A Shanghai online game player stabbed to death a competitor who sold his cyber-sword, the China Daily said Wednesday, creating a dilemma in China where no law exists for the ownership of virtual weapons. —Online Gamer Stabbed for Selling Cyber-Saber (Reuters|My Way)

But it wasn’t the stabbing that created the dilemma, it was the victim’s act of selling the sword (which the article says was “jointly won” by the victim and the alleged murderer).

Note that this article says person A stabbed person B, not that police have charged person A with the stabbing death of person B. The author of this article carefully sources the claim, but I’m uncomfortable with the phrasing (even if the suspect has already entered a guilty plea).

And isn’t the issue here virtual property in general, not specifically “virtual weapons”?