Man arrested for virtual crime

What makes this interesting is that it is difficult to comapre this cyber-crime with a similar real world crime. But, it isn't actually necessary to make that comparison because it is a case of simple fraud. If you want a comparison however, consider a person who is using a hidden cameras to cheat at poker, winning poker chips that he converted after the game for actual cash ~ same thing.

It can be broken down this way:

1. The bad guy entered into a game with rules.
2. He played against other people in the game, who were following those rules.
3. He played outside the rules, without telling the other people that he was playing outside the rules.
4. That gave him an advantage that was not legitimate within the context of the game, or the other players expectations.
5. That means he was stealing the wins on the game.
6. That, in and of itself doesn't mean much as a criminal act, but:
7. As a direct result of stealing the matches, he also stole valuable commodities.
8. Those commodities have a cash value in the real world, which value he stole from his opponents.
9. His purpose in stealing the matches was to steal and sell those commodities.
10. Therefore he used fraud to gain cash.

A commodity is anything or any idea that someone is willing to pay cash for. However theft, in and of itself, isn't based upon cash value. If you stole my Great Grandfathers belt buckle that has no cash value, it is still a crime.

Value of the stolen item is used, however, to grade the amount of punishment.
 
If I understand this correctly, players in the normal course of the game are allowed to beat up on other players and take their possessions.

IF this is true, it seems to me the whole issue revolves not around the items obtained by the actions.....the actions are acceptable in the course of the game. Rather the issue revolves around the act of creating the bots. This would be an issue between the indivudual players and the Game Owner:

Issue 1: Should a player who had paid for an item that was later "stolen" be able to bring action against the Game Owner? I think not. The Game Owner did not sell these items and does not provide the venue for sale and purchase. The fact that a player chooses to buy items in a 3rd party venue is, to my mind, cheating in itself. At most, the Game Owner would owe that player replacement of the stolen items....which costs the Game Owner zero.

Issue 2: Should the Game Owner have a cause of action against the player who created the bots? Yes, probably, but as tyme has pointed out, that would be civil, not criminal. And again, the damage is not the value of the items "stolen", but the damage to the company's product and rep.

Issue 3: Should the Player who was stolen from have legal redress against the Bot Creator? I don't think so. If the items were never paid for in cash and there were no money riding on the game, he has really not been damaged in any material way. If he did pay cash for the items, that in itself, is as egregious as the creation of bots....and shows far less talent. Again, the only redress I would see is for him to demand lost item and game fee credit from the Game Owner for not preventing the Bot Wars.

In short, if there is no LAW against creating bots to win a game, there should be no criminal charges....no different than a person counting cards at a casino.
Rich
 
I must state up front that I have never played anything remotely resembling the games under discussion, therefore I am operating from a platform of personal ignorance. But I have never let that stop me before so....... :D

IF this is true, it seems to me the whole issue revolves not around the items obtained by the actions.....the actions are acceptable in the course of the game. Rather the issue revolves around the act of creating the bots. This would be an issue between the indivudual players and the Game Owner:
Click to expand...


It seems to me that the issue isn't about creating the bots. Creation of the bots in and of itself doesn't appear to be a crime, say the same way that the creation of a silencer is a crime in and of itself (if you aren't holding the correct paperwork).

I would say that the issue is the unannounced utilization of the bots. The bots are a subterfuge to give the owning game player an advantage that his opponent is not aware of. If the opponent was aware, and played on anyway, then it would be a no harm no foul situation between the players.

Before I go further I would like to see if this logic holds up or not, because if it doesn't then the rest of my argument falls anyway.
 
I would say that the issue is the unannounced utilization of the bots.
Click to expand...
Creation/Utilization. Matters not to me, though I agree that utilization is more the issue.

But the fact remains, in absense of law prohibiting such action, it is NOT illegal. I'm getting real tired of laws being "created" after an action Govt's don't like and then being applied retrospectively.

