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

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?