EVE Search - Pilot Licence extention

All Channels

Market Discussions

Pilot Licence extention

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
RAW23	Posted - 2010.08.12 04:18:00 - [31] Originally by: SunGod RA Stuff My point with the gambling website was just to show that some countries will consider service made available within those countries to fall under their own laws, regardless of what the purveyors of those services may say about them. You have read far too much into what I wrote if you think I had anything to say about criminality on the part of CCP. Clearly, any dispute over matters such as these would be a civil rather than criminal matter. As to your claim that unless CCP is doing something illegal, the contract you sign up to in order to play the game will be legally binding is simply wrong. Contracts can be found to be illegitimate by the courts without questions of illegality entering into it. See the link I posted above for an instance of a judge ruling that an EULA was not enforcable due to some of its clauses. So, two separate issues: 1. Are EULA's always binding if you sign up to them? Categorically no. Courts can and do decide that they are non-enforcable. 2. Jurisdiction - can an EULA predetermine the jurisdiction that disputes will fall under? Answer: I don't know but I would be very surprised if that particular part of an EULA was completely inviolate in all countries. But even you accept that in the case of the gambling website, that internet business will have to have acted within the laws of the country it traded in. CCP sells its products in countries - those products are legal in those countries - this does not mean all their terms and conditions will be upheld by courts in all those countries, anymore than dubious warranties on washing machines made in Iceland would be upheld in non-icelandic nations. British law, for instance, provides for a variety of consumer protections. A company might claim that they are not subject to these rules but this does not mean a British citizen cannot legally buy their products in the UK. They can and the courts will then uphold their legal rights regardless of any contract that claims to remove them. The idea that you cannot legally use a service or buy a product if that service or product comes with an illegitimate contract is nonsense. Now, whether any of this is relevant to the plex issue is another matter. But it is simply not enough to point to the EULA and claim that whatever the EULA says will be binding in all countries. It won't be unless it conforms to those countries laws.
SunGod RA Endless Destruction	Posted - 2010.08.12 04:30:00 - [32] Originally by: Permabear .. but since there is a direct 'real money' bridge between cash and PLEX it could be possible that the CCP would need a gambling permit (in all countries) in which case those laws would also determine the minimum drop rate? Ah, well.. as I said I don't really care that much as any modern 'real money' is at least as 'fake' as any game money anyway. no. you DO NOT OWN plex. you lose ownership when you convert it from GTC to PLEX. the terms are clear, CLEAR AS MELTING SNOW SLOWLY DRIBBLING ACROSS A DUCK POND OF PURE MOTIONLESS CRYSTAL ON A PALE WINDLESS WINTER MORNING (you understand, the ducks aren't there when the pond is frozen because they migrate, but it's still a duck pond.) in-game items, monies, characters HAVE NO INTRINSIC MONETARY VALUE, AND ARE WHOLELLY OWNED BY CCP. this is pretty clear. you enter a legally binding contract when you install the game and login. selling in-game items, money, characters, etc is pretty dark-grey area, BECAUSE YOU ARE SELLING YOU DO NOT OWN AND DOING SOMETHING THE OWNER OF THE VIRTUAL GOOD DOESN'T ALLOW TO DO EXPRESSLY. EVEN IN SMALL CORRUPTED COUNTRIES, THIS IS THEFT, IT IS ABOUT THE SIMPLEST FORM OF CLAIM TO EVEN THE MOST BASIC FORM OF JUSTICE COURTS FOR LIKE THOUSANDS OF YEARS cripes kings and empresses and pharaohs and the judges of judea and tribal chiefs used to review cases of theft and land-ownership stuff since the beginning of time jeebus h crimplecats how much f* predecent do you think there is for this stuff exactly? plus for you usa people, since you keep vaguely hinting about the usa jurisdiction, do you realize that if you do something with content in the usa that the content-owner doesn't allow as per a contract, they CAN MAKE CLAIMS AGAINST YOU for loss of profit under completely, completely bogus conditions and ask for 250k$ and put you in prison for like 10 years and whatever? have you been living under a rock and not notice all the completely horrendous content-ownership laws that have been pushed behind your back while you have been gushing over american idol? dmca and whatever? you should be pretty happy they make you sign that thing where you will make you claims in an iceland court (although they can ask an iceland court to allow them to make a claim in the usa i'm sure) because really i bet the blizzard-eula is a lot less permissive towards rmt'ing stuff (hi ricdic!) not to mention that laws are often sticken down as being anticonstitutional (since under the usa constitution, citizens still have rights pertaining to ownership of goods and obtention of services,) so wether an eula/licence is or isn't valid at this moment in time is mostly irrelevant (unless you want to make a claim) since it might change tomorrow (and international electronic services isn't a exactly static field) and laws aren't intemporal be-all end-all final words (that's why there are judges to interpret the law, otherwise you could just apply it to the word systematically) and more a formalization of the accepted practices in your society/civilization/tribe/entourage so that people have an idea how to behave and what to expect and have a basic framework to resolve conflicts and not be all OMG I DIDNT KNOW. jeez i am not a lawyer but are you people completely braindead?
