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."
I remember hearing about this... (Score:1)
So much for, "It's only a game."
Re:I remember hearing about this... (Score:1, Redundant)
These are the same people who safeproof their toothbrush so their kids won't stab themselves.
Re:I remember hearing about this... (Score:2)
Anyway, it was only a game, except this poor sod didn't realise that.
Re:I remember hearing about this... (Score:1, Interesting)
I loan you something. You sell it. I'm pissed. I'm gonna do something to you because I'm pissed.
His choice of action was no different to stabbing someone due to road rage.
Stealing versus Copying (Score:4, Interesting)
The key difference here is that the MP3 is copied, not removed. The original owner didn't lose his copy of the file / song when the other person took it, whereas in the case of the shop, the owner can no longer sell that physical media. The first is not viewed as theft becasue the owner doesn't lose it, where the second involves actually losing something. (Of course, if the MP3 was erased after it copied, that would be a different story.)
Re:Stealing versus Copying (Score:5, Interesting)
Decades ago the USA was one of the first nations to disconnect money from gold. US currency is now just as intangible as the MP3's bits, and is becoming moreso as transactions go electronic.
The value is due to the scarcity perpetuated by the control the Federal Reserve has over the creation of paper and coin currency, and further by the government "backing" the currency with a guarantee - "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."
It used to be that information was controlled simply by the fact that it was expensive to move it from place to place and process it. Now that information has become almost infinitely liquid, it has lost much of its value because it is no longer inherently difficult or expensive to deal with.
Just as currency no longer is backed by gold, information is no longer held back by cost.
This actually leads to stronger intellectual laws to provide the market with a crutch as we move forward. Obviously this will change over time, but if it were allowed to suddenly change too quickly the markets would suffer a minor collapse, instead of a slow fall that can be checked as people and businesses adjust.
The key difference here is that the MP3 is copied, not removed. The original owner didn't lose his copy of the file / song when the other person took it
The original owner and the purchasers did lose something, just not what some consider important.
A problem is that the sellers want to sell one copy to everyone, and remove any possibility of a secondary market. The buyers want to re-sell their property. This is being worked out by turning everything into a service, and the reason the market is going to a service economy is that the producers want it so badly. I suspect a middle ground will be found, but only after a consumer backlash/bubble.
-Adam
Re:Stealing versus Copying (Score:2)
Re:Stealing versus Copying (Score:2)
Actually, the USA was one of the last to leave the gold standard. the UK left in 1931, the USA in 1971.
Yes, FDR made it illegal for Americans to own gold, but he did not remove the USA from the gold standard.
Note that the first country to abandon the Gold Standard was China, several thousand years ago. Of course, since then, they came back to it. and left it. and came back. and left....
Re:Stealing versus Copying (Score:2)
Re:Stealing versus Copying (Score:2)
Presumably this change is going to come after the revolution ? Because it certainy won't happen while corporations - and their intrinsic need for draconian IP laws - are controlling the governments.
Re:Stealing versus Copying (Score:2)
Re:Stealing versus Copying (Score:2)
Re:Stealing versus Copying (Score:2)
I agree but you've also stolen the oppertunity to sell the MP3 to the "theif"/infringer. While oppertunity is an intangelble, it's legaly recognised as "cost of lost oppertunity"
Re:Stealing versus Copying (Score:2)
Re:Stealing versus Copying (Score:3, Insightful)
Cost, price, and value are all separate things.
RE: cost, price and value (Score:2)
If you assign a price to an MP3 (for example) and the public feels some of that price rewards the artist for his/her hard work, a percentage will pay the price - regardless of the ease in obtaining the song for free.
Control of distribution is a "diminishing returns" game, the way I see i
Re: cost, price and value (Score:2)
One dowside to this model is that it favours people who always cheat - the
Re:Stealing versus Copying (Score:2)
The wealth of nations is generated by the evermore efficient production of goods; the ever decreasing scarcity. Creating artificial scarcity where there is none damages the market and destroys wealth by diverting resources to flawed production.
To the economy and society as a whole, intellectual property has about the same effect as a several hundred percent VAT on shoes which is then used to pay for
Re:Stealing versus Copying (Score:1)
Re:Stealing versus Copying (Score:2)
- Copyright Infrigment
- Unauthorised and Unlawful access to computer system
* Subject to clarification by law enforcement agencies.
