The Hyperinflation of 2010

[Mojo]

The negative effect? Nerfing the money players got for NPCing fish, of course.

This is assuming what I told happened actually did happen, and that I'm not all just pulling this out of the air and soem half-baked memory.

I suppose you could view that as a negative effect, although the number legitimate players that actually had an effect on is small. You're also overlooking the benefit that fishing had (some inflation while also making consumables cheap.) Those benefits extended to almost everybody.

[Mojo]

I am not talking about copyright law at all this time. I am talking about morality, and the surprising justifications that people will use to soothe their own internal conflicts.

To be honest, I find that those with the greatest 'sense of morality' on the issue are usually the ones who refuse to actually view the matter for what it is.

[Bugpop]

It's specifically VIOLATES the TERMS OF SERVICE, which PLAYERS AGREE TO by PLAYING THE GAME, which is punishable UNDER THE LAW. or something, idk if "UNDER THE LAW" is applicable, but it may be, as per ToS.

Edit, SE actually OWNS your character, not you, so if you do something that is in direct violation of ToS, it could be argued that you are violating SE's property, in which you'd have to be responsible for.

Edit edit, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. College 101.

There are two sides of law. Civil law and criminal law. Violations of contracts fall under civil law. Violations of copyright fall under criminal law. College 101

About wikipedia... its a handy resource thats perfect to use if you understand its limitations. I cited it for your benefit so you could see the articles yourself. I'll use another but the same cases still apply and the same summaries are still understood. I do have limited access to a law library but why bother with the law library when I can use wikipedia?

I am only quoting the relevant parts of the judgement.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
U.S. Supreme Court
BOBBS-MERRILL CO. v. STRAUS, 210 U.S. 339 (1908)
210 U.S. 339

BOBBS-MERRILL COMPANY, Appt.,
v.
ISIDOR STRAUS and Nathan Straus, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of R. H. Macy & Company.
No. 176.

Argued March 12, 13, 1908.
Decided June 1, 1908.

...

In our view the copyright statutes, while protecting the owner of the copyright in his right to multiply and sell his production, do not create the right to impose, by notice, such as is disclosed in this case, a limitation at which the book shall be sold at retail by future purchasers, with whom there is no privity of contract. This conclusion is reached in view of the language of the statute, read in the light of its main purpose [210 U.S. 339, 351] to secure the right of multiplying copies of the work,-a right which is the special creation of the statute. True, the statute also secures, to make this right of multiplication effectual, the sole right to vend copies of the book, the production of the author's thought and conception. The owner of the copyright in this case did sell copies of the book in quantities and at a price satisfactory to it. It has exercised the right to vend. What the complainant contends for embraces not only the right to sell the copies, but to qualify the title of a future purchaser by the reservation of the right to have the remedies of the statute against an infringer because of the printed notice of its purpose so to do unless the purchaser sells at a price fixed in the notice. To add to the right of exclusive sale the authority to control all future retail sales, by a notice that such sales must be made at a fixed sum, would give a right not included in the terms of the statute, and, in our view, extend its operation, by construction, beyond its meaning, when interpreted with a view to ascertaining the legislative intent in its enactment.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
U.S. Supreme Court
BAUER & CIE v. O'DONNELL, 229 U.S. 1 (1913)
229 U.S. 1

BAUER & CIE. and the Bauer Chemical Company,
v.
JAMES O'DONNELL.
No. 951.

Argued April 10, 1913.
Decided May 26, 1913.

...

It is contended in argument that the notice in this case deals with the use of the invention, because the notice states that the package is licensed 'for sale and use at a price not less than $1,' that a purchase is an acceptance of the conditions, and that all rights revert to the patentee in event of violation of the restriction. But in view of the facts certified in this case, as to what took place concerning the article in question, it is a perversion of terms to call the transaction in any sense a license to use the invention. The jobber from whom the appellee purchased had previously bought, at a price which must be deemed to have been satisfactory, the packages of Sanatogen afterwards sold to the appellee. The patentee had no interest in the proceeds of the subsequent sales, no right to any royalty thereon, or to participation in the profits thereof. The packages were sold with as full and complete title as any article could have when sold in the open market, excepting only the attempt to limit the sale or use when sold for not less than $1. In other words, the title transferred was full and complete, with an attempt to reserve the right to fix the price at which subsequent sales could be made. There is no showing of a qualified sale for less than value for limited use with other articles only, as was shown in the Dick Case. There was no transfer of a limited right to use this invention, and to call the sale a license to use is a mere play upon words.

