Originally posted by ianubisi You can keep pounding this point all you like. Without the DMCA, there would be no judgement.
Since we're discussing virtual item resale, please point us to the legality of the issue. Where is there law that indicates the practice is illegal? There is no analogy here, because there is no current question of the legality of virtual item resale. It's currently legal, and thus there is no proper analogous point to the DMCA violation that was the impetus for judgement in the Bnetd vs. Blizzard case.
The portions of the Summary Judgement are mutually exclusive; the lower court was correct in finding Bnetd liable for violating the EULA. Bnetd appealed and as part of the overall decision the 8th Circuit Court agreed with the lower court on the on EULA violation.
Correct, there is no current question of legality for the sale of virtual items (ie. there are no, to my knowledge, pending court cases). However, are you stating that companies, like Blizzard, are breaking the law when they ban thousands of accounts for violating their EULAs?
Ico Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.
Originally posted by IcoGames I had the same discussion with Baff; you're reading part of the Summary Judgement. Yes, what you quoted is part of the Summary Judgement, but it doesn't exclude the portioin about violating the EULA. The 8th Circuit Court was agree with a lower court when it states: By signing the TOUs and EULAs, Appellants expressly relinquished their rights to reverse engineer. Summary judgement on this issue was properly granted in favor of Blizzard and Vivendi.
You can keep pounding this point all you like. Without the DMCA, there would be no judgement.
Since we're discussing virtual item resale, please point us to the legality of the issue. Where is there law that indicates the practice is illegal? There is no analogy here, because there is no current question of the legality of virtual item resale. It's currently legal, and thus there is no proper analogous point to the DMCA violation that was the impetus for judgement in the Bnetd vs. Blizzard case.
Let's simply focus on the right of a business, a game developer, to design a product and market it with rules of usage to attract a targeted market, those who for whatever reason refuse to play a MMOG that allows goldselling. Then that game developer finds goldsellers violating the usage rules and bans them to preserve the integrity and success of their game. That is lawful is it not?
Don't debate the methodology or reasoning, simply acknowledge a businesses right to operate the way they see fit as long as they do not violate any laws.
Now MMORPG.com would fit that description in allowing gold sellers ads to permeate this site, but members certainly have the freedom to request of them not to promote gold selling, as do game developers, and if the admin is going to make statements about listening to members views, then he should be held to that promise. The majority has spoken.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it." Brad McQuaid Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc. Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes www.vanguardsoh
Originally posted by Jorev Originally posted by ianubisi
Originally posted by IcoGames I had the same discussion with Baff; you're reading part of the Summary Judgement. Yes, what you quoted is part of the Summary Judgement, but it doesn't exclude the portioin about violating the EULA. The 8th Circuit Court was agree with a lower court when it states: By signing the TOUs and EULAs, Appellants expressly relinquished their rights to reverse engineer. Summary judgement on this issue was properly granted in favor of Blizzard and Vivendi.
You can keep pounding this point all you like. Without the DMCA, there would be no judgement.
Since we're discussing virtual item resale, please point us to the legality of the issue. Where is there law that indicates the practice is illegal? There is no analogy here, because there is no current question of the legality of virtual item resale. It's currently legal, and thus there is no proper analogous point to the DMCA violation that was the impetus for judgement in the Bnetd vs. Blizzard case.
Let's simply focus on the right of a business, a game developer, to design a product and market it with rules of usage to attract a targeted market, those who for whatever reason refuse to play a MMOG that allows goldselling. Then that game developer finds goldsellers violating the usage rules and bans them to preserve the integrity and success of their game. That is lawful is it not?
Don't debate the methodology or reasoning, simply acknowledge a businesses right to operate the way they see fit as long as they do not violate any laws.
Now MMORPG.com would fit that description in allowing gold sellers ads to permeate this site, but members certainly have the freedom to request of them not to promote gold selling, as do game developers, and if the admin is going to make statements about listening to members views, then he should be held to that promise. The majority has spoken.
LIstening as a term doesn't imply they will change their position. Saying I will listen to it and agree to change how we operate based on the results of the poll is something else. Unless they did actually say that...
While the court rules that the Eula was binding, it two others it did not.
In the case of Softman vs Adobe, the court rules on ownership and propertywright.
In this case, the court does not accept that clicking "I agree" constitutes acceptance of the EULA.
The Court finds that Adobe's EULA cannot be valid without assent. Therefore, Softman is not bound by the EULA because it has never loaded the software, and therefore never assented to its terms of use
Assent is a technical term referring to acceptance of a contract. A contract is something made between two parties, after you sign a contract, the offering party must assent. They must send you confirmation of their own acceptance. This is a pre-requisite of contract Law that EULA agreements fail to comply with.
In short, the transfer of copies of Adobe software making up the distribution chain from Adobe to SoftMan are sales of the particular copies, but not of Adobe's intellectual rights in the computer program itself, which is protected by Adobe's copyright. SoftMan is an "owner" of the copy and is entitled to the use and enjoyment of the software, with the rights that are consistent with copyright law. The Court rejects Adobe's argument that the EULA gives to purchasers only a license to use the software. The Court finds that SoftMan has not assented to the EULA and therefore cannot be bound by its terms. Therefore, the Court finds that Adobe has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its copyright infringement claim.
Lower court has ruled in both in favour of EULA's and against them. In America, it depends what state you live in. I don't know of any European rulings to date.
Originally posted by Jorev Now MMORPG.com would fit that description in allowing gold sellers ads to permeate this site, but members certainly have the freedom to request of them not to promote gold selling, as do game developers, and if the admin is going to make statements about listening to members views, then he should be held to that promise.
If a promise is made, it should be kept. The thing is, what is this "promise" you speak of?
Originally posted by Jorev The majority has spoken.
The 339 people who answered the poll on this thread, out of the 444,902 registered users on this site, have spoken. That is an exceptionally weak way to formulate an opinion about the majority of MMOG users.
