And, just like anything else, real or imaginary, the owner does not pay taxes until they sell it and make money.
You would do well to note that the complete opposite of what you said is actually the truth. Goods taken in trade or won at play are taxable the moment they fall into somebody's hands, even if they are not ever sold for money. If you earned something that has fair market value, that's income.
Those are different, however, because ownership is actually transferred to you. Whereas with online items in most MMOs you never own anything until you sell the item (in which case you own the money you were given).
Which is why a service-based model makes more sense.
Blizzard owns your loot. Blizzard also owns everyone else loot. You pay a monthly fee for Blizzard to let you play with the toys they created. It's like Kindergarten. If a bully coerces you into giving him your lunch money, it's theft. But if a jerk tricks you into making a bad Lego trade during playtime, it's not theft because at the end of the day, the Legos weren't yours nor his, but rather the teacher's. It's still not theft even if you can trade some of the Lazer looking pieces you grabbed at the beginning of the day for someone's twinkies.
In that case, the Lazer looking pieces really don't have any fair market value. Obviously there has always been "pretend money" that isn't realy money. The problem arises when it starts to have significant and measurable fair market value and people are regularly exchanging it for $ to the tune of thousands or millions a day. You lose your right to a kidnergarten analogy.
That's part of the point I've been trying to stress all along - for the most part theoretical analogies to Monopoly or kidnergarten are meaningless in this discussion, because when it comes to property and fair market value, reality is king. If people and the market are acting like this stuff is property, then it therefore is property, if people are willing to pay money for it, then it therefore has real $ value, and if people are exchanging some scalar quantity for $ at a floating rate, then it is therefore currency.
The government thus far has simply chosen to ignore this and view at all as the property of Blizzard as per the EULA. Perhaps rightly so. But believe me, EULAs don't automatically get to trump the IRS, and my question is still out there as to how big this all has to get before the government must change its mind.
I disagree heartily with the bolded, as you well know. Also, there's no reason the market is necessarily acting like it's property...the market would act in the same way if it was a service (in that people would give players money for their time/expertise), which given the context is a more reasonable assumption. As for how big it has to get before the government "must" change its mind, there is no such point. Or rather, for as long as none of this becomes actual property that point will never be reached due to a vast majority of people being rational.
And, just like anything else, real or imaginary, the owner does not pay taxes until they sell it and make money.
You would do well to note that the complete opposite of what you said is actually the truth. Goods taken in trade or won at play are taxable the moment they fall into somebody's hands, even if they are not ever sold for money. If you earned something that has fair market value, that's income.
Those are different, however, because ownership is actually transferred to you. Whereas with online items in most MMOs you never own anything until you sell the item (in which case you own the money you were given).
Which is why a service-based model makes more sense.
Blizzard owns your loot. Blizzard also owns everyone else loot. You pay a monthly fee for Blizzard to let you play with the toys they created. It's like Kindergarten. If a bully coerces you into giving him your lunch money, it's theft. But if a jerk tricks you into making a bad Lego trade during playtime, it's not theft because at the end of the day, the Legos weren't yours nor his, but rather the teacher's. It's still not theft even if you can trade some of the Lazer looking pieces you grabbed at the beginning of the day for someone's twinkies.
In that case, the Lazer looking pieces really don't have any fair market value. Obviously there has always been "pretend money" that isn't realy money. The problem arises when it starts to have significant and measurable fair market value and people are regularly exchanging it for $ to the tune of thousands or millions a day. You lose your right to a kidnergarten analogy.
That's part of the point I've been trying to stress all along - for the most part theoretical analogies to Monopoly or kidnergarten are meaningless in this discussion, because when it comes to property and fair market value, reality is king. If people and the market are acting like this stuff is property, then it therefore is property, if people are willing to pay money for it, then it therefore has real $ value, and if people are exchanging some scalar quantity for $ at a floating rate, then it is therefore currency.
The government thus far has simply chosen to ignore this and view at all as the property of Blizzard as per the EULA. Perhaps rightly so. But believe me, EULAs don't automatically get to trump the IRS, and my question is still out there as to how big this all has to get before the government must change its mind.
I disagree heartily with the bolded, as you well know. Also, there's no reason the market is necessarily acting like it's property...the market would act in the same way if it was a service (in that people would give players money for their time/expertise), which given the context is a more reasonable assumption. As for how big it has to get before the government "must" change its mind, there is no such point. Or rather, for as long as none of this becomes actual property that point will never be reached due to a vast majority of people being rational.
Do cable and internet access/bandwidth count as services?
Do cable and internet access/bandwidth count as services?
Yes.
In those cases the people providing the service may or may not own the property used to provide it (some ISPs or cable companies might own their lines, other may not, though I suppose both will own some form of infrastructure).
However this is not necessary for a service (in case you want to argue that this somehow confers property status to WoW items or gold). I can provide a service that requires no property or infrastructure at all. At which point you're paying me for that service, and not for any sort of transfer of property.
When you pay me $50 for a broadsword online, you're not actually paying me for the broadsword. You're paying me for the time I put into gaining access to that broadsword. This doesn't necessarily place a value on the broadsword itself, it places a value on the act of earning access to it (or the time put into doing so).
This might seem like a somewhat silly distinction if we're speaking plainly about the topic, and if I were to buy one on eBay I'd certainly say "I bought a broadsword" not "I paid a third party for the time he spent earning access to the broadsword." But I'd not be speaking accurately, and from a legal standpoint the service model is currently more accurate and long-term it makes a lot more sense (again, provided players don't own in-game property). And from a legal standpoint this is an incredibly important distinction.
Legally, neither of the terms "good" or "service" apply very well for virtual items.
The problem with calling them "services" is that you can't normally steal services after they've been rendered. So the label doesn't apply very well for property rights.
The problem with calling them "goods" is that they are part of a market of artificial scarcity and it doesn't make sense to tax them that way.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
And, just like anything else, real or imaginary, the owner does not pay taxes until they sell it and make money.
You would do well to note that the complete opposite of what you said is actually the truth. Goods taken in trade or won at play are taxable the moment they fall into somebody's hands, even if they are not ever sold for money. If you earned something that has fair market value, that's income.
Just like everything else you say, it's retarded.
Goods taken in trade are not taxed, the transaction is taxed. Transaction. I know its a big word, so say it with me transaction. Good, now you too can join the land of people who know the difference between ownership and an action.
But there is no transaction here. Ownership remains the same throughout. Say it with me one more time. There is no transaction, ownership remains the same throughout. The amount of retardation that allows this is the same sort of retardation of someone claiming that saying "thanks" when someone opens a door is a taxable action.
Goods "won at play" are profits. But these aren't won at play, they are "produced", and again ownership doesn't change. When you make a chair, you are not taxed for making of the chair, but from profiting off the sale of the chair or the sale of the chair itself.
The problem with calling them "services" is that you can't normally steal services after they've been rendered. So the label doesn't apply very well for property rights.
Moving a chair into your house is a service. That does not mean that someone cannot come and take that chair.
It is the same here. the actions being performed, when performed for money, are services, that the recipient of the service can have his access removed from the result of the service has no bearing on the action itself.
Do cable and internet access/bandwidth count as services?
Yes.
In those cases the people providing the service may or may not own the property used to provide it (some ISPs or cable companies might own their lines, other may not, though I suppose both will own some form of infrastructure).