The real question is whether, in the exclusive right secured by statute to 'vend' a patented article, there is included the right, by notice, to dictate the price at which subsequent sales of the article may be made. The patentee relies solely upon the notice quoted to control future prices in the resale by a purchaser of an article said to be of great utility and highly desirable for general use. [229 U.S. 1, 17] The appellee and the jobbers from whom he purchased were neither the agents nor the licensees of the patentee. They had the title to, and the right to sell, the article purchased without accounting for the proceeds to the patentee, and without making any further payment than had already been made in the purchase from the agent of the patentee. Upon such facts as are now presented we think the right to vend secured in the patent statute is not distinguishable from the right of vending given in the copyright act. In both instances it was the intention of Congress to secure an exclusive right to sell, and there is no grant of a privilege to keep up prices and prevent competition by notices restricting the price at which the article may be resold. The right to vend conferred by the patent law has been exercised, and the added restriction is beyond the protection and purpose of the act. This being so, the case is brought within that line of cases in which this court from the beginning has held that a patentee who has parted with a patented machine by passing title to a purchaser has placed the article beyond the limits of the monopoly secured by the patent act.

And now we arrive at the TL;DR

The use of a license agreement cannot create liability for Intellectual Property infringement based on activities that do not violate Intellectual Property laws.

[McGoonagle]

I really don't see where copyright law applies here.

What SE is selling is a right of access in much the same way that buying a ticket to Disneyland gets you access to Disneyland.

Inside FFXI is just like being inside Disneyland, only not as grim. You are subject to Disney's rules of behavior, and you are subject to SE's terms of service. If you take a leak in the bushes at Disneyland, Disney will heave you out with nary a backward glance. If you piss on the players in FFXI, SE should be heaving you out too.

[Absolutely Virtue]

The NPC price for fish was nerfed considerably, I remember it well. But it was also consistent with SE's efforts to lower NPC prices of just about everything in the game that could be spammed. The most obvious example I remember was the price of Shall Shells. They used to NPC for 600g to vendors, and fishbots would line the coast of places like Bubu fishing for them. SE cut the price to 300g, and it seemed like most people moved on to something else (not sure what).

I never really understood all the complaints about Sky NM monopolization. I get that people were pissed off that RMT were there, and getting in the way of them getting items they felt they "needed." That doesn't seem fair with regard to the ToS and the way SE intended the game to be played. But you know, life isn't fair. That's just how it goes sometimes.

You can bitch about it for years on forums, or you can go farm (or buy lol) the gil you need to buy whatever they're selling and get on with your life.

[Thiefami]

It's specifically VIOLATES the TERMS OF SERVICE, which PLAYERS AGREE TO by PLAYING THE GAME, which is punishable UNDER THE LAW. or something, idk if "UNDER THE LAW" is applicable, but it may be, as per ToS.

Edit, SE actually OWNS your character, not you, so if you do something that is in direct violation of ToS, it could be argued that you are violating SE's property, in which you'd have to be responsible for.

Edit edit, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. College 101.

lol it's not that deep. They will simply terminate your service at their leisure. I can only see law getting involved if you were scamming real goods, threatening, or being a pedophile.

[Dooom]

I suppose you could view that as a negative effect, although the number legitimate players that actually had an effect on is small. You're also overlooking the benefit that fishing had (some inflation while also making consumables cheap.) Those benefits extended to almost everybody.

Yeah, I'll agree with that. I will admit to bias when it comes to fishing though, as when I was a newbie it was one of my favourite ways to make money, and I have memories of hoards of fishbots descending upon bubumiru and ruining the price of Shall Shells on the AH from 15-20k a stack to 5k. Likewise, when it comes to the price of consumables, it's not hard to find crafters who stopped making sushi/shihei/whatever because they couldn't synth 24/7 and settle for small profits like RMT could.

