RoR: Forum

Should we be outraged that a star sapphire was stolen in a fictional story? Maybe not, since the sapphire was not 'real' in the story even. However, I think it's something to look into.

Post 1

Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 4:06am

Some of these MMPORG have the ability to turn virtual items into real cash. The article doesn't seem to indicate that is what they had in mind so it's a good question I guess. If a player bought the item in question using real money would this not be a type of theft? If the player is earing "game money" by playing the game then I don't see how the items could be labeled as theft - no ability to turn "game money" into real money like second life Linden Dollars.

Post 2

Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 7:45am

To treat this as a precedent is absurd. All that matters was did the boys use coercion to attain their ends. The nature of the ends has no relevance. Only statists and the press think that coercion is not the fundamental issue, since they are all for coercion when it serves their ends.

Post 3

Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 10:26am

So, Ted, would you liken this to someone coercing another out of some sentimental item?

Post 4

Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 12:08pm

I would liken the coercing to coersion. (Smile.) The term has a meaning. It's the use or threat of force. There is the legal question of the value of the "goods." This would have something to do with the penalty, perhaps. Maybe the miscreants' avatars could be forced to wear virtual "thief" placards? If the victim wants to sue for damages then he has to prove the value of the lost goods. That's civil law. But the bottom line is that coersion is a criminal act with a definition that Jordan or one of the other lawyers here could provide.

Post 5

Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 6:06pm

There is a physical manifestation of computer memory, zeros and ones represented with magnetic and electrical states and signals. The one person had acquired the use of a particular set of electrical states and signals by his own effort.

The difference between someone taking your radio and your MMORPG item, is that you interact with the radio with your fingers and your ears, and the MMORPG item with your fingers through mouse and keyboard through computer through internet and your eyes/ears.

Post 6

Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 9:23pm

The physical manifestation of the value itself is irrelevant.

There is no need to prove, explain, or establish the physical basis of the value involved. The crime consists in the coercive threat made by the bullies.

There are two theories of crime. Objectivism holds that crime is the taking of a value (of any sort) by the initiation of force. Force violates consent. What is physically accomplished by force is secondary. Consent is primary.

Statists are the ones who act as if the damage being hidden means that no crime is commited. Why do you think that income tax is paid by payroll deduction, rather than by coin in person at the revenuers office? Since you don't see the taxes paid, since the payroll deduction is virtual, since it's only 1's and 0's, the crime committed is hidden - indeed - it "isn't" a crime. There's no mugger. No visible knife. No cash changes hands.

This sort of mentality is what Rand calls anti-conceptual. It does not profit us to buy into it, and concern ourselves over whether the value stolen is physical or spiritual or virtual.

Crime to the objectivist is spiritual - a violation of consent.

The crime lies in the coersion.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 10/22, 11:11pm)

Post 7

Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 4:55am

Ted, lets say the perpetrators were successful in acquiring the MMORPG items from the coerced victim. Do you think that the victim should be compensated for the loss by the perpetrators by payment in local currency and estimated value or returning the items in question if they still have possession?

Post 8

Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 9:13am

The story doesn't have enough detail in it to figure out what happened. They say the boy was "coerced." How? Did they go to his house and threaten to beat him up? Or did their avatars threaten to beat up his avatar or vandalize his virtual property? If the latter, there's no coercion. Or rather the "virtual coercion" should be dealt with by the "virtual police force" in the "virtual world," not by a real-world justice system.

Post 9

Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 9:43am

Laure, coersion has a defined legal meaning, so, for sake of argument, we have to assume that there was some real-world threat. Of course, this being the Netherlands, it's quite possible that this was not the case. Look, for instance, at what they did to Ayaan Hirsi Ali (if I have her name right.)

Dean, that would be a civil matter, and the victim would have to sue and prove the nature of the damage and propose a remedy.

The essentially important observation about this case is that the crime itself is nothing new under the sun, only the nature of the value stolen.

Post 10

Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 6:52pm

I'm sure Dutch law and it's legal system are the model to be followed, however, I can't help but wonder if an American court would have considered this case.

Post 11

Friday, October 24, 2008 - 9:13am

I'm Dutch and I can offer a bit more information.

The boy bought the virtual items with the credits he collected playing the game.

He was threatened with a real knife to hand them over. He was also kicked by the other boys.

The perpetrators were sentenced to 160 and 200 hours of community service, one with two months of probation.

The lawyers of the perpetrators urged that the items weren't real and thus could not be considered as "goods" and only the theft of goods could be held actionable (my knowledge of law and its terminology is limited to frequency of use in Law & Order episodes).

But the attorney general/district attorney advocated that these items represented value and that the owner could no longer have it at his disposal, and this made it a crime. The judge agreed.

The violent character of this crime also played a role in the sentence.

Post 12

Friday, October 24, 2008 - 9:48am

Thanks, Derek. You said "He was threatened with a real knife to hand them over. He was also kicked by the other boys," but that "the lawyers of the perpetrators urged that the items weren't real and thus could not be considered as "goods" and only the theft of goods could be held actionable."

Was the defense arguing that merely threatening and kicking someone, without the theft of any real material good, was not a crime?

Post 13

Friday, October 24, 2008 - 11:13am

There is a difference between the philosophy that gives rise to the law and the law itself - Ted made the excellent point in post #2 that it was the coercion that was important - not the nature of the item stolen. That goes to philosophy - to the fundamental nature of coercion versus free to choose. There are a variety of laws on the books that attempt to implement that ethical requirement: laws against mugging, assault, robbery, theft, extortion, etc. Choosing the correct law or laws to prosecute under is secondary. If it were determined that no goods, by legal definition, were taken, then the prosecution would need to choose a different statute that involves the initiation of violence, like assault instead of robbery. But it appears that the 'virtual' goods had perceived value since the violence was used to obtain them and met the legal requirement.

Post 14

Friday, October 24, 2008 - 9:22pm

I agree thoroughly with Ted, but I'd say let the punishment fit the crime. If the victimized player paid real cash for that virtual item, the teens should pay restitution, but their avatars should be thrown into a virtual jail whenever they appear online - able to be seen by other subscribers, but unable to interact. I'd base the jail term on local Dutch law.

oops. read post 11 after writing the above. Throw the teens in jail too.

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 10/24, 9:22pm)

(Edited by Jay Abbott on 10/24, 9:24pm)

Post 15

Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 11:02am