One thing that i was curious about in regard to this case is the culpability of the users of these services. Please correct me if i am wrong in this but if the case is successful not only will this be a big blow to gold sellers but they will also have a list of all people that have bought and sold gold via these services too?? If that is the case, could these people then also be charged as an 'accessory' or something along those lines with the possibility of them having to pay damages??
It would be interesting to see how that pans out and whether we may see a mass banning one month as and when this case is resolved?
It must be Thursday, i never could get the hang of Thursdays.
If blizzard was to argue that the items being sold were there property then they have no case. The items existed on thier servers and still do. They havent been deprived of their property in any way.
The law has no problems with the concept of virtual property, All rights are virtual property. You bank balance exists only on the banks computer yet if it is deleted you would complain and win the case.
IGE can argue that they are not selling gold but a gold farming service. They have hired a guy to farm that gold and are transfering it to you. Its certainly true that the farmers dont work for free. They are no different to an employment agency selling the services of a farmer out in china to a US consumer. Since blizz is going to maintain that all in game gold is theirs they cant accuse them of selling gold. That would admit that the gold is not theirs.
They are bound to go for a more general case of activities that are hurting their business. This is in itself not a case. Any competitor hurts a business. Other businesses set up to service a demand. In this case blizz is not in the business of selling gold so is not even in the market. Its hard to see how they could argue that business in one sector (gold selling) should be stopped, to help another (gaming).
There is certainly no chance at all that they will ban all the customers of the gold sellers. It may raise a cheer from the gamers but will result in the shareholders iring the execs. If they ban 3 million customers say then the profits fall. As a shareholder I hire those execs to make me money, if he loses me money he is out of a job.
Its all smoke and mirrors. They find a tame juristiction and bring the case because no other juristiction will touch it. They dont want a long court case because thier whole EULA gets put under the spotlight. And 90% of the EULA is not enforceable. They dont want questions of virtual property raised because it could go against them. Its about stakeholders not contracts. The players have invested thousands of hours in thier char. They have an interest regardless of what blizzard say. The court gives them equal weight to the other cliamant that is blizz. They simply dont want thier claims tested in court.
Originally posted by someuser If blizzard was to argue that the items being sold were there property then they have no case. The items existed on thier servers and still do. They havent been deprived of their property in any way. The law has no problems with the concept of virtual property, All rights are virtual property. You bank balance exists only on the banks computer yet if it is deleted you would complain and win the case. IGE can argue that they are not selling gold but a gold farming service. They have hired a guy to farm that gold and are transfering it to you. Its certainly true that the farmers dont work for free. They are no different to an employment agency selling the services of a farmer out in china to a US consumer. Since blizz is going to maintain that all in game gold is theirs they cant accuse them of selling gold. That would admit that the gold is not theirs. They are bound to go for a more general case of activities that are hurting their business. This is in itself not a case. Any competitor hurts a business. Other businesses set up to service a demand. In this case blizz is not in the business of selling gold so is not even in the market. Its hard to see how they could argue that business in one sector (gold selling) should be stopped, to help another (gaming). There is certainly no chance at all that they will ban all the customers of the gold sellers. It may raise a cheer from the gamers but will result in the shareholders iring the execs. If they ban 3 million customers say then the profits fall. As a shareholder I hire those execs to make me money, if he loses me money he is out of a job. Its all smoke and mirrors. They find a tame juristiction and bring the case because no other juristiction will touch it. They dont want a long court case because thier whole EULA gets put under the spotlight. And 90% of the EULA is not enforceable. They dont want questions of virtual property raised because it could go against them. Its about stakeholders not contracts. The players have invested thousands of hours in thier char. They have an interest regardless of what blizzard say. The court gives them equal weight to the other cliamant that is blizz. They simply dont want thier claims tested in court.
Hey, what can i say other than good points, well made!!
You are very right in the whole virtual property thing, a point that i missed altogether and i stand corrected.
The only issue i see is that most of these services are not marketed as a 'gold farming' service and there will of course be the argument of rights to trade someone elses virtual property for your own profit. The only comparison that i can draw is from your own point about bank accounts in that although we know that banks use our money to profit from in return for interest and storage, you would be pretty peeved if you found out that joe bloggs down the road was using your money for his own personal stock trading profits without your permission. That may be a very shakey argument, but you get my drift.
As for the account bans, i don't think for one minute that there is that sort of number in way of gold farmers and i really don't like the stereotype of the 'chinese gold farmer' as that in itself is just a smoke screen. Personally i believe that the majority of gold farming is done within it's own markets and although i can see what you are saying with regard to the profit derived from gold farming accounts, Blizz and Vivendi have to weight that up against the loss of real players due to overpricing because of gold selling. You may be right that they won't ban them all, but we may well see a large scale 40-50k ban as a warning shot.