In the US, there's little doubt that an aggressive prosecutor would have used the RICO Statute (Thought Crime) umbrella. That seems to cover about anything today.
Richb
 
n the US, there's little doubt that an aggressive prosecutor would have used the RICO Statute (Thought Crime) umbrella. That seems to cover about anything today.
Click to expand...

LOL. If we start having government ninjas breaking down doors of video game cheaters using RICO while having other gamers cheering them on, we will have slipped so far past the point of no return that we will never see the light of day again. :eek:
 
If you want a comparison however, consider a person who is using a hidden cameras to cheat at poker, winning poker chips that he converted after the game for actual cash ~ same thing.
Click to expand...
Uhh, no.

Please understand that it is legal to steal and kill in the virtual world in which the virtual items being virtually stolen reside. Therefore, you cannot construct analogous situations in the real world with real items.
 
When you play the game, you agree to a EULA in which you agree, among other things, not to cheat. When you cheat, you're breaking a contract.
 
Sidenote:

Handy,

I stand corrected, Rich and Staff has not put in the disclaimer that all content posted upon the board is the sole property of them and that we relinquish all copyrights to what we post.

Maybe it's something that he should add, and thus make this argument null and void upon acceptance to being a member of the board.

Yet I'm still having a problem with what makes our posts a "work" or "works". Any suggestion or idea is not protected under the copyright laws.

Wayne
 
Whitefalls, that goes a long way toward explaining why the cheater is being charged with a crime rather than being sued by the game company.
 
it is legal to steal and kill in the virtual world in which the virtual items being virtually stolen reside.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but isn't it supposed to be without using bots? Doesn't secretly using bots cause the player to have an unequal advantage that is unknown to the other player?

It is legal to win a hand at poker too, but not by secretly looking at the other players hand.
 
Wayne/Handy-
The TFL ownership answer is unclear. Copyright law is extraordinarily complex and has to do with single ownership, group work, excerpting vs complete copy, sale for money and the like. BTW, tyme is absolutely correct. You cannot "own" an idea or even a statement in this nation....you can only own a copyright or trademark on it.

Further complicating the TFL issue is the fact that, were I to claim that Group One Enterprises owns all of the information on the site, Group One weakens it's defensive position should someone post copyrighted materials here and the owner decide to sue us for Copyright infringement.

So, while there is a copyright statement at the bottom of the Forum page:
1) If someone attempted to mine all posts and print "The Complete Works of TFL", would I attack? Yes.
2) If I decided to print "The Complete Works of TFL" and you objected, would I tell you to buzz off? Yes.
3) If you decided to print "The Complete Works of My Own Words on TFL" would I attack? Probably not.
Rich
 
With that, I'm not sure if I owe Handy an apology or not. I've read the copyright laws (see what you people make me up and do :D ) and as posted before, they are confusing and can be viewed differently (edited: spelling, word use) by a single person for both pro, or con.

I then, due to the fact that I'm not fully understanding the copyright laws, should bow out of the conversation and leave it up to those that do :).

Wayne
 
Last edited:
If you decided to print "The Complete Works of My Own Words on TFL" would I attack? Probably not.
Click to expand...
Yikes, I would hope not.


Rich, I was under the assumption that an idea, that can be copyrighted or patented, has de facto ownership by the orginator - which is why you could later sue for damages if someone cashes in on something you came up with, even if you hadn't sought the official blessing.

If that is in error, so be it.


Tyme,

I think part of the issue is that the "theft" you refer to within the game is simply a function of the game. But if you use outside code to do something beyond the rules of the game (which include a type of simulated "theft" within the game), you are now cheating, and depriving someone of something of value they have created within the game structure.

Whether that thing has real value or not is a seperate question. But let's not confuse a game move called theft from the real thing.
 
butch50,
Is it really illegal to look at someone else's hand, or will it just get you kicked out of casinos (violation of contract)? Bots don't have access to any privileged information about the game. Anything a bot can know, a player can know, too.

