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.
I think it also has something to do with the legal obligation of the casino to produce money on receipt of chips with no such legal obligation on the part of WoW to produce money on receipt of GP.
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.
Just because someone is willing to pay that much for something, doesnt mean its worth that much. Generally when things are 'stolen' etc, its based on how much money does it cost to replace. It costs the EXACT SAME AMOUNT to replace an 'uber broadsword' as it does a 'dagger of i may as well be poking them with my finger"
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.
Just because someone is willing to pay that much for something, doesnt mean its worth that much. Generally when things are 'stolen' etc, its based on how much money does it cost to replace. It costs the EXACT SAME AMOUNT to replace an 'uber broadsword' as it does a 'dagger of i may as well be poking them with my finger"
Did you read? I'm talking about when the game company can't reverse it.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
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.
Just because someone is willing to pay that much for something, doesnt mean its worth that much. Generally when things are 'stolen' etc, its based on how much money does it cost to replace. It costs the EXACT SAME AMOUNT to replace an 'uber broadsword' as it does a 'dagger of i may as well be poking them with my finger"
Did you read? I'm talking about when the game company can't reverse it.
I don't think he can, as he also seems to not have ever read that there's no government agency that sets the value of goods and services.
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.
Just because someone is willing to pay that much for something, doesnt mean its worth that much. Generally when things are 'stolen' etc, its based on how much money does it cost to replace. It costs the EXACT SAME AMOUNT to replace an 'uber broadsword' as it does a 'dagger of i may as well be poking them with my finger"
Did you read? I'm talking about when the game company can't reverse it.
I don't think he can, as he also seems to not have ever read that there's no government agency that sets the value of goods and services.
I never assumed there was.
Im saying the value of your in game goods is zero, because they arnt yours. You cant claim future loss of funds on a service you havnt rendered yet. So your account gets hacked and cant be restored. What are you going to say? "but your honor, there was thousands of dollars worth of stuff in there that I may have tried to ebay" "and do you have proof of ownership of these items?" "... well no.. not technically, but providing that my account didnt get banned, or a GM take them away, or blizzard shutting down the servers, I think I could make out pretty well"
So if you are planning on selling items, you are taking a risk. The risk is that you are spending a lot of time doing something that has zero inherent value in order to, at the point of sale, manipulate the game in a way that favors another player. It is only at the point of sale in which you press the button that there is some value in what you have done.
One thing to remember: the Dutch laws are obviously different to those in the US or elsewhere.
In this case, the law states that theft occurs when "goods" are "stolen". There are specific definitions for the two key terms here. The definition "goods" in this context is totally separate from the definition of property for other purposes (e.g. taxation).
"Goods" are defined as anything that has value (not necessarily monetary). In this case, it was determined that the virtual items have value to the offender and the victim, and it was also noted that they could be sold for money. Hence, it was deemed that something of value was involved, and the items are therefore "goods" under the law.
The more tricky part is the notion of whether they were stolen (or more correctly, whether the accused have "criminal possession"). This has tripped up previous cases regarding non-tangible items in the Netherlands before. The defendants would, of course, argue that they don't have criminal possession, since the items remain in the possession of Runescape. However, one of the articles I linked earlier notes that the law regards theft as "transfer of power over the stolen goods with one party obtaining the actual power by removing it from the other". In this case, you could argue that the player who owns the goods has actual power over the goods. They are the ones who derive the utility from them.
I'm not too sure about the ruling, but when you take into account Dutch law, it isn't as crazy as it first seems. However, it's entirely possible that when it is appealed it will be overturned, with the next judge deeming that Runescape have actual possession of the goods, or that the items were never "goods" in the first place.
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.
Just because someone is willing to pay that much for something, doesnt mean its worth that much. Generally when things are 'stolen' etc, its based on how much money does it cost to replace. It costs the EXACT SAME AMOUNT to replace an 'uber broadsword' as it does a 'dagger of i may as well be poking them with my finger"
Did you read? I'm talking about when the game company can't reverse it.
I don't think he can, as he also seems to not have ever read that there's no government agency that sets the value of goods and services.
I never assumed there was.
Im saying the value of your in game goods is zero, because they arnt yours. You cant claim future loss of funds on a service you havnt rendered yet. So your account gets hacked and cant be restored. What are you going to say? "but your honor, there was thousands of dollars worth of stuff in there that I may have tried to ebay" "and do you have proof of ownership of these items?" "... well no.. not technically, but providing that my account didnt get banned, or a GM take them away, or blizzard shutting down the servers, I think I could make out pretty well"
So if you are planning on selling items, you are taking a risk. The risk is that you are spending a lot of time doing something that has zero inherent value in order to, at the point of sale, manipulate the game in a way that favors another player. It is only at the point of sale in which you press the button that there is some value in what you have done.
