Category: Cases/Disputes

Last December, Yan Yifan was convicted of stealing virtual property and sentenced to a fine of 5,000 yuan (US$617) by the court of Guangzhou’s Tianhe District. He appealed on the grounds that virtual goods should not get legal protection. The court found that, because game players had put time and money into getting the virtual equipment and because Yifan had profited from selling the goods, they did deserve protection.

Sources: People’s Daily Online | The Register | CNet | ZDNet | CRI 1 | CRI 2 | Reuters | Top Tech News | P2PNet | Washington Post | Zinhau Net 1 | Zinhau Net 2

Dale’s Comment: I find it ironic that the law of virtual property seems to be developing in communist China where property rights are historically lower than in capitalist countries. Given the enormous amount of time people spend accumulating/earning/winning virtual property within MMORPGs, I see virtual property as equally deserving of property protection as, say, lottery winnings. Clearly there is an increasing real-world value to virtual property. To the extent virtual property can be monetized in the real world, I submit that it should be given legal recognition as a property interest deserving of protection just like any other property.

See, for instance, the new and wildly popular Second Life MMORPG where users frequently use real money to purchase virtual property. Second Life actually publishes how much money is spent in the game each month. Real currency is converted to the in-game $Lindex currency and, through the games ‘Marketplace’ users can convert $Lindex back to real currency. Clearly, this “virtual” property has real-world value that if stolen etc. may give rise to enforceable property rights in the real world. I doubt it will be long before this type of case makes its way to the courts.

See also, the many related gold-farming stories referenced in my March 16, 2006 post. See also the related June 8, 2005 story where a Shanghai man narrowly escaped a death sentence after killing another man that had stolen (and sold0 his virtual sword. The man committed the murder after first being rebuffed by the police when he approached them for help in the matter. The police turned him away because virtual property, at that time, was not recognized as property.