Man arrested for virtual crime

R

Rebar

Moderator
A man has been arrested in Japan on suspicion carrying out a virtual mugging spree by using software "bots" to beat up and rob characters in the online computer game Lineage II. The stolen virtual possessions were then exchanged for real cash.
Click to expand...
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7865

As virtual worlds become more prevailent, how will other crimes committed inside them be treated? Or is this Orwellian thought crime? Can you use real life self defense to protect your virtual persona?

A can of worms indeed.
 
If the pieces of this game have actual monetary value, then this really isn't any different than hacking into bank accounts.

As for using force to protect stuff, that doesn't really fall under the typical definitions of "self defense".
 
Not really opening a can of worms if he is hacking a game, stealing other characters items, and selling them for money. Pretty cut and dry if you ask me. Theft is theft.
In other words, what Handy said.
 
Not really opening a can of worms if he is hacking a game, stealing other characters items, and selling them for money.
Click to expand...
That's not the actual issue though.

There's no hacking into the actual account of another player, which I agree would then fall under normal computer crime laws.

"Killing" the character and taking their "stuff" is a part of the game. This guy used a "bot" to gain an unfair advantage, but it's certainly possible to do the same without any aid at all. The bot is cheating, certainly, but not hacking. So in other words, does cheating in an online game become a real life crime?
 
The bot is cheating, certainly, but not hacking.
Click to expand...

I have no patience for people who hack/cheat/ruin games, then play semantic games to make what they did seem acceptable.

He cheated. He made something that wasn't supposed to be in the game, in order to steal things. How is that not hacking?

Charge him for theft. Maybe a computer crime, and make part of his punishment that he cannot use a computer for a year, or somethign like that.
 
The fact that he could charge money for this disruption demonstrates that he took something of value.
 
have no patience for people who hack/cheat/ruin games, then play semantic games to make what they did seem acceptable.
Click to expand...
I also hate people who cheat and ruin games for others. However, I see a difference between cheating, exploiting game functions to gain an unfair advantage, and hacking, illegally breaking into accounts or game servers. This case is clearly cheating, not hacking.
The fact that he could charge money for this disruption demonstrates that he took something of value.
Click to expand...
But what if he killed the character "legitimately", ie without a bot, then took and sold the items, is that different? Who gets to determine weither he was using a bot, was just good, or just a case of sour grapes from the victim? If the game owners either let bots operate, or cannot keep bots off the servers, are they liable too for stolen virtual "property"?

And is it incumbent on law enforcement to police online game behavior, and to take it to it's logical conclusion, to try, convict, and jail them? Are we going to send people to prison for "stealing" a non-existant "+10 sword of goblin slaying" from a non-existant character in an online game, and who sold it to someone else for real money?
 
Rebar,

Read the fricken article. He is using what is called a "cheat" in the game world. It IS otherwise known as hacking the software. He is altering the code. The article states he was...ah forget it, I'm wasting my time. :rolleyes:
 
Read the fricken article. He is using what is called a "cheat" in the game world. It IS otherwise known as hacking the software. He is altering the code.
Click to expand...
I know what he did. He ran software on his client that gave him an unfair advantage in the game. I don't call that hacking, as per the definition I already provided.

Besides which, that' just a symantic game. The original question remains, do we send people to jail for stealing in an online game?
 
I think the problem is that people imbue game-world artifacts with value, when they shouldn't. These are not things the players create; they are merely objects that players accumulate. There is no copyright/patent claim. I wouldn't be surprised if the game's shrink-wrap license assigns ownership of all game content to the game company; users are probably only granted a license to use an account.

Lots of games allow stealing and/or killing. It's part of the game. Bots make it easier, but if anything that's too easy is a crime, people hunting over feeders should be arrested.

<puritan>We can't have theft, murder, and other unsavory activities taking place online. It's not right.</puritan> :rolleyes: This could be the new War: the War on Virtual Crime!

(rebar, don't confuse Symantec with semantic :) )
 
Tyme,

Those virtual objects represent an investment in time on the part of the player.

I doubt you would defend someone who stole a "worthless" rock collection, especially if the owner carried them down from a mountain.


Property does not need any sort of official sanction via copyright or anything else. A copyrighted book that I found is still MY property - and takes on a value as soon as I choose to own it.

If someone violates the agreed upon rules that a group has to govern its interactions, and intends to profit from the nuisance he creates, there is a type of theft or blackmail going on. It may seem unimportant (this situation seems ridiculous to me), it really isn't any different than holding for ransom a baseball caught at a Cubs game. It's free and unimportant, but has obvious emotional and nuisance value for the owner.
 
But do you really own it, if it's part of an online game?

