Groundbreaking decision in Runescape case: virtual items can be stolen

Yesterday the Dutch High Court ruled on the groundbreaking Runescape-case.  The High Court states a virtual good is to be classified as a ‘good’ in the sense of Article 310 of the Dutch Criminal Law. The latter means theft of a virtual good (in online games), such as in the Runescape case, is a criminal offense.

The Runescape case is about two boys who had forced a 13-year old to transfer a virtual mask and a virtual amulet from one avatar to another, in the computer game Runescape.

In 2008, the Dutch lower court sentenced the two boys for theft. In 2009, the judges in appeal maintained the verdict of the lower court. The two boys went to High Court, were the High Court had to answer the question whether it is legally possible to steal virtual goods and whether this offense is punishable.

Now, the High Court confirms the decision of the previous judges which comes down to – in short- stealing a virtual good is the same as theft of a material good in the sense of article 310 Dutch Criminal Law.  The High Court rules that a virtual good, despite its nature (or character)  however still can be considered a material ‘good’ in the sense of Article 310 Criminal Law. Furthermore, the ruling states that if a virtual good has features of ‘data’, this does not mean that it cannot be regarded as a ‘good’ just yet. Also, the High Court recognises there exist borderline cases where  non-material objects contain features of both ‘good’ and ‘data’. In such cases, the classification depends on the circumstances of the case and their evaluation by the court.

Read the court ruling here (in Dutch)

By: Deniece Teterissa