[Tagus]

I imagine that people who purchase gil do it to make their gaming experience more enjoyable. It would be unreasonable to believe that people purchase gil to make their game less fun.

I imagine that people who use windower do so for the same reasons. It makes their gaming experience more enjoyable. It also may be said that it makes an an otherwise intolerable gaming experience, enjoyable.

I think the difference that you've got to ignore in trying to compare these is that windower has no negative effect on other players, while RMT does.

[Thiefami]

It's weird, this community on BG is a bit different than the community on my server on the issue. A lot of people openly admit to buying gil, and botting and they do not see what the big deal is. I am insensitive to the issue either way, if there is a negative impact on other players or not. At least it's not out of hand like it was so many years ago.

[wipers]

There is a guy in my linkshell that everyone knows that bought a lot of gil to fund his two relics. No one really cares at this point the game is starting to wind down in my opinion. If he wants to spend real life money on gil how am I going to stop him. With FF14 getting closer and closer the issue of gil buying / selling is less and less important. I don't let what other people in the game do effect me so I can't enjoy the game.

[ringthree]

There are two sides of law. Civil law and criminal law. Violations of contracts fall under civil law. Violations of copyright fall under criminal law. College 101

About wikipedia... its a handy resource thats perfect to use if you understand its limitations. I cited it for your benefit so you could see the articles yourself. I'll use another but the same cases still apply and the same summaries are still understood. I do have limited access to a law library but why bother with the law library when I can use wikipedia?

I am only quoting the relevant parts of the judgement.





And now we arrive at the TL;DR

The use of a license agreement cannot create liability for Intellectual Property infringement based on activities that do not violate Intellectual Property laws.

The real TL;DR is that those cases are about retail licensing. Completely distinct from the discussion at hand.

[Kyreth]

I imagine that people who purchase gil do it to make their gaming experience more enjoyable. It would be unreasonable to believe that people purchase gil to make their game less fun.

I would posit that in buying Gil, these people stimulate a market whose demand is only met by exploiting the game, usually in extreme, excessive, and organized manners. These people perpetuate a cycle in which RMT activity slants gameplay towards being "less fun", simply by rendering sources of Gil more difficult to gather.

Because of mass fishbotting, it is more difficult for a fisher to generate a legitimate amount of Gil. Because of mass craftbotting, it is more difficult for a legitimate crafter to do the same. Until S-E literally had to remake large parts of the game to do so, RMT interference (to produce the Gil to meet the demands of gil-buyers) in NM claiming and the like made the game "less fun" for most of the playerbase- and not coincidentally, drove a healthy business in selling claims for Gil, which translates via RMT into real money. When RMT's had control over large amounts of Gil, that was used to manipulate the game economy to create inflation, which left non Gil-buyers forced to expend more time and energy farming to get what they wanted, thereby making the game "less fun" as well. Of course, those who bought enough Gil to pay the artificially inflated prices could have more fun, since they were paying cash to the same people who'd caused those problems to avoid having to do so themselves.

The results of RMT activity has been increasing the most distasteful portion of any MMORPG- the time sinks.

So yes, Gil-buying makes the game more fun. At the cost of making it -less- fun for everyone who doesn't want to hand a third party cash for a game they have nothing to do with, other than interfering with and exploiting it's gameplay. Saying that player-to-player RMTing is fine and well is just that- but the demand exceeds what can be legitimately generated by normal gameplay. By a large margin. Which is why the STF keeps deleting billions of Gil from the game. And it's those suppliers that fuel the large-scale moneymaking that RMT companies profit from. Make the game worse, so you'll buy our Gil to enjoy it the way the developers intended. To me, player-to-player transactions are a sideshow that only causes (relatively) minimal harm to the game. The professionals are the poison.

I imagine that people who use windower do so for the same reasons. It makes their gaming experience more enjoyable. It also may be said that it makes an an otherwise intolerable gaming experience, enjoyable.

And I'm not jumping all over Windower. Players using it don't damage the game in the process of doing so. RMT activities do. There's the big difference.