As long as we're being pedantic... (Score:2)
>>The first is not viewed as theft becasue the owner doesn't lose it
>
> That's like saying swearing isn't "viewed as" murder because nobody died.
> Copyright infringement isn't "viewed as" theft because it's a totally different
> thing. The only relation between copyright infringement and theft is that they
> both involve obtaining something that you shouldn't rightfully have.
Copyright infringement involves obtaining something that you shouldn't legally have.
"You are trying to kidnap wh
Sad, but . . (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy had to have other issues besides just gaming, if he was willing to kill a man.
Re:Sad, but . . (Score:3, Funny)
What game is the root of all evil nowadays?
I'll call my congressman and ask him.
God, not again (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
er, no thanks.
this is about someone who killed someone else. the reason isn't too relevant and certainly doesn't demand redefining property.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:WTF (Score:1)
Kudos
Exactly (Score:2)
So what is this case? The "property" is virtual, but by selling it he deprived the rightful owner of the use of that object.
Re:Exactly (Score:2)
What's wrong with you people? (Score:2)
You get a haircut and don't pay the barber, you've stolen from him. You get your house painted and don't pay? You've stolen. Stealing is taking something, a physical object OR A SERVICE or anythign else of value without paying for it. Taking things without paying for them is stealing, therefore, downloading an Mp3 that would otherwise cost money to
Re:What's wrong with you people? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:2)
Using a writing program to create a book and using a gaming program to create a sword seem to be similar acts that would introduce copyright into the mess, but unless swords c
Re:WTF (Score:2)
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:2, Informative)
Trading as Piracy (Score:2)
A few computer programs already go this direction. AFAIK, 3d Studio is non-transferrable and I remember there being a big stink about World of Warcraft not being able to be re-sold because you couldn't acquire a n
Re:WTF (Score:1)
Re:WTF (Score:1)
Re:WTF (Score:1)
Re:WTF (Score:2)
Service Property (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Service Property (Score:2)
While this is true, what does that mean? Candy falls into the same logical family. Note: tenuous != virtual.
Re:Service Property (Score:2)
The point is that some companies add value or "wealth" to the economy("creating new things that people can use"), while others don't (typically either entertainment or 'maintenance' jobs such as replacing a blown light bulb). Candy falls under "entertainment", even though it is tangible. The difference between tangibles (real manufacturing) and "virtual property" is that tangibles have a much higher variable costs to fixed costs ratio, i.e. they cost an amount of money to produce that is (generally speaking
Re:Service Property (Score:2)
To answer your question though, I don't know what that means :) Because as you suggest, an economy that produces primarily candy is going to be just as susceptible in the next global recession, as candy is also one of the first things to go when things get 'tight'. And this has nothing to do with whether the products are virtual or tangible.
I guess the ideal theoretical economy is one that magically shifts it's production resources instantaneously to automatically adjust to shifting global demands to maxi
Queue the Law and Order sound (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Queue the Law and Order sound (Score:1)
Re:Queue the Law and Order sound (Score:1)
Re:Queue the Law and Order sound (Score:2)
I have no idea what difference this would make in China in a murder case.
Kiiling over a game item (Score:2)
Big deal, just create a new character and log back in [wikipedia.org]...
Re:Queue the Law and Order sound (Score:2)
-
In other realms (Score:4, Insightful)
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:In other realms (Score:2)
I'm going to have to stop looking at my neighbors from the comfort of my fence post.
Dupe (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Dupe (Score:2)
It's a shame they didn't leave the death penalty as an option. He certainly deserves it.
Re:Dupe (Score:2)
Notion of Ownership? (Score:1, Troll)
My people had no idea what ownership was until the White Man came over and started tricking us into things that we now regret. Further, we know not of this 'internet' or 'virtual property' that you speak of. We smoke'um Peace Pipe.
note: I am of legitimate Cherokee descent, and feel safe in making fun of my heritage.
Re:Notion of Ownership? (Score:2, Funny)
You insensitive clod! My grandmother died of lung cancer. No I will sue you and your casino owning relatives for introducing tobacco to the europeans.