However this is not necessary for a service (in case you want to argue that this somehow confers property status to WoW items or gold). I can provide a service that requires no property or infrastructure at all. At which point you're paying me for that service, and not for any sort of transfer of property.
When you pay me $50 for a broadsword online, you're not actually paying me for the broadsword. You're paying me for the time I put into gaining access to that broadsword. This doesn't necessarily place a value on the broadsword itself, it places a value on the act of earning access to it (or the time put into doing so).
This might seem like a somewhat silly distinction if we're speaking plainly about the topic, and if I were to buy one on eBay I'd certainly say "I bought a broadsword" not "I paid a third party for the time he spent earning access to the broadsword." But I'd not be speaking accurately, and from a legal standpoint the service model is currently more accurate and long-term it makes a lot more sense (again, provided players don't own in-game property). And from a legal standpoint this is an incredibly important distinction.
You can "steal bandwidth," but I'm almost certain it's not legally theft. It'll fall under another crime. Or possibly Theft of Services, which is its own crime (note "services"). I could be wrong, though.
How about this. I'll just ask you, can you steal bandwidth? Why don't you go look it up? If you're trying to use theft of bandwidth to back up some kind of point, feel free to go find out and let us know. Otherwise I'll feel free to forget you mentioned it.
EDIT: As an example, if I use your wireless network without your permission I'm generally not going to be guilty of theft (I know that it is this way in several states, and I've never heard of one where it isn't)...I'm going to be guilty of something along the lines of unauthorized access to a computer network. Again, I welcome you to show me otherwise.
You can "steal bandwidth," but I'm almost certain it's not legally theft. It'll fall under another crime. Or possibly Theft of Services, which is its own crime (note "services"). I could be wrong, though.
How about this. I'll just ask you, can you steal bandwidth? Why don't you go look it up? If you're trying to use theft of bandwidth to back up some kind of point, feel free to go find out and let us know. Otherwise I'll feel free to forget you mentioned it.
EDIT: As an example, if I use your wireless network without your permission I'm generally not going to be guilty of theft (I know that it is this way in several states, and I've never heard of one where it isn't)...I'm going to be guilty of something along the lines of unauthorized access to a computer network. Again, I welcome you to show me otherwise.
Stealing bandwidth isn't technically theft, but from the article below it seems it's a felony in Michigan. The charge isn't theft though, it's "Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks" .
A Michigan man who used a coffee shop's unsecured Wi-Fi to check his e-mail from his car could have faced up to five years in prison, according to local TV station WOOD. But it seems few in the village of Sparta, Mich., were aware that using an unsecured Wi-Fi connection without the owner's permission--a practice known as piggybacking--was a felony.
Man using laptop on garden wall charged with wireless theft
A 39-year-old man was arrested yesterday after he was spotted tapping away at his laptop while perched on a wall outside a home in Chiswick, west London, by two police community support officers.
The officers believed he was using the owner's unsecured wireless broadband connection without permission and he was arrested on suspicion of stealing the connection. He was taken to Chiswick police station and bailed until October pending further inquiries.
Although wireless thieves say it is a victimless crime, the number of arrests for dishonestly obtaining free access under the Communications Act 2003 are rising.
In April, a man was cautioned by police after neighbours spotted him in a car outside a house in Redditch, Worcestershire. In 2005, a west London man was fined £500 and sentenced to 12 months conditional discharge for hijacking a wireless broadband connection, in what was thought to be the first case of its kind.
Detective Constable Mark Roberts, of the Metropolitan Police computer crime unit, said those illegally using unsecured broadband should fear arrest. "This arrest should act as a warning to anyone who thinks it is acceptable to illegally use other people's broadband," he said.
Stephen George, a technology PR consultant, said that punishing every illegal user was unrealistic. "If police try and do that we will have more people in prison than out of it," he said. "If people want to stop others using their connection they can secure it in a few minutes. If they don't ... that's really their own fault."
I'm pretty sure it'd be theft if someone left their keys in their car and you drove off in it.
Except you aren't removing any ones access.
Its like if you built a bench on "your" parking strip and then complained that people were sitting on your bench.
You build something that everyone can use and then put it in public the public cannot be expected to not use it. Expectations are(more or less) the basis of laws(which enforce those expectations).
Its also kills the positive externalities that are generated by public utilities[which is pretty much what an unsecured wireless access point is].
That means that the two prime reasons to make laws[enforcing the social contract and correcting externalities] say that such a law is retarded.
B.) Just because you're not using it does not mean that it's theirs for the taking. You're not only paying for the good/service, but access to the good/service. You don't get to grab someone's bike off the rack to take a quick trip down to the store just because you know they're in class for the next hour.
This article gives a good account of what actually happened, but not so much of the legal detail:
Judge punishes boys for extortion in computer game
Leeuwarden - Theft is punishable in virtual worlds. That is what the court in Leeuwarden ruled yesterday in the trial against two boys who used violence against a classmate to steal goods from the popular game Runescape. According to the court, virtual goods in games indeed have value. This is the first time that a court has determined that virtual theft is similar to electricity theft and theft of "giraal money" [which is sort of like cheques], and is therefore punishable.
The high-profile theft took place on September 6 last year. The perpetrators were fourteen years old, and their victim was thirteen. He was forced to transfer his virtual goods, including a mask and an amulet, to his attackers via a computer. The boy had been playing the game on the Internet for a long time.
The lawyers of both defendants argued that virtual objects do not really exist, despite 'coins' being used in-game: ''It is nothing, and nothing remains. It is like air." Already amulets and masks are like physical coins, with the millions of gamers worldwide playing Runescape being crazy about them. ''Sometimes virtual goods are bought and sold for real money on the Internet or in the playground'', explained the court.
Both perpetrators were guilty of "robbery with violence". The boys attended the same school as their victim. They attracted him to the house of one of the boys, and put him in a stranglehold. His throat was clenched, he was kicked and beaten and threatened with knives from the kitchen. The court took this violence into account heavily. ''The victim was in a difficult situation and has suffered physical and psychological injuries.''
The perpetrators see the seriousness of their actions, but do not and have not shown signs of regret. Yet they have not been sent to youth detention because of their age and clean record. One boy was sentenced to 160 hours of labor and a month of probation. His friend, who also had previously skipped school and broken into a house, got 200 hours of labor and two months probation.
Attorney Bart Canoy will appeal on behalf of his client. ''Legally speaking, virtual assets don't matter. The in-game funds are not actually moved, they remain in the possession of Runescape.''
This article gives some more detail on the legal matters.
Virtual theft sanctioned for the first time
Rotterdam, October 21. Theft of a virtual amulet and mask from an Internet game is theft, the court in Leeuwarden ruled today.
Two boys, aged 14 and 15 received 200 and 160 hours of community service after they last year robbed a 13-year-old classmate of his belongings in the internet game Runescape. The boys kicked and beat their victim and threatened him with a knife until he transferred his property in the game to them.
The ruling that virtual goods are goods within the meaning of Article 310 of the Penal Code is unique in the Netherlands. In November 2007, Amsterdam police for the first time investigated someone for stealing around 4000 euros worth of virtual furniture in Habbo Hotel, an online meeting place for young people. The credits to pay for the furniture are purchased with real money. The suspect was not prosecuted.
Corien Prince, professor of law and informatics at the University of Tilburg and councilor at the Scientific Council for Government, said the prosecution is a good thing. This is a game for children, but it can lead to outright criminality." Prince mentions an incident in China in 2005, where one player killed another after he secretly sold his cyber-sword from Legend of Mir 3.
