I guess this is where we're going to have to disagree. I don't believe that the User Agreements are illegal, and much of what you linked to is feeding you BS. If and when a judge upholds the game companies rights to do what they please with THEIR accounts (not yours), then it will be upholding a legal presedence. But you or I are not lawyers, nor are we versed or educated in law. We're merely amatuers that listened to other amatuers, and we drew our own conclusions based on our own predispositions. Plus, your quote: "If you find yourself paying for bundled proprietary software and don't actually install it, you can legally resell it no matter what the End-User License Agreement (EULA) says. That's what Judge Dean D. Pregerson wrote in his "Order Re: Application For Preliminary Injunction" in the case of Softman v. Adobe."
That isn't applicable to our debate. It clearly states that it is discussing software that wasn't installed. We're talking about accounts that not only don't belong to us, but are only accessable through INSTALLED software. Thus, the quote makes no sense in this arguement.
Sorry had one more thing to add. Read the link where the lawyer was talking about in broad terms which EULA's he could win against and which he couldn't. I don't think that just because you disagree with something means the sites are "feeding me BS." There are cases both supporting and not supporting EULAs, its not a clear cut answer in either direction.
"and make money off useless software that they can't do anything about because they clicked the EULA."
It all depends if the EULA's are deemed legal. Also are there specific guidelines on what is considered legal in a EULA's for MMO's?
Is there an MMO that out there that isn't affected by Xao Ping Wang and their money grubbing macro bots? http://wow.stratics.com/content/features/editorials/mf/ Just say no to ingame money/mob farming.... the site says it all
"and make money off useless software that they can't do anything about because they clicked the EULA."
It all depends if the EULA's are deemed legal. Also are there specific guidelines on what is considered legal in a EULA's for MMO's?
Well I don't think that EULAs as a whole will be deemed legal or illegal (in the extreme, all-binding either way). What it would probably end up happening is similar to what the lawyer said, deciding on what cases they thought were "winners" and "losers" at least in terms of probability of having a case(in the lawyers opinion). Companies may push their limits on what they try to restrict or enforce and consumers and others will push back on what they consider unacceptable, which makes it dicey I'm sure.
I would imagine there isn't a specific guideline for em, but would be very interested to see if one existed
And No hard feelings on before just clarifying what was said.
Whoah, this thread is getting into EULA law now? I'll steer clear of that... lol
Anyway, my views are that buying gold and items is just a form of cheating, except with an MMO - the cheater is cheating other players too. Gold farming and selling causes a whole bunch of problems that often spoils the enjoyment of the game for the majority - to one degree or another. Problems include: inflated economy prices, over-farmed areas and the sense that all your in game hard work isn't as important or fulfilling when you know someone with all the best gear avaliable that he or she bought out of their RL wallet.
Cheats in single player games effect single players. Cheats in multiplayer games effect multiple players. There's no getting around that little fact because that's the way it is.
And what's more dissappointing is that gold farmers are making a personal profit out of a game development company's hard work and artistic talent, and creating a rather unsavoury aspect of the game that the developers and designers didn't intend or want in their game.
Selling or trading accounts is the lesser of two evils - but it still creates small problems in the community if the buyer doesn't know how to play the game when other players depends on their input.
Sorry had one more thing to add. Read the link where the lawyer was talking about in broad terms which EULA's he could win against and which he couldn't. I don't think that just because you disagree with something means the sites are "feeding me BS." There are cases both supporting and not supporting EULAs, its not a clear cut answer in either direction.
I have read it, before today. You're not the first person that decided that they knew more about Intelectual Property laws than major international corporations. Nor are you the first person I've had this debate with. A lot of what is said in some of those links are not based on legal precedent, but on personal interpretation of the law by lawyers, not judges. And you have to remember that not all EULAs are equal. It is the contents of these user agreements that is in question, not the agreements themselves.
But one point I keep trying to make, and seem to keep failing in doing so, is that the accounts are not yours. You never, ever owned the account. You never, ever bought the account. You never, ever owned the virtual characters or items in the game. The companies never, ever claimed that you did. You are paying to use something that belongs to the company. The accounts are the companies' property. You agree to abide by the rules the company dictates while using THEIR account, and that's the only reason they LET you use the account.