Go ahead and explain it. Also be sure to include the parts where there are specific legal contracts in place that determine ownership and what exactly each party involved is able to do. And be sure to include the part where you are leasing your items from blizzard instead of, well, what it ACTUALLY says in the terms of service.
Im saying the value of your in game goods is zero, because they arnt yours. You cant claim future loss of funds on a service you havnt rendered yet. So your account gets hacked and cant be restored. What are you going to say? "but your honor, there was thousands of dollars worth of stuff in there that I may have tried to ebay" "and do you have proof of ownership of these items?" "... well no.. not technically, but providing that my account didnt get banned, or a GM take them away, or blizzard shutting down the servers, I think I could make out pretty well"
So if you are planning on selling items, you are taking a risk. The risk is that you are spending a lot of time doing something that has zero inherent value in order to, at the point of sale, manipulate the game in a way that favors another player. It is only at the point of sale in which you press the button that there is some value in what you have done.
Their value is not zero, because you can exchange them for real money. How else could you possibly define "value"? Again, and hopefully for the last time, just because the item exists on the infrastructure of a third party, does not eliminate the value of the item.
Also, there are a lot of perfectly valid occupations that have zero "inherent" value. Artists, for example make funny little paintings or objects that are of no use whatsoever, it's just that some people want to pay money for them. People who sell virtual items are the same way. Someone is willing to pay them to play the game. Even though the pursuit has no "inherent" value, it has actual value because you can get paid to do so. Also, the value of a virtual item doesn't simply spring into being when it's sold. It may come as a shock to you, but things can have value before people pay money for them.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
Go ahead and explain it. Also be sure to include the parts where there are specific legal contracts in place that determine ownership and what exactly each party involved is able to do. And be sure to include the part where you are leasing your items from blizzard instead of, well, what it ACTUALLY says in the terms of service.
How does any of this change the fact that someone stole something that you don't own from you.
Goum: If virtual items and gp are no more of a market commodity or service than is holding open a door for someone, then could you kindly point me to the category on eBay where door-opwnings are being auctioned? Where is the exchange rate between thank-yous and dollars being tracked?As for the woman being charged with hacking, here's the point: you don't always win just because you can say, "there's already a law for that." Laws aren't there just to make sure we always have something, anything, to pin on someone. We could do away with all divorce laws irl and just wait as jilted spouses proceed to rob and kill each other and then put them in jail. But it works a little better when we actually recognize that something more complicated is going on that might need a legal structure of its own to help prevent the crimes from ever happeing. Was this woman really a hacker before all this happened? Does calling her a hacker now accurately and reflect the complicated reality of what happened? Had there been legal protection for virtual spouses, would this have been prevented?I know that's out there, but I'm looking towards a possible future where the people and hours and complexities in virtual worlds are orders of magnitude beyond where they are now.
I am not sure what the existence of trade means. But if you want to find the exchange rate for opening a door, then I suggest you see look what hotels are paying people to open doors for.
just because the item exists on the infrastructure of a third party, does not eliminate the value of the item.
But the fact that you don't own it means that the items value only exists as you have access to it.
You go to a friends house and he lets your play his Wii. Are you taxed for playing his Wii?
A: No
You go to an arcade and pay to play a Wii. Are you taxed for playing the Wii?
A: Yes
Its the same type of transaction, if you want to get technical, then the fee for service charged by the MMO covers all of it, and of course, its already taxed.
just because the item exists on the infrastructure of a third party, does not eliminate the value of the item.
But the fact that you don't own it means that the items value only exists as you have access to it.
You go to a friends house and he lets your play his Wii. Are you taxed for playing his Wii?
A: No
You go to an arcade and pay to play a Wii. Are you taxed for playing the Wii?
A: Yes
Its the same type of transaction, if you want to get technical, then the fee for service charged by the MMO covers all of it, and of course, its already taxed.
You are still confusing the service of providing game access with the service of someone playing a game for another. An item's value comes from the time spent playing the game to obtain it, it is not provided by the game company.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
Their value is not zero, because you can exchange them for real money. How else could you possibly define "value"?
The Dutch court specifically states in its ruling that things do not necessarily need to have monetary value for them to be considered to "goods" with a value in the context of criminal possession cases.
It seems that "value" is defined more in terms of utility and desirability, although things that do have monetary value would instantly pass these tests.
Yeah, everyone glossed over the case in the OP because of the real-life physical threats, but the courts actually ruled that under Dutch law, they stole actual goods.
I am not sure what the existence of trade means. But if you want to find the exchange rate for opening a door, then I suggest you see look what hotels are paying people to open doors for.
WRONG. People do work as door openers, there is NO market for purchasing the opening of a door. That was the distinction I was making and that you so utterly refuse to understand.
Yeah, there are doormen. They open doors, help with bags, sweep up, whatever. They get paid the exact same if they open 100 doors or zero each week. Their time has value, the opening of a door does NOT. You cannot go on eBay and auction off the opening of a door for someone. Such a thing has no market value on its own whatsoever.