Bots provide speed and repetitive behavior where a real human would be too slow or bored to continue. Buying virtual items for real cash and getting upset when you lose them seems to me a bit like online gambling. You have no assurance whatsoever the other players are playing fairly, so why would you put your money at risk and then complain when you lose it all?

Clue for the clueless: when you use a computer, you have no assurance whatsoever that someone on the other end of some communication is a person, regardless of whether you're gambling at an online casino, emailing someone, or playing a video game. If you can't deal with it, unplug your computer. That's my advice to the "victims" in this case.

Wayne, what do copyright laws have to do with this? The copyright holder of the items, if they're copyrighted at all, would be the game company. Since the items stay in the game even when virtually stolen, there's no violation of copyright.
 
Handy, so it's okay to use a "game move" called theft, but not okay to have a computer execute the "game move" called theft on your behalf?

Go back a few of my posts and answer my questions about robbing vs stealing money online, and stealing $100 of food vs stealing $2 of food. It's a matter of degree. Bringing a bot into the equation is not fundamentally criminal, though it may be a breach of contract (I haven't read the game's EULA, but my general opinion of EULAs is that they're garbage, not enforceable without high-priced lawyers).
 
Is it really illegal to look at someone else's hand, or will it just get you kicked out of casinos (violation of contract)?
Click to expand...

Darn good question. I had to look it up. At least in Nevada, yes cheating appears to be a criminal offense:

NRS 465.085 Unlawful manufacture, sale, distribution, marking, altering or modification of equipment and devices associated with gaming; unlawful instruction.

1. It is unlawful to manufacture, sell or distribute any cards, chips, dice, game or device which is intended to be used to violate any provision of this chapter.

2. It is unlawful to mark, alter or otherwise modify any associated equipment or gaming device, as defined in chapter 463 of NRS, in a manner that:

(a) Affects the result of a wager by determining win or loss; or

(b) Alters the normal criteria of random selection, which affects the operation of a game or which determines the outcome of a game.

3. It is unlawful for any person to instruct another in cheating or in the use of any device for that purpose, with the knowledge or intent that the information or use so conveyed may be employed to violate any provision of this chapter.

(Added to NRS by 1967, 1283; A 1975, 697; 1977, 386; 1979, 1478; 1981, 1294; 1989, 972)



NRS 465.088 Penalties for violation of NRS 465.070 to 465.085, inclusive.

1. A person who violates any provision of NRS 465.070 to 465.085, inclusive, is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished:

(a) For the first offense, by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.

(b) For a second or subsequent violation of any of these provisions, by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000. The court shall not suspend a sentence of imprisonment imposed pursuant to this paragraph, or grant probation to the person convicted.

2. A person who attempts, or two or more persons who conspire, to violate any provision of NRS 465.070 to 465.085, inclusive, each is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imposing the penalty provided in subsection 1 for the completed crime, whether or not he personally played any gambling game or used any prohibited device.

(Added to NRS by 1981, 1292; A 1985, 970; 1995, 1295
Click to expand...
 
OK, then should card counting at blackjack tables be illegal? Kinda the same thing as here, except card counting is not modifying anything to give you an advantage.
 
I really doubt that anyone here seriously believes that running a few dozen hacked game clients to exponentially increase gains is the same as card counting. The only thing I'd compare to card counting is carefully using stats and guides to excell at a game, which is pretty much necessary in most things already.
 
"exponentially?" First, don't make up mathematical relationships when you don't have any hard data. Second, what difference does it make how much more money someone makes? It's virtual theft either way.

It is like card counting because the bot is only accessing information to which a player would or could have access. Again, it's only a matter of speed and lack of boredom. Those two qualities of bots are not sufficient to make the virtual theft a real crime.

I can't think of anything that should be illegal if done by software or a physical robot, but legal if done by a human. Isn't that sort of unfair? If someone ever creates an AI, would it be held to a similar double-standard, with a legal system that has stricter laws for AIs because they're faster at doing some things?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top