(a) Temporarily or absolutely deprive the boss or someone of special property or interests, or their property or interests; (2) guarantee it, or as a guarantee; (3) The returned person may not be able to perform this part; Or (d) dealing with it in this way, it will not be able to restore the situation when it was changed or changed. Problems arise when players find themselves in the EULA, or game developers steal things from other players, which are essentially part of the game. Let me ask the first question first. The problem of ownership is the biggest obstacle that is very insurmountable, which constitutes the extension of criminal law to this field. Most games. It contains the End User License Agreement (EULA), and it is impossible for the person who retains the ownership to obtain the virtual property first. In fact, you have a theoretical chattel, and you get a virtual world, which seems to have nothing to do with rendering. This seems to be an area where criminal law will extend only when users can overcome EULA. A case, the current feeling of American courts. In the study of v liinden in Prague, the user account of Second Life confiscated the game of his creator Linden Lab, and used his fault to bid for property at a price below the market value in the game. Now is the wrong conversion lawsuit in the game. Although Second Life used grant's intellectual property content, they reserved the right to the terms in their EULA, and these objects were confiscated by the players when they violated the rules of the game. Mr. Bragg is a lawyer, and he can successfully cross-examine the terms of service of Linden Laboratory. For other reasons, the court cited Prague's non-negotiable, too expensive clauses and arbitration agreement clauses to rewrite Linden Laboratories' support, and every factor can be found in irrationality.
Although the case has not been finalized until the end of this article, it should inspire a lot of legal thinking about online virtual property. Prior to this, the controversy in Prague seemed to show that virtual world users with economic interests provided reasons for overturning some strict end-user license agreements (EULA), which extended the criminal law. If it can be successfully overcome, the EULA seems to exist, and there is no reason not to extend the criminal law to virtual theft. This conclusion is of course based on the following discussion. Although the case has not been finalized until the end of this article, it should inspire a lot of legal thinking about online virtual property. Prior to this, the controversy in Prague seemed to show that virtual world users with economic interests provided reasons for overturning some strict end-user license agreements (EULA), which extended the criminal law. If it can be successfully overcome, the EULA seems to exist, and there is no reason not to extend the criminal law to virtual theft. This conclusion is of course based on the following discussion.