I believe the example that better suits your point is prostitution. There is a fair market value for a blowjob. That doesn't mean I owe taxes on every one I've ever gotten. Neither are my children taxed on their allowance, which is fucking cash income. The reason those things aren't taxed is not the reason you're trying to make it out to be, though. There is an assumption that things done as part of a relationship are net neutral, or that there is a quid pro quo that makes them not actually income.
The problem is that if I spend 8 hours doing stuff I'd rather not be doing with my "mule" character just to earn enough GP to buy a broadsword of ass-kickining +3 for my main, that resembles work and commerce a hell of a lot more than it resembles just playing a game (or getting a hummer or teaching my kids about money with allowance).
The problem is that if I spend 8 hours doing stuff I'd rather not be doing with my "mule" character just to earn enough GP to buy a broadsword of ass-kickining +3 for my main, that resembles work and commerce a hell of a lot more than it resembles just playing a game (or getting a hummer or teaching my kids about money with allowance).
Actually, that perfectly resembles playing a game...just a crappy one. I've grinded plenty in one-player games that afford me no opportunity to sell off my loot.
Their time has value, the opening of a door does NOT.
This sentence is an impossibility.
Also, the reason why there is no market on ebay for opening doors is because the cost of traveling to a location is higher than the cost of opening a door. It has nothing to do with a lack of value in opening a door.
There is an assumption that things done as part of a relationship are net neutral, or that there is a quid pro quo that makes them not actually income
Man what? there is no such assumption[and if there was, then you wouldn't declare services as income since you could just claim net neutral return]. Shit, i can just claim net neutral for fucking everything, woo, never have to pay taxes ever again!
The problem is that if I spend 8 hours doing stuff I'd rather not be doing with my "mule" character just to earn enough GP to buy a broadsword of ass-kickining +3 for my main, that resembles work and commerce a hell of a lot more than it resembles just playing a game (or getting a hummer or teaching my kids about money with allowance).
Actually, that perfectly resembles playing a game...just a crappy one. I've grinded plenty in one-player games that afford me no opportunity to sell off my loot.
It actually resembles employment and commerce.
I worked a few hours so I could earn enough money to afford an Xbox and some games. Would that all just be "playing a game" then? Would that income not be taxed?
The problem is that if I spend 8 hours doing stuff I'd rather not be doing with my "mule" character just to earn enough GP to buy a broadsword of ass-kickining +3 for my main, that resembles work and commerce a hell of a lot more than it resembles just playing a game (or getting a hummer or teaching my kids about money with allowance).
Actually, that perfectly resembles playing a game...just a crappy one. I've grinded plenty in one-player games that afford me no opportunity to sell off my loot.
It actually resembles employment and commerce.
I worked a few hours so I could earn enough money to afford an Xbox and some games. Would that all just be "playing a game" then? Would that income not be taxed?
If you didn't get paid then it wouldn't be taxed as income. Though the other party would be taxed.
Not that that matters, the issue is what happens when i trade GP for an Item. Is the Item taxable income? No.
The problem is that if I spend 8 hours doing stuff I'd rather not be doing with my "mule" character just to earn enough GP to buy a broadsword of ass-kickining +3 for my main, that resembles work and commerce a hell of a lot more than it resembles just playing a game (or getting a hummer or teaching my kids about money with allowance).
Actually, that perfectly resembles playing a game...just a crappy one. I've grinded plenty in one-player games that afford me no opportunity to sell off my loot.
It actually resembles employment and commerce.
I worked a few hours so I could earn enough money to afford an Xbox and some games. Would that all just be "playing a game" then? Would that income not be taxed?
So when I walked around for a few hours leveling up my Materia in Final Fantasy VII or earning enough Gil to equip my party, that resembled employment and commerce as well?
Blah. Then at that point nearly every game ever resembles commerce, and thus work, and thus all games are work and what the fuck ever.
This has entered a new real of pedantic.
You know what else grinding for loot in WoW resembles? Masturbation. Which, come to think of it, is what half the retail jobs I've had resemble. At a certain level, everything resembles pretty much everything. But I think you ventured into the realm of the pointless long, long ago.
That's sort of it - virtual reality is going to resemble reality more and more. The more it does, the less valuable it will be for us to say, "it's just a game."
You know what else grinding for loot in WoW resembles? Masturbation. Which, come to think of it, is what half the retail jobs I've had resemble. At a certain level, everything resembles pretty much everything. But I think you ventured into the realm of the pointless long, long ago.
I'm going to say it DOESN'T resemble masturbation beyond the description "performing an action". Masturbation is enjoyable. Grinding is not.
Personally, I WISH that most of my retail jobs resembled masturbation to any closer degree than my statement above. I would never have left the retail industry if that were so.
Amazed... But not really shocked, people are mad crazy and will take you to court over nothing these days. My advice train your dog to do lawyer tricks to cover your ass where ever you go.... (note: you may wanna bring your dog with you everywhere).
