Game accounts were destroyed, substitutes were evaded, and experts advised
Enact the Law on the Protection of Online Virtual Property to fill the vacuum of legal supervision
□ Pu Xiaolei, reporter of this newspaper
□ Intern Lai Yuhong
An Xin (pseudonym) is a game trainer, but after spending half a day to complete the order, he was blocked by the owner. Therefore, before the owner of the account changed the account login device and account password, he carried out the number fusion, that is, decomposing and destroying the important equipment and resources in the game account. Subsequently, An Xin also sent the account of the escaped player to the game forum to remind his peers to "avoid lightning".
In recent years, some gamers have chosen to entrust their game accounts to individuals or studios to obtain game rewards and good game records due to poor technology and lack of time to operate game accounts. However, due to the lack of a perfect normative system and other reasons, many game training parties have suffered losses - some players' game accounts have been destroyed, and the training fees have been lost; Some game trainers were blocked and escaped by the number owner after completing the task.
In an interview with the "Rule of Law Daily" reporter, a number of experts pointed out that the Civil Code provides for the protection of virtual property, which makes up for the gap in the protection of virtual property in mainland law, but it is undeniable that this principled provision cannot be used as a direct basis when resolving specific disputes. In this regard, it is recommended to formulate a law on the protection of online virtual property, clarify the legal attributes, status and relief mechanisms of virtual property, and fill the vacuum of legal supervision.
There are risks on both sides of the transaction
For both sides of the deal, gamers and trainers are potentially risky.
During this year's "May Day" holiday, Tianjin citizen Liu Wei found a game substitute training on the online platform, but when he logged in to his account on the last day of the holiday, he found that the "star" task promised by the substitute training at that time had not been completed at all, and after communicating with the substitute training many times, he still did not ask for more than 100 yuan of advance payment, and was blacked out by the substitute training.
After Wang Kai, a game trainer, helped the customer to put a few stars in the game, he was evaded by the player, "At first, she said that one star was paid, but she said that she was in class, and it was inconvenient to pay one star and had to be changed to three stars." I thought she didn't see the information in class, so I helped her play a few rounds, and when she hit Seven Stars, she actually forced me to log in directly and blocked me on WeChat."
The experience of Liu Wei and Wang Kai is not unique. In the game training industry, problems such as malicious price competition, evasion after game trainers collect high deposits, and theft of players' game accounts are emerging one after another, whether it is game trainers or gamers seeking to train, it is easy to accidentally "enter the pit".
According to the "China Game Industry Report from January to June 2023", the scale of game users in mainland China was 668 million, a year-on-year increase of 0.35%, reaching a record high. In recent years, thanks to the booming growth of the game market, the game training industry has also grown wildly, resulting in frequent disputes and related lawsuits.
In order to upgrade his "Honor of Kings" game account, Liu purchased a substitute training service online, and during the training period, the account was banned due to violations, and Liu asked the substitute trainer to compensate for the loss of 110,000 yuan. Recently, the People's Court of Zhongfang County in Hunan Province concluded the contract dispute case and found that the plaintiff Liu had violated the game user agreement first, and the defendant had fully returned the training fee, so it dismissed the plaintiff's claim.
It is difficult to defend rights if interests are damaged
Zhu Wei, deputy director of the Communication Law Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law, said that in the agency transaction, both parties should perform their responsibilities in accordance with the agreement and protect their legitimate rights and interests.
"On the one hand, game accounts are virtual property protected by law, deliberately destroying other people's game accounts is illegal, if the market value of the account is high, serious circumstances may also involve crimes. On the other hand, the agent transaction does not violate the current legal provisions, the transaction agreement is valid, the two parties should perform in accordance with the agreement, and the right holder has the right to require the other party to perform its responsibilities. From a civil legal point of view, the owner's evasion is fraudulent, and the game trainer can be held accountable according to the agreement. Zhu Wei said.
However, once a dispute arises between the two parties of a game training transaction, it is often difficult for the party whose interests are damaged to protect its rights.
Generally speaking, the game company will stipulate in the game license and service agreement, and the user shall bear any legal consequences and responsibilities arising from the user's provision of the game account to a third party in any way. Although some game companies will provide users with appeal channels, users have the opportunity to file back their accounts and recover some losses by submitting relevant evidence and materials, but in most cases, the accounts will suffer varying degrees of damage.
Game trainers also face some risks. The reporter learned in the investigation that all kinds of game training will not sign a written contract to stipulate the responsibilities of both parties during the transaction, but simply communicate through WeChat, Alipay, second-hand trading platforms, etc., and use the transaction chat record as an agreement. Since the transaction between the two parties is usually not bound by the contract, this makes it difficult to hold accountable for acts such as evasion.
Even through dedicated training platforms, these problems are hard to avoid. Some players who have been game trainers told reporters that the current training platform is uneven, most platforms give very low training fees, and the withdrawal has to deduct the handling fee, "According to 20 yuan an hour, after deducting various fees, it is about 13 yuan." When disputes arise, they are either handled slowly or it is difficult to adjudicate fairly."
"The transaction amount of game training is small, and the difficulty and cost of rights protection are relatively high. Therefore, many people can only 'eat yellow lian dumbly' after their interests are damaged. Zhu Wei said.
The legislation clarifies the scope of protection
Article 127 of the Civil Code stipulates that where the law has provisions on the protection of data and online virtual property, follow those provisions.
"The relevant provisions made by the Civil Code declare the protection of online virtual property, which means that online virtual property such as game accounts and short video platform accounts that are legally operated are protected by law." Zhang Tao, partner at Beijing DeHeng Law Firm and director of the Network and Data Research Center, said.
In an interview with reporters, a number of experts pointed out that although the Civil Code includes online virtual property in the scope of legal protection, this provision is a general and declaratory legislative model, and cannot be used as a direct basis for resolving specific disputes. Therefore, in order to better resolve disputes over online virtual property, the relevant provisions still need to be further refined.
Zhu Wei pointed out that in judicial practice, there are still different views on whether game accounts can be characterized as personal property and jointly protected by law with other types of property, and the mainland has not yet made relevant provisions on game property. In this regard, the civil legal system should be further improved, and the types and scope of online virtual property should be stipulated, "For example, is the game considered virtual property or equipment considered virtual property?" Does virtual property belong to people in the virtual world or to people in real life? These issues need to be further explained by improving legislation".
Feng Fan, deputy to the National People's Congress and director of Grandall Lawyers (Nanchang), believes that at present, the state has standardized financial asset supervision measures, but for a large number of non-financial virtual assets, there is still a vacuum of legal norms, and it is urgent to enact legislation as soon as possible. Governing data and non-financial virtual assets, constructing a framework for the application of the rule of law, and clarifying legal attributes, legal status, and legal remedies can ensure the safe and stable development of related industries.
Feng Fan suggested that various appropriate forms such as laws, administrative regulations, judicial interpretations, departmental rules, normative documents, and standards be adopted to clarify the definition and scope of data and online virtual property; Clearly define the legal status of relevant entities in the field of data and online virtual property, regulate their behavior, and promote the open and benign development of the industry. At the same time, the Law on the Protection of Data and Online Virtual Property should be included in the legislative plan of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress as soon as possible.
Zhang Tao suggested that special legislation on online virtual property, further clarify the scope of protection of virtual property, and determine the right owner, the scope of rights, the exercise of rights and infringement protection, etc., which is not only conducive to regulating game training and other behaviors, but also promotes the benign development of related industries. (Rule of Law Daily)