A UK court has ruled that the unauthorized stealing of in-game currency can be legally classified as criminal theft.
Former Jagex developer Andrew Lakeman was charged with allegedly stealing 705 billion Gold from almost 70 RuneScape players, with a real-world value of over half a million pounds, equivalent to around $750,000. He then sold this currency online for Bitcoin.
Although Lakeman had no access to player accounts in his position at Jagex as a content developer, he allegedly accessed them by “hacking and/or using credentials of members of the account recovery team.” In all, 68 players allegedly lost gold to Lakeman, starting around 2018.
Here comes the science bit: the defendant’s defence claimed that the in-game currency could not be classed as property under the definition of the UK’s Theft Act, and initially, the court agreed, concluding that as RuneScape gold is not real — or “pure information” or “knowledge” as it’s legally defined — it could not technically be stealable.
The judge at the time also deemed RuneScape’s supply of Gold as being infinite, and it wasn’t “rivalrous” given that having a piece of Gold doesn’t deprive another player of getting Gold, too. The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed and last week handed down a judgment while explaining its reasoning.
“We differ from the Judge in his reasoning for reaching the contrary conclusion on rivalrousness. The two reasons which the Judge gave in his ruling do not, with respect, bear analysis,” Judge Popplewell wrote. “The first was that ‘one gold piece is like any other, and their supply is infinite.’ This does not, however, distinguish them from many other forms of rivalrous property. One paper clip from a given manufacturer is like any other; and the manufacture and supply of them infinite, in the sense that is not capped at any finite number. Yet each paper clip constitutes property. The same is equally true of gold pieces.”
“[RuneScape’s gold is] properly described as something which can be stolen as a matter of normal use of language,” the judgment added. “They do not fall within any of the established exceptions. They are not ‘pure knowledge:’ functionally, they exist as identifiable assets distinct from the code which gives rise to them and outside the minds of people. There is no good policy reason for excepting them from the category of property which can be stolen.”
The judgment concluded: “On the contrary, they are assets which have an ascertainable monetary value and which may be traded for that value both in the game and outside the game. Within the rules of the game they represent money’s worth as the product of purchase of a bond. Outside the game they are regularly traded for money’s worth. They are capable of being subject to dishonest dealing which deprives their possessor of their use and value. It would be surprising and unsatisfactory if such dishonest dealing did not amount to the offence of theft.”
It’s a judgment that could have profound implications for the games industry, as up until now, vendors that sell (or re-sell) in-game currency have existed in a grey market wherein technically, no theft has occurred if the digital asset stolen did not meet the definition of an intangible item under the definitions of theft in that country. The dubious line of when ownership of any such in-game currency transfers from the developer to the player — if at all — further compounds an already complex issue, too.
With the issue of whether removing gold from player accounts constituted theft now settled, the case against Lakeman can proceed.
Author: Vikki Blake
Source: IGN Gaming
Reviewed By: Editorial Team