I am not too sure about the whole smoke and mirrors thing either as the EULA has already been successfully tested in the courts once with the overiding argument being that the users specifically agreed to it by clicking on 'I Agree' and 'Agree' when offered the EULA and terms of use policies therefore expressly agreeing to it's terms. It is still to be tested nationally in the US and internationally, but the precedent is already there so it is a stronger argument for that reason alone.
Either way it is going to be a interesting thing to watch as it has huge ramifications across the MMO market.
It must be Thursday, i never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Blizzard does not have a suit against IGE. A player named Hernandez(sp?) filed the suit with the law firm in Florida. What's transpired as a result of that suit is the Attorney General in Florida has noticed some irregularities with how IGE is running it's business so is investigating. And I'd bet money that law firm tipped them off.
IGE is making money off of selling property they do not own. That is the meat and potatoes of that issue. It doesn't matter if Blizzard says their gold is worthless or worth $1 per gold, it matters that someone is taking something they have no rights to and making a real world profit.
Blizzard may or may not place a value on gold and items, but the real world value for those items and services is already establihsed through supply and demand by these gold selling/powerleveling sites like IGE.
IGE/Affinity claimed they were no longer associated with each other and that IGE was a separate company when in fact they were not. They used that claim to help leverage the purchase of some websites, otherwise the owners supposedly wouldn't have sold. They also used that claim to try and invalidate the player's suit, which I'm guessing is where they got caught.
As a result the state of Florida seems to want to dig very very deep into their business practices which could flush a few more skeletons from their closets.
I'm wondering if since IGE/Affinity had a base in Florida and I think NY, and they were trying to pass Affinity off as a separate company, maybe they haven't paid the taxes they should have been paying on the gold selling/powerleveling side of their business and are being looked at for tax evasion or fraud along with some other things like unfair business practices or something.
And I think if the Attorney General gets the names of all the sellers and buyers Blizzard can subpoena that list if they then decide to file their own suit.
IGE is making money off of selling property they do not own. That is the meat and potatoes of that issue. It doesn't matter if Blizzard says their gold is worthless or worth $1 per gold, it matters that someone is taking something they have no rights to and making a real world profit.
? I dont have any IBM shares, yet I can make money by buying and selling IBM options. The activities on the options market directly effects the share price costing the true owners money. I am perfectly entitled to do this.
I can write newpaper stories about those same companies and make money from it, yet still I dont own the shares.
I can start a company to sell ring tones for phones yet I dont own the phone company.
I can start a company offering tours of NY city landmarks, yet I dont own any of those tourist landmarks.
There is nothing at all wrong in someone creating new markets and making money.
The basis of the complaint is that it interferes with his gameplay. The defence is that many players ARE using the IGE service and are happy to see it there.
Blizzard may or may not place a value on gold and items, but the real world value for those items and services is already establihsed through supply and demand by these gold selling/powerleveling sites like IGE.
Yet if Blizzard does say that IGE is selling gold then you have to ask what that means. A sale is a transfer of rights. If they are selling then they have the rights to sell. If they dont have those rights they are not selling. Its a fact that Blizz do remove IGE accounts without compensation. If they were to describe it as a sale then IGE and everyone else could claim compensation for the loss of those rights.
So what are they doing. They wont deny that they pay people to farm it, or that they then pass it on for a profit. They are acting as agents. Rather than a playing finding his own chinese farmer, they do all the work and make the profit. Just like any employment agency bringing together a worker and employer. You could have a group of goldfarmers standing outside Ironforge which will go off and farm you gold once they get your paypal. IGE ensures you will get the gold, security, and removes the need to find the workers.
Its not a criminal case, its about a contract dispute. A contract that the guy that brought the case is not a party to. IGE probably have no contract with Blizzard. Their gold comes from other companies and they pass it to players. You cant sue for breeach if you have no contract.
If the state is getting involved then there is another side to it. They must believe that there is some market manipulation going on such as IGE manipulating the gold price. Otherwise its just a regualar dispute between 2 contract parties.
Just a couple of quick notes on someuser' comments;
Yes you can trade options, but with options trading, that has been sanctioned by the comapany and the stock exchange to be traded publicly.
Yes you can write a newspaper report about anything, but you are not using the facilities of company you are writing about.
Yes you can sell ring tones, but that is just and accessory for a phone like a case or charm, bit like an add on for a game and again does not use the phone companies facilities apart from network transmission that you would have to pay for one way or another.
Yes you can give tours if you have the right permits and insurance, but you are not actually taking anything from those landmarks are you?
You are right that there is nothing wrong with creating new markets around other products as long as you don't interfere with that product itself.
