Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Winchester Steele
373
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 10:42:00 -
[61] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Winchester Steele wrote:Oh it does. It means exactly what I think it does. Nope. Infact a liberal, in the true sense of the word, is against intervention in private affairs and places weight on personal freedom of action, as well as personal responsibility for those actions. You have contrived the term to mean its exact opposite.
You sir, are an idiot who lacks reading comprehension. I won't even waste one more post on such a poor troll.
... |
Winchester Steele
373
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 10:43:00 -
[62] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Winchester Steele wrote:Oh it does. It means exactly what I think it does. Nope. Infact a liberal, in the true sense of the word, is against intervention in private affairs and places weight on personal freedom of action, as well as personal responsibility for those actions. You have contrived the term to mean its exact opposite. That's a libertarian. A liberal is someone who tells other people what to do with their money.
ahh, this guy knows.. you HAVE to be Canadian lmao ... |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
2938
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 10:45:00 -
[63] - Quote
Winchester Steele wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Winchester Steele wrote:Oh it does. It means exactly what I think it does. Nope. Infact a liberal, in the true sense of the word, is against intervention in private affairs and places weight on personal freedom of action, as well as personal responsibility for those actions. You have contrived the term to mean its exact opposite. That's a libertarian. A liberal is someone who tells other people what to do with their money. ahh, this guy knows.. you HAVE to be Canadian lmao
Nope. American, actually. But I do love me some Kraft Dinner. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á
Psychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Eyrun Mangeiri
Schattengarde
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 10:46:00 -
[64] - Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Okay, this seems to be an american thing. o.o |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
142
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 10:48:00 -
[65] - Quote
Yes, and something the rest of the world looks on with some degree of bemusement.
They've basically inverted the terms completely to mean something that they literally, by definition, don't.
Its really quite funny. |
Winchester Steele
373
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 10:50:00 -
[66] - Quote
I'm no American. Sorry. ... |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
142
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 10:52:00 -
[67] - Quote
More the pity, that you should have adopted their deliberate perversions of these terms actual meanings. |
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra Gallente Federation
86
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 10:59:00 -
[68] - Quote
Qweasdy wrote:I'd almost feel bad for him if he wasn't a total prick Pretty much this, seems like an arrogant smug douche, well, a bit less smug right about now probably... |
Grunanca
Doughboys Shadow Cartel
161
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:11:00 -
[69] - Quote
Ai Shun wrote:Silivar Karkun wrote:i can bear with the first page, but the last one was too much.....i understand this game is like real life, but i didnt expect that lvl of bullying with the poor guy, goddammit have some respect with the victim, assholes....... Seriously? He threatens to take real world vengeance on people who ganked him in a video game and you believe people playing the game within the rules of engagement are in the wrong? He should be sitting out a 30 day ban and be removed from the CSM for those threats!
More like 30 days in jail with the guys he claim to defend through his job... If he really was a lawyer, he would know he is merely a word or 2 from potentially be dragged to court for treats... |
Karak Bol
Low-Sec Survival Ltd.
172
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:14:00 -
[70] - Quote
I wonder why until now no one mentioned (or at least I didnt see it) that this guy actually didn-¦t lose anything. You do not own something in eve, CCP just lets you use it. Its in the EULA somewhere. Characters, ships, Plexes all belong to CCP. So no robbery, no larceny, no racketeering, just a guy who lost a game. |
|
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
144
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:16:00 -
[71] - Quote
Karak Bol wrote:I wonder why until now no one mentioned (or at least I didnt see it) that this guy actually didn-¦t lose anything. You do not own something in eve, CCP just lets you use it. Its in the EULA somewhere. Characters, ships, Plexes all belong to CCP. So no robbery, no larceny, no racketeering, just a guy who lost a game.
Ownership of virtual assets is not something that has really congealed in law yet. Could swing either way. Time and precedent will tell. |
I Riven I
Hedion University Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:18:00 -
[72] - Quote
To read the posts in this thread is disgusting.
It makes me wanna vomit. |
Mythrandier
Corporate Scum Northern Associates.
353
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:20:00 -
[73] - Quote
How people can make RL threats over space pixels is beyond me. Yet gankers are the ones who are accused of having "issues".
Hory. Sheet. "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." --á D. Adams. |
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra Gallente Federation
87
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:25:00 -
[74] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Karak Bol wrote:I wonder why until now no one mentioned (or at least I didnt see it) that this guy actually didn-¦t lose anything. You do not own something in eve, CCP just lets you use it. Its in the EULA somewhere. Characters, ships, Plexes all belong to CCP. So no robbery, no larceny, no racketeering, just a guy who lost a game. Ownership of virtual assets is not something that has really congealed in law yet. Could swing either way. Time and precedent will tell. Let us hope it swings the way that will prohibit the taxing of virtual assets in video games.... "Well mr *RL name*, it seems you have several thousands of euros worth of virtual assets on various games. You didn't file those in your tax report!", "Whut? I'm just playing a game dude...", "That might well be but the law states you are required to pay taxes over those, we want 30% of that in taxes, oh, and the 150% fine for not filing it in the first place! Haha!".