But in the world of untrained lawyer dogs and etc, people are just gonna have to stop doing stupid things that get them to court in the first place....
But 13-15 year old kid shit in court...? You must be joking.... But ah well, if they know they are doing something wrong they should be punished...
Your not asking the serious question here is 14 and 15 year old, old enough to be held accountable for virtual theft in a court of law? It's a serious issue I think must be addressed soon, or more kids may go to court! Think of the BILLIONS!
John is low-level IT tech. He makes $40,000/year. He doesn't eat a lot and has a boring diet, but he's into gadgets and electronics. That's what he likes and where he spends most of his earnings.
John starts playing WoW. He gets way into it. He starts missing a lot of work. At the same time, he loses interest in many things except the latest epic mount or sword or armor. Eventually, he gets fired, and he also stops spending money on much of anything.
But in WoW, he's become an expert. He knows more than the average player and can earn gold and find valuable loot quite well. All the time he used to spend at work, he now spends playing WoW, and all the time he used to spend playing WoW, he still spends playing WoW. He moves into a smaller apartment. He sells GP on eBay just to pay rent and buy food and other necessities. It takes a lot of GP to make that much moeny, but he plays a heckuva lot. He reports this income, but it is so small that he has no income tax burden. In fact, he qualifies for some government assistance programs that further reduce the amount of $ income he needs significantly. Most of his desires in life are now virtual, and so he'd rather keep his money in GP anyway.
Now, for the sake of this hypothetical, John is happy. Happier than before. He has more friends, loves what he does, and in terms of fair market value, he is more valuable and productive than ever before and is able to afford more of the things he wants than ever before. Objectively, throwing out the "omg he's addicted to a game," he is simply wealthier, happier, and better off, and does more good for others.
Yet despite no ill fate on his part, he has gone from a tax-paying earner and profitable consumer, to a non-entity in the real economy and a net negative on government revenue.
This isn't really a hypothetical. There are people like this. Maybe you don't find the extreme I present here so often, but what if instead of John's entire life I changed the hypothetical to be one hour a week of productivity? Or 10?
My question is still a matter of how much of our wants and desires and productivity need to go virtual before we can't ignore the reality of the effect?
I think he should be taxed on what he sells, but not on what he keeps. Because in that case he's not selling his game playing service to anyone, he's just playing a game.
"Virtual productivity" is illusory because the game is a closed system based on artificial scarcity. If everyone that plays the game works twice as hard at it, you can't really say people are better off, because people measure their accomplishments in the game against everyone else.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
I think he should be taxed on what he sells, but not on what he keeps. Because in that case he's not selling his game playing service to anyone, he's just playing a game.
"Virtual productivity" is illusory because the game is a closed system based on artificial scarcity. If everyone that plays the game works twice as hard at it, you can't really say people are better off, because people measure their accomplishments in the game against everyone else.
I had a very long reply ready, but this pretty much sums up what I was going to say
I think he should be taxed on what he sells, but not on what he keeps. Because in that case he's not selling his game playing service to anyone, he's just playing a game.
"Virtual productivity" is illusory because the game is a closed system based on artificial scarcity. If everyone that plays the game works twice as hard at it, you can't really say people are better off, because people measure their accomplishments in the game against everyone else.
I think the distinctions you are drawing are what's illusory.
Money can be printed just as easily as GP can be made available in the game world. Well, practically so. Both are controlled to meet the needs of the economy. And both our world and the game world only get better as more people engage it productively.
And you didn't answer the question at all. What happens when 10% of the population lives like John? The IRS will fucking notice.
I think he should be taxed on what he sells, but not on what he keeps. Because in that case he's not selling his game playing service to anyone, he's just playing a game.
"Virtual productivity" is illusory because the game is a closed system based on artificial scarcity. If everyone that plays the game works twice as hard at it, you can't really say people are better off, because people measure their accomplishments in the game against everyone else.
I think the distinctions you are drawing are what's illusory.
Money can be printed just as easily as GP can be made available in the game world. Well, practically so. Both are controlled to meet the needs of the economy. And both our world and the game world only get better as more people engage it productively.
And you didn't answer the question at all. What happens when 10% of the population lives like John? The IRS will fucking notice.
If the IRS starts to notice, perhaps they can open an WoW account and have Blizzard deposit the taxed gold in it.
I think he should be taxed on what he sells, but not on what he keeps. Because in that case he's not selling his game playing service to anyone, he's just playing a game.
"Virtual productivity" is illusory because the game is a closed system based on artificial scarcity. If everyone that plays the game works twice as hard at it, you can't really say people are better off, because people measure their accomplishments in the game against everyone else.
I think the distinctions you are drawing are what's illusory.
Money can be printed just as easily as GP can be made available in the game world. Well, practically so. Both are controlled to meet the needs of the economy. And both our world and the game world only get better as more people engage it productively.