The value of a virtual mask is difficult to determine. However, Prince said that this is theft because something has gone to the victim. "In early nineties it was argued that software theft was not really theft because the original survived. Not only has that changed in the law, but in this case the player no longer has the original."
Moreover, the fact that something is intangible does not mean it can not be stolen. Prince said: "The Supreme Court has already more than 15 years ago ruled that 'giraal money' can also be stolen." However, Prince says that theft must be in contravention with the law. "Sometimes you steal as part of a game. Then the theft is not unlawful. The judge must also look at the rules in the world of the game. "
This article gives the legal detail (but is a bit heavy in legalese).
Conviction for theft of virtual goods from the online game Runescape
Leeuwarden court ruling yesterday. The criminal court has sentenced two minors who together have contributed to the theft of virtual non-material goods from the online computer game "Runescape". "Runescape" is one of the larger online games and is especially popular among children. Millions of players, so-called online gamers, all over the world play the game.
"Runescape" is set in a virtual world where players with characters participate in virtual world. In this case, the minor victim was beaten and threatened. Was the goal theft? Anyone who listened to the radio yesterday would think so. "Extortion!" cried the BNR news presenter. The court press reported that the charge was robbery with violence. One of the suspects stated:
"Because [victim] was not cooperating, I clenched him by the throat. We forced [victim] to log onto that computer. [victim] did not want to give us his password and log on the computer to play the game. Because we threatened him, he at some point had to log in and the game started up. I threatened [victim] that he had to do work. If [victim] did not want to cooperate then I would give him more blows. "
Pure terror that was all about toys (a virtual amulet and a virtual mask) in a computer game.
The court, the young offender (dob in 1992) was sentenced to probation and labor. According to the court, these virtual goods were goods in the meaning of Article 310 of the Penal Code, so that there is theft, and discusses the criteria as follows:
"Article 310 of the Penal Code aims at the ability of citizens to protect themselves. In answering the question of whether virtual goods are goods in the meaning of that article, several things need to be considered in order . There are a number of criteria that must be met for there to be property within the meaning of that article.
First of all, it is important for the good to have value to the possessor. This value does not have to be monetary. In today's society, the virtual goods from online computer game "Runescape" have come to have significant value. For large numbers of online gamers these goods have value. The more virtual goods a player has, the stronger he is in the game.
Moreover, virtual goods are bought and sold for money, including via the Internet or in the playground. The case also shows that the mask and the amulet had value for both the suspect and defendant.
Of interest is that goods do not need to be physical to have value. In the case law (for example, the doctor who had bypassed an electricity meter, Electricity Judgment ed NJD) it is determined that non-material objects - such as electricity and "giraal money" - can be treated as goods in a criminal sense.
The virtual amulet and the virtual mask as defined in this case are not material goods, although they are noticeable. Having regard to the said case law that is that no obstacle to see them meant as a good as in Article 310 of the Penal Code.
Furthermore, an important feature of a criminal sentence is that the actual theft transfer power over the stolen goods with one party obtaining the actual power by removing it from the other.
The possession of the property must pass from one to the other. With criminal possession this means having actual power. In the case law it has been determined that the foregoing is not the case with a PIN number, and computer and phone call minutes.
This case referred to virtual goods, namely a virtual amulet and a virtual mask, that were in the possession of one party. Only he had the actual power over such goods. Possession of such virtual goods can be transferred, for example, by transferring goods from one account to another.
In this case the goods are actually transferred, namely from being under the actual power of the victim to that of the suspect and co-defendant. The goods were transferred from the account of the victim to that of the suspect and co-defendant. The victim has lost actual power over the goods and the suspect and co-defendant have obtained it.
Now, the virtual amulet and the virtual mask as defined in this case meet the above criteria, so the court considers that these virtual goods are 'goods' as provided for in Article 310 of the Penal Code and belonged to the declarant. "
In the opinion of the court, the offender does not take responsibility for his actions. No regret or repentance is apparent, so this is not considered in the sentence.
Your analogies keep referring to taking something and removing access. Said does not happen.
Mens Rea has to do with requirements for conviction, it has nothing to do with the purpose of making laws. Otherwise there is going to be a lot of shit that has to be illegal, like eating chocolate.
I was referring to your whole bench example. If there's no criminal intent or knowledge that what they're doing is improper, then yes, sitting on your bench is not a crime. Everybody knows, however, that you need to pay for an internet connection, so using somebody else's clearly violates (upholds? whatever) mens rea, even if it doesn't deprive them of using that connection.
And yes, using someone's connection can easily remove access if it's not a particularly fast connection and/or use up their bandwidth. Granted, bandwidth is probably not an issue most places in the US, but in many many other places of the world, that is a clear theft of a limited service quota. Even here, there's an argument to be made that by increasing the usage (and therefore, expense) without increasing the number of customers, that would result in the price increasing.
Actually you are more likely to have issues in the U.S. than anywhere else you have wireless connections. But that is another issue.
And no, everyone doesn't know that unsecured wireless internet isn't a public resource. The ONLY purpose of having an unsecured wireless network is so that anyone can use it.
Man using laptop on garden wall charged with wireless theft
A 39-year-old man was arrested yesterday after he was spotted tapping away at his laptop while perched on a wall outside a home in Chiswick, west London, by two police community support officers.
The officers believed he was using the owner's unsecured wireless broadband connection without permission and he was arrested on suspicion of stealing the connection. He was taken to Chiswick police station and bailed until October pending further inquiries.
Although wireless thieves say it is a victimless crime, the number of arrests for dishonestly obtaining free access under the Communications Act 2003 are rising.
In April, a man was cautioned by police after neighbours spotted him in a car outside a house in Redditch, Worcestershire. In 2005, a west London man was fined £500 and sentenced to 12 months conditional discharge for hijacking a wireless broadband connection, in what was thought to be the first case of its kind.
Detective Constable Mark Roberts, of the Metropolitan Police computer crime unit, said those illegally using unsecured broadband should fear arrest. "This arrest should act as a warning to anyone who thinks it is acceptable to illegally use other people's broadband," he said.
Stephen George, a technology PR consultant, said that punishing every illegal user was unrealistic. "If police try and do that we will have more people in prison than out of it," he said. "If people want to stop others using their connection they can secure it in a few minutes. If they don't ... that's really their own fault."
I think you're vastly overestimating the technical aptitude of the general populace.
If you are too dumb to secure your wireless network you are indeed too dumb to have a wireless network because securing it is one of the steps that every wireless network goes through in its setup and install process.
I.E. You cannot possible have a personal or wireless network and not have been given the option to secure it with the knowledge that there is no reason to not secure it.
Stealing bandwidth isn't technically theft, but from the article below it seems it's a felony in Michigan. The charge isn't theft though, it's "Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks" .
A Michigan man who used a coffee shop's unsecured Wi-Fi to check his e-mail from his car could have faced up to five years in prison, according to local TV station WOOD. But it seems few in the village of Sparta, Mich., were aware that using an unsecured Wi-Fi connection without the owner's permission--a practice known as piggybacking--was a felony.
Well yeah, that's exactly what I was saying. It's a serious crime, but that crime isn't theft. So in the context of the OP, there's no reason this charge isn't perfectly appropriate as opposed to some form of theft or robbery.
