Man guilty of virtual theft
p2p news / p2pnet: China has ratified a guilty verdict and fined a man said to have stolen and sold RPG IDs and online equipment, says state news agency Xinhua.
“As more people log on to online worlds, or virtual worlds, to interact, play and socialize, there are growing calls for virtual property to be defined and bound by laws that will protect it from theft and plagiarism,” it says.
“A man in Guangzhou, the capital of South China’s Guangdong Province, was found guilty of online theft last week, becoming the first person to be punished by the courts for stealing virtual property in the province.”
In 2004, Yan Yifan, 20, started work as a temp with NetEase.com, which was, “celebrating the second anniversary of “Dahua Xiyou II,” inspired by an ancient Chinese fairy tale Journey to the West.
“During this time Yan gained more than 30 players’ personal information and counterfeited their identity cards (ID cards),” says Xinhua. “Saying that all the players’ passwords had been stolen, Yan faxed the counterfeit ID cards to NetEase and changed all of their passwords.
“Taking the new passwords, Yan sold the players’ game IDs and pieces of their game equipment to other players, making a profit of more than 4,000 yuan (500 U.S. dollars).”
Yan was last year fined 5,000 yuan ($617) but appeal to another court, claiming “virtual property should not be protected by laws”.
However, the court ruled, “online game players have spent time, energy and money to gain the game’s equipment, imparting value and use value to the virtual goods” and moreover, “Yan gained money from selling the equipment to the other players.”
Also See:
Xinhua- More attention paid to virtual property protection, April 3, 2006
April 3rd, 2006 at 7:32 pm
“Virtual Property”. Can’t wait for the big corps to get a hold of that one.
First, there was the concept of “private property”.
Then we get “intellectual property”.
Now “virtual property”.
Perhaps our (so far) private thoughts will be the next item to go on the auction block?
April 4th, 2006 at 5:47 am
But wait! There’s more…….
Given that the defendant actually sold said virtual property, it therefore has a fair market value. Suppose one has acquired a virtual item in a game by purchasing with money, or a barter equivalent. One proceeds to hold onto the item for 6 months. The item is of a nature that it increases in value over time if it’s properly cared for, used infrequently, accessorized, etc. At some point, one is approach by another play who offers three times the original value of the item. You accept the offer and consummate the transaction.
In most taxing jurisdictions you have now realized a capital gain on the item. The difference between it’s sale price and it’s cost basis is considered income to you, and if you live somewhere that imposes income tax, it’s conceivable that the taxing authorities would inform you that you must pay the applicable tax on your ‘gain’.
This would simply be a hideous nightmare to try and deal with for all concerned, given how ravenously revenue hungry government at all levels has become.
If it ain’t ‘real’ (you can pick it up or touch it and it’s got physical mass) or can’t be represented in a ‘real’ way (like music, which can not be physically touched, but can be repsented through a standard notation system), then it ain’t “property” and should not be treated as such by the judicial system.
–TurboGeek