YOU HAVE NO LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF THE ACCOUNT! ONLY THE PHYSICAL COPY OF THE CLIENT IS YOUR PROPERTY!
To use an analogy, it's like paying $15 to ride a go-cart around , and signing a agreement to wear a helmet and not take it off the track. You didn't buy ownership of the go-cart. You merely bought the right to use it for a while.
If you want an analogy based media, let's go back to the TV Cable. When you subscribe to the Cable service, you don't claim ownership of the content being broadcast onto your screen. You can tape it for personal use, but you cannot make a profit off it.
Seriously. It's Are'el. This forum doesn't allow apostrophes in usernames.
Sorry had one more thing to add. Read the link where the lawyer was talking about in broad terms which EULA's he could win against and which he couldn't. I don't think that just because you disagree with something means the sites are "feeding me BS." There are cases both supporting and not supporting EULAs, its not a clear cut answer in either direction.
I have read it, before today. You're not the first person that decided that they knew more about Intelectual Property laws than major international corporations. Nor are you the first person I've had this debate with. A lot of what is said in some of those links are not based on legal precedent, but on personal interpretation of the law by lawyers, not judges. And you have to remember that not all EULAs are equal. It is the contents of these user agreements that is in question, not the agreements themselves.
But one point I keep trying to make, and seem to keep failing in doing so, is that the accounts are not yours. You never, ever owned the account. You never, ever bought the account. You never, ever owned the virtual characters or items in the game. The companies never, ever claimed that you did. You are paying to use something that belongs to the company. The accounts are the companies' property. You agree to abide by the rules the company dictates while using THEIR account, and that's the only reason they LET you use the account.
YOU HAVE NO LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF THE ACCOUNT! ONLY THE PHYSICAL COPY OF THE CLIENT IS YOUR PROPERTY!
To use an analogy, it's like paying $15 to ride a go-cart around , and signing a agreement to wear a helmet and not take it off the track. You didn't buy ownership of the go-cart. You merely bought the right to use it for a while.
If you want an analogy based media, let's go back to the TV Cable. When you subscribe to the Cable service, you don't claim ownership of the content being broadcast onto your screen. You can tape it for personal use, but you cannot make a profit off it.
If its the Content of the EULA that's in question then why did you keep trying to say I was signing away my rights by signing the EULA and no longer have a case. Then we could have skipped the whole aspect of EULA law and just agreed on that point. As for your point about me "thinking I knew more about Intelectual Property Laws than major international corportations", I don't see how you can make that claim when it hasn't been to COURT YET!!! If you want to discuss then stop throwing out snide comments at me about how I think I know everything, just want to say Neener Neener, and its foolish to yada yada. Seriously. So I'll be sarcastic back in this post...
As for your point. I don't claim I know more about intellectual Property Laws. I simply claim that the case can be made either way and its not cut and dried. Besides, if companies know so much about Intellectual Property Laws, then why are they always suing and getting sued by each other over them. Because according to your logic then *obviously* they wouldn't put something in the EULA that wasn't enforcable when they wrote the contract. They are hoping/planning on not being challenged. Look at all the EULA's that have been deemed illegal if you think companies would never put something in their EULA that wouldn't hold up in court. Yes by a Judge since you think a lawyer's interpretation is useless.
As for the part that "YOU HAVE NO LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF THE ACCOUNT! ONLY THE PHYSICAL COPY OF THE CLIENT IS YOUR PROPERTY."
There is two ways to look at this. Either: The service oriented aspect is part of what is being disputed. Or that the account is linked with the box and if you sell the box then the account goes with it. I understand that you don't think it is valid. Really I do. I'm saying that just because you think its valid based on the incredible lack of any precedent relating to the issues, that does not mean that it truly isn't valid. A judge could very well rule that the account is linked with the box but MMORPG companies have the right to ban accounts if the accounts engage in unapproved activities. That would still protect the companies from liabilities and allow them to ban accounts but make the actual account the property of the user.