Originally posted by Jorev Originally posted by ianubisi
Originally posted by IcoGames I had the same discussion with Baff; you're reading part of the Summary Judgement. Yes, what you quoted is part of the Summary Judgement, but it doesn't exclude the portioin about violating the EULA. The 8th Circuit Court was agree with a lower court when it states: By signing the TOUs and EULAs, Appellants expressly relinquished their rights to reverse engineer. Summary judgement on this issue was properly granted in favor of Blizzard and Vivendi.
You can keep pounding this point all you like. Without the DMCA, there would be no judgement.
Since we're discussing virtual item resale, please point us to the legality of the issue. Where is there law that indicates the practice is illegal? There is no analogy here, because there is no current question of the legality of virtual item resale. It's currently legal, and thus there is no proper analogous point to the DMCA violation that was the impetus for judgement in the Bnetd vs. Blizzard case.
Let's simply focus on the right of a business, a game developer, to design a product and market it with rules of usage to attract a targeted market, those who for whatever reason refuse to play a MMOG that allows goldselling. Then that game developer finds goldsellers violating the usage rules and bans them to preserve the integrity and success of their game. That is lawful is it not?
Don't debate the methodology or reasoning, simply acknowledge a businesses right to operate the way they see fit as long as they do not violate any laws.
This would only be lawful if you contractually agreed to do so prior to paying for the game. These rules and usuages you describe are not advertised on the boxes cover. If they apply and the company didn't mention it, that would be false advertising. A criminal offence in the EU. A person so banned is within his rights to call the police and arrest the retailer and even the publisher.
Should they wish to ban gold sellers or gold buyers, or make any other stipulated conditions of play they are lawfully required to mention it before you purchase. Not to do so is fraud.
The company owns neither the gold nor the game. Should they fail to uphold their contract of sale or rental because you lawfully sold something you own, they are in breach of contract to you. long lists of stipulated rules don't attract a specific gaming audience, they deter one. If playing in a gold selling enviroment was a sales attracting feature, it would be advertised as such. Since it isn't it is not reasonable that any given customer should assume it.
While it is obvious that we wish for companies to be able to operate profitably in the market place, we do not wish them to do so at the expense of other legally operating companies or the the end user.
Correct, there is no current question of legality for the sale of virtual items (ie. there are no, to my knowledge, pending court cases). However, are you stating that companies, like Blizzard, are breaking the law when they ban thousands of accounts for violating their EULAs?
Ownership of virtual items was established in court in Korea. You may sell what you own anywhere in the capitalist world.
I think you can make a reasonable case that Blizzard are breaking the law when they ban people.
Originally posted by Jorev English comprehension is your friend.
I can comprehend english. I can read that the violation was the DMCA. The EULA was termed to be enough of an agreement to bind the user to willing compliance with the terms that were in violation.
I have never argued that EULAs have no teeth. I completely agree that companies have a right to terminate the service of users who are in violation of EULAs, even for the infration of using 3rd party programs or (when termed a violation in the EULA) virtual item resale. That is the nature of an agreement, and I support it.
I am simply refuting that the EULA alone was the cause for the judgement. It was not. The violation of the DMCA, by reverse engineering of the binaries, was the cause of the judgement.
The cause of the judgement was that the Bnet software provided for circumvention of it's anti piracy. It allowed people to play the game without buying it. Actual damages had occoured.
As we saw earlier in Bnetd v. Blizzard, Bnetd was liable in part for violating the EULA. I'm sure the 8th Circuit Court and Bnetd both agree that an EULA has revelance.
Also as I've stated earlier, being lazy doesn't entitle you to anything. If you want to play lazy, there's nothing wrong with that, but you may not get as many items, etc. You want to level the playing field by violating the EULA, using that logic why not use hacks and exploits? What would be the difference?
You have a chance to read through the EULA before you enter the game. Blizzard prompts you to agree to the EULA when you enter the game after installation, and after each patch. If you don't agree, you have 30 days to return the game for a refund. Just because you ignore the EULA, doens't make it 'ignorable spam'. Nor does having a representative, or salesman, go through the contract make any more or less valid. When you purchase property, ignoring the closing contracts you sign won't prevent squat.
Originally posted by baff If you wish to be lazy go ahead and be lazy. If you wish to Energetic go ahead and be energetic. Play how you like. If you wish to observe the EULA, go ahead and observe it, of you wish to ignore it, go ahead and ignore it. It's not legally binding and it's not in anyway morally binding. Either you are the kind of person who is able to tolerate other people or you are not. If you are not, you could try hosting your own server or playing single player games where you will have that much more control over the other people who interact with you.
I tolerate people well enough, but I expect them to respect the terms of the game. I pay to play a game, why should I have to 'tolerate' someone who's going to break the EULA by cheating: using hacks, exploits, and purchased items? Why should those who respect the EULA and terms have to tolerate those who don't? That's completely ignorant.
Originally posted by baff When you see somebody breaking into a neighbours house that may very well be a good time to call the police, although actually going outside and shouting at them would do a lot more to prevent that crime. and if that turned out to be your new neighbour or their lodger who had lost their key you would have prevented everyone a whole lot of bother. Why do you feel you need to call the police? Are you too weak to act for yourself, would you rather your neighbour was actually robbed than open your window and raise the alarm?
I've no idea who the person is, whether they are armed or not. Why would I risk harming anyone instead of contacting those who are paid to protect? If it turns out to be a new neighbor, or lodger, than there's no harm and the police can assist the person getting in.
And ah no, I wouldn't 'rather my neighbor was actually robbed than opening my window', I'm calling the police remember? If I wanted my neighbor's house robbed, I'd ignore the burglar.
You went from a person reporting a break-in to someone purposefully (you stated that I knew who they were in this example) calling the police on their neighbors. Slight (note sarcasm) difference there I'd say : )
That's right, you went from a person legally selling their own property online to a house burglary. My comparison to a man breaking into his own home was closer. If he wants to break into his own home, why shouldn't he? It's none of your business. Your desperation to justify snitching is ridiculous. That you are willing to equate gold selling to armed robbery underlines how far off the mark I find your judgement. You are looking to demonise a harmless pursuit in order to justify your malice.