Should killing in such games be illegal as well? It wouldn't be killing in the real sense, but it's certainly just as much theft of property as stealing virtual artifacts is.
 
I think the problem is that people imbue game-world artifacts with value, when they shouldn't.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, it is a friggin game.

The problem with the virtual world, is that it is hard to draw parallels to the real world, so people that don;t know how the virtual world works, can understand what is happening.

I guess the best parallel I could draw is if you did something to give a race horse an advantage, and sold the knowledge of which horse to bet on. Probably not even too close, but it is the best I can come up with.

The thing that is going to have to happen soon, is to decide whether virtual property is to be treated as real property. My vote is yes, or at least close enough that there are real-world consequences for screwing with things.

And yes, he was modifying the game to suit him. To do so, you have to introduce code that isn't in there. Just because he didn't have to break codes, doesn't make it not hacking.

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/H/hack.html
(v) 1. To write program code.
2. To modify a program, often in an unauthorized manner, by changing the code itself.

(n) 1. Code that is written to provide extra functionality to an existing program.

2. An inelegant and usually temporary solution to a problem.
 
The thing that is going to have to happen soon, is to decide whether virtual property is to be treated as real property. My vote is yes, or at least close enough that there are real-world consequences for screwing with things.
Click to expand...
So when games allow virtual theft and virtual murder, are the game creators guilty, or just the players?

The term "hacking" is absurd. Hardly two people alive agree on all its shades of meaning. The notion of what it means to modify a game, or a program of any sort, is equally complex.
 
Tyme,

"Virtual murder" is meaningless, but vandalism, destruction of property and theft are very real.


Do you "own" the intellectual property you deposit on this forum? You do, and if someone else tries to profit from it, you can make a claim. No more "virtual" than anything else we're talking about.
 
Copyright is a totally different matter. Or are you claiming that players hold a copyright on any objects their virtual characters possess?

Those other things -- vandalism, etc. -- depend on who owns the object. I don't think a virtual object can be owned by a player in any legal sense.

Similarly, I don't think you can own something you write. You retain copyright, which allows you to keep people from duplicating it, but you don't own it because it's not tangible.

Please note that virtual theft is allowed by the game. It would be simple for the game to disallow virtual theft (or virtual murder), if the creators wanted it that way.
 
Rebar: I did not see in the article what he was charged with. Did I miss it or is there any more information? Knowing what he is charged with would be enlightening.

The closest thing I can come up with on charges would be fraud. Based on he obtained valuables through fraudulent acts, i.e., the opponents were not fighting against another person as they thought they were, therefore they risked and lost valuables that they would not have risked and lost otherwise.

A scam, in the vernacular.
 
And is it incumbent on law enforcement to police online game behavior, and to take it to it's logical conclusion, to try, convict, and jail them? Are we going to send people to prison for "stealing" a non-existant "+10 sword of goblin slaying" from a non-existant character in an online game, and who sold it to someone else for real money?
Click to expand...


And since these items are non-existent, computer-generated "goods," how is their actual value determined?

If you steal something whose value is dependent simply on what people are willing to pay for it, how can anyone determine the value of what you stole?

Remember when Tickle Me Elmo was a craze-fad? They sold in the store for under a hundred bucks, but there were morons who bought them from classified ads in the paper for $2000 -- simply because their kids wanted them.

Should someone who stole a Tickle Me Elmo at that time have been charged with theft amounting to $2000, or $50?

Who determines the real-world cash value of a "+10 sword of goblin slaying"? If it's worth ZERO to ME, he didn't steal anything. What if some wealthy geek claims he was willing to pay $35,000 for it? Suddenly it's grand theft?? :rolleyes:

-blackmind
 
You retain copyright, which allows you to keep people from duplicating it, but you don't own it because it's not tangible.
Click to expand...
No idea is tangible, but ideas comprise some of the most valuable things one can possess.

You see credits in movies like "creator", "based on a story by", "concept by". Those are pure intellectual property, containing no specific form, but a set of ideas that can be described in different ways and in different media. They are most certainly worth money.


This game had form and rules. The offending party violated those rules using programming outside the bounds of the game to hold, for ransom, parts of the player's game. If you don't want to talk about the virtual objects, just look at it as disrupting someone's affairs for money.

What's the value? Whatever the guy managed to extort.
 
Do you "own" the intellectual property you deposit on this forum?
Click to expand...

You do, and if someone else tries to profit from it, you can make a claim.
Click to expand...

Sorry to break this to you Handy but no, he, me, you, or any other member does not "own" anything on this board.

Rich does. Anything said here, uploaded to the server (pictures if you use the software), etc.. is the property of the owner of the board.

Wayne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top