sisi amber jewelry wholesale Regarding the destruction of virtual property for help!

wholesale gemstone jewelry beads At present, cases that violate network virtual property in mainland China often occur. Relevant sources of the Ministry of Public Security said that the special operations on cyber crimes have been continuously continuous this year, but a large number of netizens have always complained to have been deceived in e -commerce, and a large number of online gamers claim that their game equipment and weapons have been stolen. At the same time, a large number of malicious procedures such as Trojan horses have frequently occurred in the network invasion and destruction. All sectors of society are paying attention to how to effectively and thoroughly combat cyber crime. The cyber criminal activity is so rampant, and the Ministry of Public Security has also taken severe blow measures, but for some multi -sex cyber crimes such as cyber attacks, theft, and fraud. Due to the lag of the law, the blow is still not enough. The difficulty in it is also an urgent problem. Compared with South Korea, which has developed online games, there are more than 60,000 online game account cases that have been filed for investigation and investigation in one year, but the total of various types of cyber crime cases in my country in 2005 from the case of investigation and punishment from a total of less than 20,000. Although the number of case investigation and punishment of such cases is small, there are almost no cyber theft cases in the past few years that can be convicted, and the general law of the number of cases in accordance with the number of general criminal cases is compared. People are worried. [1]
(1) Several typical cases of online property theft cases
The first case of theft of online virtual property in China- "Red Moon" players sued the Beijing Arctic Bing Technology Company. Hongyue player Li Hongchen logged in to his game account at 5 pm on February 17, 2003 and found that all the virtual equipment in his ID was gone. He first called the customer service department of the game company. The query results learned that his equipment was transferred to the ID of another player. He asked to seize the ID, but the other party told him that he had no right to ask the game company to do so Unless there is a letter of public security organs. Li Hong rushed to Chengde City Public Security Bureau's Network Supervision Office and Nanyingzi Police Station, etc., but the public security organs gave the same reply: "Virtual items cannot be valued, we cannot file a case." At the end, he came to Red. The headquarters of the monthly operator company, the game company headquarters told Li Hongchen that if the public security organs did not file a case, they could not tell him the ID situation of the equipment flowing or the ID, and said that it was to protect the privacy of the player. The next day, the company issued an announcement to delete another ID equipment equipped with Li Hongchen's equipment. In a blink of an eye, it took thousands of hours of energy and the results of tens of thousands of yuan of advanced "cultivation". In the anger, Li Hongchen filed a lawsuit in Beijing's Arctic Technology Company. On December 18, 2003, the People's Court of Chaoyang District of Beijing was the third trial of the first online game virtual property case in China and sentenced the plaintiff in the first instance. The virtual equipment is intangible property and has a value content. The defendant operator Beijing Arctic Technology Development Company is lacking in online game security, and it should bear the legal consequences caused by it. Decided him to restore the virtual weapons and equipment lost by Li Hongchen, the plaintiff Chengdede online game player. Although this judgment acknowledges that virtual property is the legal property of the player, because it cannot evaluate its value, it can only protect the interests of the player through a technical return.
The virtual property disputes that have occurred since then have imitated the civil litigation procedure of the default of the "Li Hongchen to the Arctic Ice" case. The plaintiff sued the operator's service provider to breach contract and was not well kept. The result was to restore the original state and give the lost virtual property to the plaintiff.