Calling the police doesn't prevent a burglary in progress. Unless they are next to you when you call them. Shouting at your potential burglers probably will. If you are too scared to shout, you're not much of a neighbour. You could have prevented the crime, but you prefered to let it happen. By your own aforementioned logic doesn't that make you complicit in it?
If it turns out to be a lodger, you have wasted police time and federal money. You have alienated your neighbour and placed him to considerable extra discomfort. All because you were to weak to open your window or nosey to mind your own business. In the case of gold sellers why not make it easy on everyone and just click ignore like everybody else? What possible need is there for moderation given that the tools you already have at your disposal will do it faster?
People who accept the terms of the EULA, don't have to tolerate those who don't. Once again, click ignore. The tools are provided for you to look after yourself. Many people are incapable of tolerance, most games cater for this. Alternatively, why should they tolerate you? You are the one trying to ruin it for them. They are just trying to enjoy themselves, you on the other hand specifically seek to destroy their fun. You can't tolerate that other people may be made happy doing things that you don't personally want to do. And you actively seek to prevent them.
While you may have the chance to read through the EULA while you install the game, critcally you don't have the chance to do so before you buy it. Rendering it meaningless. When you purchase property you make all the agreements first, not part with your money, then get then have some agreements autosign themselves and 30 days to return it if you don't like what you didn't agree to. This is called duress. If you fail to agree, you must go through all that grief to get your money back. (Your money). To be a fair trade agreements must be made in advance of payment so that you are placed under no extra pressure to accept and no penalty if you do not wish to.
While the state of Lousiana recognises the agreement to a EULA by clciking accept, the state of California does not. Neither does the EU. And neither do I. It is a given that the company that wrote it will. But since it is an invented legal format by them, consideration has not been given to the other party. The consumer. I don't care what Bnet recognise, they are biased against the end user in favour of themselves. In that specific case the court did not consider the fair use of the EULA at all.
Originally posted by neuronomad ...My biggest problem here isn't about trying to stand up for goldbuyers or sellers, I could care less either way...
If you "could care less" why then don't you care less? The words you use dont make sense if you really mean to say that you have reached the ultimate point of not caring about the thing you are referring to. You should say "I could not care less about (subject that you have the lowest possible regard for)." You've got more on the ball than the average scribbler so I figured this might be worth mentioning.
Originally posted by neuronomad ...My issue is with the campaign against MMORPG.COM. You guys are bitching about the very company that provides you this great site. If you don't like something they advertise go somewhere else.
[/quote]
mmorpg.com is a good website, overall, and the owners expressly invite criticism. I think it's just folks standing up for what they think is right, not a campaign.
You wrote "...I want people to just shut up about the [virtual coin sales ads] unless they can prove that gold buyers/sellers truly affect the game." What makes you think that the presence of gold farmers and gold buyers has no effect on a games economy?
Those of us who have beta tested games and then stayed on to play them after they went gold know very well how virtual coin sales can affect a games economy. In general, in games that work similarly to the WoW/EQ/L2 models, the deal goes down like this:
When a game is in its beta testing phase you won't find gold farmers there, only regular players who were invited to test. The beta economy will be stable because prices for materials and goods are set by a market that only regular players participate in. These folks wont price themselves out of making a profit; they set prices that most players can afford. Demand and availability of rare items also affect prices in a beta economy that is made up of players who do not have access to virtual coin, but that aint nothing compared to what happens next.
When, the game ships retail, gold farmers subscribe and begin to arrive en masse. Within weeks the price for mats, finished goods and rare items skyrocket. Why? The answer is easy: gold farmers mine the game for virtual coin, rare drops, and valuable crafting materials, and then sell it all at the highest prices that the market will bear. Regular players who buy from the gold farmers---who always have a supply of everything valuable in the game because they have worker/players and bots logged in 24/7 collecting the stuff---are enabled to level up faster than those who can't afford to buy. This is considered a bad thing by many players.
What about regular player merchants? They dont disappear once gold farmers set up shop. Do they play a part in the game economy?
Yes, they do. But, its limited.
There comes a transitional period in which gold farmers and regular players merchants directly compete with one another, but the gold farmers always win after a while because for them it's a serious business not just a game. The bottom line is: gold farmers always have what youre looking for and always charge more for it, just like in real capitalism. Players arent the most patient people and will buy on impulse, especially when they already have a big stack of gold purchased from the very same gold farmer who is also selling the in game items. What a racket!
This pattern repeats itself over and over and eventually leads to gold farmers getting their hands wrapped so tightly around the supply and demand levers of a game economy that there is no way to avoid or to get rid of them short of a real effort by the game publisher to ban their accounts; we all know that never happens.
As surely as the sun rises and sets, gold farming/buying can affect a game economy. Whether thats a negative or positive thing is another debate which Im not getting into now, but I will say this: in a gold farmer-driven economy, the player who cant afford to buy virtual coin for real cash will have stand back as the player who can rushes by on the power leveling road to glory. That sucks, Im against it and all the things that promote it.
Originally posted by Jorev Now MMORPG.com would fit that description in allowing gold sellers ads to permeate this site, but members certainly have the freedom to request of them not to promote gold selling, as do game developers, and if the admin is going to make statements about listening to members views, then he should be held to that promise.
If a promise is made, it should be kept. The thing is, what is this "promise" you speak of?
Originally posted by Jorev The majority has spoken.
The 339 people who answered the poll on this thread, out of the 444,902 registered users on this site, have spoken. That is an exceptionally weak way to formulate an opinion about the majority of MMOG users.
The implied promise was made by the admin, especially given the context of the quote. The admin said "we will make our decisions based on our views and the views of our members". Clealry he is promising to make policy decisions based in equal part on the members views.