Man using laptop on garden wall charged with wireless theft
A 39-year-old man was arrested yesterday after he was spotted tapping away at his laptop while perched on a wall outside a home in Chiswick, west London, by two police community support officers.
The officers believed he was using the owner's unsecured wireless broadband connection without permission and he was arrested on suspicion of stealing the connection. He was taken to Chiswick police station and bailed until October pending further inquiries.
Although wireless thieves say it is a victimless crime, the number of arrests for dishonestly obtaining free access under the Communications Act 2003 are rising.
In April, a man was cautioned by police after neighbours spotted him in a car outside a house in Redditch, Worcestershire. In 2005, a west London man was fined £500 and sentenced to 12 months conditional discharge for hijacking a wireless broadband connection, in what was thought to be the first case of its kind.
Detective Constable Mark Roberts, of the Metropolitan Police computer crime unit, said those illegally using unsecured broadband should fear arrest. "This arrest should act as a warning to anyone who thinks it is acceptable to illegally use other people's broadband," he said.
Stephen George, a technology PR consultant, said that punishing every illegal user was unrealistic. "If police try and do that we will have more people in prison than out of it," he said. "If people want to stop others using their connection they can secure it in a few minutes. If they don't ... that's really their own fault."
From the look of it (and the mention of the Communications Act of 2003) it appears that this form of "theft" is pretty specifically defined in the context of wireless connections...it's not like they're applying the traditional laws regarding theft of property to it.
Calm down there, big shooter. See above...it's not theft under the usual laws regarding theft. You're able to "steal" a service in the US as well, but only under the limited circumstances defined in Theft of Services laws...not under the normal laws concerning theft or robbery.
So no, you don't "win."
EDIT: The problem, I think, is that you're determined to intermingle lay terms and the law. The two are entirely separate.
If you are too dumb to secure your wireless network you are indeed too dumb to have a wireless network because securing it is one of the steps that every wireless network goes through in its setup and install process.
I.E. You cannot possible have a personal or wireless network and not have been given the option to secure it with the knowledge that there is no reason to not secure it.
Um...no.
Most consumer routers are set up by default to connect on the WAN via DHCP, and with DHCP enable on the router side. You can pull a Linksys WRT54G out of the box, plug a cable from your modem to the port marked "internet" and you're done. Fire up laptop, connect to AP named "linksys," and go.
This is why you see so many people with the default SSID...you never need to go into the setup and do anything. It's entirely optional.
But of course your AP will be unsecured this way.
EDIT: The solution to this would be to require router manufacturers to enable some form of security by default. Or to have DHCP disabled by default, and force the user to go into setup before using it. Or something.
EDIT: The solution to this would be to require router manufacturers to enable some form of security by default. Or to have DHCP disabled by default, and force the user to go into setup before using it. Or something.
When they try to access a web page, it should come up with the setup page instead until they've completed the wizard. That would probably be the simplest solution.
Currently, it's ridiculous how many open access points you see. I accidentally connected to a neighbour's once, because my router had died, so my laptop automatically fell-back to the next available access point. I used it for an few minutes before I went looking to see why things were running a bit slow.
If I had downloaded a large file, that could have ended up costing them hundreds of dollars. We have some really shady ISPs here in Australia who have cheap monthly fees, but then charge up to $150/GB for downloads over a certain quota. It could have ended up being a real mess if my use had sent them over quota by a couple of gigs.
So, I've since made sure that my laptop only connects to access points that I specify.
EDIT: The solution to this would be to require router manufacturers to enable some form of security by default. Or to have DHCP disabled by default, and force the user to go into setup before using it. Or something.
When they try to access a web page, it should come up with the setup page instead until they've completed the wizard. That would probably be the simplest solution.
Currently, it's ridiculous how many open access points you see. I accidentally connected to a neighbour's once, because my router had died, so my laptop automatically fell-back to the next available access point. I used it for an few minutes before I went looking to see why things were running a bit slow.
If I had downloaded a large file, that could have ended up costing them hundreds of dollars. We have some really shady ISPs here in Australia who have cheap monthly fees, but then charge up to $150/GB for downloads over a certain quota. It could have ended up being a real mess if my use had sent them over quota by a couple of gigs.
So, I've since made sure that my laptop only connects to access points that I specify.
Yeah, in areas where metered connections are common this is pretty critical. In the US it's not really as big of a deal...the most a piggybacker will do is slow your connection down until you figure out what's going on and secure your shit. No monetary costs involved.
Well, until the feds show up because he was downloading underage goat porn all night long. Then you've got some serious legal fees in your future.
The problem with calling them "services" is that you can't normally steal services after they've been rendered. So the label doesn't apply very well for property rights.
Moving a chair into your house is a service. That does not mean that someone cannot come and take that chair.
It is the same here. the actions being performed, when performed for money, are services, that the recipient of the service can have his access removed from the result of the service has no bearing on the action itself.
But they didn't steal the service of moving the chair to your house, they stole the chair. They can't go back in time and make the the mover bring it to their house.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
The problem with calling them "services" is that you can't normally steal services after they've been rendered. So the label doesn't apply very well for property rights.
Moving a chair into your house is a service. That does not mean that someone cannot come and take that chair.
It is the same here. the actions being performed, when performed for money, are services, that the recipient of the service can have his access removed from the result of the service has no bearing on the action itself.
But they didn't steal the service of moving the chair to your house, they stole the chair. They can't go back in time and make the the mover bring it to their house.
Back into the game, though, all I did when I sold you the sword was sell you the service of earning access to the sword. The fact that you lost access later (or your chair was stolen) has nothing to do with me. The sword is not the service, granting access to it is. Which is delivered, and cannot be taken away (you were still granted access even if you lost it later). They can't go back in time and make me grant them access to the sword, I granted it to you.
And no label that applies well for property rights will work here, because from a property rights perspective no property is ever changing hands, ever in the history of ever (in a majority of games).
In the exceptions to this rule, the whole thing is really easy because the items are property and can be treated as such.
Currently, it's ridiculous how many open access points you see. I accidentally connected to a neighbour's once, because my router had died, so my laptop automatically fell-back to the next available access point. I used it for an few minutes before I went looking to see why things were running a bit slow.
If I had downloaded a large file, that could have ended up costing them hundreds of dollars. We have some really shady ISPs here in Australia who have cheap monthly fees, but then charge up to $150/GB for downloads over a certain quota. It could have ended up being a real mess if my use had sent them over quota by a couple of gigs.
So, I've since made sure that my laptop only connects to access points that I specify.
For a while, in some parts of my house a neighbor's wireless router's signal was actually stronger than our own. It took us a while to even realize that that was happening.
But they didn't steal the service of moving the chair to your house, they stole the chair. They can't go back in time and make the the mover bring it to their house.
Back into the game, though, all I did when I sold you the sword was sell you the service of earning access to the sword. The fact that you lost access later (or your chair was stolen) has nothing to do with me. The sword is not the service, granting access to it is. Which is delivered, and cannot be taken away (you were still granted access even if you lost it later). They can't go back in time and make me grant them access to the sword, I granted it to you.
And no label that applies well for property rights will work here, because from a property rights perspective no property is ever changing hands, ever in the history of ever (in a majority of games).
In the exceptions to this rule, the whole thing is really easy because the items are property and can be treated as such.