Take the case I presented earlier. Where the person bought the game and installed it and the cdkey and made an account and it was immediately banned because the account is owned by the company. The company says they can't give the user a refund because he still has the client, which is all he actually purchased and the account that is permitted by buying a box is the company's. You don't see it the tiniest debatable how the judge will actually rule?
First of all, I don't really need to see it go to court in order to assume that an international company that create and sells intelectiual property, probably knows quite a bit about Intelectual Property laws. I'll bet the EULAs were written by legal experts. Now, a Judge might later decide that what they've done is somehow wrong, but I doubt it. Personal bias on my part? Perhaps. I just tend to think that these game companies' thought quite long and hard about how to do business, and they probably hired legal counsel when drawing up the User Agreements.
As to your example of someone buying the game, setting up an account, and immediately having it banned. Technically, you're talking about the company banning someone at random that didn't break the EULA. And by not breaking the EULA, they are entitled to the service they paid for. However, our arguement thus far has been about people breaking the agreement and therefore forfeting their right to use the companies' property. There's a difference. The person that was wronged could have sued the company for banning the account without proof of wrong-doing. A person that breaks the rules and gets their account banned has no legal leg to stand on.
Besides which, your example seems odd, as it is not in the best interest of the game company to antagonize subscribers that are following the rules. If they lose the trust of the communtiy, the community will leave the game and they would lose money.
I've been having a lot of fun with this, and I want to type some more, but I only had time for those two points. Got work tomorrow. Laters!
Seriously. It's Are'el. This forum doesn't allow apostrophes in usernames.
Take the case I presented earlier. Where the person bought the game and installed it and the cdkey and made an account and it was immediately banned because the account is owned by the company. The company says they can't give the user a refund because he still has the client, which is all he actually purchased and the account that is permitted by buying a box is the company's. You don't see it the tiniest debatable how the judge will actually rule? Is this a real case, or something you are making up to display an example of a case? I can see how Blizzard could do this if they chose too, but I don't think they would. Blizzard holds the rights to do whatever they want with your account. If Blizzard wanted to wipe everyone's account and reroll them a level 12 Human Rogue in full cloth armor they could. It would be horrible business, but people would still play. I find it sort of odd that this is the debate we are having. I think regardless of the EULA's legal ramifications the idea of selling an already played account is just greedy. If you really wanted to make a profit, wouldn't it be more American to go grow some corn or something? I feel like the whole perk of the idea of selling accounts is just the profit of individuals who don't really give a damn about the game or the other players.
I'm still waiting on my answer to the Fruit Roll-up question.
I don't know. I'm not qualified to respond to that because I don't know enough about it. I personally view it as reselling the entire fruit rollup box that you bought. Which you are legally entitled to do.
First of all, I don't really need to see it go to court in order to assume that an international company that create and sells intelectiual property, probably knows quite a bit about Intelectual Property laws. I'll bet the EULAs were written by legal experts. Now, a Judge might later decide that what they've done is somehow wrong, but I doubt it. Personal bias on my part? Perhaps. I just tend to think that these game companies' thought quite long and hard about how to do business, and they probably hired legal counsel when drawing up the User Agreements. As to your example of someone buying the game, setting up an account, and immediately having it banned. Technically, you're talking about the company banning someone at random that didn't break the EULA. And by not breaking the EULA, they are entitled to the service they paid for. However, our arguement thus far has been about people breaking the agreement and therefore forfeting their right to use the companies' property. There's a difference. The person that was wronged could have sued the company for banning the account without proof of wrong-doing. A person that breaks the rules and gets their account banned has no legal leg to stand on. Besides which, your example seems odd, as it is not in the best interest of the game company to antagonize subscribers that are following the rules. If they lose the trust of the communtiy, the community will leave the game and they would lose money. I've been having a lot of fun with this, and I want to type some more, but I only had time for those two points. Got work tomorrow. Laters!
See I guess I don't doubt that companies get things wrong all the time based on the number of lawsuits that go about and the number of times that the EULA has been challenged and lost. Evidentally at least some companies are putting things in the EULA that haven't been enforcable.