I agree that 339 is a small sample and I would love to have a larger one, but the independents, over 2000 that have viewed this thread and not voted, are sitting on the fence and don't care one way or the other which is why a login poll is required to obtain a clear majority decision.
The admin doesn't want a larger sample because he knows what the results will show, that the majority are against these ads, and that would put more pressure on him to remove them. He is not looking out for us.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it." Brad McQuaid Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc. Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes www.vanguardsoh
Originally posted by baff This would only be lawful if you contractually agreed to do so prior to paying for the game. These rules and usuages you describe are not advertised on the boxes cover. If they apply and the company didn't mention it, that would be false advertising. A criminal offence in the EU. A person so banned is within his rights to call the police and arrest the retailer and even the publisher.
Should they wish to ban gold sellers or gold buyers, or make any other stipulated conditions of play they are lawfully required to mention it before you purchase. Not to do so is fraud.
The company owns neither the gold nor the game. Should they fail to uphold their contract of sale or rental because you lawfully sold something you own, they are in breach of contract to you. long lists of stipulated rules don't attract a specific gaming audience, they deter one. If playing in a gold selling enviroment was a sales attracting feature, it would be advertised as such. Since it isn't it is not reasonable that any given customer should assume it.
Part of why I choose a MMOG is based on rules of conduct which I research on the game's website where they are always offered and discussed, especailly topics such as wether gold selling will be allowed or macros and 3rd party software will be allowed etc. Since it's an online game, it is reasonable for potential customers to check the website for the rules of conduct and I am fairly certain that the retail boxes mention in small print that online service is required along with EULA acceptance.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it." Brad McQuaid Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc. Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes www.vanguardsoh
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by IcoGames
Correct, there is no current question of legality for the sale of virtual items (ie. there are no, to my knowledge, pending court cases). However, are you stating that companies, like Blizzard, are breaking the law when they ban thousands of accounts for violating their EULAs?
Ownership of virtual items was established in court in Korea. You may sell what you own anywhere in the capitalist world.
I think you can make a reasonable case that Blizzard are breaking the law when they ban people.
Korean law doesn't apply outside of Korea.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it." Brad McQuaid Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc. Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes www.vanguardsoh
Originally posted by baff I don't care what Bnet recognise, they are biased against the end user in favour of themselves. In that specific case the court did not consider the fair use of the EULA at all.
You have made it abundantly clear with your posts that you don't care about anyone's opinion, including the majority, which is why I don't respect yours.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it." Brad McQuaid Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc. Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes www.vanguardsoh
Originally posted by Jorev The implied promise was made by the admin, especially given the context of the quote.
But in truth, no such promise was made.
Originally posted by Jorev The admin said "we will make our decisions based on our views and the views of our members". Clealry he is promising to make policy decisions based in equal part on the members views.
Incorrect. That is not a promise "to make policy decision based in equal part on the members views". That simply indicates that the views of the users of this site are factored into the decision.
You chided me earlier on reading comprehension. As usual, judgement is a matter of self-reflection.
Originally posted by Jorev He is not looking out for us.
I never saw his position to be our advocate. He provides a site with information, a forum, and a bunch of free stuff. How did you come to the conclusion that he must be our advocate?
Originally posted by Jorev So if you agree that EULAs have teeth, then you would agree that MMORPG.com's argument that they are not worthy of enforcement unlike NDAs, is a misrepresentation.
Can you please link me to anything that could be read as MMORPG.com saying we dont think EULA's are enforceable ?
I know I personally made a post agreeing with Baff that this argument may have something to it. But as for MMORPG.com making such a statement. Id have to see that to believe it.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
The admin doesn't want a larger sample because he knows what the results will show, that the majority are against these ads, and that would put more pressure on him to remove them. He is not looking out for us.
You said yourself that 3xx or so votes out of the 445,670 members (at the time of this posting) doesn't say much. As well you said that the majority of the people haven't voted, so how can ANYONE know what the majority wants?
-------------------------------- Currently Playing: Guild Wars 2 and Path of Exile
You said yourself that 3xx or so votes out of the 445,670 members (at the time of this posting) doesn't say much. As well you said that the majority of the people haven't voted, so how can ANYONE know what the majority wants?
So lets find out and create a login poll. What are you afraid of?
Originally posted by neuronomad You said yourself that 3xx or so votes out of the 445,670 members (at the time of this posting) doesn't say much. As well you said that the majority of the people haven't voted, so how can ANYONE know what the majority wants?
So lets find out and create a login poll. What are you afraid of?
I already said back a dozen post ago or so that I think it would be a good idea. That said it is completely up to MMORPG.com to decide not you and I.
-------------------------------- Currently Playing: Guild Wars 2 and Path of Exile
Originally posted by Razorback Originally posted by Jorev So if you agree that EULAs have teeth, then you would agree that MMORPG.com's argument that they are not worthy of enforcement unlike NDAs, is a misrepresentation.
Can you please link me to anything that could be read as MMORPG.com saying we dont think EULA's are enforceable ?
I know I personally made a post agreeing with Baff that this argument may have something to it. But as for MMORPG.com making such a statement. Id have to see that to believe it.
That's what Lepidus's argument is in the sticky thread. He defends enforcement of NDAs on the basis that they are more legally binding than EULAs. We all know it's hypocrisy.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it." Brad McQuaid Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc. Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes www.vanguardsoh
Originally posted by baff That's right, you went from a person legally selling their own property online to a house burglary. My comparison to a man breaking into his own home was closer. If he wants to break into his own home, why shouldn't he? It's none of your business. Your desperation to justify snitching is ridiculous. That you are willing to equate gold selling to armed robbery underlines how far off the mark I find your judgement. You are looking to demonise a harmless pursuit in order to justify your malice.
Lol, no your example isn't closer to violating a EULA. There's no law or request that states you can't break into your own house. In your example, you stated that I knew the neighbor and knew he was breaking into his house. Why would I call the police? There's no reason, my neighbor isn't doing anything wrong. Conversely, Blizzard and other mmo companies have stated that selling items or gold is against their EULA. I think you have enough working neurons to see the difference in those examples.