In August 2005, the Zhejiang Legal Daily reported on the account of the online game player, and then sold the game equipment to make a profit. After hearing the court, the defendant compiled a Trojan horse process to steal the virtual equipment of the "legend" online game users and then made a profit. At least 100,000 online game accounts stolen in the case, the amount involved was nearly one million yuan. This case has a great influence. Due to the extensive scope of the Trojan horse process, most of the city's Internet "breaks", and the owners of Internet cafes have suffered heavy losses. Due to the lack of relevant laws, the court could only convict the computers' information system by destroying the computer information system. The three cases were sentenced to one year and six months. For such a judgment, the owners report that the conviction is too light and should be based on the theft of theft. However, the court's strength is that because the theft of the case in the case is a virtual property in online games, it cannot be presented in the form of physical objects, and the specific value is difficult to determine. So far, no department in my country has effectively determined the value of such property. The law has no relevant provisions here, and it can only be convicted by destroying the computer information system. [1] At present, Chinese online game users have reached 10 million, and 76%of players have the experience of theft of virtual property. Most players believe that they are unlucky, and some players choose to complain to the operator or consumer association. However, even if the case is reported, due to the particularity of cyber crimes and virtual property, the new phenomenon of the theft of cyber theft has not been regulated by the legal provisions that have not yet responded, and the law enforcement department has no power to do it, which has led players to complain. Therefore, some legal persons and online operators also hope to formulate relevant laws as soon as possible to protect the legitimate rights and interests of players virtual world.
(2) Different views of my country's legal practice community on theft of network virtual property behavior:
The case of increasingly rampant cyber virtual property, my country's legal practice sectors are in different views. The first view is that such theft cases do not constitute a crime. There are three reasons: (1) my country ’s laws stipulate that the criminal object of theft is the ownership of public and private property, and the virtual property of online games does not have the real property nature. (2) An important condition for constituting the crime of theft is the amount of theft, and the virtual property of online games cannot formulate specific prices (3) There is no clear stipulation on this illegal act on the Internet in my country's current law. The principle of explicitly stipulates that it is not guilty, and it is impossible to determine that such behavior constitutes the crime of theft. The second point of view is that such theft acts constitutes a crime. The reason is that the ownership of public and private finances of the actions of theft of network virtual property infringement may not be a tangible object to become property. As long as they have economic value, the amount of theft reaches a certain degree, and then the amount of theft reaches a certain degree. It should constitute a crime. According to Article 264 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China and the Explanation of the Supreme Court on Several Issues of the Specific Application Law on the Supreme Court ", even the theft of the Internet virtual things may constitute a crime. The third view is that because my country's current laws and regulations on computer network crimes are less, the current laws cannot be controlled. In judicial practice, the mainland police forces have different cases of cases of infringing on network virtual property such as theft equipment and game accounts, and the practice of local public security organs and the Ministry of Public Security is different. First, the opinions of the local public security organs are that because such cases cannot be rely on, they are not considered a crime and will not be paid. At most, only a written material for online game operators proves that the parties have reported the case when they come to the public security organs, and then let the operators and the parties coordinate and deal with themselves. 2. The opinions of the Ministry of Public Security are: In 2002, in order to obtain accurate law enforcement opinions, the Public Information Network Security Supervision Department of the Liaoning Provincial Public Security Department made a letter of promotion to the Ministry of Public Security. In September of the 11th inning of the Ministry of Public Security, in September of the same year, "A response to the" Request about how to punish the behavior of how to be punished by the behavior of other people's online gaming accounts "(Gongxin'an [2002] No. 445) responded:" First, the actor directly or indirectly steals others to others网上游戏帐号以及利用黑客或其他手段盗用游戏玩家在网络游戏中获得的'游戏工具'等，属未经允许，使用计算机信息网络资源的行为，违反了《计算机网络国际互连网安全保护管理办法》（ The following referred to as "Measures") Article 6 (1), paragraph 1, can be punished based on Article 20 of the Measures on the basis of finding the facts. The behavior of the game auxiliary software that cannot be used normally can be punished in accordance with Article 23 of the Penalties of the People's Republic of China on Public Security Management Penalties; if a crime is constituted, it is investigated for criminal responsibility in accordance with the law. " Or the basis of regulations, so the public security organs can only think that theft of other people's game accounts, game tools and other behaviors belong to an illegal "use" computer information network resources, so it can only be based on the 1997 State Council's "Computer Information Network International Network International Network Security Protection Agency Measures Article 20 stipulates that [1]
This, you can find that player, sue him, or negotiate.