Take this example;
You are sitting at your desk in an office and you need to staple a couple of pieces of paper together but your staples have run out. You get up to go to the stationary cupboard but a guy next to your desk tells you that there are some in there but he will sell you a full pack he has in his hand that he collected from the cupboard for $5 and save you the journey. Now the staples belong to the company and you could just as easily go and get them yourself for the sake of waiting a bit longer and walking there yourself, what do you do. How long do you think that your company would put up with that behaviour and how P****d off would you be at a guy offering you something for cash that already belongs to the company you work for and is readily available anyway??
It is a wierd analogy but it gets across my thoughts on the situation.
As far as sales of gold is concerned it depends how far the virtual rights extend i suppose as in effect one player has a vitual product in his hands (gold in this case), he then accepts real world money for that item and then trades that item to another account completing the sales transaction. Although the product is virtual, the process involved is a sale non the less in that a product has changed hands for money but the argument is that they had no rights to sell that product as it does not belong to them in the first place. Does that make sense or am i just babbling again ?
It must be Thursday, i never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Comments
One thing that i was curious about in regard to this case is the culpability of the users of these services. Please correct me if i am wrong in this but if the case is successful not only will this be a big blow to gold sellers but they will also have a list of all people that have bought and sold gold via these services too?? If that is the case, could these people then also be charged as an 'accessory' or something along those lines with the possibility of them having to pay damages??
It would be interesting to see how that pans out and whether we may see a mass banning one month as and when this case is resolved?
It must be Thursday, i never could get the hang of Thursdays.
If blizzard was to argue that the items being sold were there property then they have no case. The items existed on thier servers and still do. They havent been deprived of their property in any way.
The law has no problems with the concept of virtual property, All rights are virtual property. You bank balance exists only on the banks computer yet if it is deleted you would complain and win the case.
IGE can argue that they are not selling gold but a gold farming service. They have hired a guy to farm that gold and are transfering it to you. Its certainly true that the farmers dont work for free. They are no different to an employment agency selling the services of a farmer out in china to a US consumer. Since blizz is going to maintain that all in game gold is theirs they cant accuse them of selling gold. That would admit that the gold is not theirs.
They are bound to go for a more general case of activities that are hurting their business. This is in itself not a case. Any competitor hurts a business. Other businesses set up to service a demand. In this case blizz is not in the business of selling gold so is not even in the market. Its hard to see how they could argue that business in one sector (gold selling) should be stopped, to help another (gaming).
There is certainly no chance at all that they will ban all the customers of the gold sellers. It may raise a cheer from the gamers but will result in the shareholders iring the execs. If they ban 3 million customers say then the profits fall. As a shareholder I hire those execs to make me money, if he loses me money he is out of a job.
Its all smoke and mirrors. They find a tame juristiction and bring the case because no other juristiction will touch it. They dont want a long court case because thier whole EULA gets put under the spotlight. And 90% of the EULA is not enforceable. They dont want questions of virtual property raised because it could go against them. Its about stakeholders not contracts. The players have invested thousands of hours in thier char. They have an interest regardless of what blizzard say. The court gives them equal weight to the other cliamant that is blizz. They simply dont want thier claims tested in court.
Hey, what can i say other than good points, well made!!
You are very right in the whole virtual property thing, a point that i missed altogether and i stand corrected.
The only issue i see is that most of these services are not marketed as a 'gold farming' service and there will of course be the argument of rights to trade someone elses virtual property for your own profit. The only comparison that i can draw is from your own point about bank accounts in that although we know that banks use our money to profit from in return for interest and storage, you would be pretty peeved if you found out that joe bloggs down the road was using your money for his own personal stock trading profits without your permission. That may be a very shakey argument, but you get my drift.
As for the account bans, i don't think for one minute that there is that sort of number in way of gold farmers and i really don't like the stereotype of the 'chinese gold farmer' as that in itself is just a smoke screen. Personally i believe that the majority of gold farming is done within it's own markets and although i can see what you are saying with regard to the profit derived from gold farming accounts, Blizz and Vivendi have to weight that up against the loss of real players due to overpricing because of gold selling. You may be right that they won't ban them all, but we may well see a large scale 40-50k ban as a warning shot.
I am not too sure about the whole smoke and mirrors thing either as the EULA has already been successfully tested in the courts once with the overiding argument being that the users specifically agreed to it by clicking on 'I Agree' and 'Agree' when offered the EULA and terms of use policies therefore expressly agreeing to it's terms. It is still to be tested nationally in the US and internationally, but the precedent is already there so it is a stronger argument for that reason alone.
Either way it is going to be a interesting thing to watch as it has huge ramifications across the MMO market.
It must be Thursday, i never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Blizzard does not have a suit against IGE. A player named Hernandez(sp?) filed the suit with the law firm in Florida. What's transpired as a result of that suit is the Attorney General in Florida has noticed some irregularities with how IGE is running it's business so is investigating. And I'd bet money that law firm tipped them off.
