Virtual Muggings

[radlore]

Another case of RL legal action coming from a mmorpg you may have not seen yet

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7865&feedId=online-news_rss20

I can't make out if the charges being brought are for breaking the L2 EULA, or for breaking Japanese criminal law. From what I gather in L2 it's entirley possible to defeat another character and take an item by the game rules, so that 'theft' obviously couldn't be considered breaking any law... could it?

[Oloh]

Interesting question.

Generally, there is the whole notion of "consent" that is permission to do a certain activity. A "battery" for instance, is typically an "unlawful touching." A husband kissing his wife the fireworks on the Fourth of July is not a battery. Presumably, she consents to the touching of lips.

However a stranger, jumping out of the bushes, and kissing a girl, is an unlawful touching and therefor a battery.

Let's look at another example that is closer to video games. Every weekend, the Pittsburgh Steelers linebackers crush opponents. They pick them up and slam them down, sometimes without the player even knowing what hit them.

None of those tough hits are a "battery" because they are all within the rules of the game, and by playing, the other player consents to those types of touching. Even penalties, so long as they are reasonable to the game, are still within the realm of consent. So a late hit, even if a personal foul, is still within the realm of consent is not unlawful.

But lets say that during the game, a player stabs another player with a knife he smuggled in. That is outside of the scope of the game and would be an unlawful touching, and would be subject to criminal prosecution.

This was the case with the hockey player that hit the other guy in the head with his stick. The police found it so outside of the realm of fair play, that they charged him with a battery.

A similar analysis could be used with theft in a video game.

Clearly, engaging in "theft" on a video game that sanctions it is not unlawful. Not only do you generally not have any property interest in the things being "stolen" (per the EULA), but you also have consented to such theft.

Now, assuming its a game like second life where the company grants you some ownership rights in the game material, and you have it stolen by somone cheating, then it is possible you could have a criminal offense.

So, as you can see. Reading L2's EULA and knowing the facts, I can say that there would likely not be any criminal liability in the United States.

[radlore]

So in effect, a certain action taken by a player in one game could be legal, yet an identical action in another game could be illegal. (analogous to getting away with a punch in ice hockey, but probably not in crown green bowling). And the difference would be entirley defined by the games respective EULAs.

So... the EULAs can form an extension of actual criminal law, by contract - they are the bridge between real law and what could be illegal behaviour in a virtual world. That actually makes them sound quite powerful and maybe I should read one of the ones I've been agreeing to for years;p

I guess that explains why they have become so large these days, and why they tend to lean in favor of the publishers/owners descretion. (what I mean by that is they often include a 'we reserve the right to basically do anything to any facet of the game world including characters at our descretion' type thing)

The sports analogies are good, it reminds me of a saying, "There were 12 men fighting on an ice rink, when suddenly a game of hockey broke out". but one thing I'm wondering is if sportspeople do actually sign a contract which allows certain activities in their game, ones which would otherwise be illegal (as seems possible in a EULA) or if they just work off a 'spirit of the game' basis. Any (ex)sports people here?

Thanks for the interesting answer at any rate - I can see what keeps you busy doing that job :p

[Oloh]

Consent does not have to be a signed contract. I played college football under the NCAA and dont think I ever signed anything...although the same rules would apply.

If you think about it, consent is the only thing that makes intercourse "sex" rather than "rape." That is why criminal sex acts are so difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

So generally, you dont need a writing.

I also do not want to overstate the EULAs importance as far as criminal law is concerned. The difference between crimes against people and crimes against property is a major one...the latter being regarded as way less serious.

So, I doubt you will see any MMOG theft cases anytimes soon, absent a straight real life gankage type thing or something along those lines.

[radlore]

Well it's certainly reassuring to know a good deal of common sense applies to both the real and virtual world then. I guess alot of these stories get more attention than they deserve, in hindsight. Interesting stuff though.

Thanks again,

Rad

[Eclipse]

Ok, I don't know TOO much about this stuff, but would Todd Bertuzzi's sucker punch that resulted in the other player being paralyzed fall under battery...even though it was his hand? I watched the footage time and time again, and although I feel very badly for the other guy and his family...it wasn't unabashed violence with a lack of responsibility, and it did not look like it was Bert's intent** to injure...so does that circulate around battery and consent?
Also, given your example on giving consent without a contract signed, you join a game that has no pvp rulesets or parameters of any kind. But you join solely for the purpose of PvE content. You acquire one of the most amazing items, then another player kills you enough times to loot this item. You worked for months upon end to acquire said item, and had no intent on engaging in PvP play, did you give your consent to be attacked in this way? Or was it the fault of the game for not giving the choice of a PvE and a PvP server upon creation?
I would imagine, that knowing there wa sonly one server it would be expected the onus is on the player to determine what this could mean, but what if it was a minor? Does minority play a part in online gaming?
A minor can rescind his contract in certain situations, can this play a part?

Just some things that popped into my head.

-Eclipse

[Lekkric]

Actually, I believe there was intent to injure in Bertuzzi's attack, and everyone I've talked to about it agrees (except canuck fans, Mr. BC boy :p ). He didn't just blindside punch the guy, he deliberately slammed his face into the ice when he went down. IMHO, it was well outside the accepted parameters of the game.

Besides, I'm a flames fan :D

/derail off

[Jasarina]

This poses some very intersting questions. However I can not believe they actaully arrested that guy. I mean banning an account or supeneding one for violting the terms of the game but actaully chargeing someone with a crimminal offense for virtual items it a bit much.

I guess I have a hard time seeing a crime committed unless it was hacking the account and stealing the items. The stuff is just all pixels anyway nothing real.

Jasarina

[radlore]

This poses some very intersting questions. However I can not believe they actaully arrested that guy. I mean banning an account or supeneding one for violting the terms of the game but actaully chargeing someone with a crimminal offense for virtual items it a bit much.

I guess I have a hard time seeing a crime committed unless it was hacking the account and stealing the items. The stuff is just all pixels anyway nothing real.

Jasarina

Yeh I couldn't find anywhere which actually explained what the charges being brought are as I was wondering that myself.

Just as a sidenote on how seriously some countries are taking this kind of thing; China has had it's fair share of these types of incidents too. Their diagnosis? Game addiction is to blame. Their solution? http://www.interfax.cn/showfeature.asp?aid=4913&slug=INTERNET-ONLINE%20GAME-POLICY-CHINA.

[Eclipse]

Actually, I believe there was intent to injure in Bertuzzi's attack, and everyone I've talked to about it agrees (except canuck fans, Mr. BC boy :p ). He didn't just blindside punch the guy, he deliberately slammed his face into the ice when he went down. IMHO, it was well outside the accepted parameters of the game.

Besides, I'm a flames fan :D

/derail off


I was waitin for this one, I moved to BC a month ago from Edmonton...I despise the canucks because they always beat the living crap out of my oilers. I'm still an oilers fan, and besides knowing that naslund and bertuzzi were good together, i never really cared.
Now, I have the tape of it, and I agree with the doctors that the player's vertebrae was fractured on the fall, not the punch. The punch was what put them both off-balance, then they fell...along with several other players getting in on the action. Marty McSorely's chop to head with his stick was WAY different than Bertuzzi's punch. Now I agree with the fact he was suspended for the season and playoffs...but any further suspensions would be unwarranted.
I haven't followed the suit against him from the other player's family, because i was uninterested and had come to the conclusion that the oh-so common 'over-dramatization' had occured by everyone NOT on the ice.
before my question gets de-railed, I'll turn it back to a hopeful insight by the man, Oloh. Does any of what I have said fall under the categories you mentioned?

-Eclipse