Again, I'm not talking about current legal technicalities, I'm talking about what happens, practically. If someone has a virtual item, and someone else takes that item through channels not sanctioned by the game, they are stealing something of real value. Even if the item only has value in the context of the infrastructure provided by a third party.
Also I think you are confusing the service of playing the game to get an item with the service of the third party to provide the game infrastructure.
Take a look at it from this perspective: If people are willing to pay others to play the game for them (obtain items), is it wrong for people to actually go out and decide to earn the money people are offering for the game playing? If not, why would it be okay to go out and steal the results of their work, their livelihood, that is worth actual money?
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
But there is no transaction here. Ownership remains the same throughout.
It applies to services as well, though. If I trade you a dental checkup for some landscaping, it's taxable. No ownership of anything changes. And just recently everyone was arguing that "reconfiguring the game world" was a service. If I give you a broadsword, even under the "it all belongs to Blizzard" paradigm, I'm still performing a service for you that has a fair market value.
But there is no transaction here. Ownership remains the same throughout.
It applies to services as well, though. If I trade you a dental checkup for some landscaping, it's taxable. No ownership of anything changes. And just recently everyone was arguing that "reconfiguring the game world" was a service. If I give you a broadsword, even under the "it all belongs to Blizzard" paradigm, I'm still performing a service for you that has a fair market value.
I would actually agree with this. I DO think that if I sell you gold, for real money, I should be taxed. Because money has changed hands for 'something' and that something does have market value. For that person who just bought that 'something'. But for me, its pretty clear that something is a service, and not a product. Therefore, earning in game money through playing the game should NOT be taxed. Because its ridiculous.
Just like I do think those boys should be charged with assault and possibly unauthorized access to a computer system or something, depending on the details of the case. My problem comes in defining it as theft. There has to be some sort of data extortion too they can throw on people.
Heres an interesting question I'd like to pose. Take for example EVE online where this stuff has happened quite a bit. MMOs generally have in game chat channels. People often use these in say EVE to infiltrate and gain there way up in corporations and eventually use that to bring about the downfall of that corp, stealing tons and tons of in game money. Where does this fit in? The developers have stated they see this play as perfectly acceptable, but the lines of player and character certainly get blurred. Sure money was transfered through in game means, but it could be argued that it was under false pretenses, ie you said you were on there side, befriended the people behind the computers through the chat channels, and then took their in game money. Maybe since it is all done in game, thats fine.
Now what happens if I start to meet these people in real life. Maybe I find one of the people Ive been playing with lives close by, and we go out to dinner and hang out. Happens all the time. Maybe through chatting over steak, Im like "hey, why dont you give me all your monies in the game, and I can by ship of +5 kickassedness" and they agree. Note that no threat or anything has taken place. After they agree to transfer their money in game, I take it and run. What happens then?
But there is no transaction here. Ownership remains the same throughout.
It applies to services as well, though. If I trade you a dental checkup for some landscaping, it's taxable. No ownership of anything changes. And just recently everyone was arguing that "reconfiguring the game world" was a service. If I give you a broadsword, even under the "it all belongs to Blizzard" paradigm, I'm still performing a service for you that has a fair market value.
I agree with this statement.
However, in the current context it makes much more sense not to worry about these transactions until real-world money or property becomes involved (as in, I pay you for a sword) because if you start attaching these fair market values to purely in-game transactions you're going to choke the life out of the game quicker than shit. I don't want to have to file a tax form after I go raiding for earned income.
If you're only talking about transactions than involve real-world property, that's already covered legally whether or not it's enforced. If I sell you a sword on WoW in exchange for either dollars or property of value, I just earned income and must claim it.
Was there some objection to this that I missed? Perhaps by me, by accident?
Again, I'm not talking about current legal technicalities, I'm talking about what happens, practically. If someone has a virtual item, and someone else takes that item through channels not sanctioned by the game, they are stealing something of real value. Even if the item only has value in the context of the infrastructure provided by a third party.
Also I think you are confusing the service of playing the game to get an item with the service of the third party to provide the game infrastructure.
Take a look at it from this perspective: If people are willing to pay others to play the game for them (obtain items), is it wrong for people to actually go out and decide to earn the money people are offering for the game playing? If not, why would it be okay to go out and steal the results of their work, their livelihood, that is worth actual money?
Current legal technicalities matter, though, and are critical to my argument as to both why it is not theft and equally importantly why this must not change.
Listen, I get what you're saying. That, practically, that sword has taken on value and by logging in and transferring it to my account I've taken that value from you. I get this.
But legally it's important to keep this distinction that I've been harping on, because (at least under the US legal system) once you identify those items as property and that transfer as theft in the traditional sense, it has wide ranging repercussions that I don't think are beneficial to either the legal system or online gaming.
So, unless some case comes along that cannot be solved any other way, I think it's best that this legal distinction remain.
Can you even draft up a hypothetical circumstance in which it would be necessary to define the items as property for legal reasons? Pretty much any method of wrongly taking them that I can think of would be covered under another criminal code...anything from unauthorized computer access to fraud...without defining the items as property of the victim.
But there is no transaction here. Ownership remains the same throughout.
It applies to services as well, though. If I trade you a dental checkup for some landscaping, it's taxable. No ownership of anything changes. And just recently everyone was arguing that "reconfiguring the game world" was a service. If I give you a broadsword, even under the "it all belongs to Blizzard" paradigm, I'm still performing a service for you that has a fair market value.
Yes, and as i explained already why that was retarded. Opening a door has "fair market value". That does not mean you get taxed when someone opens a door for you. Unless you are performing a professional service which, these are not, you cannot be reasonably taxed for the action. Your friend comes over and helps you fix up your car, you do not get taxed for that "service"
Current legal technicalities matter, though, and are critical to my argument as to both why it is not theft and equally importantly why this must not change.
Listen, I get what you're saying. That, practically, that sword has taken on value and by logging in and transferring it to my account I've taken that value from you. I get this.
But legally it's important to keep this distinction that I've been harping on, because (at least under the US legal system) once you identify those items as property and that transfer as theft in the traditional sense, it has wide ranging repercussions that I don't think are beneficial to either the legal system or online gaming.
So, unless some case comes along that cannot be solved any other way, I think it's best that this legal distinction remain.
Can you even draft up a hypothetical circumstance in which it would be necessary to define the items as property for legal reasons? Pretty much any method of wrongly taking them that I can think of would be covered under another criminal code...anything from unauthorized computer access to fraud...without defining the items as property of the victim.
Current legal technicalities have no bearing on what the law should do. And I've never said you should just define virtual items as property, straight up. I in fact specifically gave a good reason why they should not be considered property. What I did say is that neither the term "service" or "good" applies to these items very well. What needs to be done here is have a new well-thought out laws for this type of thing.
Also, treating every instance of virtual theft as "unauthorized computer access" or "fraud" is incredibly short-sighted. Because in those terms, taking a $100 item is exactly the same as taking $100,000 worth of items. The judge might impose harsher penalties for one vs. another, but they would only need to do that because of an inadequacy in the law. And there's a very good chance that they'll get inconsistent or unfair interpretations of the "unauthorized computer access" penalty.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
That was my whole point and does apply to the OP - at what point do the repurcussions of not doing it start to gain steam on the repurcussions of doing it?