And you didn't answer the question at all. What happens when 10% of the population lives like John? The IRS will fucking notice.
The difference is that stuff can be created as easily as GP can be made available when this is not so in the real world.
I think he should be taxed on what he sells, but not on what he keeps. Because in that case he's not selling his game playing service to anyone, he's just playing a game.
"Virtual productivity" is illusory because the game is a closed system based on artificial scarcity. If everyone that plays the game works twice as hard at it, you can't really say people are better off, because people measure their accomplishments in the game against everyone else.
I think the distinctions you are drawing are what's illusory.
Money can be printed just as easily as GP can be made available in the game world. Well, practically so. Both are controlled to meet the needs of the economy. And both our world and the game world only get better as more people engage it productively.
And you didn't answer the question at all. What happens when 10% of the population lives like John? The IRS will fucking notice.
The real economy is an exchange of goods and services driven by scarcity. The virtual economy is a competition to see who is the most skilled or dedicated at playing a game. All GP or items in the game world simply represent someone's skill at the game and the time spent playing it. The super-rare bow that drops is not a good you have created, it is a symbol of the time you spent killing that boss over and over again, given to you by the creators of the game.
So really John is just living meagerly, funding his needs by doing a little bit of game playing for others, then spending the rest of his free time engaging in a virtual competition. So what you are essentially saying is that we should tax people if they decide to spend their free time doing certain things. Also, there's the question of where the money is supposed to come from. If they garner all these items that signify that they've played the game a lot, and keep them, where exactly is your tax coming from? There's no income to tax. Maybe you want to tax him a certain %of the GP that drops for him? Okay, everyone has X% less GP, and nothing has essentially changed in the game. And now you have a lot of GP. Yeah, you could sell it, but you would have been taxing that entire market anyway.
Your scenario essentially boils down to: what if someone only works a tiny (non-taxable) amount and lives meagerly, giving themselves lots of free time? That problem is not exactly unique to virtual worlds, so it doesn't make too much sense to solve it by trying to levy a virtual goods tax. The real problem here is sociological: what if virtual worlds become so compelling that people stop contributing to society in order to live there? What if they spend so much time interacting with the virtual world that they don't care what conditions they are living in or what the real world around them is doing? Obviously if too many people do this, productivity plummets and there's no resources for infrastructure, defense or space travel. Don't get me wrong, this could become a real, and hard problem, but I really don't think its solution is to tax virtual goods.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
The real economy is an exchange of goods and services driven by scarcity. The virtual economy is a competition to see who is the most skilled or dedicated at playing a game. All GP or items in the game world simply represent someone's skill at the game and the time spent playing it. The super-rare bow that drops is not a good you have created, it is a symbol of the time you spent killing that boss over and over again, given to you by the creators of the game.
Again, this distinction is quite thin. You could just as easily say that my paycheck or my TV are just symbols of time spent at work. But they aren't. Just Like that bow, I spent time to get it, and now I'm using it.
And any decent online game also has an economy comprised of and exchange of goods and services driven by scarcity. The games aren't enjoyable otherwise.
Your scenario essentially boils down to: what if someone only works a tiny (non-taxable) amount and lives meagerly, giving themselves lots of free time?
You do realize that in that sentence, "work" and "free time" are the exact same thing, right? Playing WoW? You're just drawing a hard line that none of it is work until he converts the product a traditional currency, which seems a little bass-ackwards to me. I say that if you're involved in somethings others are willing to pay for, you're working, especially when others do pay for it.
If the IRS starts to notice, perhaps they can open an WoW account and have Blizzard deposit the taxed gold in it.
That is certainly a reasonable option.
How is this even remotely reasonable? So the government has an account.. in which taxed gold goes into... and the amazing part ITS STILL BLIZZARDS. Its still on there server. Nothing has changed hands. Nothing has changed possession. No ownership transfered. Great we just set up a taxation system in which nothing is taxed. And then Blizzard bans their account when they try and sell the gold on ebay. Cause guess what Blizzard owns all the accounts too.
Again in game items are not ITEMS.. they are not products. They are not goods. WoW is a service and only a service. You only tax services when they are exchanged for money.
The real economy is an exchange of goods and services driven by scarcity. The virtual economy is a competition to see who is the most skilled or dedicated at playing a game. All GP or items in the game world simply represent someone's skill at the game and the time spent playing it. The super-rare bow that drops is not a good you have created, it is a symbol of the time you spent killing that boss over and over again, given to you by the creators of the game.
Again, this distinction is quite thin. You could just as easily say that my paycheck or my TV are just symbols of time spent at work. But they aren't. Just Like that bow, I spent time to get it, and now I'm using it.
And any decent online game also has an economy comprised of and exchange of goods and services driven by scarcity. The games aren't enjoyable otherwise.
