4 ms·

Yes, he's egging the crowd on, but his comment did make me wonder what the legal ramifications of someone stealing bitcoins are. If one of the account holders t

by nhebb 15y ago

Yes, he's egging the crowd on, but his comment did make me wonder what the legal ramifications of someone stealing bitcoins are. If one of the account holders tried to take Linode to court, do you think a US court would even acknowledge the value of a digital currency?

bradleyland 15y ago
Bitcoin's status as a currency may not even be relevant. Your car isn't currency, it's property. If I steal it, I will be charged with theft relative to the value of the car. I can't see how Bitcoins would be treated any differently. They're property, and they can be readily traded at an established value, so I don't see why someone couldn't be charged for stealing them.
- evgen 15y ago
  They did not "steal" them, they merely made a copy. The original owner still has their sequence of numbers. Snarky perhaps, but every possible argument one can make about why torrenting a video is not theft applies equally to the "theft" of bitcoins.
  - Tossrock 15y ago
    Wrong, actually. Read up on how bitcoin (or cryptocurrency in general) works.
  - bradleyland 15y ago
    I'd love to see that tried in court. I have a feeling that argument won't work very well. I have some limited experience in this area, as I worked for a bankruptcy trustee for a number of years. Debtors tried all manner of convoluted arguments to escape the spirit of the law. Judges have very little patience for that sort of thing. The judge will make a limited effort to understand Bitcoins, but the core question will remain, "what harm was done and who was it done to?" The "owner" of the Bitcoins was, unquestionably, deprived of value. So see it however you wish: Bitcoins as tangible property that was taken, or Bitcoins as tangible property that was irreparably damaged. Either way, the judge will ask the same question. Who was harmed and how? Escaping the conclusion that the attacker's actions are responsible for the loss of value is impossible. You can bet that the State will consider these arguments very carefully if they catch the perp and bring charges against them. From there, it's up to the defense to find a jury so dumb that they'll buy the "Bitcoins aren't property" argument. Regarding the arguments relative to video torrents, I believe this to be an error in logic. If I copy a video from a friend, that friend can continue to derive the original value from the video. That is, the friend can continue to watch the video and enjoy it. The act is different in that the original holder of the Bitcoins can no longer use them once they have been "copied" (to use your terms).
  - rmc 15y ago
    In this case the original numbers are totally worthless since they were transfered to someone else. The original owner has been completly deprived of the property.
IamfP 15y ago
I hope they take Linode to court, because it'd be funny to watch them lose actual money as they tried to sue over something where Linode has no responsibility at all. They were incredibly stupid to leave their money sitting on Linode, and they got what they deserved. Sorry, idiotic bitcoin speculators, you got pwnt. And there's nothing that anybody is ever going to do to help you.
DanBC 15y ago
China doesn't acknowledge virtual theft, which caused some problems here: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4072704.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4072704.stm) But a later case said that virtual property should be protected by law: (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-05/24/content_11427265.htm http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-05/24/content_1142726...) Dutch authorities arrested someone for virtual theft: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7094764.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7094764.stm) Here's another Dutch case, involving real world violence, which went to their supreme court: (http://madisonian.net/2012/02/01/dutch-supreme-court-decides-virtual-theft-case/ http://madisonian.net/2012/02/01/dutch-supreme-court-decides...) That last one mentions US case about domain names. I'd be really interested to hear from previous US court cases, or from lawyers, about this.
- rmc 15y ago
  A lot of companies that deal in 'virtual goods', e.g. World of Warcraft, don't like the idea that the bits are property, because then it's hard for them to take the bits away from people (say for cheating), or if they want to shut down the servers etc.
gizzlon 15y ago
A guy once hacked the SecondLife auction system and they closed his account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_v._Linden_Lab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_v._Linden_Lab I don't recall the details, but I think there was another case (in a Starwars MMO?) where the hacker "got a way with it" and build a house for the money. His buzzer plays the games theme-music :)

by nhebb 15y ago

bradleyland 15y ago

Bitcoin's status as a currency may not even be relevant. Your car isn't currency, it's property. If I steal it, I will be charged with theft relative to the value of the car. I can't see how Bitcoins would be treated any differently. They're property, and they can be readily traded at an established value, so I don't see why someone couldn't be charged for stealing them.

evgen 15y ago
They did not "steal" them, they merely made a copy. The original owner still has their sequence of numbers. Snarky perhaps, but every possible argument one can make about why torrenting a video is not theft applies equally to the "theft" of bitcoins.
- Tossrock 15y ago
  Wrong, actually. Read up on how bitcoin (or cryptocurrency in general) works.
- bradleyland 15y ago
  I'd love to see that tried in court. I have a feeling that argument won't work very well. I have some limited experience in this area, as I worked for a bankruptcy trustee for a number of years. Debtors tried all manner of convoluted arguments to escape the spirit of the law. Judges have very little patience for that sort of thing. The judge will make a limited effort to understand Bitcoins, but the core question will remain, "what harm was done and who was it done to?" The "owner" of the Bitcoins was, unquestionably, deprived of value. So see it however you wish: Bitcoins as tangible property that was taken, or Bitcoins as tangible property that was irreparably damaged. Either way, the judge will ask the same question. Who was harmed and how? Escaping the conclusion that the attacker's actions are responsible for the loss of value is impossible. You can bet that the State will consider these arguments very carefully if they catch the perp and bring charges against them. From there, it's up to the defense to find a jury so dumb that they'll buy the "Bitcoins aren't property" argument. Regarding the arguments relative to video torrents, I believe this to be an error in logic. If I copy a video from a friend, that friend can continue to derive the original value from the video. That is, the friend can continue to watch the video and enjoy it. The act is different in that the original holder of the Bitcoins can no longer use them once they have been "copied" (to use your terms).
- rmc 15y ago
  In this case the original numbers are totally worthless since they were transfered to someone else. The original owner has been completly deprived of the property.

IamfP 15y ago

I hope they take Linode to court, because it'd be funny to watch them lose actual money as they tried to sue over something where Linode has no responsibility at all. They were incredibly stupid to leave their money sitting on Linode, and they got what they deserved. Sorry, idiotic bitcoin speculators, you got pwnt. And there's nothing that anybody is ever going to do to help you.

DanBC 15y ago

China doesn't acknowledge virtual theft, which caused some problems here: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4072704.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4072704.stm) But a later case said that virtual property should be protected by law: (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-05/24/content_11427265.htm http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-05/24/content_1142726...) Dutch authorities arrested someone for virtual theft: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7094764.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7094764.stm) Here's another Dutch case, involving real world violence, which went to their supreme court: (http://madisonian.net/2012/02/01/dutch-supreme-court-decides-virtual-theft-case/ http://madisonian.net/2012/02/01/dutch-supreme-court-decides...) That last one mentions US case about domain names. I'd be really interested to hear from previous US court cases, or from lawyers, about this.

rmc 15y ago
A lot of companies that deal in 'virtual goods', e.g. World of Warcraft, don't like the idea that the bits are property, because then it's hard for them to take the bits away from people (say for cheating), or if they want to shut down the servers etc.

gizzlon 15y ago

A guy once hacked the SecondLife auction system and they closed his account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_v._Linden_Lab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_v._Linden_Lab I don't recall the details, but I think there was another case (in a Starwars MMO?) where the hacker "got a way with it" and build a house for the money. His buzzer plays the games theme-music :)