The legal precedents here aren't perfectly applicable, but they are pretty darn close. And they definitely support the notion of this stuff as real property, or at least as real services that appear as virtual property, with fair market value. Taxation is only one aspect here. I mean, cheating at gambling is illegal, right? Are gambling chips currency? They are owned by the casino and not you. Isn't it all just a game? Isn't it all just virtual until you cash out? But if you cheat, you are committing a crime, regardless of whether you cash out or if you just go play all your cheated winnings and lose them all anyway.
The difference between gambling and online games is only the practical aspect that right now, making cheating in gambling illegal probably helps gambling, while trying to legislate "cheating" in virtual worlds would likely screw everything up. But for how long does that remain true. How many cases have to come up like this and all the other crazy mess that happens in virtual worlds before the courts are better off treating virtual worlds more like real ones?
Current legal technicalities matter, though, and are critical to my argument as to both why it is not theft and equally importantly why this must not change.
Listen, I get what you're saying. That, practically, that sword has taken on value and by logging in and transferring it to my account I've taken that value from you. I get this.
But legally it's important to keep this distinction that I've been harping on, because (at least under the US legal system) once you identify those items as property and that transfer as theft in the traditional sense, it has wide ranging repercussions that I don't think are beneficial to either the legal system or online gaming.
So, unless some case comes along that cannot be solved any other way, I think it's best that this legal distinction remain.
Can you even draft up a hypothetical circumstance in which it would be necessary to define the items as property for legal reasons? Pretty much any method of wrongly taking them that I can think of would be covered under another criminal code...anything from unauthorized computer access to fraud...without defining the items as property of the victim.
Current legal technicalities have no bearing on what the law should do. And I've never said you should just define virtual items as property, straight up. I in fact specifically gave a good reason why they should not be considered property. What I did say is that neither the term "service" or "good" applies to these items very well. What needs to be done here is have a new well-thought out laws for this type of thing.
Also, treating every instance of virtual theft as "unauthorized computer access" or "fraud" is incredibly short-sighted. Because in those terms, taking a $100 item is exactly the same as taking $100,000 worth of items. The judge might impose harsher penalties for one vs. another, but they would only need to do that because of an inadequacy in the law. And there's a very good chance that they'll get inconsistent or unfair interpretations of the "unauthorized computer access" penalty.
Really? If someone say hacks my account and deletes my level 70 character fully decked out in purples this is worse than if someone deletes my lvl 10 character who doesnt have squat?
Both can be restored just as easily. In both cases this has cost blizzard time and money to do so, which the person should be liable for, but I honestly don't see how those two are different based on the fact that I am paying the same amount to blizzard for the game regardless of my level or gear situation. Just because it may be possible to sell one set of stuff for more money on ebay doesnt mean that the value of the 'harm' done is any greater.
Yes, and as i explained already why that was retarded. Opening a door has "fair market value". That does not mean you get taxed when someone opens a door for you. Unless you are performing a professional service which, these are not, you cannot be reasonably taxed for the action. Your friend comes over and helps you fix up your car, you do not get taxed for that "service"
Except again, that is part of my whole point. You don't get to use those analogies when people are quitting their RL jobs and living off of their virtual income, and businesses employ gold farmers, and thousands or millions of $ every day are being exchanged back and forth from GP. The actual nature of what's going on isn't kindergarten or holding open a door. It's a significant growing economy, which is the exact difference between what you describe and what's actually going on.
Really? If someone say hacks my account and deletes my level 70 character fully decked out in purples this is worse than if someone deletes my lvl 10 character who doesnt have squat?
Both can be restored just as easily. In both cases this has cost blizzard time and money to do so, which the person should be liable for, but I honestly don't see how those two are different based on the fact that I am paying the same amount to blizzard for the game regardless of my level or gear situation. Just because it may be possible to sell one set of stuff for more money on ebay doesnt mean that the value of the 'harm' done is any greater.
Because they have significantly different fair market values in real dollars. The law normally does not ignore such a thing. It costs just as much to print a $100 bill as it does a $1 bill, obviously that does not make them the same thing.
Except again, that is part of my whole point. You don't get to use those analogies when people are quitting their RL jobs and living off of their virtual income, and businesses employ gold farmers, and thousands or millions of $ every day are being exchanged back and forth from GP. The actual nature of what's going on isn't kindergarten or holding open a door. It's a significant growing economy, which is the exact difference between what you describe and what's actually going on.
No, you do, because people make livings off of opening doors and fixing cars. That doesn't make the action a professional service.
And the people that do make their livings off the actions get taxed as income when they make income. Thousands of Dollars are being exchanged back and forth. That is the key difference.
edit: Also price discrimination says their fair market value is not their market price.
So why is it illegal to cheat at gambling when really it's just a game and all the chips belong to the casino?
I'd wager it's because Nevada made a law specifically dealing with cheating at gambling. Also because a much higher percentage of those chips (nearly 100%) will be or were at some point exchanged for real-world cash. Unlike WoW-gold, where the percentage is more like...well, probably pretty close to zero.
Really? If someone say hacks my account and deletes my level 70 character fully decked out in purples this is worse than if someone deletes my lvl 10 character who doesnt have squat?
Both can be restored just as easily. In both cases this has cost blizzard time and money to do so, which the person should be liable for, but I honestly don't see how those two are different based on the fact that I am paying the same amount to blizzard for the game regardless of my level or gear situation. Just because it may be possible to sell one set of stuff for more money on ebay doesnt mean that the value of the 'harm' done is any greater.
If you can fully reverse the crime, obviously that should be done. That's not what I'm talking about; it's not always possible to reverse the crime. The stolen items could have been resold to another person. And if you simply made them restore the items from the losing side, it wouldn't deter theft and in fact encourage a 2-man con to dupe rare items, using the court system.
And in those cases where it can't be reversed, it should be treated differently if you steal a virtual item with a fair market value of $100 vs. stealing $100,000 worth of virtual items. It is most certainly quite harmful to lose items that are worth $100,000 in real money. Certainly more harmful than losing $100 worth. Because as we have established, virtual items have real value because others will pay for them.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
Posts
Those are different, however, because ownership is actually transferred to you. Whereas with online items in most MMOs you never own anything until you sell the item (in which case you own the money you were given).
Which is why a service-based model makes more sense.
I disagree heartily with the bolded, as you well know. Also, there's no reason the market is necessarily acting like it's property...the market would act in the same way if it was a service (in that people would give players money for their time/expertise), which given the context is a more reasonable assumption. As for how big it has to get before the government "must" change its mind, there is no such point. Or rather, for as long as none of this becomes actual property that point will never be reached due to a vast majority of people being rational.
Do cable and internet access/bandwidth count as services?
Yes.
In those cases the people providing the service may or may not own the property used to provide it (some ISPs or cable companies might own their lines, other may not, though I suppose both will own some form of infrastructure).
However this is not necessary for a service (in case you want to argue that this somehow confers property status to WoW items or gold). I can provide a service that requires no property or infrastructure at all. At which point you're paying me for that service, and not for any sort of transfer of property.
When you pay me $50 for a broadsword online, you're not actually paying me for the broadsword. You're paying me for the time I put into gaining access to that broadsword. This doesn't necessarily place a value on the broadsword itself, it places a value on the act of earning access to it (or the time put into doing so).
This might seem like a somewhat silly distinction if we're speaking plainly about the topic, and if I were to buy one on eBay I'd certainly say "I bought a broadsword" not "I paid a third party for the time he spent earning access to the broadsword." But I'd not be speaking accurately, and from a legal standpoint the service model is currently more accurate and long-term it makes a lot more sense (again, provided players don't own in-game property). And from a legal standpoint this is an incredibly important distinction.