Cause that's the route we're heading for if we are going to treat virtual assets in games as real economic assets. |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
390
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:25:00 -
[75] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:More the pity, that you should have adopted their deliberate perversions of these terms actual meanings. JFYI, North Americans, these words and concepts mean something completely different (and closer to their actual definition) in the rest of the world outside your continent. Its also hilarious you thought another guy was Canadian, though he was infact American. And someone thought you where American, though you are infact Canadian. That, to me., is extremely hilarious in this context.
American politics is rather strange and confusing to outsiders. To many Americans for example Anarchism is a right wing conservative economic doctrine not the radical far left extremism it means elsewhere.
Even the politics in America is skewed. Their leftist parties are what the rest of the world would call centrist or middle right and their "extreme left" is actually what the rest of the world would call moderate centre left. in the rest of the world, its the left wing activists that tend to be radical and kill people, in the US its extreme right wing Bible Belters that set bombs and assinate politicians and kill abortion doctors.
sooo ... aside from being a discusion outside the forum rules likely to get the thread locked ... its also pointless when even the rterminology means different stuff. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
2940
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:27:00 -
[76] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Karak Bol wrote:I wonder why until now no one mentioned (or at least I didnt see it) that this guy actually didn-¦t lose anything. You do not own something in eve, CCP just lets you use it. Its in the EULA somewhere. Characters, ships, Plexes all belong to CCP. So no robbery, no larceny, no racketeering, just a guy who lost a game. Ownership of virtual assets is not something that has really congealed in law yet. Could swing either way. Time and precedent will tell.
The EULA you agreed to is a binding contract.
You own nothing in this game. Nothing.
There's no wiggle room for you to talk about lawsuits, or any such bullshit. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á
Psychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
144
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:28:00 -
[77] - Quote
Meilandra Vanderganken wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Karak Bol wrote:I wonder why until now no one mentioned (or at least I didnt see it) that this guy actually didn-¦t lose anything. You do not own something in eve, CCP just lets you use it. Its in the EULA somewhere. Characters, ships, Plexes all belong to CCP. So no robbery, no larceny, no racketeering, just a guy who lost a game. Ownership of virtual assets is not something that has really congealed in law yet. Could swing either way. Time and precedent will tell. Let us hope it swings the way that will prohibit the taxing of virtual assets in video games.... "Well mr *RL name*, it seems you have several thousands of euros worth of virtual assets on various games. You didn't file those in your tax report!", "Whut? I'm just playing a game dude...", "That might well be but the law states you are required to pay taxes over those, we want 30% of that in taxes, oh, and the 150% fine for not filing it in the first place! Haha!". Cause that's the route we're heading for if we are going to treat virtual assets in games as real economic assets.
Yeah, after reading the article I was struck with the thought if it might even be conceivable for The Mittani to convince a IRL bank/fund manager of some kind to give him a loan or investment based on his collateral in-game. I wouldn't put it past him lol. |
Lawson Finch
Sharke and Finch LLP
1
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:28:00 -
[78] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Karak Bol wrote:I wonder why until now no one mentioned (or at least I didnt see it) that this guy actually didn-¦t lose anything. You do not own something in eve, CCP just lets you use it. Its in the EULA somewhere. Characters, ships, Plexes all belong to CCP. So no robbery, no larceny, no racketeering, just a guy who lost a game. Ownership of virtual assets is not something that has really congealed in law yet. Could swing either way. Time and precedent will tell.
Ownership of the virtual assets is clear the EULA, no congealing, swinging, time or precedent necessary:
EULA wrote: CCP is the sole and exclusive owner of the Software, System, Game and Game Content
|
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
390
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:28:00 -
[79] - Quote
Meilandra Vanderganken wrote: Let us hope it swings the way that will prohibit the taxing of virtual assets in video games.... "Well mr *RL name*, it seems you have several thousands of euros worth of virtual assets on various games. You didn't file those in your tax report!", "Whut? I'm just playing a game dude...", "That might well be but the law states you are required to pay taxes over those, we want 30% of that in taxes, oh, and the 150% fine for not filing it in the first place! Haha!".
Cause that's the route we're heading for if we are going to treat virtual assets in games as real economic assets.