Originally posted by baff Calling the police doesn't prevent a burglary in progress. Unless they are next to you when you call them. Shouting at your potential burglers probably will. If you are too scared to shout, you're not much of a neighbour. You could have prevented the crime, but you prefered to let it happen. By your own aforementioned logic doesn't that make you complicit in it?
If I did nothing, ie didn't call the police, then I would be complicit in the crime and a coward.
Originally posted by baff If it turns out to be a lodger, you have wasted police time and federal money. You have alienated your neighbour and placed him to considerable extra discomfort. All because you were to weak to open your window or nosey to mind your own business. In the case of gold sellers why not make it easy on everyone and just click ignore like everybody else? What possible need is there for moderation given that the tools you already have at your disposal will do it faster?
Lol, 'nosey to mind my own business'? I'm sure any neighbor would appreciate that you'd call the police to report an unknown person breaking into their house.
The only people I report are those that have sent me advertisements through the game's mail system. That's direct evidence that the person is violating the EULA, and it doesn't take any effort to forward the email to a GM.
Originally posted by baff People who accept the terms of the EULA, don't have to tolerate those who don't. Once again, click ignore. The tools are provided for you to look after yourself. Many people are incapable of tolerance, most games cater for this. Alternatively, why should they tolerate you? You are the one trying to ruin it for them. They are just trying to enjoy themselves, you on the other hand specifically seek to destroy their fun. You can't tolerate that other people may be made happy doing things that you don't personally want to do. And you actively seek to prevent them.
I see, so if you're using a hack or exploit to ruin other players' experiences, I should just ignore you? Again, I see your advocacy for immoral activity.
Originally posted by baff While you may have the chance to read through the EULA while you install the game, critcally you don't have the chance to do so before you buy it. Rendering it meaningless. When you purchase property you make all the agreements first, not part with your money, then get then have some agreements autosign themselves and 30 days to return it if you don't like what you didn't agree to. This is called duress. If you fail to agree, you must go through all that grief to get your money back. (Your money). To be a fair trade agreements must be made in advance of payment so that you are placed under no extra pressure to accept and no penalty if you do not wish to.
EULAs are available on the Internet, and I'm sure you could request one from the company via mail. If you're that concerned with the content of a EULA, it requires little effort to find them prior to purchasing the product.
Imo, 30 days is more than enough time to return to the store for a refund.
Originally posted by baff While the state of Lousiana recognises the agreement to a EULA by clciking accept, the state of California does not. Neither does the EU. And neither do I. It is a given that the company that wrote it will. But since it is an invented legal format by them, consideration has not been given to the other party. The consumer. I don't care what Bnet recognise, they are biased against the end user in favour of themselves. In that specific case the court did not consider the fair use of the EULA at all.
If a EULA is an invented format, then why is Blizzard allowed to continually ban players for EULA violations? You'd think after the announcement of the thousands of banned accounts, someone would've filed suit.
What do you mean by Fair Use of the EULA? Are you refering to Fair Use, as in copyright?
Ico Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.
Originally posted by Jorev That's what Lepidus's argument is in the sticky thread. He defends enforcement of NDAs on the basis that they are more legally binding than EULAs. We all know it's hypocrisy.
Are you trying to suggest that because a mod of mmorpg.com argues that a NDA is more legally binding than an EULA that mmorpg.com supports that EULA's aren't enforceable?
Originally posted by binary_0011 who read from page 1 to page 18 ?
not me especially from pages 1 to 24
that being said do these ads really generate much for MMORPG.com ?? If not I say ditch em then. Stick with purely gaming banners even if its for console games.
Comments
The portions of the Summary Judgement are mutually exclusive; the lower court was correct in finding Bnetd liable for violating the EULA. Bnetd appealed and as part of the overall decision the 8th Circuit Court agreed with the lower court on the on EULA violation.
Correct, there is no current question of legality for the sale of virtual items (ie. there are no, to my knowledge, pending court cases). However, are you stating that companies, like Blizzard, are breaking the law when they ban thousands of accounts for violating their EULAs?
Ico
Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.
You can keep pounding this point all you like. Without the DMCA, there would be no judgement.
Since we're discussing virtual item resale, please point us to the legality of the issue. Where is there law that indicates the practice is illegal? There is no analogy here, because there is no current question of the legality of virtual item resale. It's currently legal, and thus there is no proper analogous point to the DMCA violation that was the impetus for judgement in the Bnetd vs. Blizzard case.
Let's simply focus on the right of a business, a game developer, to design a product and market it with rules of usage to attract a targeted market, those who for whatever reason refuse to play a MMOG that allows goldselling. Then that game developer finds goldsellers violating the usage rules and bans them to preserve the integrity and success of their game. That is lawful is it not?
Don't debate the methodology or reasoning, simply acknowledge a businesses right to operate the way they see fit as long as they do not violate any laws.
Now MMORPG.com would fit that description in allowing gold sellers ads to permeate this site, but members certainly have the freedom to request of them not to promote gold selling, as do game developers, and if the admin is going to make statements about listening to members views, then he should be held to that promise. The majority has spoken.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it."
Brad McQuaid
Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc.
Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
www.vanguardsoh
You can keep pounding this point all you like. Without the DMCA, there would be no judgement.
Since we're discussing virtual item resale, please point us to the legality of the issue. Where is there law that indicates the practice is illegal? There is no analogy here, because there is no current question of the legality of virtual item resale. It's currently legal, and thus there is no proper analogous point to the DMCA violation that was the impetus for judgement in the Bnetd vs. Blizzard case.
Let's simply focus on the right of a business, a game developer, to design a product and market it with rules of usage to attract a targeted market, those who for whatever reason refuse to play a MMOG that allows goldselling. Then that game developer finds goldsellers violating the usage rules and bans them to preserve the integrity and success of their game. That is lawful is it not?
Don't debate the methodology or reasoning, simply acknowledge a businesses right to operate the way they see fit as long as they do not violate any laws.
Now MMORPG.com would fit that description in allowing gold sellers ads to permeate this site, but members certainly have the freedom to request of them not to promote gold selling, as do game developers, and if the admin is going to make statements about listening to members views, then he should be held to that promise. The majority has spoken.
LIstening as a term doesn't imply they will change their position. Saying I will listen to it and agree to change how we operate based on the results of the poll is something else. Unless they did actually say that...
While the court rules that the Eula was binding, it two others it did not.
In the case of Softman vs Adobe, the court rules on ownership and propertywright.
In this case, the court does not accept that clicking "I agree" constitutes acceptance of the EULA.
The Court finds that Adobe's EULA cannot be valid without assent. Therefore, Softman is not bound by the EULA because it has never loaded the software, and therefore never assented to its terms of use
Assent is a technical term referring to acceptance of a contract. A contract is something made between two parties, after you sign a contract, the offering party must assent. They must send you confirmation of their own acceptance. This is a pre-requisite of contract Law that EULA agreements fail to comply with.
In short, the transfer of copies of Adobe software making up the distribution chain from Adobe to SoftMan are sales of the particular copies, but not of Adobe's intellectual rights in the computer program itself, which is protected by Adobe's copyright. SoftMan is an "owner" of the copy and is entitled to the use and enjoyment of the software, with the rights that are consistent with copyright law. The Court rejects Adobe's argument that the EULA gives to purchasers only a license to use the software. The Court finds that SoftMan has not assented to the EULA and therefore cannot be bound by its terms. Therefore, the Court finds that Adobe has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its copyright infringement claim.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/articles/web/2001-11/5628/softman-v-adobe.html
Lower court has ruled in both in favour of EULA's and against them. In America, it depends what state you live in. I don't know of any European rulings to date.
If a promise is made, it should be kept. The thing is, what is this "promise" you speak of?
The 339 people who answered the poll on this thread, out of the 444,902 registered users on this site, have spoken. That is an exceptionally weak way to formulate an opinion about the majority of MMOG users.
You can keep pounding this point all you like. Without the DMCA, there would be no judgement.
Since we're discussing virtual item resale, please point us to the legality of the issue. Where is there law that indicates the practice is illegal? There is no analogy here, because there is no current question of the legality of virtual item resale. It's currently legal, and thus there is no proper analogous point to the DMCA violation that was the impetus for judgement in the Bnetd vs. Blizzard case.
Let's simply focus on the right of a business, a game developer, to design a product and market it with rules of usage to attract a targeted market, those who for whatever reason refuse to play a MMOG that allows goldselling. Then that game developer finds goldsellers violating the usage rules and bans them to preserve the integrity and success of their game. That is lawful is it not?
Don't debate the methodology or reasoning, simply acknowledge a businesses right to operate the way they see fit as long as they do not violate any laws.
This would only be lawful if you contractually agreed to do so prior to paying for the game. These rules and usuages you describe are not advertised on the boxes cover. If they apply and the company didn't mention it, that would be false advertising. A criminal offence in the EU. A person so banned is within his rights to call the police and arrest the retailer and even the publisher.
Should they wish to ban gold sellers or gold buyers, or make any other stipulated conditions of play they are lawfully required to mention it before you purchase. Not to do so is fraud.
The company owns neither the gold nor the game. Should they fail to uphold their contract of sale or rental because you lawfully sold something you own, they are in breach of contract to you. long lists of stipulated rules don't attract a specific gaming audience, they deter one. If playing in a gold selling enviroment was a sales attracting feature, it would be advertised as such. Since it isn't it is not reasonable that any given customer should assume it.
While it is obvious that we wish for companies to be able to operate profitably in the market place, we do not wish them to do so at the expense of other legally operating companies or the the end user.
Ownership of virtual items was established in court in Korea. You may sell what you own anywhere in the capitalist world.
I think you can make a reasonable case that Blizzard are breaking the law when they ban people.
I can comprehend english. I can read that the violation was the DMCA. The EULA was termed to be enough of an agreement to bind the user to willing compliance with the terms that were in violation.
I have never argued that EULAs have no teeth. I completely agree that companies have a right to terminate the service of users who are in violation of EULAs, even for the infration of using 3rd party programs or (when termed a violation in the EULA) virtual item resale. That is the nature of an agreement, and I support it.
I am simply refuting that the EULA alone was the cause for the judgement. It was not. The violation of the DMCA, by reverse engineering of the binaries, was the cause of the judgement.
The cause of the judgement was that the Bnet software provided for circumvention of it's anti piracy. It allowed people to play the game without buying it. Actual damages had occoured.
As we saw earlier in Bnetd v. Blizzard, Bnetd was liable in part for violating the EULA. I'm sure the 8th Circuit Court and Bnetd both agree that an EULA has revelance.
Also as I've stated earlier, being lazy doesn't entitle you to anything. If you want to play lazy, there's nothing wrong with that, but you may not get as many items, etc. You want to level the playing field by violating the EULA, using that logic why not use hacks and exploits? What would be the difference?
You have a chance to read through the EULA before you enter the game. Blizzard prompts you to agree to the EULA when you enter the game after installation, and after each patch. If you don't agree, you have 30 days to return the game for a refund. Just because you ignore the EULA, doens't make it 'ignorable spam'. Nor does having a representative, or salesman, go through the contract make any more or less valid. When you purchase property, ignoring the closing contracts you sign won't prevent squat.
I tolerate people well enough, but I expect them to respect the terms of the game. I pay to play a game, why should I have to 'tolerate' someone who's going to break the EULA by cheating: using hacks, exploits, and purchased items? Why should those who respect the EULA and terms have to tolerate those who don't? That's completely ignorant.
I've no idea who the person is, whether they are armed or not. Why would I risk harming anyone instead of contacting those who are paid to protect? If it turns out to be a new neighbor, or lodger, than there's no harm and the police can assist the person getting in.
