Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: Theft of Intangibles

An interesting question came up with a chavrusa.  To understand the question, you need to know that there are many online games that are essentially multiplayer computer simulations.  One of the ways the game providers make money is to offer etools of various sorts for a price (real dollars).   The game provides provisions for players to buy/sell/loan such tools among themselves, as well as from the game provider.

Here's what transpired (names changed to protect the innocent and to comply with the laws of Lashon Hara even about the guilty):
Shmuel and Yehuda are friends playing in a game that offers, among other things, virtual e-swords for sale to be used in the game.  Shmuel owns an e-sword, but will be offline for a month, so he loans it to his friend Yehuda.  "Loan" is the term they use between themselves.  As far as the game is concerned, Shmuel has sold his e-sword to Yehuda for $0; Yehuda and Shmuel, though, have an oral agreement (no dispute on this) that Yehuda will give (that is, sell for $0) the e-sword back to Shmuel in a month.  At the time of the transaction, e-swords were going for $100.  Yehuda sees after a week that the price of e-swords is going down, so he sells the e-sword for $85.  (As far as the game is concerned, Yehuda owns the e-sword.  The lender/borrower relationship is a verbal agreement between Yehuda and Shmuel.)  At the end of the month, e-swords are now going for only $50.

Yehuda tells Shmuel that he'll either buy him a new e-sword or give him the $85 he made by selling it.  Shmuel says he wants the $100 the e-swords was worth when he lent it to Yehuda.
  1. Was Yehuda allowed to sell the e-sword in the first place?  All e-swords are exactly equivalent and always available.
  2. Can Yehuda force Shmuel to accept a e-sword in lieu of payment?
  3. If they decide on cash, how much does Yehuda owe Shmuel?
I sent this question to the Business Halacha Institute; an organization to whom I have been directed in the past by rabbanim that I consulted.  They answered as follows:
The answer to your inquiry is that Yehudah owes Shmuel “$85” the value of the e-sword at the time that he stole it by selling it.  If he “buys” an e-sword and gives it to Shmuel he fulfills his obligation to return the stolen “property”.  See REPLACING DRINKS IN A HOTEL REFRIGERATOR for a discussion of this last point.
Note that Yehuda was not allowed to sell the e-sword.  Even though he has exclusive rights to use it and he has every intention to replace it.  Theft is forbidden, even if one has in mind to return it; just as eating pork is forbidden even if one has in mind to purge.

The fact that Yehuda can force Shmuel to accept a (new, albeit indistinguishable from the original) e-sword in lieu of payment is sort of a reverse application of the usual "takanas ha'shavim" enacted to make the path to doing t'shuva as smooth as possible for a robber.  In this case replacing the "item" (that is, identical exclusive rights access to the e-sword software module) will cost less that returning the value at the time it was stolen.  Interestingly, Chazal discuss a similar case where someone stole beer before Pesach then returned it a week after Pesach.  Same beer, but now worthless because it is chameitz that was owned by a Jew over Pesach, which is forbidden by rabbinic decree.

Moral: Stop playing those ridiculous online games and get thee to a beis medrash!
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction.  That is, even th
Post a Comment
Read more

Thought for the Day: What Category of Muktzeh are Our Candles?

As discussed in a recent TftD , a p'sak halacha quite surprising to many, that one may -- even לכתחילה -- decorate a birthday cake with (unlit, obviously) birthday candles on Shabbos. That p'sak is predicated on another p'sak halacha; namely, that our candles are muktzeh because they are a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not  מוקצה מחמת גופו/intrinsically set aside from any use on Shabbos. They point there was that using the candle as a decoration qualifies as a need that allows one to utilize a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. Today we will discuss the issue of concluding that our candles are , in fact, a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not מוקצה מחמת גופו. Along the way we'll also (again) how important it is to have personal relationship with your rav/posek, the importance of precision in vocabulary, and how to interpret the Mishna Brura.  Buckle up. After reviewing siman 308 and the Mishna Brura there, I concluded that it should be permissible to use birthday candles to decorate a cake on Shabbo
Post a Comment
Read more

Thought for the Day: אוושא מילתא Debases Yours Shabbos

My granddaughter came home with a list the girls and phone numbers in her first grade class.  It was cute because they had made it an arts and crafts project by pasting the list to piece of construction paper cut out to look like an old desk phone and a receiver attached by a pipe cleaner.  I realized, though, that the cuteness was entirely lost on her.  She, of course, has never seen a desk phone with a receiver.  When they pretend to talk on the phone, it is on any relatively flat, rectangular object they find.  (In fact, her 18 month old brother turns every  relatively flat, rectangular object into a phone and walks around babbling into it.  Not much different than the rest of us, except his train of thought is not interrupted by someone else babbling into his ear.) I was reminded of that when my chavrusa (who has children my grandchildrens age) and I were learning about אוושא מילתא.  It came up because of a quote from the Shulchan Aruch HaRav that referred to the noise of תקתוק
Post a Comment
Read more