Bitch shouldn't have sold the damn sword

Post by **Delphine** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:25 pm

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... abre_dc">A Shanghai online game player stabbed to death a competitor who sold his cyber-sword.</a>

BEIJING (Reuters) - A Shanghai online game player stabbed to death a competitor who sold his cyber-sword, the China Daily said Wednesday, creating a dilemma in China where no law exists for the ownership of virtual weapons.

Qiu Chengwei, 41, stabbed competitor Zhu Caoyuan repeatedly in the chest after he was told Zhu had sold his "dragon saber," used in the popular online game, "Legend of Mir 3," the newspaper said a Shanghai court was told Tuesday.

"Legend of Mir 3" features heroes and villains, sorcerers and warriors, many of whom wield enormous swords.

Qiu and a friend jointly won their weapon last February, and lent it to Zhu who then sold it for 7,200 yuan (US$870), the newspaper said.

Qui went to the police to report the "theft" but was told the weapon was not real property protected by law.

"Zhu promised to hand over the cash but an angry Qui lost patience and attacked Zhu at his home, stabbing him in the left chest with great force and killing him," the court was told.

The newspaper did not specify the charge against Qiu but said he had given himself up to police and already pleaded guilty to "intentional injury."

No verdict has been announced.

More and more online gamers were seeking justice through the courts over stolen weapons and credits, the newspaper said.

"The armor and swords in games should be deemed as private property as players have to spend money and time for them," Wang Zongyu, an associate law professor at Beijing's Renmin University of China, was quoted as saying.

But other experts are calling for caution. "The 'assets' of one player could mean nothing to others as they are by nature just data created by game providers," a lawyer for a Shanghai-based Internet game company was quoted as saying.

SuperKnux · Post by **SuperKnux** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:11 pm

Ah, yes. I saw this over at SuicideGirls. Interesting bit though, could these virtual items (i.e. "stolen weapons and credits") count as actual property?

Chinese law does not consider a virtual item in a computer game property, and I'm wondering if that applies to the states and other countries.

Kishi · Post by **Kishi** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:40 pm

I don't want to be Elfstar anymore! I want to be Zhu Caoyuan!

Double-S- · Post by **Double-S-** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:47 pm

It's not property. Doesn't the user agreement say that everything belongs to the company and they could take it away whenever they wanted (especially relating to consistent MMORPGs)?

Post by Bo » Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:50 pm

I have this dread of the U.S. Congress getting involved with ownership of virtual anything...
This should be a contract issue, not a property issue... the loan of the weapon was an implicit contract, and the selling of the loaned item was a violation of that.

Light Speed · Post by **Light Speed** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:17 pm

Was stabbing the contract breaker to death outlined in the contract?

Dunjohn · Post by **Dunjohn** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:44 pm

I've heard about this kinda thing before - Time ran a thing on it months ago, not this exact story. Maybe Newsweek.

I'm sorta wondering if this sorta thing could maybe come under intellectual property rights. I mean, if I was to hack into your computer and steal a load of your documents (or porn, in Gibbons case) and then sell it, I'm sure the courts would come after me.

That's what I see happening here. Chinese Person A "gave" Chinese Person B a non-extistent item that both considered to have value on loan. There's definitely an actual transfer there, implying a contract, that was breached.

Dark Crow · Post by **Dark Crow** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:49 pm

That still doesn't justify murder. Nothing does.

Double-S- · Post by **Double-S-** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:17 pm

Dark Crow wrote:That still doesn't justify murder.

Of course it does.

Post by **Green Gibbon!** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:08 pm

Maybe not knife in the chest, though. Poison in the pudding would've been fine.

Post by **Delphine** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:01 pm

Dark Crow wrote:That still doesn't justify murder. Nothing does.

War. Self defense. Accident. 12 Jurors.

Dark Crow · Post by **Dark Crow** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:18 pm

Well maybe in those circumstances, but still, the fact that a Chinese man got killed over stealing an intangible weapon in a video game is pretty stupid on principle.

Post by **Delphine** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:23 pm

Yes. However, I don't think anyone was trying to justify it. Not seriously, anyway.

Dunjohn · Post by **Dunjohn** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:09 pm

Obviously I'm not saying it was okay to stab someone to death (for selling an intangible sword. Pretty ironic). It's just, the courts don't see a crime, but I do. Seems serving too-hot coffee is a crime, but not selling someone else's stuff.