The second point about being banned is more related to proof of who owns the account than breaking the EULA. If the company owns the account then they should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, just like restaurants say that they reserve that right. So in this case if the box and the service are separate then the customer can buy the client but have the service refused to him. So is the service linked with the client until you break the EULA, and thus goes along with the box until the EULA is broken, or is it completely separate and can be refused by the company at their discretion since it is a service?
The second point about being banned is more related to proof of who owns the account than breaking the EULA. If the company owns the account then they should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, just like restaurants say that they reserve that right. So in this case if the box and the service are separate then the customer can buy the client but have the service refused to him. So is the service linked with the client until you break the EULA, and thus goes along with the box until the EULA is broken, or is it completely separate and can be refused by the company at their discretion since it is a service?
Ownership of the account and the subscription to use the account are interconnected. The game company owns the account. However, you are paying to use it. As long as you follow the rules, the company should leave the account alone. You pay for the go-cart, you ride the go-cart. It's only when you do something wrong that they should step in and punish you. Throw your helmet at someone, and the they're going to take the go-cart away from you.
As long as you abide by the User Agreement, they have to allow you access to the account, if they are capable of doing so. These User Agreements generally protect the companies from liability when it comes to things like server crashes, lost user data, and the like. But if things are running smoothly, and you've been playing it straight, they've got to let you play.
And just because you bought the client, doesn't mean you are guaranteed access to an account. I could go out and find some stray copy of AC2 on some store shelf. Doubtful that I'll be able to set up an account for that.
But going all the way back to what started all this: Account trading. By the User Agreement at many of these MMO companies, they forbid accoutn trading. Doind so allows them to step in and ban the account if they catch it. But because it is THEIR account, they have every right to say no to it. And because it's NOT your account, you have no right to sell it. So, no matter what good comes from account trading, it's still wrong in the end.
Unless the company expressly allows account trading, then that's a whole other story.
Seriously. It's Are'el. This forum doesn't allow apostrophes in usernames.
I'm against buying/trading/selling accounts not only in WAR, but in all other games. Paying real money, that you earned by working hard from 8 in the morning till 5-6 in the evening, for game accounts it's just too stupid to argue about. Some people justify it by saying that they don't have much time to play and to gather items/raise char lvl and so on. Well, dahhh, don't play then. Games are being created for us to have great time and fun, and if you are paying for it, but don't play and enjoy it, than you're waisting your money.
Comments
"and make money off useless software that they can't do anything about because they clicked the EULA."
It all depends if the EULA's are deemed legal. Also are there specific guidelines on what is considered legal in a EULA's for MMO's?
Is there an MMO that out there that isn't affected by Xao Ping Wang and their money grubbing macro bots?
http://wow.stratics.com/content/features/editorials/mf/
Just say no to ingame money/mob farming.... the site says it all
Well I don't think that EULAs as a whole will be deemed legal or illegal (in the extreme, all-binding either way). What it would probably end up happening is similar to what the lawyer said, deciding on what cases they thought were "winners" and "losers" at least in terms of probability of having a case(in the lawyers opinion). Companies may push their limits on what they try to restrict or enforce and consumers and others will push back on what they consider unacceptable, which makes it dicey I'm sure.
I would imagine there isn't a specific guideline for em, but would be very interested to see if one existed
And No hard feelings on before just clarifying what was said.
Whoah, this thread is getting into EULA law now? I'll steer clear of that... lol
Anyway, my views are that buying gold and items is just a form of cheating, except with an MMO - the cheater is cheating other players too. Gold farming and selling causes a whole bunch of problems that often spoils the enjoyment of the game for the majority - to one degree or another. Problems include: inflated economy prices, over-farmed areas and the sense that all your in game hard work isn't as important or fulfilling when you know someone with all the best gear avaliable that he or she bought out of their RL wallet.
Cheats in single player games effect single players. Cheats in multiplayer games effect multiple players. There's no getting around that little fact because that's the way it is.
And what's more dissappointing is that gold farmers are making a personal profit out of a game development company's hard work and artistic talent, and creating a rather unsavoury aspect of the game that the developers and designers didn't intend or want in their game.
Selling or trading accounts is the lesser of two evils - but it still creates small problems in the community if the buyer doesn't know how to play the game when other players depends on their input.