There is a very definite distinction. The items in the game are valuable only because they are scarce. A TV has intrinsic value: you get to watch fun pictures move around on it. However, the bow only has value because few other people have it and you spent a lot of time getting it. If you really think the bow has an intrinsic, economic, taxable value, you should just write a law that forces the game company to give bows for free to everyone who wants one.
Your scenario essentially boils down to: what if someone only works a tiny (non-taxable) amount and lives meagerly, giving themselves lots of free time?
You do realize that in that sentence, "work" and "free time" are the exact same thing, right? Playing WoW? You're just drawing a hard line that none of it is work until he converts the product a traditional currency, which seems a little bass-ackwards to me. I say that if you're involved in somethings others are willing to pay for, you're working, especially when others do pay for it.
When others do pay for it, yes, it's work. So the portion of time he spends getting gear to sell is work. But when you keep the results, that's called a hobby.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
The bow is actually useful - you can kill more mobs with it, increasing your ability to earn GP and more rare loot. Srsly, are you missing that obvious point?
When others do pay for it, yes, it's work. So the portion of time he spends getting gear to sell is work. But when you keep the results, that's called a hobby.
If it could be created so easily, it wouldn't have the value it has.
No. Blizzard has monopoly power on the creation of items in wow. Its not a market you dummy. They can, at a moments notice, flood every account with the rarest and best items in the game if they so pleased. It might take them a day, maybe.
Again, this distinction is quite thin. You could just as easily say that my paycheck or my TV are just symbols of time spent at work. But they aren't. Just Like that bow, I spent time to get it, and now I'm using it.
No, you traded time to get your paycheck. You traded money to get the TV. You trade nothing to get that bow when you attain it by playing the game.
Posts
I think it also has something to do with the legal obligation of the casino to produce money on receipt of chips with no such legal obligation on the part of WoW to produce money on receipt of GP.
Just because someone is willing to pay that much for something, doesnt mean its worth that much. Generally when things are 'stolen' etc, its based on how much money does it cost to replace. It costs the EXACT SAME AMOUNT to replace an 'uber broadsword' as it does a 'dagger of i may as well be poking them with my finger"
Did you read? I'm talking about when the game company can't reverse it.
I don't think he can, as he also seems to not have ever read that there's no government agency that sets the value of goods and services.
I never assumed there was.
Im saying the value of your in game goods is zero, because they arnt yours. You cant claim future loss of funds on a service you havnt rendered yet. So your account gets hacked and cant be restored. What are you going to say? "but your honor, there was thousands of dollars worth of stuff in there that I may have tried to ebay" "and do you have proof of ownership of these items?" "... well no.. not technically, but providing that my account didnt get banned, or a GM take them away, or blizzard shutting down the servers, I think I could make out pretty well"
So if you are planning on selling items, you are taking a risk. The risk is that you are spending a lot of time doing something that has zero inherent value in order to, at the point of sale, manipulate the game in a way that favors another player. It is only at the point of sale in which you press the button that there is some value in what you have done.
In this case, the law states that theft occurs when "goods" are "stolen". There are specific definitions for the two key terms here. The definition "goods" in this context is totally separate from the definition of property for other purposes (e.g. taxation).
"Goods" are defined as anything that has value (not necessarily monetary). In this case, it was determined that the virtual items have value to the offender and the victim, and it was also noted that they could be sold for money. Hence, it was deemed that something of value was involved, and the items are therefore "goods" under the law.
The more tricky part is the notion of whether they were stolen (or more correctly, whether the accused have "criminal possession"). This has tripped up previous cases regarding non-tangible items in the Netherlands before. The defendants would, of course, argue that they don't have criminal possession, since the items remain in the possession of Runescape. However, one of the articles I linked earlier notes that the law regards theft as "transfer of power over the stolen goods with one party obtaining the actual power by removing it from the other". In this case, you could argue that the player who owns the goods has actual power over the goods. They are the ones who derive the utility from them.
I'm not too sure about the ruling, but when you take into account Dutch law, it isn't as crazy as it first seems. However, it's entirely possible that when it is appealed it will be overturned, with the next judge deeming that Runescape have actual possession of the goods, or that the items were never "goods" in the first place.
I suppose you've never heard of buying a lease?
Go ahead and explain it. Also be sure to include the parts where there are specific legal contracts in place that determine ownership and what exactly each party involved is able to do. And be sure to include the part where you are leasing your items from blizzard instead of, well, what it ACTUALLY says in the terms of service.
Their value is not zero, because you can exchange them for real money. How else could you possibly define "value"? Again, and hopefully for the last time, just because the item exists on the infrastructure of a third party, does not eliminate the value of the item.
Also, there are a lot of perfectly valid occupations that have zero "inherent" value. Artists, for example make funny little paintings or objects that are of no use whatsoever, it's just that some people want to pay money for them. People who sell virtual items are the same way. Someone is willing to pay them to play the game. Even though the pursuit has no "inherent" value, it has actual value because you can get paid to do so. Also, the value of a virtual item doesn't simply spring into being when it's sold. It may come as a shock to you, but things can have value before people pay money for them.
