteria, the court is of the opinion that these virtual goods are to be included in the concept of ‘goods’ as provided for in Artcile 310 of the Penal Code and belonged to the declarant.

   The rest of the translation can be found at MindBlizzard: Court Ruling in the RuneScape Case

6. on 26 Oct 2008 at 8:25 am6 Benjamin Duranske
   

   @5 – VeeJay, that’s incredibly helpful. Thanks. I urge readers to check out VeeJay’s full translation/post on this at MindBlizzard. Here’s the link again in case you missed it at the end of that comment.

   http://blog.mindblizzard.com/2008/10/court-ruling-in-runescape-case_26.html

7. on 26 Oct 2008 at 1:35 pm7 VeeJay Burns
   

   Benjamin, Thanks, it has been a hell of a job. You’re welcome to suggest improvements as a legal expert where I screwed up my terminology ;)

8. on 08 Jan 2009 at 10:53 pm8 Nima Shahi
   

   This shows exactly how greedy the human mind can get in a bad person when money is seen.

   First off, this is virtual currency. Not even real, so that makes matters even worse.

   Second of all, this is just one of the extremely minor criminal offenses committed from greed. There have been MILLIONS of murders from money.

   Glad the kids were smart enough not to actually stab the poor kid that got threatened.

9. on 29 Sep 2011 at 6:14 am9 Netherlands Court Finds Criminal Liability and Sentences Two Youths for Theft of Virtual Goods | VERN

   [...] 10/22: A VB reader found the original court opinion and put a link to a Google translation in the comments. Thanks!] Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Bookmark the [...]

10. on 20 Feb 2012 at 1:51 am10 BarCampBank: Reinventing Finance? #BCBL5 #BarCampBank « Patrick's Blog

    [...] Banking is clearly social – we use banks to make payments to each other, in all sorts of combinations. (I would maintain that actually any business is social, but that is a different post…) Social networks can be thriving economies – Second Life apparently has a huge economy mediated by “Linden dollars”; eBay a larger one using real dollars exchanged by PayPal; and Facebook credits are the social network’s currency. Dutch law recognises virtual assets within World of Warcraft as real as far as property rights are concerned. [...]

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail