The Hyperinflation of 2010

[Bugpop]

My thoughts on the capacity for -access- to content provided to users, as far as RMT "law" is concerned.

That is, if a company says that a third party cannot exchange real-life currency for access to content, is this enforceable in a court of law? Are third-party alterations to that access via programs not part of the contract for access between user and provider illegal as well? Do both of this fall under giving access to content in a form proscribed by the agreement between users and provider, and if it's broken can the provider seek legal redress?

Heck, if S-E can track Gil being generated via violations of the ToS, and someone buys that Gil and uses it- is that not making them just as guilty? You've just "hired" someone else to break the rules for you by giving them money for the results- the RMT are the "hitman", and you're the ones paying them to do the job of getting you the dirty money. Gil is a form of access to the game- folks remember when RMT's could casually blow the Gil on buying airship licenses for mules?

How much legal impact the second part has depends on what they rule RMT meddling (the first part) qualifies as under law. The "Glider" suit Blizzard won isn't a perfect kill as far as MMORPG's are concerned, but it does set a chilling precedent.

The articles I posted a few posts back cover your questions quite thoroughly. RMT does not infringe on copyright law although IP holders can still try to make that claim.

"Although intellectual property law should protect creators and their works, the failure of intellectual property law to prevent sales of in-game assets demonstrates that digital-content creators cannot rely on this form of protection."

"Concerning the legality of terms of service clauses prohibiting RMT, opinions among those who subscribe to this view are divided:

Some maintain that clauses banning RMT are valid, insofar as MMORPG developers and publishers, as the rightful owners of copyrights to in-game items, are free to determine the terms and conditions for using these items, and also because there are reasonable grounds to prohibit this practice, given its potential to alter the original characteristics of a MMORPG which is foremost and above all a game, and the likelihood that the phenomenon will spawn other problems in the gaming community.

Meanwhile, others find these clauses invalid on several counts. First, users’ rights to game items are not virtual, in that they are rights of use with regard to the intellectual property rights held by game companies. Financial profits deriving from these rights, therefore, are entitled to legal protection. Second, item trading is not a derivative practice, but a built-in function of a MMORPG, insofar as games provide trade windows and allow players to trade in-game items. Hence, by stipulating these provisions against RMT, prohibiting the use of a selective portion of this same function, MMORPG operators violate the principle of estoppel. Further, by interfering with RMT, private actions by users, performed outside the context of program use, MMORPG operators are infringing on the privacy of users."

[ringthree]

Those are opinion pieces (and it looks like one is regarding just Korea) they are not case law. There are definitely questions to be answered but again, the reason the case record is so minimal is because the companies that deal in RMT are outside of the jurisdiction that would handle the cases.

[Bugpop]

Those are opinion pieces (and it looks like one is regarding just Korea) they are not case law. There are definitely questions to be answered but again, the reason the case record is so minimal is because the companies that deal in RMT are outside of the jurisdiction that would handle the cases.

I had acknowledged they were opinions. Based on the qualifications of the authors, it would be more correct to say the articles represent expert opinion -- specialized opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of their expertise.

The one article by Ung-gi Yoon is indeed by a Korean. He has a MA in legal philosophy and he is Judge in the Busan District Court. His expert opinion is not limited to Korean law but as it applies to all countries. He cites both US and Korean case law.

I suspect you glanced over the articles and dismissed them as meaningless banter by individuals in favor of RMT. I sincerely hope that isn't so. You need to read them to see what they have to say. The articles aren't in defense of RMT, they point out gaping holes and express that current law is inadequate. It is a discussion about the current state of law.

[ringthree]

I had acknowledged they were opinions. Based on the qualifications of the authors, it would be more correct to say the articles represent expert opinion -- specialized opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of their expertise.

The one article by Ung-gi Yoon is indeed by a Korean. He has a MA in legal philosophy and he is Judge in the Busan District Court. His expert opinion is not limited to Korean law but as it applies to all countries. He cites both US and Korean case law.

I suspect you glanced over the articles and dismissed them as meaningless banter by individuals in favor of RMT. I sincerely hope that isn't so. You need to read them to see what they have to say. The articles aren't in defense of RMT, they point out gaping holes and express that current law is inadequate. It is a discussion about the current state of law.

I did glance over them because I don't think they deal with the crux of the issue, as I have stated before.

[Kellanved]

I did glance over them because I don't think they deal with the crux of the issue, as I have stated before.

You should read such articles if you’re so interested. The crux of the issue is not a question of jurisdiction, if that is what you're implying.

Bug has been going a step further, his contention assuming that even if there is no question of jurisdiction, the current laws in place are inadequate to address the issue posed by the exchange of money involved in the licensed use of property by two licensees.

Although the legal arguments he attempts to support this contention are not sound, at least he admits his lack of training or expertise in the field, unlike the pretense you and some others in this tread seem to be communicating.

[ringthree]

You should read such articles if you’re so interested. The crux of the issue is not a question of jurisdiction, if that is what you're implying.

Bug has been going a step further, his contention assuming that even if there is no question of jurisdiction, the current laws in place are inadequate to address the issue posed by the exchange of money involved in the licensed use of property by two licensees.

Although the legal arguments he attempts to support this contention are not sound, at least he admits his lack of training or expertise in the field, unlike the pretense you and some others in this tread seem to be communicating.

Pretense? There is plenty of pretense to go around for everyone. We are being a bunch of Phoenix Wrights. That said, in the world of legal scholarship a law review and a legal note don't amount for much.

[Bugpop]

You should read such articles if you’re so interested. The crux of the issue is not a question of jurisdiction, if that is what you're implying.

Bug has been going a step further, his contention assuming that even if there is no question of jurisdiction, the current laws in place are inadequate to address the issue posed by the exchange of money involved in the licensed use of property by two licensees.

Although the legal arguments he attempts to support this contention are not sound, at least he admits his lack of training or expertise in the field, unlike the pretense you and some others in this tread seem to be communicating.

I don't know of any reasons why they are not sound. The explanations were laid out plainly and simple enough that I could see the problems with current Intellectual Property protections. I don't have access to all the legal commentary on virtual assets. I have not seen a single article with an expert opinion and commentary expressing that current Intellectual Property laws are sufficient to enforce policies that prohibit the exchange of virtual assets for real currency. Please don't misunderstand me though. I am not saying because I have not seen any arguments that refute my opinion that my opinion is correct. I am saying that there a lack of stated opinion in my searches that express that current IP laws are sufficient to enforce anti-RMT policies (beyond simply stating it as a matter of fact). My current understanding of IP protections leave me to believe that as written they are insufficient.

[Mojo]

I can see both points of view, and honestly, with the way the courts actually work, they're both just points of view until an actual case arises and a precedent is set. The case mentioned in this thread about the WoW bot was leveraged on completely different grounds so it doesn't really apply to the situation. I would agree that current laws aren't explicit enough to clearly state one way or the other. Either way, legal repercussions are highly unlikely, so it's useful to simply consider it legal but against their terms of service. If you get caught, you get banned. Plain and simple.

[Yugl]

Has SE ever attempted to file a case again RMT sites? If not, it's a dramatic problem that could hurt them as a litigant. That is, why didn't they try this case sooner?

[Mojo]

What incentive do they have to open a legal case against an RMT website?

[Yugl]

What incentive do they have to open a legal case against an RMT website?

Meant to type IGE not website (I was thinking it was a website).

[Mojo]

It doesn't really change the question much, what incentive do they have to open a legal case against IGE?

[Kellanved]

I don't know of any reasons why they are not sound. The explanations were laid out plainly and simple enough that I could see the problems with current Intellectual Property protections. I don't have access to all the legal commentary on virtual assets. I have not seen a single article with an expert opinion and commentary expressing that current Intellectual Property laws are sufficient to enforce policies that prohibit the exchange of virtual assets for real currency. Please don't misunderstand me though. I am not saying because I have not seen any arguments that refute my opinion that my opinion is correct. I am saying that there a lack of stated opinion in my searches that express that current IP laws are sufficient to enforce anti-RMT policies (beyond simply stating it as a matter of fact). My current understanding of IP protections leave me to believe that as written they are insufficient.

The primary problem is that you're employing legal principles improperly. These legal doctrines have specific legal significance, using them in a legal argument without according them their respective legal significance can only serve to confuse any such argument.

Just to make sure we’re on the same page, your primary contention was the following:

“I claim that RMT is not illegal because it does not violate copyright laws. Transferring virtual currency from one account to another account is not a copyright violation.”

On the next page you advanced the following argument to support the contention:

“The reason why SE maintains the right to ban anyone for any reason or no reason at all at any time is because they don't want to mess with copyright infringement claims against RMT (since RMT is not a violation of copyright laws according to your contention). If the courts make a ruling, then it will likely rule whether virtual assets will have value, or no value. If virtual currency has value the part of the EULA regarding ownership of virtual assets may be deemed unconscionable because the playes work and effort accumulated the virtual assets, not SE. A ruling will likely make virtual assets the property of each account, and SE may be more accountable for account security. If virtual assets have no value then there is no consideration for virtual assets and no legal contracts of sale. Then you have RMT legitamately claiming to find accounts willing to give other accounts virtual goods for a fee. There is never a sale, and virtual assets are never claimed to belong to any entity other than SE.”

The above was what I referred to as unsound, I added the logical connection in parenthesis.

You're using contract doctrines such as unconscionability, and valid consideration (required in the offer-acceptance method of contract formation in general) improperly, besides the fact that they are not related in such a way to copyright infringement claims. So there was no cause to reach such subjects in the first place.

Now, the reasons why an owner of property may decide to exercise his right to exclude aside.

As Vodou’s response to the above argument properly noted initially, (before digressing to the obvious and irrelevant points due to your argument being based on improperly employed legal jargon to begin with.) whether “virtual assets” have value would not be the issue.

Perhaps not obvious but whether a thing has “value” or doesn't have "value" is not the basis for the recognition of property rights. “One man’s garbage is another’s man’s treasure.” In general the recognition of property rights are driven by the *consequences* of any such recognition.

Property is a creation of law and does not arise out of value, regardless of whether it is exchangeable. So, the third sentence and everything thereafter are really just gibberish.

Oh, and I certainly didn’t imply or insinuate that the contention was the absolute truth just because the limitations of IP law has long been recognized. (The subject is nothing new)

[Bugpop]

I will keep my argument simpler then.

RMT is not illegal because it does not violate copyright laws. In transaction involving RMT, where is the alleged copyright violation? When a player decides to purchase virtual currency, where does the alleged copyright violation occur? Is it the moment when real money is spent for the virtual currency? Is it the moment the player accepts the EULA while opening an instance of the game? Is it the moment when the player recieves the virtual currency?

The answer is that there is no copyright violation. In the virtual world, a transaction involving RMT operates in an identical way to a non-RMT transaction. Unauthorized copies of protected work are not being produced.

The use of a license agreement cannot create liability for copyright infringement based on activities that do not violate the Copyright Act. At most, such an agreement can give rise to a claim for breach of contract.

[Kyreth]

I will keep my argument simpler then.

RMT is not illegal because it does not violate copyright laws. In transaction involving RMT, where is the alleged copyright violation? When a player decides to purchase virtual currency, where does the alleged copyright violation occur? Is it the moment when real money is spent for the virtual currency? Is it the moment the player accepts the EULA while opening an instance of the game? Is it the moment when the player recieves the virtual currency?

Is using a third-party program to modify FFXI's results considered a violation of copyright? If so, then the usual methods of RMT cash generation (hacks, dupes, 3PP's, account theft) means that RMT's are conducting transactions done via copyright infringement, hence illegal. Just because you're laundering said Gil through an RMT transaction doesn't make the results legal, any more than drug money getting shuffled through a legit company does.

[Bugpop]

Is using a third-party program to modify FFXI's results considered a violation of copyright? If so, then the usual methods of RMT cash generation (hacks, dupes, 3PP's, account theft) means that RMT's are conducting transactions done via copyright infringement, hence illegal. Just because you're laundering said Gil through an RMT transaction doesn't make the results legal, any more than drug money getting shuffled through a legit company does.

Glider is a third party program intended for use while playing WoW. Glider loads an instance of WoW as part of its code. This is effectively an unauthorized copy.

Copyright violations occur with or without profit. Whether an unauthorized copy is sold for money or if it is gifted it makes no difference. The violation is the distribution of an unauthorized copy.

The matter is that while a player may have an authorized copy of WoW, Glider is effectively an unauthorized copy of WoW. It may be difficult to distinguish between the authorized copy on the hard drive and Glider making use of the authorized copy. The law states that an [authorized] copy of a computer program may as many copies of itself as required for its normal operation (consider that a copy of a program is loaded into memory from the hard drive). Glider is also a copyrighted work. An authorized copy of Glider may make as many copy of itself for normal operation. What Glider may not do is load other copyrighted works (Such as WoW) into memory as part of its normal operation.

Now whether or not RMT uses third party programs is a separate matter. Just because we may have the opinion that "they must use third party programs because it would make them more efficient" doesn't mean it's a fact. The actual transaction in trading real money for virtual currency is not a matter of copyright law.

[Yugl]

It doesn't really change the question much, what incentive do they have to open a legal case against IGE?

Money and potential precedent?

Edit: The mentioned incentives are irrelevant to my question, since I'm simply asking if they're ever tried to pursue them. The reason being that it become more difficult to win your case the more you wait after said incident.

[Bugpop]

Money and potential precedent?

Edit: The mentioned incentives are irrelevant to my question, since I'm simply asking if they're ever tried to pursue them. The reason being that it become more difficult to win your case the more you wait after said incident.

So far a player sued IGE for tortious interference with contract. IGE promised not to engage in the buying or selling of WoW proprty for 5 years however. IGE.com still sells online currency including WoW gold right? Read the following article...


Hernandez v. IGE Settles, IGE U.S. Confirms It Will Not “Engage in the Selling of WoW Virtual Property or Currency” for Five Years; Class Action Still Possible | Virtually Blind | Virtual Law | Benjamin Duranske

[Yugl]

So far a player sued IGE for tortious interference with contract. IGE promised not to engage in the buying or selling of WoW proprty for 5 years however. IGE.com still sells online currency including WoW gold right? Read the following article...


Hernandez v. IGE Settles, IGE U.S. Confirms It Will Not “Engage in the Selling of WoW Virtual Property or Currency” for Five Years; Class Action Still Possible | Virtually Blind | Virtual Law | Benjamin Duranske

Very interesting read. Has there been any follow up cases, or are people hoping to fully understand the complexity of IGE's business before pursuing further complaints?

[Mojo]

Money and potential precedent?

Edit: The mentioned incentives are irrelevant to my question, since I'm simply asking if they're ever tried to pursue them. The reason being that it become more difficult to win your case the more you wait after said incident.

The precedent being to lose money by removing a large portion of their playerbase?