[Kyreth]

There is a guy in my linkshell that everyone knows that bought a lot of gil to fund his two relics. No one really cares at this point the game is starting to wind down in my opinion. If he wants to spend real life money on gil how am I going to stop him. With FF14 getting closer and closer the issue of gil buying / selling is less and less important. I don't let what other people in the game do effect me so I can't enjoy the game.

So, when he does the same thing in FFXIV and you have to deal with RMT fucking up portions of your new game and pissing you off as a result, will it matter then? Have you ended up farming/selling something that became devalued as a result of S-E having to change things to prevent mass exploitation? Even once? If so, RMT effects you, whether you "let it" or not. And it will happen again. RMT will follow the players, because that's where the money is.

[Kyreth]

The bulk of RMT transactions that occur are actually legitimate. Transactions that involve data theft are extremely rare. Your pawn shop example illustrates the exact problem I see with your reasoning. People sell stolen merchandise to unknowing pawn shops often, but does that warrant the condemning of every pawn shop that exists? The answer is an obvious no because the crime was committed by the thief, not the pawn shop (unless the pawn shop buys the merchandise knowing that it was stolen.)

Yet considering the amounts of Gil sold to RMT companies, and knowing those amounts are un-generateable through legitimate means- it's like knowing a jewelry shop is getting robbed daily and the same guys keep piling diamond rings in your pawn shop, like clockwork, with no idea how your suppliers get them. You think IGE and it's fellows even try to check the origins of their suppliers? Of course not. When a pawnshop accepts an item, they also accept the risk that what they take is of an illegal origin. RMT companies have zero equivalents to the screening process your average pawnshop does - positive ID of the seller, providing transaction information to the appropriate authorities (in this case, that'd be Square-Enix), or the like. They turn a blind eye to things, as long as they can get Gil, sell Gil, and make profits.

Either way, I think you should open your mind a bit and try putting the shoe on the other foot because all I see is someone who seeks to demonize something they truly don't understand.

Also, since someone was asking, I conduct business on EGS. I'm an Authorized Service Provider there (although I'm taking a break for now) and have been involved with a good number of transactions. I've also spoken with the owners of MOGS and other distributors and discussed their business models, so I actually do know a lot about the industry.

I'm interested in hearing about those. How do these companies act to prevent their business from damaging FFXI? Do they even care?

[Bugpop]

No, illegal as in illegal. The fact that the player base ignores it (and I also disagree with this statement) has nothing to do with the legality which was exactly my point.

Yes, buying and selling gil (or currency in any game that does not specifically allow it) is illegal.

I am sure this is based on personal experience for both of us, but gil buying or selling is shunned and rejected by everyone I know. I don't know anyone that openly admits to gil-buying, and I think there is a reason for it. If people didn't care, then the people that do buy gil wouldn't hide or deny it, right?

There are laws in the US and Japan that control the use of copyrighted material, or further, profiting off of someone else's copyright without their consent.

Your generation may be OK with the idea of taking intellectual copyrighted material without permission, but that does not make it legal.

Copyright law grants exclusive rights to copyright holders. The right to profit is not among them.

Another point to consider:

SE doesn't want to do that. I wouldn't want to play that game, and I have a feeling that even most of the people that don't care about RMT wouldn't want to play that game either.

I would suggest that while Tsuko_Asura may accept that RMT is a fact of life, he would be opposed to it being in FFXI. I am just guessing here, so feel free to tell me to shove it if I am wrong.

SE engaging in alternative profit creation (I just coined that, woot) by selling items in-game really is completely their prerogative. They own the copyright and they can profit off of it how ever they wish. Some people thought the Tidal Talisman was not a good idea, some people thought it was. If SE wanted to sell gil in their own game it would be completely legitimate and legal, but you can make the personal judgment if you want to play the game under those conditions. Some people would, some people wouldn't.

The real TL;DR is that those cases are about retail licensing. Completely distinct from the discussion at hand.

The rights granted by copyright law are not violated in the exchange of virtual currency for real money.

Five basic rights of copyrights
exclusive right to reproduce the work
exclusive right to make derivative works based on the work
exclusive right to distribute the work
exclusive right to give public performances of the work
exclusive right to public display the work

RMT does not violate any of those rights.