I don't like it, but it will always happen.
I have read it, before today. You're not the first person that decided that they knew more about Intelectual Property laws than major international corporations. Nor are you the first person I've had this debate with. A lot of what is said in some of those links are not based on legal precedent, but on personal interpretation of the law by lawyers, not judges. And you have to remember that not all EULAs are equal. It is the contents of these user agreements that is in question, not the agreements themselves.
But one point I keep trying to make, and seem to keep failing in doing so, is that the accounts are not yours. You never, ever owned the account. You never, ever bought the account. You never, ever owned the virtual characters or items in the game. The companies never, ever claimed that you did. You are paying to use something that belongs to the company. The accounts are the companies' property. You agree to abide by the rules the company dictates while using THEIR account, and that's the only reason they LET you use the account.
YOU HAVE NO LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF THE ACCOUNT! ONLY THE PHYSICAL COPY OF THE CLIENT IS YOUR PROPERTY!
To use an analogy, it's like paying $15 to ride a go-cart around , and signing a agreement to wear a helmet and not take it off the track. You didn't buy ownership of the go-cart. You merely bought the right to use it for a while.
If you want an analogy based media, let's go back to the TV Cable. When you subscribe to the Cable service, you don't claim ownership of the content being broadcast onto your screen. You can tape it for personal use, but you cannot make a profit off it.
Seriously.
It's Are'el. This forum doesn't allow apostrophes in usernames.
I have read it, before today. You're not the first person that decided that they knew more about Intelectual Property laws than major international corporations. Nor are you the first person I've had this debate with. A lot of what is said in some of those links are not based on legal precedent, but on personal interpretation of the law by lawyers, not judges. And you have to remember that not all EULAs are equal. It is the contents of these user agreements that is in question, not the agreements themselves.
But one point I keep trying to make, and seem to keep failing in doing so, is that the accounts are not yours. You never, ever owned the account. You never, ever bought the account. You never, ever owned the virtual characters or items in the game. The companies never, ever claimed that you did. You are paying to use something that belongs to the company. The accounts are the companies' property. You agree to abide by the rules the company dictates while using THEIR account, and that's the only reason they LET you use the account.
YOU HAVE NO LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF THE ACCOUNT! ONLY THE PHYSICAL COPY OF THE CLIENT IS YOUR PROPERTY!
To use an analogy, it's like paying $15 to ride a go-cart around , and signing a agreement to wear a helmet and not take it off the track. You didn't buy ownership of the go-cart. You merely bought the right to use it for a while.
If you want an analogy based media, let's go back to the TV Cable. When you subscribe to the Cable service, you don't claim ownership of the content being broadcast onto your screen. You can tape it for personal use, but you cannot make a profit off it.
If its the Content of the EULA that's in question then why did you keep trying to say I was signing away my rights by signing the EULA and no longer have a case. Then we could have skipped the whole aspect of EULA law and just agreed on that point. As for your point about me "thinking I knew more about Intelectual Property Laws than major international corportations", I don't see how you can make that claim when it hasn't been to COURT YET!!! If you want to discuss then stop throwing out snide comments at me about how I think I know everything, just want to say Neener Neener, and its foolish to yada yada. Seriously. So I'll be sarcastic back in this post...
As for your point. I don't claim I know more about intellectual Property Laws. I simply claim that the case can be made either way and its not cut and dried. Besides, if companies know so much about Intellectual Property Laws, then why are they always suing and getting sued by each other over them. Because according to your logic then *obviously* they wouldn't put something in the EULA that wasn't enforcable when they wrote the contract. They are hoping/planning on not being challenged. Look at all the EULA's that have been deemed illegal if you think companies would never put something in their EULA that wouldn't hold up in court. Yes by a Judge since you think a lawyer's interpretation is useless.
As for the part that "YOU HAVE NO LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF THE ACCOUNT! ONLY THE PHYSICAL COPY OF THE CLIENT IS YOUR PROPERTY."