RAW23	Posted - 2010.08.12 04:32:00 - [33] Edited by: RAW23 on 12/08/2010 04:34:26 Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist Originally by: RAW23 It's not hard to understand. It's just not entirely clear whether the law in all countries would see things in this way. Legal systems have a habit of not always churning out common sense decisions due to their intricacies. If we're going to fall back on "we don't know what another country would say" then why limit it to PLEX? May as well pontificate whether or not a gank would be legal. Under traditional contract principles of English common-law, there is little to no risk of PLEX creating any kind of problems. Consider that there is NO reason to ever undock with it, unless you are intending to use it as an ingame item. If you simply want to redeem it for game time, that can always be done with ZERO risk and without ever undocking it. Well, if you're certain that this is the decision any court based on English common law would come to then I bow to your greater knowledge. But the little reading I have done on the subject suggests that there is rather less clarity on these matters than you suggest because there is little in the way of precedent when it comes to virtual property. Personally, I doubt there would be any particular problem specifically with the loss of plex to a gank. I'm rather less sure, though, about the general nature of a transaction that converts real money into a contract for game time (GTC), then converts the contract for game time (worth real money) into a virtual object (PLEX) that is redeemable for a non-virtual commodity that is worth real money (game time), with the suggestion that the virtual object, which has been created in exchange for something of real value and which can be redeemed for something of real value is actually worthless and can be simply taken away from you at leisure by CCP because the virtual object that has been created remains their property. The whole destruction by other players issue is just a catalyst for discussion of this wider question, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not entirely convinced that all courts would follow CCP's line on this because it would appear that you exchange something of real value for a token that appears to have real value (the plex) but that is, in fact, not yours at all. What then have you bought with your money/GTC? You haven't purchased an ingame object because the ingame objects don't belong to you, so there is something of a blackhole between the real value at either end of the chain. What interests me is whether a court would accept the legitimacy of this something for nothing transaction when it is clear that the purchaser is really expecting there to be something at the other end.
Phoebe Halliwel	Posted - 2010.08.12 04:45:00 - [34] Edited by: Phoebe Halliwel on 12/08/2010 04:46:16 Appears the "brain dead" are debating an issue that extends beyond CCP's "proprietary" terms. Those quote marks aren't intended to be patronising, for god's sake don't start having another seizure. Legality is based on precedence is it not? In many countries? Until we see a number of cases brought forward we can only speculate as to the results. A commentary on the percieved ethical/moral behaviour of a company we pay (whether by RL funds or in game time spent generating the equivalent) seems entirely appropriate. Why so quick to rush to quote the company contract? Is it possible a company may be found to be in breach of contract, or that the contract is unfair? ed. spelling =P
RaWBLooD	Posted - 2010.08.12 05:13:00 - [35] About gambling laws; if the recessions continue rolling around, you will see a lot more legalized gambling of all sorts. miners-you can: switch, rob, wardec, nerf, scam them, buy below market, pirate them on their way to sell. mining < trading, ratting, manufacturing from market bought minerals,they still wont go away
RAW23	Posted - 2010.08.12 05:13:00 - [36] Interesting article by a lawyer specialising in computer game law He seems to think that the law is currently not at all clear re: virtual property.
Commander Godsmack	Posted - 2010.08.12 06:05:00 - [37] MD You have a troll thread ------- now for my 2 cents = You cant get a lawyer for $1200 Direct methods of gambling with money Poker Roulette ect. >>>>>>>>> Moving plexes is NOT gambling real money
SencneS Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks	Posted - 2010.08.12 06:10:00 - [38] I'm going to ask a question to my buddy tomorrow because of one technical thing that happens when a PLEX is used... You get a receipt.. Receipts indicate ownership an item has been transfered to the buyer. What I suspect is this - An PLEX is an in-game item and not what is paid for but mealy a coupon/certificate for "time". The holder of the coupon/certificate can cash in that "time" by handing it into CCP. In which CCP give a receipt. I wonder how declare PLEX's and GTC's. That could make all the difference. The way I see it is, if a PLEX is just a certificate saying it's good for 30 days game play and CCP have "collected and cleared" those certificates, does the holder of the certificate have a legal right to claim the time. Can the poor guy that had them taken away by mechanics CCP have programed in turn around and collect the time anyway. I mean he was in possession of the certificates and CCP have claimed them but never gave him a receipt and never granted him the time the certificate was worth. I somehow doubt it'll make a difference but from that angle it sounds pretty good.. Court question would be something like.. Lawyer - CCP - Did you get paid for these certificates? CCP - Yes. L - Did you collect those certificates? CCP - Yes. L - Did you give a receipt to the person who handed them in? CCP - No. L - Did you give the person that handed them in any time? CCP - No. L - So you received 74, 30 day time certificates from a player, and you didn't issue a receipt and you didn't credit the person any time? CCP - Yes. Sounds pretty good to me, but I'm tired so I could be rambling Amarr for Life
SunGod RA Endless Destruction	Posted - 2010.08.12 06:31:00 - [39] Edited by: SunGod RA on 12/08/2010 06:32:40 Originally by: Phoebe Halliwel Appears the "brain dead" are debating an issue that extends beyond CCP's "proprietary" terms. Those quote marks aren't intended to be patronising, for god's sake don't start having another seizure. Legality is based on precedence is it not? In many countries? Until we see a number of cases brought forward we can only speculate as to the results. psst, they own all the content, all the code, all the art. you are using it under a rather clear and well written licence agreement. when you login, you are basically on their property, using their property. it doesn't extend "beyond ccp's proprietary terms", they own all the works, they call 100% all the shots as to how it is being used, anywhere in the world. omg berne convention ok, well not anywhere. looks like there's a couple country who haven't signed it yet!
SunGod RA Endless Destruction	Posted - 2010.08.12 06:38:00 - [40] omg Quote: Using certain types of software, or websites may also require one to agree to terms and conditions. Recently, most US courts have ruled that any agreement to terms and conditions on the Internet is legally binding. Therefore, if one violates the terms and conditions of the agreement, one is essentially tied up legally to whatever one agreed to in the first place. LOL WELL I GUESS THIS SETTLES IT NOW CAN WE GO BACK TO WHINING ABOUT LAG
RAW23	Posted - 2010.08.12 07:11:00 - [41] Originally by: SunGod RA they call 100% all the shots as to how it is being used, anywhere in the world. No. Re: your other post - key word = "most". Try engaging with the exceptions that demonstrate the falsity of your position. You are simply and demonstrably wrong. Good trolling though
Cyclops43	Posted - 2010.08.12 07:14:00 - [42] Originally by: Korbin Dallaz I understand CCP claims it is non special but that clearly is not true as no other item in game and be turned in directly for game time. Every item in the game is 'special' by your definition.... A Raven is the only game item which has the ability to have the type name 'Raven'... Is it special? A Warp Disrupt Probe is the only item in game which can be fired from ships and instantly block (most) ships from warping. Is it special? Etc... Just because an item has unique abilities doesn't make it special... In any case, that a player CHOOSE to put an item in harms way completely absolves CCP of any responsibility.
Quantessa DRACONIAN COVENANT	Posted - 2010.08.12 07:49:00 - [43] The interaction between EULAs and the legal system is complex. A EULA isn't absolute. If you click away your soul (as happened in one game for this year's April fool) that's not enforceable. http://nexus404.com/Blog/2010/04/16/game-store-takes-souls-via-eula-april-fools-fine-print-nets-english-game-store-the-souls-of-7000-customers/ A EULA isn't nothing either. You agree to abide by certain conditions that are necessary in order to make the game playable. If everyone could hack, cheat and phish each other's accounts the game would become unplayable the way Diablo 1 did in the 90s. The main purpose of the EULA is to limit the game developer's liability. If the owner of these plexes took CCP to court then while no judge anywhere in the world would consider themselves bound by the EULA they would also take into account that the player had agreed to its terms. One problem here is who is the "owner" of the destroyed plexes? The guy who got ganked isn't the owner because he got ganked and lost them all. The guys who killed him aren't the owners because they never acquired the plexes in game. Even had the plexes survived the gank there is no guarantee that the attackers would have been first to scoop them up. No one, not even someone legally qualified, can say for sure what the outcome of an unprecedented legal situation will be in a court. But it seems to me that without an owner it would be very hard to prove loss. Possibly the entire player base could jointly launch a class action. $1000 between 300K of us - that's about a third of a cent each per account if we win.
SunGod RA Endless Destruction	Posted - 2010.08.12 10:13:00 - [44] so wait, if you sell like 49% of your soul through soul-backed securities and kept 51% voting shares, then what?
Moron78	Posted - 2010.08.12 10:19:00 - [45] I doubt anyone should attempt to answer this question for all jurisdictions. What is legal and not depends on the laws of that particular jurisdiction. For instance, it is stated in an above post that CCP could wipe out all plexes in game and it would be legal. From my understanding the author of that post is either British or American, and it might be correct in those jurisdictions. I strongly doubt it would stand up in a Scandinavian court. (And where you can sue is also a matter of the laws of that jurisdiction. In consumer relations the laws of many jurisdictions are that if you choose to sell to consumers in that jurisdiction then you can also be sued in that jurisdiction. And consumers may not waiver this right beforehand or in an individual buy contract û the right may only be waved after a dispute has arisen.) Firstly I doubt it would stand up because CCP by that contract wherein what was turns into a PLEX was bought has promised the customer gametime. Secondly because it creates a legitimate expectation with the customer that he can do so. In varying degrees Scandinavian (and Nordic) law protects such legitimate expectations. That is not to say that PLEX can never be wiped, only that there must be ample warning. In the same manner Scandinavian countries do not have gambling laws equating US, so what might or might not be legal under one might not be under another. And this equates all the other questions asked about ravens and such above. It depends on the jurisdiction. The EULA is a valid document but if the jurisdiction views the players as consumers it may not be binding in many relations as it may contravene non-derogatory rules of consumer protection, or given the relationship between players and CCP be seen as unreasonable. (Most jurisdictions have rules that to some degree mitigate contracts that are seen as unreasonable, though how far they go in this is varies extremely.) This does mean that simply pointing to the EULA is not enough. tl;dr whenever questions of legality are asked affirmative answers are often provided in general, and often with reference to the EULA. This thread has good exceptions, and their point being legality always depend on the jurisdiction. And should a gaming company ever be sued it only answers for that jurisdiction, the uncertainty remains for other. (Unless dealt with as a matter of federal law in the US and Community law in the EU û those would provide answers for several jurisdiction, at least if convicting.) Posting is an excuse for not working...
Tanmoe	Posted - 2010.08.12 10:29:00 - [46] Loosely related to the topic: Would there be any benefit to CCP if the guy who got blown up was actually a CCP employee? In other words, could it benefit them to get the plex destroyed that way on purpose?
SunGod RA Endless Destruction	Posted - 2010.08.12 10:45:00 - [47] hey what if i play eve from the moon or the international space station and i get ganked in jita with all my virtual fortune in plex'es? then who's jurisdiction is it? where can i put in my claim? what if i'm in a rocket that launches from a certain country but ends up somewhere else when in orbit? if it put in a buy order at launch and gank a hauler while hitting the stratosphere, could i engineer myself some complex market manipulation that would let me benefit while being shielded in a non-legally-binding way? who owns space anyway? could there be a market opportunity in the establishing of ROCKETSPACE JUDGE? ROCKETSPACE JUDGE FEARS NO IONOSPHERE, SPACEJUDGE DELIVERS VERDICT EVERYWHERE ROUGHLY-EUCLIDIAN GEOMETRY APPLIES call now ++-+1-SPA-CEJ-UDGE
Quantessa DRACONIAN COVENANT	Posted - 2010.08.12 10:49:00 - [48] Originally by: Tanmoe Loosely related to the topic: Would there be any benefit to CCP if the guy who got blown up was actually a CCP employee? In other words, could it benefit them to get the plex destroyed that way on purpose? There's obviously a benefit to CCP when any plex gets destroyed. They received ten euros for a service they no longer have to provide. Either the player losing the plex will immediately go out and buy a new one providing them with instant revenue or the plex will not be replaced reducing the market supply slightly which will encourage inflation. That in turn makes it more likely players will buy game time cards to convert into plexes because they will be getting a better deal. Having said that 74 plexes, even the whole amount of plexes destroyed so far is a drop in the ocean. The dev blog on plexes cited 16000 of them in speculator stockpiles. In fact the tendency of players to horde plexes is a far bigger boon to ccp than the new ability of players to get plexes blown up. As long as stockpiles stay around 16000 that's a huge amount of game time paid for and not (currently) being used. Sure they will get cashed in at some point but by that time more plexes will have been bought and placed into stockpiles. As for CCP employees I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make. If you are asking do CCP Employees access the dev tools to spot when people are running plexes then gank them I think the answer is no. There are much more subtle and powerful ways for CCP to cheat if they cast their ethics to the wind. However it would be very risky - this game would lose a lot of people if it became clear that the devs were cheating as part of an institutional policy. T20 was an isolated rogue and was disciplined when caught.
SunGod RA Endless Destruction	Posted - 2010.08.12 10:50:00 - [49] Originally by: Tanmoe Loosely related to the topic: Would there be any benefit to CCP if the guy who got blown up was actually a CCP employee? In other words, could it benefit them to get the plex destroyed that way on purpose? fwiw, 300k accounts a month x 15 = 4 500 000 monthly, while 74 plex is like 1 110. A WHOPPING 0.025% BENEFIT ON A MONTLY BASIS all units are Waffles of course.
Tanmoe	Posted - 2010.08.12 10:57:00 - [50] Originally by: Quantessa There's obviously a benefit to CCP when any plex gets destroyed. They received ten euros for a service they no longer have to provide. But that's not the deal. If I buy (with real money) a Plex , I can choose to redeem it for 30days game time, OR about 300Millions ISK. In the case for these Plex, ppl who bought them first clearly got what they wanted for them : isk. I was more hinting at a potential effect on the economy (isk sink) but ofc if there's 160K plex in stock piles, it's obivously too insignificant to make a difference.
Kithran	Posted - 2010.08.12 11:00:00 - [51] Originally by: Phoebe Halliwel Originally by: Breaker77 There is NO REASON to ever undock with a PLEX in your ship. PERIOD! No need to yell (unless you are on your PERIOD, in which case it's quite acceptable). It's a legitimate question, however it's presented. I think the underlying issue is that all of the plexes were destroyed; if any had been looted, fine. Might have been some whinging, but this looks increasingly like a cynical move on CCP's part to reduce their liability considering there are reported stockpiles of GTCs in game. The fact that every single plex (in this particular kill) was destroyed suggests CCP are using a mechanic to further their own interests at the expense of players. Regardless of who purchased the game time, every single plex destroyed has a material value IRL. Someone has lost RL cash, it appears to have been "stolen" by CCP. Eve might be a "cold, harsh universe" defined by it's lack of "prosecution" for lack of a better word. The real world is quite well versed in prosecuting this sort of thing. Raw's linky is interesting as it uses the phrase "unjustly biased towards Linden Lab". Are the Eve Eula/TC unjustly biased in CCP's favour with plex destruction? We need to see a kill looted, bottom line, to know that the odds are fair. If they're not, then yes, CCP may have an issue on their hands long term. Do agree you don't have to buy/undock but it really appears CCP is the only winner here and the players are all losers, and unwitting accomplice(s) to what many might consider an unethical practice. Actually the fact that all plexes were destroyed is no different to any other item - any single item has a 50% chance of surviving. Any container and its contents is treated as a single item and any stack of the same item is treated as a single item. As the 74 plexes were in a single stack it was 50/50 if they would survive. Kithran
Moron78	Posted - 2010.08.12 11:13:00 - [52] Edited by: Moron78 on 12/08/2010 11:15:53 Originally by: SunGod RA hey what if i play eve from the moon or the international space station and i get ganked in jita with all my virtual fortune in plex'es? then who's jurisdiction is it? where can i put in my claim? what if i'm in a rocket that launches from a certain country but ends up somewhere else when in orbit? if it put in a buy order at launch and gank a hauler while hitting the stratosphere, could i engineer myself some complex market manipulation that would let me benefit while being shielded in a non-legally-binding way? who owns space anyway? could there be a market opportunity in the establishing of ROCKETSPACE JUDGE? ROCKETSPACE JUDGE FEARS NO IONOSPHERE, SPACEJUDGE DELIVERS VERDICT EVERYWHERE ROUGHLY-EUCLIDIAN GEOMETRY APPLIES call now ++-+1-SPA-CEJ-UDGE 0/10 trolling. (C&P is this way ) But to answer the question this all depends on the jurisdiction in which you attempt to bring the case. But in many of the questions you attempt to make seem difficult û and slightly absurd û are relatively easily answered. The more difficult cases are the more mundane of the person which is the citizen of one state, domiciled in another, buying something over the internet from a third state, paying by a credit card issued by a bank in a fourth state and asking to have the goods delivered to an address in a fifth. (I am now not on intangible goods like the ones we can buy from CCP for game usage, but on tangible goods.) Also, most of these are, however, solved with varying degrees of clarity though the provisions in the different jurisdictions on international private law. Actually I find the consumer û consumer sale of in game characters a lot more fun. (There is, dependent on jurisdiction, issues to be had here, even under CCP transferral rules and auspices.) Yes, I know I took the troll bait, but sometimes bait is just too sweet not to nibble a bit at the hook. Btw; as for CCP making money on this, I donÆt think the $ 1000 or whatever matter to them. They are too big. PLEX destruction might trickle in a little for them, but I doubt anything of substance. (It wonÆt pay for a dev team to fix lag...) Edit; I was repeating myself a bit too much even for my taste
Companion Trollin You are going too fast	Posted - 2010.08.12 11:31:00 - [53] Originally by: Tanmoe blah blah (isk sink) blah blah Plex are in no way an isk sink. The purpose they serve is to move isk between players, and to move real money to CCP's wallet, not to take isk out of the game economy. ♥ Originally by: CCP Shadow Off-topic posts dealing with sexual orientation have been removed. Please keep this discussion on-topic. Thanks. -- Shadow
Richard Christy	Posted - 2010.08.12 13:51:00 - [54] Originally by: SunGod RA Originally by: Phoebe Halliwel @ sungod looks like you are parroting CCP's rules without putting any thought into it (cbf responding in depth when you fail to use any punctuation). I'd interpret the argument as; even though Eve players sign up to abide by Eve Eula/TOS if they have an issue and take the legal route, there's the possiblility that the contract could be deemed unfair or overriden by their local court. The effects and likelihood of that happening are pure speculation. What are forums for but not for speculation? Obnoxious stuff in capital letters. at this, and at the OP
SencneS Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks	Posted - 2010.08.12 15:22:00 - [55] I asked my buddy about the fact we get a receipt on usage of the PLEX. He said it doesn't really change the fact the PLEX is owned by CCP. The time the PLEX represents is only given after it's turned in. This is similar to say a check made out to Cash. The check itself is worthless piece of paper, what it represents is an agreement that the holder of the check can go to a bank and collect the face value. If the check is destroyed, the writer of the check still believes it will get cashed unless they know for sure it's destroyed, in which they turn around and clear it from their register. In this case CCP know the PLEX destroyed, so they clear it from their books, being paid up front is mealy their requirement to hand over the PLEX/GTC which represents a block of time use to extend your game play. He said it makes sense why people have a problem with it, on a simple level it's very shady, but really it's all very legal. Amarr for Life
Panjho	Posted - 2010.08.12 16:16:00 - [56] This is an interesting topic. I am not a corporate lawyer or a judge, so this post is just speculation on the way things should be, not how they are. I do know a little about US corporations, but I know nothing about Iceland. cryojin's post got me thinking. Originally by: cryojin Edited by: cryojin on 11/08/2010 21:22:38 Since in this case he actually purchased the Plex with isk, CCP has completed the transcation with the original purchaser and the seller. Sounds good. Originally by: cryojin Beyond even that, CCP owns all property ingame and has the right to make any changes they see fit. Whoa, wait a minute. This statement appears to contradict the first one. How can CCP sell something, but then still claim to own it? That would definitely be fraudulent. So here is what I think is happening. Transaction 1: CCP sells you a GTC. There is an exchange of money and a physical scratch card. A physical card is important. CCP knows that what they are doing is tricky so that make it very clear that they have sold you "something". CCP's store explicitly states: "This is a physical card that will be mailed to you. This is NOT a code that is emailed to you." That is the end of Transaction 1. CCP sold you something and mailed it to you. This is clearly legal. The only thing that remains is for CCP to declare the revenue when they pay their taxes. Transaction 2: You "convert" your GTC into a PLEX. CCP cannot actually give you a PLEX because CCP owns all ingame items. So what is happening here is that you are donating the GTC to CCP. You are just giving it away and receiving nothing in return. Of course, CCP shuffles some electronic bits around and suddenly your account has a PLEX attached to it. But that's all just some record keeping trivia since CCP owns all ingame items. So, converting a GTC is a donation from a person to a corporation. The story ends here. Whatever happens to the PLEX is immaterial since a PLEX is not a real world item. However, my gut instinct tells me that CCP has to be taxed on the donation. I have no idea how Iceland handles gift taxes, but in the US the shareholders of a for-profit corporation have to pay tax on gifts received by the corporation. If I'm right, then CCP is getting double taxed on PLEXs from GTC. That's a bummer for them.
Bernard Schuyler	Posted - 2010.08.12 16:35:00 - [57] Originally by: Korbin Dallaz So we have all heard about the guy that lost 74 PLEX's undocking from jita. My question is are there any lawyers out there that can comment on if this is even legal? I mean someone paid money for those PLEX's and that money was for a service which is 30 days of game time. CCP created a new game mechanic that allows players to undock with these in their holds and when the ship gets blown up as game mechanics encourage, they disappear.CCP completely controls the drop chance on those and in this case all 74 were destroyed. This would seem to me to be a violation of gambling laws as well as some type of breach of contract. The game time has been paid for and in some cases before the rules change. I can understand how no one made that guy undock with that much in his hold but even if only one was destroyed how can CCP legally get away with not providing a service that has been paid for? It would be one thing if they were all picked up by someone else or if it was put back into the game as a hole and credited to everyone's account but to get paid for a service up front and then change the rules after the fact and not provide that service seems shady at the very least. I don't know hwy people are harping on this... Having 74 PLEX destroyed is NO different than having your Titan destroyed, or any other in game item. PLEX has ZERO CASH VALUE. You cannot sell PLEX for cash. Once it exists its only value is game time or ISK. It isn't even gambling since the Player cannot WIN any MONEY. There is a Poker game on my phone. It isn't gambling because I can't extract my winnings from it :-p Same with Eve. No matter how many billions in ISK I win, I cannot convert it to cash.
Quantessa DRACONIAN COVENANT	Posted - 2010.08.12 18:38:00 - [58] Originally by: Tanmoe Originally by: Quantessa There's obviously a benefit to CCP when any plex gets destroyed. They received ten euros for a service they no longer have to provide. But that's not the deal. If I buy (with real money) a Plex , I can choose to redeem it for 30days game time, OR about 300Millions ISK. In the case for these Plex, ppl who bought them first clearly got what they wanted for them : isk. A plex sold is always payment for a potential month's play for someone. A plex destroyed relieves CCP of the burden of doing that work. It's immaterial whether the person who paid real money for it uses it for game time or uses it for isk. The value of a plex is that it's potential game time that will be honoured by CCP if the plex is used. The in-game item can pass through a hundred hands but the real world deal is X euros paid to CCP in return for potentially a month's play time for *someone*. Similarly plex bought for speculation is payment for work that CCP doesn't have to do yet. For as long as player stockpiles exist there's always a rather valuable amount of work that CCP has been paid for but does not yet have to perform. It's almost certainly legal and what would be the point of suing them? If you proved that in your country they couldn't sell plex CCP would simply stop providing Eve to your country and you'd lose a game and everything you had put into it.
Sully Tude	Posted - 2010.08.12 18:57:00 - [59] How many of these "destructible plex is bad m'kay?" threads do we need?
SirRalph Minmatar Nomadic Freelancers	Posted - 2010.08.12 19:05:00 - [60] Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold! Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undock with PLEX's in your cargo hold!Nothing is forcing you to undoc

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.