How does any of this change the fact that someone stole something that you don't own from you.
But the fact that you don't own it means that the items value only exists as you have access to it.
You go to a friends house and he lets your play his Wii. Are you taxed for playing his Wii?
A: No
You go to an arcade and pay to play a Wii. Are you taxed for playing the Wii?
A: Yes
Its the same type of transaction, if you want to get technical, then the fee for service charged by the MMO covers all of it, and of course, its already taxed.
You are still confusing the service of providing game access with the service of someone playing a game for another. An item's value comes from the time spent playing the game to obtain it, it is not provided by the game company.
The Dutch court specifically states in its ruling that things do not necessarily need to have monetary value for them to be considered to "goods" with a value in the context of criminal possession cases.
It seems that "value" is defined more in terms of utility and desirability, although things that do have monetary value would instantly pass these tests.
Yeah, there are doormen. They open doors, help with bags, sweep up, whatever. They get paid the exact same if they open 100 doors or zero each week. Their time has value, the opening of a door does NOT. You cannot go on eBay and auction off the opening of a door for someone. Such a thing has no market value on its own whatsoever.
I believe the example that better suits your point is prostitution. There is a fair market value for a blowjob. That doesn't mean I owe taxes on every one I've ever gotten. Neither are my children taxed on their allowance, which is fucking cash income. The reason those things aren't taxed is not the reason you're trying to make it out to be, though. There is an assumption that things done as part of a relationship are net neutral, or that there is a quid pro quo that makes them not actually income.
The problem is that if I spend 8 hours doing stuff I'd rather not be doing with my "mule" character just to earn enough GP to buy a broadsword of ass-kickining +3 for my main, that resembles work and commerce a hell of a lot more than it resembles just playing a game (or getting a hummer or teaching my kids about money with allowance).
Actually, that perfectly resembles playing a game...just a crappy one. I've grinded plenty in one-player games that afford me no opportunity to sell off my loot.
This sentence is an impossibility.
Also, the reason why there is no market on ebay for opening doors is because the cost of traveling to a location is higher than the cost of opening a door. It has nothing to do with a lack of value in opening a door.
Man what? there is no such assumption[and if there was, then you wouldn't declare services as income since you could just claim net neutral return]. Shit, i can just claim net neutral for fucking everything, woo, never have to pay taxes ever again!
I worked a few hours so I could earn enough money to afford an Xbox and some games. Would that all just be "playing a game" then? Would that income not be taxed?
If you didn't get paid then it wouldn't be taxed as income. Though the other party would be taxed.
Not that that matters, the issue is what happens when i trade GP for an Item. Is the Item taxable income? No.
So when I walked around for a few hours leveling up my Materia in Final Fantasy VII or earning enough Gil to equip my party, that resembled employment and commerce as well?
This has entered a new real of pedantic.
You know what else grinding for loot in WoW resembles? Masturbation. Which, come to think of it, is what half the retail jobs I've had resemble. At a certain level, everything resembles pretty much everything. But I think you ventured into the realm of the pointless long, long ago.
I'm going to say it DOESN'T resemble masturbation beyond the description "performing an action". Masturbation is enjoyable. Grinding is not.
Personally, I WISH that most of my retail jobs resembled masturbation to any closer degree than my statement above. I would never have left the retail industry if that were so.
But in the world of untrained lawyer dogs and etc, people are just gonna have to stop doing stupid things that get them to court in the first place....
But 13-15 year old kid shit in court...? You must be joking.... But ah well, if they know they are doing something wrong they should be punished...
Your not asking the serious question here is 14 and 15 year old, old enough to be held accountable for virtual theft in a court of law? It's a serious issue I think must be addressed soon, or more kids may go to court! Think of the BILLIONS!
John is low-level IT tech. He makes $40,000/year. He doesn't eat a lot and has a boring diet, but he's into gadgets and electronics. That's what he likes and where he spends most of his earnings.
John starts playing WoW. He gets way into it. He starts missing a lot of work. At the same time, he loses interest in many things except the latest epic mount or sword or armor. Eventually, he gets fired, and he also stops spending money on much of anything.
But in WoW, he's become an expert. He knows more than the average player and can earn gold and find valuable loot quite well. All the time he used to spend at work, he now spends playing WoW, and all the time he used to spend playing WoW, he still spends playing WoW. He moves into a smaller apartment. He sells GP on eBay just to pay rent and buy food and other necessities. It takes a lot of GP to make that much moeny, but he plays a heckuva lot. He reports this income, but it is so small that he has no income tax burden. In fact, he qualifies for some government assistance programs that further reduce the amount of $ income he needs significantly. Most of his desires in life are now virtual, and so he'd rather keep his money in GP anyway.