IGE is making money off of selling property they do not own. That is the meat and potatoes of that issue. It doesn't matter if Blizzard says their gold is worthless or worth $1 per gold, it matters that someone is taking something they have no rights to and making a real world profit.
Blizzard may or may not place a value on gold and items, but the real world value for those items and services is already establihsed through supply and demand by these gold selling/powerleveling sites like IGE.
IGE/Affinity claimed they were no longer associated with each other and that IGE was a separate company when in fact they were not. They used that claim to help leverage the purchase of some websites, otherwise the owners supposedly wouldn't have sold. They also used that claim to try and invalidate the player's suit, which I'm guessing is where they got caught.
As a result the state of Florida seems to want to dig very very deep into their business practices which could flush a few more skeletons from their closets.
I'm wondering if since IGE/Affinity had a base in Florida and I think NY, and they were trying to pass Affinity off as a separate company, maybe they haven't paid the taxes they should have been paying on the gold selling/powerleveling side of their business and are being looked at for tax evasion or fraud along with some other things like unfair business practices or something.
And I think if the Attorney General gets the names of all the sellers and buyers Blizzard can subpoena that list if they then decide to file their own suit.
I agree this will be interesting.
OMG it's like a episode of Law and Order!!!
? I dont have any IBM shares, yet I can make money by buying and selling IBM options. The activities on the options market directly effects the share price costing the true owners money. I am perfectly entitled to do this.
I can write newpaper stories about those same companies and make money from it, yet still I dont own the shares.
I can start a company to sell ring tones for phones yet I dont own the phone company.
I can start a company offering tours of NY city landmarks, yet I dont own any of those tourist landmarks.
There is nothing at all wrong in someone creating new markets and making money.
The basis of the complaint is that it interferes with his gameplay. The defence is that many players ARE using the IGE service and are happy to see it there.
Yet if Blizzard does say that IGE is selling gold then you have to ask what that means. A sale is a transfer of rights. If they are selling then they have the rights to sell. If they dont have those rights they are not selling. Its a fact that Blizz do remove IGE accounts without compensation. If they were to describe it as a sale then IGE and everyone else could claim compensation for the loss of those rights.
So what are they doing. They wont deny that they pay people to farm it, or that they then pass it on for a profit. They are acting as agents. Rather than a playing finding his own chinese farmer, they do all the work and make the profit. Just like any employment agency bringing together a worker and employer. You could have a group of goldfarmers standing outside Ironforge which will go off and farm you gold once they get your paypal. IGE ensures you will get the gold, security, and removes the need to find the workers.
Its not a criminal case, its about a contract dispute. A contract that the guy that brought the case is not a party to. IGE probably have no contract with Blizzard. Their gold comes from other companies and they pass it to players. You cant sue for breeach if you have no contract.
If the state is getting involved then there is another side to it. They must believe that there is some market manipulation going on such as IGE manipulating the gold price. Otherwise its just a regualar dispute between 2 contract parties.
Just a couple of quick notes on someuser' comments;
Yes you can trade options, but with options trading, that has been sanctioned by the comapany and the stock exchange to be traded publicly.
Yes you can write a newspaper report about anything, but you are not using the facilities of company you are writing about.
Yes you can sell ring tones, but that is just and accessory for a phone like a case or charm, bit like an add on for a game and again does not use the phone companies facilities apart from network transmission that you would have to pay for one way or another.
Yes you can give tours if you have the right permits and insurance, but you are not actually taking anything from those landmarks are you?
You are right that there is nothing wrong with creating new markets around other products as long as you don't interfere with that product itself.
Take this example;
You are sitting at your desk in an office and you need to staple a couple of pieces of paper together but your staples have run out. You get up to go to the stationary cupboard but a guy next to your desk tells you that there are some in there but he will sell you a full pack he has in his hand that he collected from the cupboard for $5 and save you the journey. Now the staples belong to the company and you could just as easily go and get them yourself for the sake of waiting a bit longer and walking there yourself, what do you do. How long do you think that your company would put up with that behaviour and how P****d off would you be at a guy offering you something for cash that already belongs to the company you work for and is readily available anyway??
It is a wierd analogy but it gets across my thoughts on the situation.
As far as sales of gold is concerned it depends how far the virtual rights extend i suppose as in effect one player has a vitual product in his hands (gold in this case), he then accepts real world money for that item and then trades that item to another account completing the sales transaction. Although the product is virtual, the process involved is a sale non the less in that a product has changed hands for money but the argument is that they had no rights to sell that product as it does not belong to them in the first place. Does that make sense or am i just babbling again
?
It must be Thursday, i never could get the hang of Thursdays.
It makes perfect sense to me.