Re:Notion of Ownership? (Score:2)
who needs a plea bargain? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:who needs a plea bargain? (Score:2)
I imagine killing a man over an imaginary object makes the insanity plea a little easier.
I'm not so sure. Money is an imaginary object especially when there is no gold to back it up. (US currency since 1970) Imaginary things that can be traded for real things are not a strange concept to most people and I'm sure the prosecuting attorney would mention this.
Robert.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:who needs a plea bargain? (Score:1)
Now, thousands of years ago, gold had very little intrisic value. It has plenty of applications in today's technology, but as a soft metal that would dent easily, gold had little value in military applications or for nearly anything else. The on
Re: (Score:1)
Re:who needs a plea bargain? (Score:2)
Because it has real (not abstract) value. People WANT it for its own sake. (Yeah, yeah. Some people want money for its own sake. This should be viewed as insanity.) People want money because it can be traded for other items. People want gold because, well, they want gold. It's pretty. It's malleable. It can be stretched into incredibly thin wires. It is corrosion resistant. It serves practical and aesthetic purposes.
Money is
Re:who needs a plea bargain? (Score:2)
While gold is certainly useful, these uses aren't really attractive to most consumers of money ( who have little use for soft, ductile metal ). So while I agree to a point, if you want the currency to be centered around something that is intrinsicly valuable and limited in supply, you'd need to skulk around a little more to find a good candidate. I can't think of one that works well off the top of my head.
Re:who needs a plea bargain? (Score:1)
clearly you missed the part where the item WAS NOT imaginary.
it exists, in the game and people can interact with it.
i think the word you are looking for is intangible or non-physical.
Not News (Score:1, Redundant)
This guy CLEARLY had other problems - lets not tie it into games. We get enough bad press as it is.
Comparisons to "theft" of music and video (Score:2)
Imagine killing someone for stealing virtual property - simply some bytes of code.
Now imagine imprisoning someone for stealing virtual property - bytes of code in the form of music or video. Or fining them hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars for something that "doesn't exist".
Would MGM demand the death penalty for copying some movies? Why not? Would it be okay for them to "fine" people by using the police for non-criminal acts? Sure. S
Re:Comparisons to "theft" of music and video (Score:2)
A truly bogus comparison. The killing is at issue here, not the theft.
"Would MGM demand the death penalty for copying some movies?"
And, this is why it's a bogus comparison. The killing is at issue.
"Would it be okay for them to "fine" people by using the police for non-criminal acts?"
And, yet a further tread from the path. The issue is murder , which is very much a criminal act. How, pray tell, did you wand
Re:Comparisons to "theft" of music and video (Score:2)
How, pray tell, did you wander to this level? This is really nothing but troll.
No, he/she 'wandered to this level' because the author of the posted article, which this entire thread is about, made that link and wandered to "this level". RTFA.
Re:Comparisons to "theft" of music and video (Score:2)
Imagine killing someone for stealing virtual property - simply some bytes of code
You could make the same argument for art. Imagine you owned the Mona Lisa, and someone stole it from you. You'd probably be extremely angry, quite possibly angry enough to consider killing the guilty person. But, "simply some bytes of code" = "simply a few strokes of paint on a piece of canvas", right?
No, the painting has a very high $ value, and this is true regardless of the validity of the reasons why it has such a high
I can only imagine the online chat for this... (Score:3, Insightful)
OMG U stole my LEWTS!
No I didn't, you never gave me the full amount
I am going to PWN U
*BANG BANG*
the problem... (Score:4, Funny)
I can't find ANYONE who'll say what the stats are on the damn sword. This is obviously the most critical bit of information about the story, and no one will report it.
1h? 2h? +9 for ogres? What?? GAH!
Obviously, there are some circumstances where such a killing would be perfectly understandable. Without the stats, how will we ever know?
m-
Virtual Property Value and Labor Costs (Score:5, Informative)
The value of the theft was about $850-900 USD. Guessing that you have to play for 40 hours to acquire the weapon, that makes the "wage" about $22 an hour (before taxes). For a buyer in a major American market (LA, New York Chicago) that could be easily be below his hourly earings; I imagine that Japan would be similar. For someone in China - even a major city like Shanghai - that is a significant sum of money. Average household income in Shanghai is less than $1,500 USD (11,718 Yuan in 2000 [unescap.org]). 40, 80 or even 160 hours of play for over a half year's income would be an incredible opportunity.
