Systemic Problems of Criminal Legal Protection of Virtual Objects
Abstract
The article is devoted to the study of the peculiarities of the legal regulation of virtual objects and the problems of protecting public relations associated with their use. In the context of digitalization virtual objects have acquired economic value, and the demand for them is growing every year. However, their legal status remains generally uncertain or not fully defined. The research focuses on the issues of protecting non-fungible tokens, digital currency and in-game virtual objects. The author states that a unified approach to their civil regulation has not been developed. The status of non-fungible tokens remains controversial, and in-game objects are usually equated to intellectual property, while disputes between users and copyright holders that do not extend beyond the game process are not subject to judicial protection. The most regulated is the status of digital currency, however, in this area there are still many shortcomings that require the attention of the legislator. Problems of criminal defense and qualification are closely related to civil law. The rules on crimes in the field of computer information are not able to ensure proper differentiation of liability depending on the consequences of an economic nature. Given the uncertainty of the regime of non-fungible tokens and the application of the “magic circle” concept in relation to game objects, it becomes difficult to attribute them to the subject of theft or extortion. The question remains open about the distribution of signs of “seizure” and “circulation” of property in relation to digital currency. Foreign legislation (China, the Netherlands, Great Britain) speaks of the possibility of applying theft rules in the event of attacks on virtual objects. The author comes to the conclusion that this approach, if extended to domestic legislation, has a number of disadvantages: the casuistic nature of the decision; violation of established law enforcement practice; ignoring license agreements of copyright holders. In this regard, it is advisable to carry out a comprehensive and systematic optimization of civil and criminal legislation, the result of which should be a special regime for the protection of virtual objects.
References
Abramova E.N. (2022) Digital technologies in the private law (civil) relations. In: Digital technologies and law: collection of papers of international conference. Kazan: Poznanie, pp. 347–355 (in Russ.)
Arias A.V. (2007) Life, liberty, and the pursuit of swords and armor: regulating the theft of virtual goods. Emory Law Journal, vol. 57, pp. 1–70.
Astakhova L.V., Kalyazin N.V. (2022) Non-fungible tokens (NFT) as a means and object of ensuring information security. Automatic Documentation and Mathematical Linguistics, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 116–121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3103/S0005105522030062
Belikova K.M. (2021) Legal qualification of virtual property in Russia and abroad. Yuridicheskiye issledovaniya=Legal Studies, no. 7, pp. 1–28 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-7136.2021.7.35869
Bonar-Bridges J. (2016) Comment: Regulating virtual property with EULAs. Wisconsin Law Review Forward, vol. 78, pp. 79–91.
Brisov Yu. V., Pobedkin A.A. (2022) Legal regime of NFT (Non-Fungible Token) in Russia: How to work in the absence of legislative regulation? Tsifrovoye pravo=Digital Law Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 44–46 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2022-3-1-44-66
Fortnow M., Terry Q. (2021) The NFT Handbook: How to Create, Sell and Buy Non-Fungible Tokens. N. Y.: Wiley, 288 p.
Garazoavskaya N.V. (2020) Virtual property in games: prospects for legal regulation. E-scio=E-scio, no. 4, pp. 276–290 (in Russ.)
Gorokhova O.N. (2019) Game property” as a type of “virtual property». In: Analysis of Contemporary Law. Collection of articles. Moscow: Statut, pp. 378–392 (in Russ.)
Holden J.T., Ehrlich S.C. (2017) Esports, skins betting, and wire fraud vulnerability. Gaming Law Review, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 566–574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/glr2.2017.2183
Kasiyanto S., Kilinc M.R. (2022) The legal conundrums of the metaverse. Journal of Central Banking Law and Institutions, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 299–322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21098/jcli.v1i2.25
Kelly C., Lynes A., Hoffin K. et al. (2020) Video games crime and next-gen deviance. Leeds: Emerald Publishing, 240 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21428/cb6ab371.23221a2a
Khilyuta V.V. (2021) Dematerialization of stealing object and classification issues of crimes on virtual property. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava=Journal of Russian Law, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 68–82 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.12737/jrl.2021.061
Khilyuta V.V. (2022) Considering property as an object of theft in criminal law. Nauchnyy vestnik Omskoy akademii MVD Rossii=Research Bulletin of Omsk Academy of Internal, no. 1, pp. 5–11 (in Russ.)
Korennaya A.A., Tydykova N.V. (2019) Crypto currency as object and instrument of Crimes. Vserossiyskiy kriminologicheskiy zhurnal=Russian Journal of Criminology, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 408–415 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17150/2500-4255.2019.13(3).408-415
Lee E. et al. (2018) No silk road for online gamers! using social network analysis to unveil black markets in online games. In: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference. Lyon: University, pp. 1825–1834. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186177
Levinson V.S., Mitin R.K. (2020) Legal regulation of virtual property. Zakon i pravo=Law and Legislation, no. 5, pp. 39–42 (in Russ.)
Lintaman D. (2020) Unusual canvasses: Resolving copyright infringement through the lens of community customs. Interactive Entertainment Law Review, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 3–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/ielr.2020.01.01
Ovsyukov D.A. (2023) Acquisitive crimes against property using information and communication networks: qualification issues. Moscow: Prospekt, 184 p. (in Russ.)
Pikurov N.I. (2021) Transformation of the concept of the subject of theft, taking into account changes in its economic and civil content. Vestnik universiteta prokuratury Rossiyskoy Federatsii=Bulletin of Federal Procuracy University, no. 3, pp. 43–56 (in Russ.)
Rabets A.P., Naidenov K.D. (2023) Civil legal regime of non-fungeable tokens: condition and prospects of development. Aziatsko-Tikhookeanskiy region: ekonomika, politika, pravo=Pacific Rim: Economics, Politics, Law, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 142–154 (in Russ.)
Rozhkova M.A. (2022) NFT and other tokens: right to record and right under record. Zhurnal Suda po intellektualnym pravam=Journal of the Intellectual Property Rights Court, no. 4 (38), pp. 29–39 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.58741/23134852_2022_4_29
Russkevich E.A. (2019) On criminal law policy in construction of the digital economy in Russia. Vestnik ekonomicheskoy bezopasnosti=Bulletin of Economic Security, no. 1, pp. 163–168 (in Russ.)
Stepanov P.P., Philatova M.A. (2021) Protecting virtual game property under criminal law. Vserossiyskiy kriminologicheskiy zhurnal=Russian Journal of Criminology, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 744–755 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17150/2500-4255.2021.15(6).744-755
Tumakov A.V., Petrakov N.A. (2021) Civil law specifics of digital property. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta MVD Rossii=Bulletin of Moscow University of the Internal, no. 4, pp. 67–72 (in Russ.)
Vasiliev A.M., Kozyrin A.A. (2019) Criminal law protecting legitimate interests in respect to virtual objects. Uralskiy zhurnal pravovykh issledovaniy=Ural Journal of Legal Research, no. 1, pp. 14–44 (in Russ.)
Wang H. (2023) How to deal with virtual property crime: judicial dilemma and a theoretical solution from China. Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 49, pp. 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105808
Wildman N., McDonnell N. (2020) The puzzle of virtual theft. Analysis, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 493–499. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anaa005