There is a recent Dutch court ruling that declares they are actually assets and can in fact be stolen and declared the particular game EULA irrelevant and not binding in criminal law. Though in the Dutch case the "theft" of the in game assets occurred in the real world. Neverhteless it really depends on your jurisdiction. |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
144
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:30:00 -
[80] - Quote
Lawson Finch wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Karak Bol wrote:I wonder why until now no one mentioned (or at least I didnt see it) that this guy actually didn-¦t lose anything. You do not own something in eve, CCP just lets you use it. Its in the EULA somewhere. Characters, ships, Plexes all belong to CCP. So no robbery, no larceny, no racketeering, just a guy who lost a game. Ownership of virtual assets is not something that has really congealed in law yet. Could swing either way. Time and precedent will tell. Ownership of the virtual assets is clear the EULA, no congealing, swinging, time or precedent necessary: EULA wrote: CCP is the sole and exclusive owner of the Software, System, Game and Game Content
The EULA is not law. Its just an agreement. Elements of it may or may not be actually legally binding depending on the laws, specifics of an issue, disposition of a particular judge, of where-ever an issue is brought before a court. You can put whatever you want into a contract/agreement/whatever, but that doesn't mean that those elements are actually legally binding, nor that the EULA itself, in its entirety, is legally binding. |
|
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
390
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:34:00 -
[81] - Quote
Regardles of what "gamers" think this issue is a legal one that is currently unresolved.
The Dutch decision:
http://www.virtualpolicy.net/runescape-theft-dutch-supreme-court-decision.html
Quote:
The court ruled that:
Virtual items have value in virtual of the effort and time invested in obtaining them The value in Virtual items is recognised by those that play the game (including the defendents who went to the trouble to take them) The Virtual items were under the exclusive control of the player GÇô who was relieved of this control The court made reference to cases of electricity theft which is a similar intangible good but certainly has properties of power and control, and consequently can be stolen.
Note the "theft" in this case occurred in the real world, but that is irrelevant to the decision on the status of virtual goods. |
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra Gallente Federation
87
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:38:00 -
[82] - Quote
Hasikan Miallok wrote:Meilandra Vanderganken wrote: Let us hope it swings the way that will prohibit the taxing of virtual assets in video games.... "Well mr *RL name*, it seems you have several thousands of euros worth of virtual assets on various games. You didn't file those in your tax report!", "Whut? I'm just playing a game dude...", "That might well be but the law states you are required to pay taxes over those, we want 30% of that in taxes, oh, and the 150% fine for not filing it in the first place! Haha!".
Cause that's the route we're heading for if we are going to treat virtual assets in games as real economic assets.
There is a recent Dutch court ruling that declares they are actually assets and can in fact be stolen and declared the particular game EULA irrelevant and not binding in criminal law. Though in the Dutch case the "theft" of the in game assets occurred in the real world. Neverhteless it really depends on your jurisdiction. Really? I'm Dutch too and I missed that, have a linky?
Of course there is a difference in hacking someone's account and stealing his game stuff and stealing it/destroying it in the game within the game rules.
On another note and I cannot stress this enough, if EULA does not comply with local laws, law always 'wins'. |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
390
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:40:00 -
[83] - Quote
Meilandra Vanderganken wrote:Hasikan Miallok wrote:Meilandra Vanderganken wrote: Let us hope it swings the way that will prohibit the taxing of virtual assets in video games.... "Well mr *RL name*, it seems you have several thousands of euros worth of virtual assets on various games. You didn't file those in your tax report!", "Whut? I'm just playing a game dude...", "That might well be but the law states you are required to pay taxes over those, we want 30% of that in taxes, oh, and the 150% fine for not filing it in the first place! Haha!".
Cause that's the route we're heading for if we are going to treat virtual assets in games as real economic assets.
There is a recent Dutch court ruling that declares they are actually assets and can in fact be stolen and declared the particular game EULA irrelevant and not binding in criminal law. Though in the Dutch case the "theft" of the in game assets occurred in the real world. Neverhteless it really depends on your jurisdiction. Really? I'm Dutch too and I missed that, have a linky? Of course there is a difference in hacking someone's account and stealing his game stuff and stealing it/destroying it in the game within the game rules. On another note and I cannot stress this enough, if EULA does not comply with local laws, law always 'wins'.
The main link is above the quote in my second post. http://www.virtualpolicy.net/runescape-theft-dutch-supreme-court-decision.html
This bit is also interesting:
Quote: This case is significant because it changes the relationship between individuals and service providers in respect of digital objects. That is, RuneScapeGÇÖs contract clearly states that the players of the game do not own the game or any of the digital objects within it, whether they control them or not. This has long been a contentious matter as there is a large trade in the sale of objects between players for hard currency, so called Real Money Trading (RMT).
This ruling means that there is a degree of control that someone can have over an object which is sufficient for that object to be stolen. The question that has puzzled both the industry and academics for many years is: if a digital object is capable of being stolen, does this mean that other rights accrue to a player? For example, irrespective of what the contract says, can a player:
sell an object? claim rights if an object is deleted or changed by company? claim compensation if a game is closed?