So the game item has no value. However, the difference in labor costs creates a value in the time spent to produce the item [wikipedia.org].
Re:Virtual Property Value and Labor Costs (Score:2)
Yes and no. The Labor Theory of Value is an economic term and not a legal one. If a man takes twice as long as another man to produce an identical item. (And let's say those items are exactly identical down to a molecular level for the sake of argument). Both items are usually (yes, there are rare exceptions as with some works of art) worth the same amount.
Theoretically a gamer could acquire that item quickly -- or never at all.
Markets determine prices. Not labor. Its sale price on eBay is a good
Re:Virtual Property Value and Labor Costs (Score:2)
Mod Parent Up (Score:2)
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:1)
wait 10 years till they grow up.
in the meantime, ignore them. they know nothing.
and on the small chance that you are in your 20's with the mentality and maturity of a teenager... that's just pathetic.
Album vs. mp3 (Score:4, Funny)
That's because stealing an album in a shop is immoral, but stealing an mp3 isn't. An album is a physical good; if I steal it from you you can no longer use it. An mp3 is what economists call a non-rival good; if I 'steal' it from you you may never notice and have not been harmed in any way, unless of course you believe in Marx's labor theory of value.
That last gives rise to my personal IP motto - 'intellectual property is Communism.'
Re:Album vs. mp3 (Score:1)
it can copy tons of gigabytes every day on even the slowest computer.
so that digital representation of music you try to sell people for 1 dollar, in effect is worth less than 1 penny by using the theory of labor.
clearly, someone is overcharging by 1 million percent.
pants (Score:2, Funny)
Well, thank god I sleep with my pants ON
Re:pants (Score:1)
Besides, if someone broke in with a sword while I was sleeping, I think I might need to change my underwear before putting on my pants.
Re:pants (Score:1)
but in soviet china, pants put on you
Other Interesting Details (Score:5, Funny)
The article failed to mention that Qiu Chengwei scored a +5 critical hit when he stabbed Mr. Zhu in the chest.
It should also be mentioned that while Mr. Zhu's death was of course due to stabbing -- other factors included his low armor class and a failed saving throw.
Rumours are currently spreading that Mr. Chengwei was wearing +3 boots of stealth when he broke into Mr. Zhu's apartment giving him a distinct melee advantage.
Friggin' gamers... (Score:2, Insightful)
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 m
Re:Friggin' gamers... (Score:2)
Re:Friggin' gamers... (Score:2)
Re:Friggin' gamers... (Score:2)
Re:Friggin' gamers... (Score:2)
I really seem to have touched a nerve with this post. No surprise. Let me just clarify that I think it's c
Re:Friggin' gamer kids... (Score:1)
Two 15 yr old male geek Gamers. One 8 yr old girl gamer.
Psychological maturity is inhibited. You get a baby in an adult body,
No way, very bright, very lazy, but mature beyond their age.
Good, smart, valuable people - yes.
Absolutely.
Socially fucked-up? You betcha.
Hmmm, all three different. None fscked up, but not especially graceful either.
These guys sometimes ignore reality for a game, but many people try to make reality a par
Re:Friggin' gamer kids... (Score:2)
I don't think you're a bad parent because you let 15 year olds and an 8 year old spend a lot of time gaming. Even when you let it interfere with life a little so that it teaches them something. It's completely normal and positive that you play video games with yo
Re:Friggin' gamers... (Score:1)
Re:Friggin' gamers... (Score:2)
Re:Friggin' gamers... (Score:2)
Information is not property. (Score:2)
Re:Information is not property. (Score:3)
Re:Information is not property. (Score:3, Interesting)
FALSE.
You'll find court cases cited in the second half of my post, but first I'll just give general coverage of the subject in my own words.
Whether we look at copyright or patents or trademarks, the law NEVER grants "ownership" of the information entity itself. It is the legal copyright rights which are owned, not the work itself. It is the legal patent rights which are owned, not the invention itself. It the legal trademark rights which are owned
Totally miss the point! (Score:1)
Property is Theft (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Property is Theft (Score:2)