The problem with calling them "services" is that you can't normally steal services after they've been rendered. So the label doesn't apply very well for property rights.
The problem with calling them "goods" is that they are part of a market of artificial scarcity and it doesn't make sense to tax them that way.
Just like everything else you say, it's retarded.
Goods taken in trade are not taxed, the transaction is taxed. Transaction. I know its a big word, so say it with me transaction. Good, now you too can join the land of people who know the difference between ownership and an action.
But there is no transaction here. Ownership remains the same throughout. Say it with me one more time. There is no transaction, ownership remains the same throughout. The amount of retardation that allows this is the same sort of retardation of someone claiming that saying "thanks" when someone opens a door is a taxable action.
Goods "won at play" are profits. But these aren't won at play, they are "produced", and again ownership doesn't change. When you make a chair, you are not taxed for making of the chair, but from profiting off the sale of the chair or the sale of the chair itself.
Moving a chair into your house is a service. That does not mean that someone cannot come and take that chair.
It is the same here. the actions being performed, when performed for money, are services, that the recipient of the service can have his access removed from the result of the service has no bearing on the action itself.
Can't you steal bandwidth?
Pretty sure not.
You can "steal bandwidth," but I'm almost certain it's not legally theft. It'll fall under another crime. Or possibly Theft of Services, which is its own crime (note "services"). I could be wrong, though.
How about this. I'll just ask you, can you steal bandwidth? Why don't you go look it up? If you're trying to use theft of bandwidth to back up some kind of point, feel free to go find out and let us know. Otherwise I'll feel free to forget you mentioned it.
EDIT: As an example, if I use your wireless network without your permission I'm generally not going to be guilty of theft (I know that it is this way in several states, and I've never heard of one where it isn't)...I'm going to be guilty of something along the lines of unauthorized access to a computer network. Again, I welcome you to show me otherwise.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9722006-7.html
PSN = Wicker86 ________ Gamertag = Wicker86
Piggybacking is illegal in most places. I know for a fact it's illegal in the UK.
Edit: After some reading it turns out it's theft in the UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/aug/23/ukcrime.news
PSN = Wicker86 ________ Gamertag = Wicker86
Except you aren't removing any ones access.
Its like if you built a bench on "your" parking strip and then complained that people were sitting on your bench.
You build something that everyone can use and then put it in public the public cannot be expected to not use it. Expectations are(more or less) the basis of laws(which enforce those expectations).
Its also kills the positive externalities that are generated by public utilities[which is pretty much what an unsecured wireless access point is].
That means that the two prime reasons to make laws[enforcing the social contract and correcting externalities] say that such a law is retarded.
B.) Just because you're not using it does not mean that it's theirs for the taking. You're not only paying for the good/service, but access to the good/service. You don't get to grab someone's bike off the rack to take a quick trip down to the store just because you know they're in class for the next hour.
Here are a couple of articles and some super-quick translations (thanks Google Translator for doing most of the work for me):
---
http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/7/Misdaad/article/detail/38458/2008/10/21/Rechter-straft-jongens-voor-afpersen-in-computerspel.dhtml
This article gives a good account of what actually happened, but not so much of the legal detail:
---
http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2032761.ece/Virtuele_diefstal_voor_het_eerst_bestraft
This article gives some more detail on the legal matters.
---
http://juridischdagblad.nl/content/view/7406/1/
This article gives the legal detail (but is a bit heavy in legalese).
Mens Rea has to do with requirements for conviction, it has nothing to do with the purpose of making laws. Otherwise there is going to be a lot of shit that has to be illegal, like eating chocolate.
And yes, using someone's connection can easily remove access if it's not a particularly fast connection and/or use up their bandwidth. Granted, bandwidth is probably not an issue most places in the US, but in many many other places of the world, that is a clear theft of a limited service quota. Even here, there's an argument to be made that by increasing the usage (and therefore, expense) without increasing the number of customers, that would result in the price increasing.
And no, everyone doesn't know that unsecured wireless internet isn't a public resource. The ONLY purpose of having an unsecured wireless network is so that anyone can use it.
I win! You CAN steal a service!
If you are too dumb to secure your wireless network you are indeed too dumb to have a wireless network because securing it is one of the steps that every wireless network goes through in its setup and install process.
I.E. You cannot possible have a personal or wireless network and not have been given the option to secure it with the knowledge that there is no reason to not secure it.
Well yeah, that's exactly what I was saying. It's a serious crime, but that crime isn't theft. So in the context of the OP, there's no reason this charge isn't perfectly appropriate as opposed to some form of theft or robbery.
Well, that and the assault.
From the look of it (and the mention of the Communications Act of 2003) it appears that this form of "theft" is pretty specifically defined in the context of wireless connections...it's not like they're applying the traditional laws regarding theft of property to it.
Calm down there, big shooter. See above...it's not theft under the usual laws regarding theft. You're able to "steal" a service in the US as well, but only under the limited circumstances defined in Theft of Services laws...not under the normal laws concerning theft or robbery.
So no, you don't "win."
EDIT: The problem, I think, is that you're determined to intermingle lay terms and the law. The two are entirely separate.
Um...no.
Most consumer routers are set up by default to connect on the WAN via DHCP, and with DHCP enable on the router side. You can pull a Linksys WRT54G out of the box, plug a cable from your modem to the port marked "internet" and you're done. Fire up laptop, connect to AP named "linksys," and go.
This is why you see so many people with the default SSID...you never need to go into the setup and do anything. It's entirely optional.
But of course your AP will be unsecured this way.
EDIT: The solution to this would be to require router manufacturers to enable some form of security by default. Or to have DHCP disabled by default, and force the user to go into setup before using it. Or something.
When they try to access a web page, it should come up with the setup page instead until they've completed the wizard. That would probably be the simplest solution.
Currently, it's ridiculous how many open access points you see. I accidentally connected to a neighbour's once, because my router had died, so my laptop automatically fell-back to the next available access point. I used it for an few minutes before I went looking to see why things were running a bit slow.
If I had downloaded a large file, that could have ended up costing them hundreds of dollars. We have some really shady ISPs here in Australia who have cheap monthly fees, but then charge up to $150/GB for downloads over a certain quota. It could have ended up being a real mess if my use had sent them over quota by a couple of gigs.
So, I've since made sure that my laptop only connects to access points that I specify.
Yeah, in areas where metered connections are common this is pretty critical. In the US it's not really as big of a deal...the most a piggybacker will do is slow your connection down until you figure out what's going on and secure your shit. No monetary costs involved.
Well, until the feds show up because he was downloading underage goat porn all night long. Then you've got some serious legal fees in your future.
But they didn't steal the service of moving the chair to your house, they stole the chair. They can't go back in time and make the the mover bring it to their house.
Back into the game, though, all I did when I sold you the sword was sell you the service of earning access to the sword. The fact that you lost access later (or your chair was stolen) has nothing to do with me. The sword is not the service, granting access to it is. Which is delivered, and cannot be taken away (you were still granted access even if you lost it later). They can't go back in time and make me grant them access to the sword, I granted it to you.
And no label that applies well for property rights will work here, because from a property rights perspective no property is ever changing hands, ever in the history of ever (in a majority of games).
In the exceptions to this rule, the whole thing is really easy because the items are property and can be treated as such.