Now, for the sake of this hypothetical, John is happy. Happier than before. He has more friends, loves what he does, and in terms of fair market value, he is more valuable and productive than ever before and is able to afford more of the things he wants than ever before. Objectively, throwing out the "omg he's addicted to a game," he is simply wealthier, happier, and better off, and does more good for others.
Yet despite no ill fate on his part, he has gone from a tax-paying earner and profitable consumer, to a non-entity in the real economy and a net negative on government revenue.
This isn't really a hypothetical. There are people like this. Maybe you don't find the extreme I present here so often, but what if instead of John's entire life I changed the hypothetical to be one hour a week of productivity? Or 10?
My question is still a matter of how much of our wants and desires and productivity need to go virtual before we can't ignore the reality of the effect?
"Virtual productivity" is illusory because the game is a closed system based on artificial scarcity. If everyone that plays the game works twice as hard at it, you can't really say people are better off, because people measure their accomplishments in the game against everyone else.
I had a very long reply ready, but this pretty much sums up what I was going to say
Money can be printed just as easily as GP can be made available in the game world. Well, practically so. Both are controlled to meet the needs of the economy. And both our world and the game world only get better as more people engage it productively.
And you didn't answer the question at all. What happens when 10% of the population lives like John? The IRS will fucking notice.
If the IRS starts to notice, perhaps they can open an WoW account and have Blizzard deposit the taxed gold in it.
The difference is that stuff can be created as easily as GP can be made available when this is not so in the real world.
The real economy is an exchange of goods and services driven by scarcity. The virtual economy is a competition to see who is the most skilled or dedicated at playing a game. All GP or items in the game world simply represent someone's skill at the game and the time spent playing it. The super-rare bow that drops is not a good you have created, it is a symbol of the time you spent killing that boss over and over again, given to you by the creators of the game.
So really John is just living meagerly, funding his needs by doing a little bit of game playing for others, then spending the rest of his free time engaging in a virtual competition. So what you are essentially saying is that we should tax people if they decide to spend their free time doing certain things. Also, there's the question of where the money is supposed to come from. If they garner all these items that signify that they've played the game a lot, and keep them, where exactly is your tax coming from? There's no income to tax. Maybe you want to tax him a certain %of the GP that drops for him? Okay, everyone has X% less GP, and nothing has essentially changed in the game. And now you have a lot of GP. Yeah, you could sell it, but you would have been taxing that entire market anyway.
Your scenario essentially boils down to: what if someone only works a tiny (non-taxable) amount and lives meagerly, giving themselves lots of free time? That problem is not exactly unique to virtual worlds, so it doesn't make too much sense to solve it by trying to levy a virtual goods tax. The real problem here is sociological: what if virtual worlds become so compelling that people stop contributing to society in order to live there? What if they spend so much time interacting with the virtual world that they don't care what conditions they are living in or what the real world around them is doing? Obviously if too many people do this, productivity plummets and there's no resources for infrastructure, defense or space travel. Don't get me wrong, this could become a real, and hard problem, but I really don't think its solution is to tax virtual goods.
If it could be created so easily, it wouldn't have the value it has.
Again, this distinction is quite thin. You could just as easily say that my paycheck or my TV are just symbols of time spent at work. But they aren't. Just Like that bow, I spent time to get it, and now I'm using it.
And any decent online game also has an economy comprised of and exchange of goods and services driven by scarcity. The games aren't enjoyable otherwise.
You do realize that in that sentence, "work" and "free time" are the exact same thing, right? Playing WoW? You're just drawing a hard line that none of it is work until he converts the product a traditional currency, which seems a little bass-ackwards to me. I say that if you're involved in somethings others are willing to pay for, you're working, especially when others do pay for it.
How is this even remotely reasonable? So the government has an account.. in which taxed gold goes into... and the amazing part ITS STILL BLIZZARDS. Its still on there server. Nothing has changed hands. Nothing has changed possession. No ownership transfered. Great we just set up a taxation system in which nothing is taxed. And then Blizzard bans their account when they try and sell the gold on ebay. Cause guess what Blizzard owns all the accounts too.
Again in game items are not ITEMS.. they are not products. They are not goods. WoW is a service and only a service. You only tax services when they are exchanged for money.
There is a very definite distinction. The items in the game are valuable only because they are scarce. A TV has intrinsic value: you get to watch fun pictures move around on it. However, the bow only has value because few other people have it and you spent a lot of time getting it. If you really think the bow has an intrinsic, economic, taxable value, you should just write a law that forces the game company to give bows for free to everyone who wants one.
When others do pay for it, yes, it's work. So the portion of time he spends getting gear to sell is work. But when you keep the results, that's called a hobby.
Or it's called savings.
No. Blizzard has monopoly power on the creation of items in wow. Its not a market you dummy. They can, at a moments notice, flood every account with the rarest and best items in the game if they so pleased. It might take them a day, maybe.
No, you traded time to get your paycheck. You traded money to get the TV. You trade nothing to get that bow when you attain it by playing the game.