And ah no, I wouldn't 'rather my neighbor was actually robbed than opening my window', I'm calling the police remember? If I wanted my neighbor's house robbed, I'd ignore the burglar.
You went from a person reporting a break-in to someone purposefully (you stated that I knew who they were in this example) calling the police on their neighbors. Slight (note sarcasm) difference there I'd say : )
That's right, you went from a person legally selling their own property online to a house burglary. My comparison to a man breaking into his own home was closer. If he wants to break into his own home, why shouldn't he? It's none of your business. Your desperation to justify snitching is ridiculous. That you are willing to equate gold selling to armed robbery underlines how far off the mark I find your judgement. You are looking to demonise a harmless pursuit in order to justify your malice.
Calling the police doesn't prevent a burglary in progress. Unless they are next to you when you call them. Shouting at your potential burglers probably will. If you are too scared to shout, you're not much of a neighbour. You could have prevented the crime, but you prefered to let it happen. By your own aforementioned logic doesn't that make you complicit in it?
If it turns out to be a lodger, you have wasted police time and federal money. You have alienated your neighbour and placed him to considerable extra discomfort. All because you were to weak to open your window or nosey to mind your own business. In the case of gold sellers why not make it easy on everyone and just click ignore like everybody else? What possible need is there for moderation given that the tools you already have at your disposal will do it faster?
People who accept the terms of the EULA, don't have to tolerate those who don't. Once again, click ignore. The tools are provided for you to look after yourself. Many people are incapable of tolerance, most games cater for this. Alternatively, why should they tolerate you? You are the one trying to ruin it for them. They are just trying to enjoy themselves, you on the other hand specifically seek to destroy their fun. You can't tolerate that other people may be made happy doing things that you don't personally want to do. And you actively seek to prevent them.
While you may have the chance to read through the EULA while you install the game, critcally you don't have the chance to do so before you buy it. Rendering it meaningless. When you purchase property you make all the agreements first, not part with your money, then get then have some agreements autosign themselves and 30 days to return it if you don't like what you didn't agree to. This is called duress. If you fail to agree, you must go through all that grief to get your money back. (Your money). To be a fair trade agreements must be made in advance of payment so that you are placed under no extra pressure to accept and no penalty if you do not wish to.
While the state of Lousiana recognises the agreement to a EULA by clciking accept, the state of California does not. Neither does the EU. And neither do I. It is a given that the company that wrote it will. But since it is an invented legal format by them, consideration has not been given to the other party. The consumer. I don't care what Bnet recognise, they are biased against the end user in favour of themselves. In that specific case the court did not consider the fair use of the EULA at all.
If you "could care less" why then don't you care less? The words you use dont make sense if you really mean to say that you have reached the ultimate point of not caring about the thing you are referring to. You should say "I could not care less about (subject that you have the lowest possible regard for)." You've got more on the ball than the average scribbler so I figured this might be worth mentioning.
Originally posted by neuronomad
...My issue is with the campaign against MMORPG.COM. You guys are bitching about the very company that provides you this great site. If you don't like something they advertise go somewhere else.
[/quote]
mmorpg.com is a good website, overall, and the owners expressly invite criticism. I think it's just folks standing up for what they think is right, not a campaign.
You wrote "...I want people to just shut up about the [virtual coin sales ads] unless they can prove that gold buyers/sellers truly affect the game." What makes you think that the presence of gold farmers and gold buyers has no effect on a games economy?
Those of us who have beta tested games and then stayed on to play them after they went gold know very well how virtual coin sales can affect a games economy. In general, in games that work similarly to the WoW/EQ/L2 models, the deal goes down like this:
When a game is in its beta testing phase you won't find gold farmers there, only regular players who were invited to test. The beta economy will be stable because prices for materials and goods are set by a market that only regular players participate in. These folks wont price themselves out of making a profit; they set prices that most players can afford. Demand and availability of rare items also affect prices in a beta economy that is made up of players who do not have access to virtual coin, but that aint nothing compared to what happens next.
When, the game ships retail, gold farmers subscribe and begin to arrive en masse. Within weeks the price for mats, finished goods and rare items skyrocket. Why? The answer is easy: gold farmers mine the game for virtual coin, rare drops, and valuable crafting materials, and then sell it all at the highest prices that the market will bear. Regular players who buy from the gold farmers---who always have a supply of everything valuable in the game because they have worker/players and bots logged in 24/7 collecting the stuff---are enabled to level up faster than those who can't afford to buy. This is considered a bad thing by many players.
What about regular player merchants? They dont disappear once gold farmers set up shop. Do they play a part in the game economy?
Yes, they do. But, its limited.
There comes a transitional period in which gold farmers and regular players merchants directly compete with one another, but the gold farmers always win after a while because for them it's a serious business not just a game. The bottom line is: gold farmers always have what youre looking for and always charge more for it, just like in real capitalism. Players arent the most patient people and will buy on impulse, especially when they already have a big stack of gold purchased from the very same gold farmer who is also selling the in game items. What a racket!
This pattern repeats itself over and over and eventually leads to gold farmers getting their hands wrapped so tightly around the supply and demand levers of a game economy that there is no way to avoid or to get rid of them short of a real effort by the game publisher to ban their accounts; we all know that never happens.
As surely as the sun rises and sets, gold farming/buying can affect a game economy. Whether thats a negative or positive thing is another debate which Im not getting into now, but I will say this: in a gold farmer-driven economy, the player who cant afford to buy virtual coin for real cash will have stand back as the player who can rushes by on the power leveling road to glory. That sucks, Im against it and all the things that promote it.
If a promise is made, it should be kept. The thing is, what is this "promise" you speak of?
The 339 people who answered the poll on this thread, out of the 444,902 registered users on this site, have spoken. That is an exceptionally weak way to formulate an opinion about the majority of MMOG users.
The implied promise was made by the admin, especially given the context of the quote. The admin said "we will make our decisions based on our views and the views of our members". Clealry he is promising to make policy decisions based in equal part on the members views.