There is two ways to look at this. Either: The service oriented aspect is part of what is being disputed. Or that the account is linked with the box and if you sell the box then the account goes with it. I understand that you don't think it is valid. Really I do. I'm saying that just because you think its valid based on the incredible lack of any precedent relating to the issues, that does not mean that it truly isn't valid. A judge could very well rule that the account is linked with the box but MMORPG companies have the right to ban accounts if the accounts engage in unapproved activities. That would still protect the companies from liabilities and allow them to ban accounts but make the actual account the property of the user.
Take the case I presented earlier. Where the person bought the game and installed it and the cdkey and made an account and it was immediately banned because the account is owned by the company. The company says they can't give the user a refund because he still has the client, which is all he actually purchased and the account that is permitted by buying a box is the company's. You don't see it the tiniest debatable how the judge will actually rule?
Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde
First of all, I don't really need to see it go to court in order to assume that an international company that create and sells intelectiual property, probably knows quite a bit about Intelectual Property laws. I'll bet the EULAs were written by legal experts. Now, a Judge might later decide that what they've done is somehow wrong, but I doubt it. Personal bias on my part? Perhaps. I just tend to think that these game companies' thought quite long and hard about how to do business, and they probably hired legal counsel when drawing up the User Agreements.
As to your example of someone buying the game, setting up an account, and immediately having it banned. Technically, you're talking about the company banning someone at random that didn't break the EULA. And by not breaking the EULA, they are entitled to the service they paid for. However, our arguement thus far has been about people breaking the agreement and therefore forfeting their right to use the companies' property. There's a difference. The person that was wronged could have sued the company for banning the account without proof of wrong-doing. A person that breaks the rules and gets their account banned has no legal leg to stand on.
Besides which, your example seems odd, as it is not in the best interest of the game company to antagonize subscribers that are following the rules. If they lose the trust of the communtiy, the community will leave the game and they would lose money.
I've been having a lot of fun with this, and I want to type some more, but I only had time for those two points. Got work tomorrow.
Laters!
Seriously.
It's Are'el. This forum doesn't allow apostrophes in usernames.
Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde
Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde
I don't know. I'm not qualified to respond to that because I don't know enough about it. I personally view it as reselling the entire fruit rollup box that you bought. Which you are legally entitled to do.
See I guess I don't doubt that companies get things wrong all the time based on the number of lawsuits that go about and the number of times that the EULA has been challenged and lost. Evidentally at least some companies are putting things in the EULA that haven't been enforcable.
The second point about being banned is more related to proof of who owns the account than breaking the EULA. If the company owns the account then they should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, just like restaurants say that they reserve that right. So in this case if the box and the service are separate then the customer can buy the client but have the service refused to him. So is the service linked with the client until you break the EULA, and thus goes along with the box until the EULA is broken, or is it completely separate and can be refused by the company at their discretion since it is a service?
Ownership of the account and the subscription to use the account are interconnected. The game company owns the account. However, you are paying to use it. As long as you follow the rules, the company should leave the account alone. You pay for the go-cart, you ride the go-cart. It's only when you do something wrong that they should step in and punish you. Throw your helmet at someone, and the they're going to take the go-cart away from you.
As long as you abide by the User Agreement, they have to allow you access to the account, if they are capable of doing so. These User Agreements generally protect the companies from liability when it comes to things like server crashes, lost user data, and the like. But if things are running smoothly, and you've been playing it straight, they've got to let you play.
And just because you bought the client, doesn't mean you are guaranteed access to an account. I could go out and find some stray copy of AC2 on some store shelf. Doubtful that I'll be able to set up an account for that.
But going all the way back to what started all this: Account trading. By the User Agreement at many of these MMO companies, they forbid accoutn trading. Doind so allows them to step in and ban the account if they catch it. But because it is THEIR account, they have every right to say no to it. And because it's NOT your account, you have no right to sell it. So, no matter what good comes from account trading, it's still wrong in the end.
Unless the company expressly allows account trading, then that's a whole other story.
Seriously.
It's Are'el. This forum doesn't allow apostrophes in usernames.
T.R.
If your done with the game, go ahead and sell your account.
As for having people level for you, thats a little ridiculous. Play the game, take in what it has to offer and above all enjoy each level.