For the moment, this matter is restricted both to The Netherlands and to the specific matter of theft. However in China and South Korea there have been similar types of cases which have made it to the courts, in these judges have displayed a general trend to grant more rights to players than are stated in their contract and to see digital objects as being akin to physical property in certain important respects. The fact that a case in the EU has got to such a senior court and has ruled along the same lines is likely to carry some weight with other cases that may occur in the West.
For details of the Chinese, Korean and other cases see tVPNGÇÖs white paper on Virtual Objects and Public Policy which examines both cases and statute in detail.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
2940
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:42:00 -
[84] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
And Kaarous Aldurald.
The EULA is not law. Its just an agreement. Elements of it may or may not be actually legally binding depending on the laws, specifics of an issue, disposition of a particular judge, of where-ever an issue is brought before a court. You can put whatever you want into a contract/agreement/whatever, but that doesn't mean that those elements are actually legally binding, nor that the EULA itself, in its entirety, is legally binding.
None of that succeeds in refuting my point.
Here, I'll help you. Finish this sentence:
"Binding contracts aren't binding because..."
The "A" in EULA means "Agreement". If you click yes in the checkbox, then you have agreed to those terms. None of which are unusual enough to warrant a legal exception being made. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á
Psychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
144
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:45:00 -
[85] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
And Kaarous Aldurald.
The EULA is not law. Its just an agreement. Elements of it may or may not be actually legally binding depending on the laws, specifics of an issue, disposition of a particular judge, of where-ever an issue is brought before a court. You can put whatever you want into a contract/agreement/whatever, but that doesn't mean that those elements are actually legally binding, nor that the EULA itself, in its entirety, is legally binding.
None of that succeeds in refuting my point. Here, I'll help you. Finish this sentence: "Binding contracts aren't binding because..." The "A" in EULA means "Agreement". If you click yes in the checkbox, then you have agreed to those terms. None of which are unusual enough to warrant a legal exception being made.
You don't know what you are talking about.
There is a reason law degrees take years of study to get, and the ignorance in your assumptions about these matters demonstrate concretely why that is. You are not understanding the important legal distinctions riddled all over this issue.
Clicking a box is not just clicking a box. Signing a contract also does not actually legally bind you to everything written therein. Your understanding and approach to these issues is so elementary as to be almost laughable. You know so little, that you can't even comprehend how little it is that you actually understand. |
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra Gallente Federation
87
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:47:00 -
[86] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
None of that succeeds in refuting my point.
Here, I'll help you. Finish this sentence:
"Binding contracts aren't binding because..."
The "A" in EULA means "Agreement". If you click yes in the checkbox, then you have agreed to those terms. None of which are unusual enough to warrant a legal exception being made.
Binding contracts are only binding if they hold up in a court of law :P |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
2940
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:48:00 -
[87] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: You don't know what you are talking about.
There is a reason law degrees take years of study to get, and the ignorance in your assumptions about these matters demonstrate concretely why that is. You are not understanding the important legal distinctions riddled all over this issue.
We've got a space lawyer here, folks. So please, extol upon me the reasons why you are qualified to tell me what is, or is not, lawsuit worthy.
Quote: Clicking a box is not just clicking a box. Signing a contract also does not actually legally bind you to everything written therein. Your understanding and approach to these issues is so elementary as to be almost laughable. You know so little, that you can't even comprehend how little it is that you actually understand.
Providing none of the terms are explicitly illegal and the signatory was of the age of majority, yes, it literally does. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á
Psychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Benny Ohu
Beneath the Ashes Margin of Silence
2593
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:52:00 -
[88] - Quote
dear boring people in the thread, please stop being boring
Luwc wrote:bump . lets troll this guy out of eve.
no. let's laugh at what happened, let's criticise him for his bad attitude, but let's not harass the dude |
Demica Diaz
SE-1
131
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:56:00 -
[89] - Quote
Dunno, something is wrong with that story. Odd "holes" and if hes WoW player then he should know that max level is 90, not 95 like he claims. I dont buy it. *shrugs* |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
390
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 11:56:00 -
[90] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote: Clicking a box is not just clicking a box. Signing a contract also does not actually legally bind you to everything written therein. Your understanding and approach to these issues is so elementary as to be almost laughable. You know so little, that you can't even comprehend how little it is that you actually understand.
Providing none of the terms are explicitly illegal and the signatory was of the age of majority, yes, it literally does.
Seriously that depends on the jurisdiction.
In the US there has even been conflicting rulings from courts in Kansas and NYC on this matter that has yet to be resolved. If you have access to case law look up Klocek v. Gateway (US District Court of kansas) and Brower v. Gateway (New York State Appeals Court). |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |