The Hyperinflation of 2010

[Waku]

The problem with this argument is that it's not RMT itself that is illegal, but rather complementary actions of the RMT companies that are illegal. So if they were to sue your company for hacking into monetary accounts, then there would be a strong case, but RMT itself (As in selling gil) is apparently not an illegal act. However, that doesn't mean you couldn't attempt to broaden a precedent (Or create new ones) in order to include RMTing. The problem with that as the article demonstrated is that RMT isn't located within a single company or "group" and most of the sites are the middlemen in this ordeal.

So would it NOT be illegal to sell someone a house you don't own, or the Brooklyn Bridge?

Uh pretty sure these related activities fall under federal anti hacking laws, and essentially stealing money directly from people's bank accounts. In many of these cases the managers were WRONG about it, and the people had not reversed charges in an effort to steal from the RMT. There's also zero way for them to effectively prove they made the delivery, especially since the game company itself isn't going to help them show that they had. A screenshot, or a video means very little, and in either case, RMT delivery people are no where near adept enough to accomplish these simple tasks.

Fun fact: Most of the people that work on deliveries for a game like FFXI, have never played the game (or any game) at all. The only way they know how to deliver the gil is by following instructions in a simple printout in a 3 ring binder.

The reason you don't hear about huge lawsuits is mostly because there aren't a lot of people in law right now that really understand the issue at all. If a big company makes a case, and gets a judge that doesn't get vidya game money well, it could rule in favor of RMT, at which point the floodgates open.

[Bugpop]

Then you shouldn't have made it in the first place.

My claim that it is "widely believed" comes from personal discussions I have had inside and outside of the game. I have no evidence to support this this "widely believed" comment. I am taking it for granted that reasonable people understand what I mean.

I can see the short leaps of logic one may make from the WoW EULA to FFXI. The WoW EULA essentially states that engaging in RMT violates is not permitted and that doing so violates their copyright.

I do not believe that RMT violates Blizzards copyrights. Blizzard attempts to grasp more rights to it's software than it is legally entitled to. In the wake of this attempt, players of all MMO's are misunderstanding the mechanism by which Blizzard is using copyright law to protect WoW.

Again, this is where my discussion of copyright law comes from.

Or you could stop trying to play polemic games.

What I said, and what you agreed with, is that RMTs are not a copyright violation, at least not in the US, but that they are a violation of the terms of service.

Rather than take a constructive approach to ending this discussion, you have assumed an authority, and one that I frankly do not find credible, to bully others into accepting your point of view.

At it's core, copyright law establishes the author of a work as the owner of the right to make copies of the work. As RMT has nothing to do with copies of a work, copyright law is an inappropriate means by which to criminalize RMT. I doubt that copyright law will be used as a tool to combat RMT in any country.

If I have been rude I apologize to you, and to anyone else. I am sincere and I tend to get carried away when I explain things. I have put a large chunk of my time effort into understanding copyright and contract law. I hoped to help others correctly understand the issues. I recognize that I may not have firm grasp on everything but I believe I am correctly understanding why the law is insufficient in preventing RMT from engaging in RMT. There was no intent to bully.

[McGoonagle]

Basically we're agreed that:

• RMT isn't a violation of copyright, and
• RMT is against the ToS.

Can anything be done beyond banning to rein in the RMT? Probably not, or at least not by SE. It's unlikely that they would be able to take them to court for RMT. If they are indeed part of a continuing criminal enterprise, as has been suggested, RMTs may get caught if the enterprise is rolled up.

Statements about FFXIV and RMT suggest that SE didn't take RMT in XI seriously to begin with. Had they realized that there would be a problem, they might have written the end-user license and the copyright declaration differently. Then this thread might never have started.

[Kellanved]

Rather than take a constructive approach to ending this discussion, you have assumed an authority, and one that I frankly do not find credible, to bully others into accepting your point of view.

I was hoping he’d leave off the legal track by now. He just keeps repeating a situation that’s been long recognized by the legal community, for pages on end, and not doing the best job of it too.

The infringement is of the contract between the suppliers of the service and the user.

I don’t think there is such a thing as infringement of contract, tortious interference with a contract is a cognizable claim however.

What you claimed was that RMT is not illegal because it does not breach copyright. This, frankly, is daft. It is, as you agree, a contract violation. This is a civil wrong. That means that redress can be sought through the courts if necessary.

While this is correct, suit for only a breach of contract claim is unlikely to happen and in fact doesn’t happen due to the reality of the amount of damage they can expect for the breach of such a minor contract. The litigation cost would far exceed the nominal damages they’d get. I’d go into significant details on how damages works, but I’ll spare us.

RMT is the exchange of virtual assets for real money

There is no such thing as “virtual assets,” at least stop using that term. The word “asset” can be synonymous with “property.” Just because you call a thing property or the thing has the characteristics commonly associated with property doesn’t make it property. Using that term, defeats your own argument, since it’s already established that all property rights related to FFXI belongs to SE. So you don’t want to keep saying that “RMT is the exchange of SE’s property for money”

Values and pointers in a database that are changed as a result of typical gameplay

This is really what you’re trying to refer to and what you want to stick with.