For a while, in some parts of my house a neighbor's wireless router's signal was actually stronger than our own. It took us a while to even realize that that was happening.
Again, I'm not talking about current legal technicalities, I'm talking about what happens, practically. If someone has a virtual item, and someone else takes that item through channels not sanctioned by the game, they are stealing something of real value. Even if the item only has value in the context of the infrastructure provided by a third party.
Also I think you are confusing the service of playing the game to get an item with the service of the third party to provide the game infrastructure.
Take a look at it from this perspective: If people are willing to pay others to play the game for them (obtain items), is it wrong for people to actually go out and decide to earn the money people are offering for the game playing? If not, why would it be okay to go out and steal the results of their work, their livelihood, that is worth actual money?
I would actually agree with this. I DO think that if I sell you gold, for real money, I should be taxed. Because money has changed hands for 'something' and that something does have market value. For that person who just bought that 'something'. But for me, its pretty clear that something is a service, and not a product. Therefore, earning in game money through playing the game should NOT be taxed. Because its ridiculous.
Just like I do think those boys should be charged with assault and possibly unauthorized access to a computer system or something, depending on the details of the case. My problem comes in defining it as theft. There has to be some sort of data extortion too they can throw on people.
Heres an interesting question I'd like to pose. Take for example EVE online where this stuff has happened quite a bit. MMOs generally have in game chat channels. People often use these in say EVE to infiltrate and gain there way up in corporations and eventually use that to bring about the downfall of that corp, stealing tons and tons of in game money. Where does this fit in? The developers have stated they see this play as perfectly acceptable, but the lines of player and character certainly get blurred. Sure money was transfered through in game means, but it could be argued that it was under false pretenses, ie you said you were on there side, befriended the people behind the computers through the chat channels, and then took their in game money. Maybe since it is all done in game, thats fine.
Now what happens if I start to meet these people in real life. Maybe I find one of the people Ive been playing with lives close by, and we go out to dinner and hang out. Happens all the time. Maybe through chatting over steak, Im like "hey, why dont you give me all your monies in the game, and I can by ship of +5 kickassedness" and they agree. Note that no threat or anything has taken place. After they agree to transfer their money in game, I take it and run. What happens then?
However, in the current context it makes much more sense not to worry about these transactions until real-world money or property becomes involved (as in, I pay you for a sword) because if you start attaching these fair market values to purely in-game transactions you're going to choke the life out of the game quicker than shit. I don't want to have to file a tax form after I go raiding for earned income.
If you're only talking about transactions than involve real-world property, that's already covered legally whether or not it's enforced. If I sell you a sword on WoW in exchange for either dollars or property of value, I just earned income and must claim it.
Was there some objection to this that I missed? Perhaps by me, by accident?
None of this affects the situation in the OP.
Current legal technicalities matter, though, and are critical to my argument as to both why it is not theft and equally importantly why this must not change.
Listen, I get what you're saying. That, practically, that sword has taken on value and by logging in and transferring it to my account I've taken that value from you. I get this.
But legally it's important to keep this distinction that I've been harping on, because (at least under the US legal system) once you identify those items as property and that transfer as theft in the traditional sense, it has wide ranging repercussions that I don't think are beneficial to either the legal system or online gaming.
So, unless some case comes along that cannot be solved any other way, I think it's best that this legal distinction remain.
Can you even draft up a hypothetical circumstance in which it would be necessary to define the items as property for legal reasons? Pretty much any method of wrongly taking them that I can think of would be covered under another criminal code...anything from unauthorized computer access to fraud...without defining the items as property of the victim.
Yes, and as i explained already why that was retarded. Opening a door has "fair market value". That does not mean you get taxed when someone opens a door for you. Unless you are performing a professional service which, these are not, you cannot be reasonably taxed for the action. Your friend comes over and helps you fix up your car, you do not get taxed for that "service"
Current legal technicalities have no bearing on what the law should do. And I've never said you should just define virtual items as property, straight up. I in fact specifically gave a good reason why they should not be considered property. What I did say is that neither the term "service" or "good" applies to these items very well. What needs to be done here is have a new well-thought out laws for this type of thing.
Also, treating every instance of virtual theft as "unauthorized computer access" or "fraud" is incredibly short-sighted. Because in those terms, taking a $100 item is exactly the same as taking $100,000 worth of items. The judge might impose harsher penalties for one vs. another, but they would only need to do that because of an inadequacy in the law. And there's a very good chance that they'll get inconsistent or unfair interpretations of the "unauthorized computer access" penalty.
The legal precedents here aren't perfectly applicable, but they are pretty darn close. And they definitely support the notion of this stuff as real property, or at least as real services that appear as virtual property, with fair market value. Taxation is only one aspect here. I mean, cheating at gambling is illegal, right? Are gambling chips currency? They are owned by the casino and not you. Isn't it all just a game? Isn't it all just virtual until you cash out? But if you cheat, you are committing a crime, regardless of whether you cash out or if you just go play all your cheated winnings and lose them all anyway.
The difference between gambling and online games is only the practical aspect that right now, making cheating in gambling illegal probably helps gambling, while trying to legislate "cheating" in virtual worlds would likely screw everything up. But for how long does that remain true. How many cases have to come up like this and all the other crazy mess that happens in virtual worlds before the courts are better off treating virtual worlds more like real ones?
Really? If someone say hacks my account and deletes my level 70 character fully decked out in purples this is worse than if someone deletes my lvl 10 character who doesnt have squat?
Both can be restored just as easily. In both cases this has cost blizzard time and money to do so, which the person should be liable for, but I honestly don't see how those two are different based on the fact that I am paying the same amount to blizzard for the game regardless of my level or gear situation. Just because it may be possible to sell one set of stuff for more money on ebay doesnt mean that the value of the 'harm' done is any greater.
Except again, that is part of my whole point. You don't get to use those analogies when people are quitting their RL jobs and living off of their virtual income, and businesses employ gold farmers, and thousands or millions of $ every day are being exchanged back and forth from GP. The actual nature of what's going on isn't kindergarten or holding open a door. It's a significant growing economy, which is the exact difference between what you describe and what's actually going on.
Because they have significantly different fair market values in real dollars. The law normally does not ignore such a thing. It costs just as much to print a $100 bill as it does a $1 bill, obviously that does not make them the same thing.
No, you do, because people make livings off of opening doors and fixing cars. That doesn't make the action a professional service.
And the people that do make their livings off the actions get taxed as income when they make income. Thousands of Dollars are being exchanged back and forth. That is the key difference.
edit: Also price discrimination says their fair market value is not their market price.
I'd wager it's because Nevada made a law specifically dealing with cheating at gambling. Also because a much higher percentage of those chips (nearly 100%) will be or were at some point exchanged for real-world cash. Unlike WoW-gold, where the percentage is more like...well, probably pretty close to zero.
If you can fully reverse the crime, obviously that should be done. That's not what I'm talking about; it's not always possible to reverse the crime. The stolen items could have been resold to another person. And if you simply made them restore the items from the losing side, it wouldn't deter theft and in fact encourage a 2-man con to dupe rare items, using the court system.
And in those cases where it can't be reversed, it should be treated differently if you steal a virtual item with a fair market value of $100 vs. stealing $100,000 worth of virtual items. It is most certainly quite harmful to lose items that are worth $100,000 in real money. Certainly more harmful than losing $100 worth. Because as we have established, virtual items have real value because others will pay for them.