Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Entertainment Games News

Gamer Killed For Virtual Property 135

The BBC has the story of a young Chinese man who was slain over a virtual property dispute. His killer has been sentenced to life imprisonment. The Guardian Gamesblog has a deeper look at the situation with Terra Novan Ren Reynolds. From the article: "We're becoming a service property marketplace. Is this as good as a manufacturing economy? It doesn't have the moral solidity in a way. You can kind of see that shift in ethical terms. People would think that stealing an album in a shop is immoral, but stealing an mp3 isn't. The idea of property has become more intangible."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gamer Killed For Virtual Property

Comments Filter:
  • Sad, but . . (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Leroy_Brown242 ( 683141 ) on Thursday June 09, 2005 @01:21PM (#12770918) Homepage Journal
    It was only a matter of time before a gsamer escalated and arguement to reality, and took it too far.

    This guy had to have other issues besides just gaming, if he was willing to kill a man.
  • WTF (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rokzy ( 687636 ) on Thursday June 09, 2005 @01:22PM (#12770919)
    >The idea of property has become more intangible.

    er, no thanks.

    this is about someone who killed someone else. the reason isn't too relevant and certainly doesn't demand redefining property.
  • Service Property (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 09, 2005 @01:22PM (#12770924)

    The problem I have with this concept is that it doesn't have any firm basis, as far as I can tell. Manufacturing creates real value in the economy by mining raw materials or farming and providing for essential needs. Entertainment is completely tenuous and everyone can drop it as soon as money gets tight or as fashion dictates. It just seems that service economies could hit bigger highs but much more massive recessions, but I am not an economist and this is all just my impression of the whole thing.

  • by yotto ( 590067 ) on Thursday June 09, 2005 @01:25PM (#12770971) Homepage
    How did a murder morph into a moral arguement on if digital "property" is as good as solid property? Dude's dead. Someone murdered him. That someone should get serious time or death for it.
  • In other realms (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FidelCatsro ( 861135 ) <.fidelcatsro. .at. .gmail.com.> on Thursday June 09, 2005 @01:26PM (#12770979) Journal
    Neighbours shoot each other over fence posts , Wives kill husbands for working too much ,People kill each other over football games ,people kill themselves over exams ...
    people some times take things far too seriously , so lets just hope people realise this and don't call for the banning of games due to the lunatic fringe who can't grasp reality
  • Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mausmalone ( 594185 ) on Thursday June 09, 2005 @01:43PM (#12771236) Homepage Journal
    People would think that stealing an album in a shop is immoral, but stealing an mp3 isn't.
    Yeah... I'm glad someone tried to associate this with a murder case. Sonofa...

    Downloading a copyrighted mp3 isn't stealing. Stealing necessitates depriving someone else of property. Downloading a copyrighted mp3 is copyright infringement.

    And, no, copyright infringement isn't stealing. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. That's why there's different laws for it... and why it has its own name and stuff.
  • by jasonmicron ( 807603 ) on Thursday June 09, 2005 @02:25PM (#12771797)
    I can only imagine the online chat for this...

    OMG U stole my LEWTS!

    No I didn't, you never gave me the full amount

    I am going to PWN U

    *BANG BANG*
  • Friggin' gamers... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by facelessnumber ( 613859 ) <drew&pittman,ws> on Thursday June 09, 2005 @06:11PM (#12774457) Homepage
    An extreme example of what happens when otherwise intelligent adults can't put away the trappings of childhood.

    Psychological maturity is inhibited. You get a baby in an adult body, who has a tantrum over a trivial problem that only a child should have, (except that a very grown-up sum of money was involved) reacting in a manner that rational human beings reserve for only the most severe of situations.

    And it wasn't even about the money! This dude wanted his toy sword back and not even a shitload of money was good enough to spare the life of this other sad, stunted individual.