[Bugpop]

I would posit that in buying Gil, these people stimulate a market whose demand is only met by exploiting the game, usually in extreme, excessive, and organized manners. These people perpetuate a cycle in which RMT activity slants gameplay towards being "less fun", simply by rendering sources of Gil more difficult to gather.

Because of mass fishbotting, it is more difficult for a fisher to generate a legitimate amount of Gil. Because of mass craftbotting, it is more difficult for a legitimate crafter to do the same. Until S-E literally had to remake large parts of the game to do so, RMT interference (to produce the Gil to meet the demands of gil-buyers) in NM claiming and the like made the game "less fun" for most of the playerbase- and not coincidentally, drove a healthy business in selling claims for Gil, which translates via RMT into real money. When RMT's had control over large amounts of Gil, that was used to manipulate the game economy to create inflation, which left non Gil-buyers forced to expend more time and energy farming to get what they wanted, thereby making the game "less fun" as well. Of course, those who bought enough Gil to pay the artificially inflated prices could have more fun, since they were paying cash to the same people who'd caused those problems to avoid having to do so themselves.

The results of RMT activity has been increasing the most distasteful portion of any MMORPG- the time sinks.

So yes, Gil-buying makes the game more fun. At the cost of making it -less- fun for everyone who doesn't want to hand a third party cash for a game they have nothing to do with, other than interfering with and exploiting it's gameplay. Saying that player-to-player RMTing is fine and well is just that- but the demand exceeds what can be legitimately generated by normal gameplay. By a large margin. Which is why the STF keeps deleting billions of Gil from the game. And it's those suppliers that fuel the large-scale moneymaking that RMT companies profit from. Make the game worse, so you'll buy our Gil to enjoy it the way the developers intended. To me, player-to-player transactions are a sideshow that only causes (relatively) minimal harm to the game. The professionals are the poison.

And I'm not jumping all over Windower. Players using it don't damage the game in the process of doing so. RMT activities do. There's the big difference.

RMT is the exchange of virtual assets for real money. What does RMT have to do with botting? Botting is using a third party program to control a character while the player is away. What does botting have to do with RMT? It is easy to see that some botters will sell gil. I bet many botters choose to bot so they don't have to buy gil. I bet botters buy gil too. I know players who use non-crafting bots that are unlikely to buy or sell gil.

So, you see that all sorts of possibilities exist... see my Euler Diagram.

edit:
Don't blame RMT for every bot. Blame botters for botting. I used to go camping against suspected RMT at certian NM camps. If they botted they sure made it hard to tell. I claimed the NM more often they they did, and it got to the point they called in for extra help when I came around. Personally I haven't even botted at all. I'm not really against it, I just never got around to it.

[Volkai]

Five basic rights of copyrights
exclusive right to reproduce the work
exclusive right to make derivative works based on the work
exclusive right to distribute the work
exclusive right to give public performances of the work
exclusive right to public display the work

RMT does not violate any of those rights.

RMT redistribute digital items on a for-profit basis. That violates the third.

Coincidentally, bot programs (and windower, technically) violate the second.

I never really understood all the complaints about Sky NM monopolization. I get that people were pissed off that RMT were there, and getting in the way of them getting items they felt they "needed." That doesn't seem fair with regard to the ToS and the way SE intended the game to be played. But you know, life isn't fair. That's just how it goes sometimes.

FFXI isn't life, it's a game. It's supposed to be fair.
That's part of the attraction of MMOs.

[Bugpop]

RMT redistribute digital items on a for-profit basis. That violates the third.
Coincidentally, bot programs (and windower, technically) violate the second.

FFXI accounts come with an authorized copy of PlayOnline Viewer and FFXI. According to the licensing agreement: " ...you receive only limited rights to access and use PlayOnline Service, the Software and all Documentation, as set forth in any applicable license agreement..." (Playonline Member Agreement - Article 4.1) The transfer of Gil and items from one account to second account is a typcial feature of MMORPG's. Sellers and buyers use these typical features of MMORPG's to transfer the gil and items. Protected work -- of any form -- are never copied. The memory register values in the database representing the first account are adjusted to reflect the subtraction of virtual assets, and the memory register values in the database representing the second account are adjusted to reflect the addition of virtual assets.

Values and pointers in a database that are changed as a result of typical gameplay are not copyright violations. They do not magically become copyright violations when real money is traded for virtual assets.

There are cases where an owner of a protected work will attempt to extend his rights to a protected work through the terms of a license agreement. Licensing agreements in the past have been worded so that in the event of a breach of contract the authorized status of a copyrighted work is revoked. The licensor attempts to turn breach of contract into a copyright violation. Once a copyright holder authorizes his work to be published, he cannot unauthorize the published work as he has no right to do so. See my previous post. Courts have ruled that the "authorized" status of a copyrighted work cannot become "unauthorized" by terms of a license agreement. Basically, a company is unable to create a rule in a license agreement that could get a legal user of a program in trouble for copyright violation. The only way a legal user of a program could get in trouble for copyright violation is by violating copyright law. The Exclusive rights of a copyright holder are found in §106 below.

Bot programs are somewhat tricky but I doubt they violate copyright laws. A district judge in the WoW Glider case ruled that because WoW is a license -- because the license agreement says it is a license -- despite precedent: that a license is a sale when the characteristics of obtaining the license resemble a sale. The judge ignored the provisions in §117 (below) which allow for copies of programs to load themselves into RAM as part of their normal operation. The WoW glider case is currently under appeal and the WoW glider people have better attorneys. See WoW Glider Appeal Document

Notwithstanding everything else, virtual currency in and of itself is not considered a protected work. See section 102 below.

§102 - Subject matter of copyright: In general

Spoiler: show

1. Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be percieved, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
   1. literary works;
   2. musical works, including any accompanying words;
   3. dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
   4. pantomimes and choreographic works;
   5. pictoral, graphic, and sculptural works;
   6. motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
   7. sound recordings; and
   8. architectural works.
2. In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

§106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Spoiler: show

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and authorize the following:

1. to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
2. to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
3. to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
4. in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic workes, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
5. in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic workes, pantomimes, and pictoral, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
6. in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audo transmission.

§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

Spoiler: show

1. Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
   1. that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
   2. that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
2. Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation. — Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.
3. Machine Maintenance or Repair. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine, if —
   1. such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and
   2. with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.
4. Definitions. — For purposes of this section —
   1. the “maintenance” of a machine is the servicing of the machine in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine; and
   2. the “repair” of a machine is the restoring of the machine to the state of working in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine.

[Kyreth]

RMT is the exchange of virtual assets for real money. What does RMT have to do with botting? Botting is using a third party program to control a character while the player is away. What does botting have to do with RMT? It is easy to see that some botters will sell gil. I bet many botters choose to bot so they don't have to buy gil. I bet botters buy gil too. I know players who use non-crafting bots that are unlikely to buy or sell gil.

So, you see that all sorts of possibilities exist... see my Euler Diagram.

I'd shove the RMT portion of that deeper into the other two circles, honestly. RMT-botting to generate Gil for sale is done on a very large scale- even if that is less visible now from being shoved out of sight, courtesy of the STF. One guy in Windurst botting is easily a player as it is a generator for RMT funds. Remember those pics of dozens of keyboard-hammer names fishing up mithril swords? That's the real face of how much of the use of 3PP's to gather Gil is by comparison.

edit:
Don't blame RMT for every bot. Blame botters for botting. I used to go camping against suspected RMT at certian NM camps. If they botted they sure made it hard to tell. I claimed the NM more often they they did, and it got to the point they called in for extra help when I came around. Personally I haven't even botted at all. I'm not really against it, I just never got around to it.

I certainly don't. I blame RMT's for use of botting and other exploitive methods on a massive, nigh industrial scale. The same efforts that cause barely a blip on the game economy when used by players turn into economic nightmare fuel when you've got folks running rotations on a network farm, feeding cash into the RMT pockets and hence the economy 24-7.

[McGoonagle]

I'm still trying to understand why people are wasting their breath and bandwidth over copyright issues here.

Violations of terms of service are not copyright issues.