Is stealing a virtual good deserving of a real-world criminal sentence? According to a recent ruling by the Dutch Supreme Court, the answer is "yes."
The court recently upheld a ruling of a criminal case in which teens attacked another youth and forced him at knifepoint to relinquish his possessions in RuneScape, including an in-game amulet and knife.
The incident happened in 2007, and a lower court convicted the two thieves in 2009. One of the defendants then appealed to the country's supreme court on the grounds that the stolen goods "were neither tangible nor material and, unlike for example electricity, had no economic value."
However, the judges declared that these virtual items had value because they represented "time and energy invested" to acquire. The thieves were sentenced to 144 hours of community service.
Reader Comments (51)
Posted: Jan 31st 2012 5:56PM Warsyde said
It's an interesting precedent but it was only set because of the real world violence involved that made it a prosecutable crime in the first place. If the victim had been held up virtually, the boys responsible wouldn't have even been arrested.
Now that has happened though, it does have rather odd implications for a game like EVE Online. Are gate campers that demand players drop their cargo or be destroyed actual, prosecutable criminals under Dutch law!? O.o
Now that has happened though, it does have rather odd implications for a game like EVE Online. Are gate campers that demand players drop their cargo or be destroyed actual, prosecutable criminals under Dutch law!? O.o
Posted: Jan 31st 2012 6:04PM Space Cobra said
@Warsyde
I think your first paragraph covers it for this moment in time for the law: There needs to be something involved related outside the game in the "real world". Whether it is threats of violence carried out or illegal transfer of funds related to said game.
Reply
I think your first paragraph covers it for this moment in time for the law: There needs to be something involved related outside the game in the "real world". Whether it is threats of violence carried out or illegal transfer of funds related to said game.
Posted: Jan 31st 2012 6:16PM Maseno said
Oh you crazy Dutch bastards.
Posted: Jan 31st 2012 6:49PM TheJackman said
I'm Dutch and I can tell you that the Supreme court rules in favor for whoever give them a lot of "gifts".
Posted: Jan 31st 2012 6:53PM Graill440 said
The lawyers will begin sniffing more and more, this stuff started over two years ago with other incidents. Precedent is bad thing for some folks.
Posted: Jan 31st 2012 11:28PM johnvonhugendong said
I hope this doesn't set a dangerous precedent, I remember when I was like 14 I got some swag on the coke music egame from a friend hopefully I don't take me to court over it.
Posted: Feb 1st 2012 2:11AM Torticoli said
On the one hand, I'm glad to see a court realize that virtual goods are worthy of attention and do have value, since they represent time and energy investment. The time of "This sword you worked for in this video game doesn't have any kind of value whatsoever, even though you spent dozens of hours getting it, because it's made of pixels and not metal" may be coming at an end.
On the other hand, the idea that taking virtual items from someone, items that can be easily replaced at no cost and don't require any kind of supply (they're digital items that can be copied infinitely at no cost) can be considered "stealing" is a problem. The problem here is the agression, not the "theft", I think. I don't know, it's weird.
On the other hand, the idea that taking virtual items from someone, items that can be easily replaced at no cost and don't require any kind of supply (they're digital items that can be copied infinitely at no cost) can be considered "stealing" is a problem. The problem here is the agression, not the "theft", I think. I don't know, it's weird.
Posted: Feb 1st 2012 1:37PM (Unverified) said
This is only a small step in the direction of a good law system around the virtual world.