    I know that playing video games with every free moment of one's time doesn't inflict this degree of insanity on all gamers, and I know that playing GTA doesn't make kids think it's okay to shoot people and blow shit up, but it happens to some degree at least to a hell of a lot of people. I am a geek. Most of my friends are geeks. Many of them are gamers, and not ONE of them who spends a significant amount of each day devoted to a pointless virtual world would I consider to be a psychologically-complete, well-adjusted adult. Good, smart, valuable people - yes. Socially fucked-up? You betcha. And these are just people who miss work occasionally to play Everquest or stay home all weekend for Ultima Online. These are not the disturbingly growing number of vegetables who are sick enough to sell characters, armor and swords on Ebay. These guys sometimes ignore reality for a game, but many people try to make reality a part of the game. How else is it not cheating when you buy in-game items?

    Playing games is a normal part of growing up, and a healthy stage of life. Every mammal I can think of does this when they're young. It builds character. It's essential. Lion cubs and wolf-pups stop doing this once they have to provide for themselves, though. The only animals who play games throughout their lives are domesticated ones. Would your tail-wagging, yapping dog ever be able to take down prey and feed itself on a regular basis if it had to live in the wild? My nine year old cat who still acts the way a cub does in the real world certainly wouldn't.

    Slashdot is surely the wrong soundingboard with which to convey these opinions, but I had to vent.

    Gamers, think of your dignity. This is how you look to me and a lot of other people.
  • God, not again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @05:09AM (#12778226) Journal
    It was a piece of virtual property, yes, but it was worth (and actually sold for) nearly $1000. By Chinese standards that's more than a family can save in a year.

    The fact that it's just bits on a hard drive is irrelevant. Let's say that you wrote a novel on your laptop. Then let's say I copy it off your laptop (e.g., while you're in a meeting at work), put my name on it, and sell the rights to it for some $50,000. (So the monetary value is sorta in the same proportion to what you earn, as that virtual sword was for the Chinese guy.)

    Wouldn't you think: "WTF? It was _mine_, not his! Who the fuck gives him the right to take and sell _my_ stuff?"

    Now say you came to talk to me about it, and I basically told you "fuck off, sucks to be you, the money is mine now." Because that's what happened between those two people.

    Now maybe you'd just gnash your teeth, decide to just hate me now and avoid the christmas rush, and control yourself enough to not commit manslaughter. But then realize that a lot of people don't have _that_ kind of self-control. People get into a homicidal rage for a lot less money every day.

    And anyway, the fact remains, virtual or not, Person A took something owned by Person B, sold it, and pocketed the money. A lot of money. Very _real_ money. It wasn't over virtual property, it was over _real_ _money_. Period.

    Now I can see how two-bit hack journalists would love to hammer on the "man killed over virtual sword in a game" idiocy. That's the kind of a crap sensationalist headline that sells subscriptions. Whereas "man killed over a shitload of real money" doesn't quite have the same edge.

    But seeing the number of responses that treat it like some continuation of an in-game feud, completely ignoring the amount of _real_ _money_ involved, gets depressing at times.
  • Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cluke ( 30394 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @05:16AM (#12778249)
    Well, there was an album I was going to buy, but I borrowed it from a friend and listened to it until I was sick of it, then gave it back. That deprived the record company of money. Am I a thief?
  • Property is Theft (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @08:20PM (#12785835) Homepage Journal
    If the killer could have copied the virtual sword his friend "stole", he probably wouldn't have killed the guy. Having backups makes such thefts less damaging, so probably will reduce the violence associated with propery transfers. People get violent upon property loss, which is less necessary with virtual items. But of course no mass media corporation is going to use an event like this to evaluate our disporportionate value of property over human life. Even when the theft and murder are committed in Communist China.
  • by siriuskase ( 679431 ) on Saturday June 11, 2005 @04:14PM (#12790437) Homepage Journal
    Cutting hair and painting houses are services, not objects. If you don't pay for a service, the barber or the painter are deprived of the time they could have been working for someone else.
  • by xdroop ( 4039 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @09:23PM (#12829102) Homepage Journal
    The key difference here is scarcity. Unless the MP3 copyright holder can control distribution, the MP3 loses any value.
    Nonesense -- the MP3 clearly has value to you, that's why you want it.

    Cost, price, and value are all separate things.

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Working...