Question

劳烦翻译下～～要人工的谢谢啦～关于网络虚拟财产的

The problem of ownership is not the only one facing players in virtual worlds with an interest in their property rights. As mentioned above, we must also grapple with the issue of consent.
It is important to keep in mind that we are dealing with virtual worlds here, places that have a defined set of rules and limits on player’s actions. While it may be possible for someone to do many things in virtual worlds that they could also do in the real world (such as getting married, or having children), there are limits. One could imagine it being presumably impossible to invite your fellow orc in the World of Warcraft over for a relaxing game of cribbage, for instance. It is true, then, that actions in virtual worlds are essentially limited by the rules set by the game developers. It is unfortunate for our virtual world property owners that it is conceivable that the virtual world they inhabit may include the rule that stealing is allowed – encouraged even. The unsatisfying conclusion is that by participating in a game where the rules allow for stealing, you are implicitly consenting to having things stolen from you. This, of course, will bar you from reaching out to the criminal law for recourse since no taking without colour of right has taken place.
We find a decent analogy in real-world games. In hockey, for instance, one could not invoke the criminal law after having been at the receiving end of a cross-check. Even though this may technically constitute an assault, hockey players are said to be consenting to this type of contact. Although the analogy is not airtight,it serves to illustrate exactly where virtual crime may enter within the reach of criminal law.

Answer 1

所有权的问题是不是唯一一个面临球员在虚拟世界有兴趣在其财产权利。如上所述，我们还必须处理的问题，同意。
重要的是要记住，我们正在处理的虚拟世界在这里，地方，有一个明确的规则和限制球员的行动。虽然可能有人做很多事情在虚拟世界，他们也可以做现实世界中的（如结婚，或有子女） ，有限制。人们可以想像它是大概不可能邀请您研究员兽人在魔兽世界的一个轻松的游戏cribbage ，例如。这是真的，那么，在虚拟世界的行动基本上是有限的规则所规定的游戏开发商。不幸的是我们的虚拟世界的财产拥有者，这是可以想象的虚拟世界可能包括他们所居住的规则是允许窃取-鼓励甚至。的令人满意的结论是，参加游戏的规则允许盗窃，你是含蓄地同意了你的东西被偷。当然，这将酒吧伸出您的刑事法律追索权，因为没有考虑不正确的颜色发生了。
我们找到一个体面的比喻在现实世界的游戏。在曲棍球，比如：一个不能援引刑法以后在接收端的交叉核对。即使这可能在技术上构成了侵犯，曲棍球球员被认为同意这种类型的接触。虽然比喻是不密封的，它说明虚拟犯罪的确切位置，可输入范围内的刑事法律。