Also, a contract is an agreement which can be legally enforced. There may not be sufficient consideration for all the terms of the licence agreement to be enforced.

I have little doubt that these were drafted by actual licensed attorneys that are considerably more qualified than you. I think it’s safe to assume that they are more likely to know how to draft valid and enforceable contract clauses than you do.

The terms of the license agreement which prohibit RMT and using 3rd party software lack consideration. They are unenforceable and do not qualify as a civil wrong.

As I said before, it is clear you don’t really understand the consideration requirement for the making of a valid contract.

Consideration is a bargained for exchange. A performance or return promise is bargained for if it is sought by the promisor in exchange for his promise and is given by the promisee in exchange for that promise. The performance may consist of an act other than a promise, such as forbearance. A waiver of any legal right at the request of the other party is sufficient consideration for a promise. Consideration induces the making of the promise and the promise induces the furnishing of the consideration.

In the instant case, you, the licensee promise to pay $X and forbear from engaging in RMT and using 3rd party tools in conjunction with the software in exchange for the licensor(SE)’s promise to allow you to use the software. The consideration paid to the licensee for accepting the license is the chance to use the software. The consideration paid to the licensor is $X and your forbearance.

SE –Licensor (the right to use software)--><--($X + no RMT&Tools)You Licensee
(---><---) = valid consideration
So this agreement contains perfectly valid consideration.

P.S. Your argument was never complex, just littered with incorrect use of legal principles that make those comments less than helpful.

[Byrthnoth]

This whole thread is silly just because there isn't any superinflation. Go look at the Price Histories on ffwiki a little harder. I don't see any evidence at all that NPC gil transactions are changing the amount of gil in circulation inappropriately.

Low gil-selling prices aren't indicative of game inflation, they're indicative of people selling their accounts and RMTing massive amounts of gil for whatever price they can get. Demand isn't keeping up with supply, so the price drops. RMTed characters have experienced a similar price drop. When I was banned, it was estimated my account was worth $3k gil-included. These days I'd be really lucky to get $1500 for it. Some relic accounts don't even break $1k now.

People are still buying gil. RMT is likely operating with a smaller reserve of gil than they have before (which is smart when you're expecting the price to keep falling). You could probably buy RMT out of gil right now, throw it straight into the economy, and not see significant inflation.

The economy is going to do weird things in the next year. People will be pushing to finish off their relics, and other people will be quitting and giving them tons of money to do it with while the supply of Dynamis currency decreases due to fewer active shells. Expect currency prices to go up.
I expect NQ things that aren't good for augmenting (Haubergeons, Scorpion Harnesses, etc) to continue their price drop. HQ things and luxury items will likely slowly increase in price. NQ things that are good for augmenting (Dusk Gloves, etc) will increase in price a little, but probably not for super long.

[Bugpop]

I have little doubt that these were drafted by actual licensed attorneys that are considerably more qualified than you. I think it’s safe to assume that they are more likely to know how to draft valid and enforceable contract clauses than you do.

I don't have any qualifications. I do understand and recognize that EULAs are troublesome and controversial. Perhaps the 9th circuit court of appeals may clear something up with Blizzard vs MDY. I think that is an interesting case.

In the instant case, you, the licensee promise to pay $X and forbear from engaging in RMT and using 3rd party tools in conjunction with the software in exchange for the licensor(SE)’s promise to allow you to use the software. The consideration paid to the licensee for accepting the license is the chance to use the software. The consideration paid to the licensor is $X and your forbearance.

I want to talk more about this but it's not relevant to this thread...

P.S. Your argument was never complex, just littered with incorrect use of legal principles that make those comments less than helpful.

I'm glad it wasn't complex but I still feel that I wasn't understood. Do you think its because of what you said about my incorrect usage of legal principles? It's probably good that I didn't bring up the principle estoppel because I'm still trying to wrap that around my head.

[Yugl]

So would it NOT be illegal to sell someone a house you don't own, or the Brooklyn Bridge?

Uh pretty sure these related activities fall under federal anti hacking laws, and essentially stealing money directly from people's bank accounts. In many of these cases the managers were WRONG about it, and the people had not reversed charges in an effort to steal from the RMT. There's also zero way for them to effectively prove they made the delivery, especially since the game company itself isn't going to help them show that they had. A screenshot, or a video means very little, and in either case, RMT delivery people are no where near adept enough to accomplish these simple tasks.

Fun fact: Most of the people that work on deliveries for a game like FFXI, have never played the game (or any game) at all. The only way they know how to deliver the gil is by following instructions in a simple printout in a 3 ring binder.

The reason you don't hear about huge lawsuits is mostly because there aren't a lot of people in law right now that really understand the issue at all. If a big company makes a case, and gets a judge that doesn't get vidya game money well, it could rule in favor of RMT, at which point the floodgates open.

Selling gil in of itself, based on what is presented here thus far, is not illegal. The *other* activities that these people take part in would be illegal. There in lies the distinction.

Moreover, you cannot compare selling gil to selling a house you don't rightfully own or public property. It's two distinct matters. I hope you can understand this difference.

[McGoonagle]

I don’t think there is such a thing as infringement of contract, tortious interference with a contract is a cognizable claim however.

My mistake.