| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Velocitee
   |
Posted - 2006.08.30 16:29:00 -
[1]
Linky linky
|
Live Eye
|
Posted - 2006.08.30 16:36:00 -
[2]
Heh, you know when people try to make something out to be the biggest thing in history and you really don't even know what they are talking about nor do you give a sh*t :p...
Live Eye
PS- Maybe they should have joined a bigger corp. Only 30 billion?
|
Too Kind
|
Posted - 2006.08.30 17:08:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Too Kind on 30/08/2006 17:16:45
I'm always a bit afraid, if people openly talk about the isk/dollar exchange rate in such a context.
How can you simulate a harsh universe with shady people, if people think in real dollars and would like their virtual capital protected by laws from the real world ?
It should be clear that you just pay to play in this universe that gives you some 'sort of gaming experience'. No guarantee, that this experience has always to be good, no guarantees for 'your' virtual assets that aren't really your assets, but stuff in the game world that you are free to use as long as it's there.
I really fear the lawyers and judges, who try to protect the <don't know how to call them>, who think they payed for anything else than the right to play and the right to quit again, if they feel it isn't worth it anymore. 
--------------------------
Post with your main !!!111 |
Doh Dude
|
Posted - 2006.08.30 17:42:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Too Kind
I really fear the lawyers and judges, who try to protect the <don't know how to call them>, who think they payed for anything else than the right to play and the right to quit again, if they feel it isn't worth it anymore.
If game companies continue to ignore players and their agreements with them they are begging for litigation and penalties imposed by judges who have different ideas about virtual property and piracy. The legal precedent is already out there.
|
Locke DieDrake
Port Royal Independent Kontractors
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.08.30 17:50:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Doh Dude
Originally by: Too Kind
I really fear the lawyers and judges, who try to protect the <don't know how to call them>, who think they payed for anything else than the right to play and the right to quit again, if they feel it isn't worth it anymore.
If game companies continue to ignore players and their agreements with them they are begging for litigation and penalties imposed by judges who have different ideas about virtual property and piracy. The legal precedent is already out there.
The current legal precedent is that virtual goods =! physical goods. And therefore have none of the same protections.
The current legal precendent is also that reasonable (reasonable man test) EULA's are enforcable to the point that if they say no RMT, then doing RMT and then suing because someone stole your isk is not going to work.
It's going to be a long time before the law interfers with MMO's. And it's not going to be an eve scam that causes it, it's going to be a Second Life or other RMT based MMO that causes the lawsuits. When people are throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars into virtual "land" at some point, that is going to cause a few lawsuits. Eventually the law will incorporate virtual holdings into property law. Hopefully with rational exceptions for games that don't allow RMT to begin with. (you break the rules, you have no case)
Blah blah reserves the right to discontinue, change, alter or remove portions or in whole the game blah blah blah. No selling of in game items for real world currency is allowed blah blah blah.
That couple lines of text that you agreed to basicly makes it very very hard for a lawsuit to be succesful.
___________________________________________
The deeper you stick it in your vein, the deeper the thoughts there's no more pain.
___________________________________________
|
Gretchen Dawntreader
Minmatar
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2006.08.30 18:13:00 -
[6]
In games where the EULA mentions that all game contents including currency and assets are property of the Company, then you are merely renting the right to play with the game contents. They at no point belong to you and so when you lose said contents, you have no standing to sue over the loss of something that didn't belong to you.
|
Artthana
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.08.30 18:28:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Artthana on 30/08/2006 18:28:50
People will try though.
|
Doh Dude
|
Posted - 2006.08.30 18:53:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Locke DieDrake
Originally by: Doh Dude
Originally by: Too Kind
I really fear the lawyers and judges, who try to protect the <don't know how to call them>, who think they payed for anything else than the right to play and the right to quit again, if they feel it isn't worth it anymore.
If game companies continue to ignore players and their agreements with them they are begging for litigation and penalties imposed by judges who have different ideas about virtual property and piracy. The legal precedent is already out there.
The current legal precedent is that virtual goods =! physical goods. And therefore have none of the same protections.
Please cite your source for this "precedent". Perhaps you can start back in 2003 and look up this article: "Court Grants Online Chinese Gamer Virtual Property"
http://www.chinatechnews.com/index.php?action=show&type=news&id=540
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
Kimotoro Directive
|
Posted - 2006.08.30 19:31:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Malthros Zenobia on 30/08/2006 19:34:49
Look, we don't care about ****ty blog sites.
Just because people have opinions on something, doesn't mean their important, altho if if it gets more people to play EVE, good for them.
Dentara didn't steal 700billion ISK though. Pics can be photoshopped, and until I see that ISK in a trade window or via some other means that can't be doctored up (like CCP confirming that he does indeed have that much ISK), he's lying, and his greatest scam is just making people believe he's that rich.
|
bovine syndrome
Amarr
Viziam
|
Posted - 2006.08.30 20:24:00 -
[10]
Heh. I'd say, hats off to the guy!
I'm not too sure what the exact figure was, but it's sure to be a lot.
It all goes to prove what a marvlous open ended world Eve really is. you really can take up any carreer you want. I'm also glad to see him funding events such as the Wacky-Races. At least he isn't sitting on his pile like a fat cat. It may have tilted the economy in some transparent way, but I'm sure all that cash will seep back into the open market sooner or later.
Glad he didn't have any of my money though. 
|
Tentacles Out
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2006.08.30 20:25:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Doh Dude
Originally by: Locke DieDrake
Originally by: Doh Dude
Originally by: Too Kind
I really fear the lawyers and judges, who try to protect the <don't know how to call them>, who think they payed for anything else than the right to play and the right to quit again, if they feel it isn't worth it anymore.
If game companies continue to ignore players and their agreements with them they are begging for litigation and penalties imposed by judges who have different ideas about virtual property and piracy. The legal precedent is already out there.
The current legal precedent is that virtual goods =! physical goods. And therefore have none of the same protections.
Please cite your source for this "precedent". Perhaps you can start back in 2003 and look up this article: "Court Grants Online Chinese Gamer Virtual Property"
http://www.chinatechnews.com/index.php?action=show&type=news&id=540
Dang. You beat me to it. :)
I will only add that while it is true that jurisdictions outside of China do not have to follow this ruling, it is interesting to note that in a country like China a judge was able to come to this conclusion given the specific facts of the case. Point being, western courts are much more liberal compared to their Chinese counterparts.
Dont expect to see a gaming company bring a case to court over the merits of their property rights. They simply have to much to lose if the decision goes against them.
|
babyblue
|
Posted - 2006.08.30 20:28:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Tentacles Out
I will only add that while it is true that jurisdictions outside of China do not have to follow this ruling, it is interesting to note that in a country like China a judge was able to come to this conclusion given the specific facts of the case. Point being, western courts are much more liberal compared to their Chinese counterparts.
Dont expect to see a gaming company bring a case to court over the merits of their property rights. They simply have to much to lose if the decision goes against them.
Don't expect Western courts, masters of the arts of Property and Commercial Law (Business Law = Reasonable Expectation) to be trumped by a Communist Chinese minor court any time soon.
|
Symb Everway
Minmatar
TetraMorph Nexus Inc.
The Imperial Order
|
Posted - 2006.08.30 21:09:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Gretchen Dawntreader
In games where the EULA mentions that all game contents including currency and assets are property of the Company, then you are merely renting the right to play with the game contents. They at no point belong to you and so when you lose said contents, you have no standing to sue over the loss of something that didn't belong to you.
That holds true as long as the only source of disagreement is between the company and the customer. If the IRS decides to investigate this guy for fraud, the EULA will mean nothing.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |