China's courts say your digital game items are inheritable – Steam and The West disagree

[DragonSlayer101]

What just happened? A court in China has ruled that online gaming accounts are inheritable assets, reshaping how digital property is treated in the country after a person's death. This is not the first time that Chinese courts have ruled in favor of a deceased gamer's next of kin in similar cases, allowing them to legally inherit their late relatives' virtual assets.

According to a post by Redditor Slawrfp on the PC master race subreddit, multiple courts in China have recently ruled in favor of the family members of deceased gamers, finding that legal heirs have rights to the game accounts of their relatives or partners because game purchases and in-game microtransactions carry real-world monetary value.

In one of the cases highlighted by Slawrfp, a woman sought to inherit an ultra-expensive weapon in the game Zhengtu from her deceased husband. However, she was opposed by his "in-game romantic partner," who argued that the item could only be obtained through collaborative gameplay between players with linked accounts.

The weapon – a rare knife – was valued at a whopping 50,000 yuan (around $7,375), leading the court to conclude that it was inheritable like any other property because of its real-world market value. However, the judge ruled that the widow was only entitled to 50% of the item's value after it was sold, while the in-game partner was awarded the remaining 50%.

In another case, a court in Beijing ordered a gaming company to hand over 87 accounts belonging to a deceased gamer to his mother, ruling that accounts, character data, virtual items, and other in-game assets are inheritable because they have real-world monetary value. The company eventually cooperated with the mother and granted her access to all virtual assets held by her deceased son.

The verdicts on digital inheritance in China have extended far beyond gaming, with courts also issuing similar rulings in cases involving cryptocurrencies and social media accounts. The decisions have dealt a major blow to internet companies that claim they have the right to "bequeath and inherit" users' digital assets after their death.

The rulings issued by Chinese courts stand in stark contrast to decisions in the US and Europe, where courts have sided with game companies such as Valve, ruling that digital licenses on platforms like Steam are non-transferable. In reaching those decisions, courts noted that the Steam Subscriber Agreement explicitly prohibits the transfer, sale, or trading of accounts.

Permalink to story:

China's courts say your digital game items are inheritable – Steam and The West disagree

 

[The Talking Tech]

Digital purchases should be inheritable, sellable, transferrable and at all times redownloadable.

Anything less than that it's a robbery and a scam.

 

[MiqWalsh]

Digital purchases should be inheritable, sellable, transferrable and at all times redownloadable.

Anything less than that it's a robbery and a scam.

Same old, same old. Welcome to the capitalist Western world (where making money "trumps" literally everything else..!)

Miq.

 

[maxxcool7421]

China to the defense of the working american ... boy thats gotta wrankle 'some people'

 

[brucek]

In the US, we need digital "licenses" to catch up to the 100+ year old First Sale doctrine: if you bought it as a consumer, you can transfer it. This matter of social policy was settled for decades until digital publishers found an end-run around it because judges decided a book, record, movie etc. was somehow different in digital form than on physical paper, vinyl, or optical disc. I understand our legal system moves slowly but it's been quite a few decades now, I think we should expect our legislators to get around to fixing this.

btw this would also largely fix the issue with Sony stopping physical disks for playstations, which would be fine for most people if there was a functioning market for trading the digital versions.

 

[LordVile95]

In the US, we need digital "licenses" to catch up to the 100+ year old First Sale doctrine: if you bought it as a consumer, you can transfer it. This matter of social policy was settled for decades until digital publishers found an end-run around it because judges decided a book, record, movie etc. was somehow different in digital form than on physical paper, vinyl, or optical disc. I understand our legal system moves slowly but it's been quite a few decades now, I think we should expect our legislators to get around to fixing this.

btw this would also largely fix the issue with Sony stopping physical disks for playstations, which would be fine for most people if there was a functioning market for trading the digital versions.

It’s not really the same thing as you’re purchasing a licence which isn’t the same as purchasing it outright.

 

[The Talking Tech]

Same old, same old. Welcome to the capitalist Western world (where making money "trumps" literally everything else..!)

Miq.

It's pretty sad that something that is considered a purchased people don't have any control over it....

The consumer is to blame for it by giving corporations that much power and not finding ways to gain that power back.

 

[brucek]

It’s not really the same thing as you’re purchasing a licence which isn’t the same as purchasing it outright.

This entire concept is bogus and needs to go away. It snuck under people's noses at a time when most people in politics and law barely understood what a personal computer was and never got looked at again.

The paper form of the book already understood you were purchasing a readable copy, not the master copyright to publish it yourself. And way back in the day we already went through the debate as a society as to whether the first purchaser should be able to sell that readable copy to a second person, or a library should be able to share it's copies with whoever wanted to borrow them. After the initial debate was settled it stayed settled for decades.

As we to move to digital readable copies, nothing as far as societal tradeoffs has changed. It was always a "license" in the form that mattered, meaning it was for one person's use at a time and not giving them rights to reproduce. We can still have that exact situation in digital form. What changed is that digital only publishers were allowed to reset the First Sale doctrine largely over a practical vs legal difference, which they never should have been.

Congress should require that these digital assets be subject to first sale doctrine.

 

[LordVile95]

This entire concept is bogus and needs to go away. It snuck under people's noses at a time when most people in politics and law barely understood what a personal computer was and never got looked at again.

The paper form of the book already understood you were purchasing a readable copy, not the master copyright to publish it yourself. And way back in the day we already went through the debate as a society as to whether the first purchaser should be able to sell that readable copy to a second person, or a library should be able to share it's copies with whoever wanted to borrow them. After the initial debate was settled it stayed settled for decades.

As we to move to digital readable copies, nothing as far as societal tradeoffs has changed. It was always a "license" in the form that mattered, meaning it was for one person's use at a time and not giving them rights to reproduce. We can still have that exact situation in digital form. What changed is that digital only publishers were allowed to reset the First Sale doctrine largely over a practical vs legal difference, which they never should have been.

Congress should require that these digital assets be subject to first sale doctrine.

It’s basically how all IP has worked? When you buy a book you’re not allowed to copy it and sell it or grab another one for free, you have bought access to a copy under to use in a specific way.

 

[brucek]

It’s basically how all IP has worked? When you buy a book you’re not allowed to copy it and sell it or grab another one for free, you have bought access to a copy under to use in a specific way.

You conveniently left out the exact part I was highlighting, that you were always allowed to sell that book and lend that book.

I am not arguing that you should be able to make unlimited copies and sell those. You bought one copy, you should be allowed to sell that one copy to someone else, after which you no longer have it yourself. The way it has worked for over 100 years. (and much longer than that if you go by the common law this descends from if I understand it correctly, although I'm no legal scholar.)

 

[NumberNine]

Ownership is such a pesky concept to those who seek gains with little to offer in return.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

It’s basically how all IP has worked? When you buy a book you’re not allowed to copy it and sell it or grab another one for free, you have bought access to a copy under to use in a specific way.

No, you bought access to a copy under the license to NOT use it in a specific way: you could not make copies of it and sell them.

You could sell your book, doodle in it, use it as kindling, loan it to friends and family, use it as a doorstop, use it as inspiration, and so on. There are infinite ways you could use that book.

That is ownership. Going *nerrrr whell ackshually you loisenced it neeeeeer* doesnt change that fact you owned that book and could do as you see fit.

We only ahve to give out our rights to ownership if we choose to allow it.

 

[bviktor]

It's a weird, twisted world we're living in, where China is becoming the most pro-consumer state.

They also ban flush door handles on cars, mandate physical buttons for the most crucial tasks, strictly restrict children's video game playtime, etc.

 

[LordVile95]

No, you bought access to a copy under the license to NOT use it in a specific way: you could not make copies of it and sell them.

You could sell your book, doodle in it, use it as kindling, loan it to friends and family, use it as a doorstop, use it as inspiration, and so on. There are infinite ways you could use that book.

That is ownership. Going *nerrrr whell ackshually you loisenced it neeeeeer* doesnt change that fact you owned that book and could do as you see fit.

We only ahve to give out our rights to ownership if we choose to allow it.

It’s not ownership and no you didn’t own it. Argue all you want but it’s still sold under licence