I agree that 339 is a small sample and I would love to have a larger one, but the independents, over 2000 that have viewed this thread and not voted, are sitting on the fence and don't care one way or the other which is why a login poll is required to obtain a clear majority decision.
The admin doesn't want a larger sample because he knows what the results will show, that the majority are against these ads, and that would put more pressure on him to remove them. He is not looking out for us.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it."
Brad McQuaid
Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc.
Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
www.vanguardsoh
Should they wish to ban gold sellers or gold buyers, or make any other stipulated conditions of play they are lawfully required to mention it before you purchase. Not to do so is fraud.
The company owns neither the gold nor the game. Should they fail to uphold their contract of sale or rental because you lawfully sold something you own, they are in breach of contract to you. long lists of stipulated rules don't attract a specific gaming audience, they deter one. If playing in a gold selling enviroment was a sales attracting feature, it would be advertised as such. Since it isn't it is not reasonable that any given customer should assume it.
Part of why I choose a MMOG is based on rules of conduct which I research on the game's website where they are always offered and discussed, especailly topics such as wether gold selling will be allowed or macros and 3rd party software will be allowed etc. Since it's an online game, it is reasonable for potential customers to check the website for the rules of conduct and I am fairly certain that the retail boxes mention in small print that online service is required along with EULA acceptance.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it."
Brad McQuaid
Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc.
Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
www.vanguardsoh
Ownership of virtual items was established in court in Korea. You may sell what you own anywhere in the capitalist world.
I think you can make a reasonable case that Blizzard are breaking the law when they ban people.
Korean law doesn't apply outside of Korea.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it."
Brad McQuaid
Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc.
Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
www.vanguardsoh
You have made it abundantly clear with your posts that you don't care about anyone's opinion, including the majority, which is why I don't respect yours.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it."
Brad McQuaid
Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc.
Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
www.vanguardsoh
But in truth, no such promise was made.
Incorrect. That is not a promise "to make policy decision based in equal part on the members views". That simply indicates that the views of the users of this site are factored into the decision.
You chided me earlier on reading comprehension. As usual, judgement is a matter of self-reflection.
I never saw his position to be our advocate. He provides a site with information, a forum, and a bunch of free stuff. How did you come to the conclusion that he must be our advocate?
Can you please link me to anything that could be read as MMORPG.com saying we dont think EULA's are enforceable ?
I know I personally made a post agreeing with Baff that this argument may have something to it. But as for MMORPG.com making such a statement. Id have to see that to believe it.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
--------------------------------
Currently Playing: Guild Wars 2 and Path of Exile
Quit: Eden Eternal, Wakfu, DDO, STO, DCUO, Sword 2, Atlantica Online, LOTRO, SWTOR, RIFT, Earthrise, FFXIV, RoM, Allods Online, GA,WAR,CO,V:SoH,POTBS,TR,COH/COV, WOW, DDO,AL, EQ, Eve, L2, AA, Mx0, SWG, SoR, AO, RFO, DAoC, and others.
www.twitter.com/mlwhitt
www.michaelwhitt.com
I already said back a dozen post ago or so that I think it would be a good idea. That said it is completely up to MMORPG.com to decide not you and I.
--------------------------------
Currently Playing: Guild Wars 2 and Path of Exile
Quit: Eden Eternal, Wakfu, DDO, STO, DCUO, Sword 2, Atlantica Online, LOTRO, SWTOR, RIFT, Earthrise, FFXIV, RoM, Allods Online, GA,WAR,CO,V:SoH,POTBS,TR,COH/COV, WOW, DDO,AL, EQ, Eve, L2, AA, Mx0, SWG, SoR, AO, RFO, DAoC, and others.
www.twitter.com/mlwhitt
www.michaelwhitt.com
Can you please link me to anything that could be read as MMORPG.com saying we dont think EULA's are enforceable ?
I know I personally made a post agreeing with Baff that this argument may have something to it. But as for MMORPG.com making such a statement. Id have to see that to believe it.
That's what Lepidus's argument is in the sticky thread. He defends enforcement of NDAs on the basis that they are more legally binding than EULAs. We all know it's hypocrisy.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it."
Brad McQuaid
Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc.
Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
www.vanguardsoh
Lol, no your example isn't closer to violating a EULA. There's no law or request that states you can't break into your own house. In your example, you stated that I knew the neighbor and knew he was breaking into his house. Why would I call the police? There's no reason, my neighbor isn't doing anything wrong. Conversely, Blizzard and other mmo companies have stated that selling items or gold is against their EULA. I think you have enough working neurons to see the difference in those examples.
If I did nothing, ie didn't call the police, then I would be complicit in the crime and a coward.
Lol, 'nosey to mind my own business'? I'm sure any neighbor would appreciate that you'd call the police to report an unknown person breaking into their house.
The only people I report are those that have sent me advertisements through the game's mail system. That's direct evidence that the person is violating the EULA, and it doesn't take any effort to forward the email to a GM.
I see, so if you're using a hack or exploit to ruin other players' experiences, I should just ignore you? Again, I see your advocacy for immoral activity.
EULAs are available on the Internet, and I'm sure you could request one from the company via mail. If you're that concerned with the content of a EULA, it requires little effort to find them prior to purchasing the product.
Imo, 30 days is more than enough time to return to the store for a refund.
If a EULA is an invented format, then why is Blizzard allowed to continually ban players for EULA violations? You'd think after the announcement of the thousands of banned accounts, someone would've filed suit.
What do you mean by Fair Use of the EULA? Are you refering to Fair Use, as in copyright?
Ico
Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.
Are you trying to suggest that because a mod of mmorpg.com argues that a NDA is more legally binding than an EULA that mmorpg.com supports that EULA's aren't enforceable?
Which FF Character Are You?
not me especially from pages 1 to 24
that being said do these ads really generate much for MMORPG.com ?? If not I say ditch em then. Stick with purely gaming banners even if its for console games.