| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Brom
   |
Posted - 2003.12.19 20:22:00 -
[1]
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/fun.games/12/19/china.gamer.reut/index.html
|
Rohann
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 20:31:00 -
[2]
Word....
|
Bad Harlequin
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 22:03:00 -
[3]
in before deletion!
i love the company's argument that the items were "just piles of data in our servers." Oh, like the stock market, currency speculation, and your copyrighted software? 
You are in a maze of twisty little asteroids, all alike. |
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 22:05:00 -
[4]
What an amazingly stupid court decision. How can items that do not exist, belong to anybody?
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Tassadar Beta
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 22:07:00 -
[5]
I believe theres an MMORPG coming out soon which allows players to legally own what is theirs in-game, the name of the game escapes me though.
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 22:11:00 -
[6]
 Quote:
I believe theres an MMORPG coming out soon which allows players to legally own what is theirs in-game, the name of the game escapes me though.
You CANNOT legally own something that doesn't exist.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 22:13:00 -
[7]
Quote:
What an amazingly stupid court decision. How can items that do not exist, belong to anybody?
Guess it'd depend on the details of the case, which the article only hints at.
If approached from an account integrity issue, with failure on the part of the provider to secure the account, it becomes less stupid. The developer is responsible for the security of the servers and the integrity of the accounts on the servers.
If the loss was due to a breach serverside, the mistake was not reimbursing the lost items. Sets a strange precedent. I suspect everyone will wait for MS to change their EULAs on AC/AC2 and mimic to cover themselves.
MS has better lawyers than most 
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 22:17:00 -
[8]
And those items DO exist, in fact. As data. As bad harlequin said, most money transactions today are made without actual cash. That doesn't makes it less real.
free speech not allowed here |
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 22:22:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Baldour Ngarr on 19/12/2003 22:24:44
Quote:
And those items DO exist, in fact. As data. As bad harlequin said, most money transactions today are made without actual cash. That doesn't makes it less real.
The data packets belong to the company. The ITEMS do not exist. That's WHY they are virtual. Virtual means not real.
I guess that means a player could have legal ownership of a data packet. In the case of the Chinese game mentioned in the news article, however, he explicitly does not, and the court's decision is perverse. Further, his argument that he paid for the items is false. He paid for the right to play; he did not, and could not, pay for the right to own, because that was never offered at any price.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Fetty Chico
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 22:24:00 -
[10]
Quote:
Quote:
I believe theres an MMORPG coming out soon which allows players to legally own what is theirs in-game, the name of the game escapes me though.
You CANNOT legally own something that doesn't exist.
ok, give me your SSN and bank account numbers
the stuff dont exist so ya wont miss it
you never seen me cept fo what I type
as I aint never seen you
yet I know you probaly exist and Im sure I exist
------------------------------------------------
Tell my tale to those who ask.
Tell it truly - the ill deeds, along with the good - and let me be judged accordingly.
If this world was supposed to be friendly
CCP wouldnt have wasted time paying the devs to code so many weapons |
Kozak
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 22:25:00 -
[11]
Quote:
You CANNOT legally own something that doesn't exist.
If "items" stored in a database on a server do not exist, then the game on your cd does not exist, meaning I can steal it and replace with a blank disk? If I break into your computer and wipe your data, you should only be upset that I broke in then, not that I wiped your data.
IT DOES EXIST!
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 22:46:00 -
[12]
Quote:
Quote:
You CANNOT legally own something that doesn't exist.
If "items" stored in a database on a server do not exist, then the game on your cd does not exist, meaning I can steal it and replace with a blank disk?
Invalid deduction. EVE, the game, exists as a game. Quad Light Beam Laser, the object, does not exist. It's merely a data packet relating to the game.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Recruiter
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:10:00 -
[13]
The decisive factor in the case was that the virtual items represent time invested, and payments made for the enjoyment factor these items provide to the player that invests his time.
The items were not real, the invested time and effort were. This prompted the court to rule in favour of the demand.
The fact that the item removal was NOT a game feature, meaning it was not a risk that would have to be caculated in by the players, means that the damage caused (time) is the company's reposnsbility. Since time and effort can both be valued in RL currency.... you get the point
|
Lidza
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:14:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Lidza on 19/12/2003 23:20:45
Quote:
What an amazingly stupid court decision. How can items that do not exist, belong to anybody?
I can't agree with u...
Its time and money that u are investing in any game... therefor even if it virual... they belong to u until u decide that u don't need anymore or if a "contract" between u as player "customer" and a company that provide that service is finished. Therefor he is right to claim his virtual belongings... coz was time and money (real money) involved.
Like this game where u invest your time and money to get the things. 
The copyright only applys if someone whats to claim earnings from a thing that doesn't belong to him or if u try to re-enginer or change parts of a software (btw any software is virtual - logical so also doesn't exist phisicaly)
|
Majin Buu
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:42:00 -
[15]
who really cares????
if u steal anything of mine ill blast u to the other side of the galaxy and back 
BoB KillBoard |
Rohann
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:45:00 -
[16]
Quote:
You CANNOT legally own something that doesn't exist.
Then how can Microsoft own Windows(TM)? If it doesnt really exist? I mean an operating system and items in a game are essentialy just bits of data right? Right.........
|
DJPilot
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 00:22:00 -
[17]
I own shares in a company. The shares doesn't physically exist unless I take physical delivery of them. Otherwise they are just bits in a computer but the law views my "share ownership" virtual or not as real.
|
Veruna Caseti
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 01:12:00 -
[18]
Sorry, Baldour, you're just wrong in this case. You can indeed own data, regardless of what that data 'represents' or where it's stored.
Veruna Caseti
Ishukone |
cball
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 02:23:00 -
[19]
Quote:
The decisive factor in the case was that the virtual items represent time invested, and payments made for the enjoyment factor these items provide to the player that invests his time.
The items were not real, the invested time and effort were. This prompted the court to rule in favour of the demand.
The fact that the item removal was NOT a game feature, meaning it was not a risk that would have to be caculated in by the players, means that the damage caused (time) is the company's reposnsbility. Since time and effort can both be valued in RL currency.... you get the point
kudos, all you flunkies that cant understand this explination need to chew on some of these protien treats...
...fear the evil monkey in your hanger...
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 03:36:00 -
[20]
Quote:
Quote:
The decisive factor in the case was that the virtual items represent time invested, and payments made for the enjoyment factor these items provide to the player that invests his time.
The items were not real, the invested time and effort were. This prompted the court to rule in favour of the demand.
The fact that the item removal was NOT a game feature, meaning it was not a risk that would have to be caculated in by the players, means that the damage caused (time) is the company's reposnsbility. Since time and effort can both be valued in RL currency.... you get the point
kudos, all you flunkies that cant understand this explination need to chew on some of these protien treats...
That and the fact that he sued for the money invested in actual subscription fees paid prolly helped a lot.
The way I read the article, he didn't sue for the eBay value of the items. He sued for the amount of money he paid in subscription fees over 2 years. 2 years worth of subscription reversed, apparently through fault of the developer (doubtful a court would find in his favor if the security breach was due to negligence on his part).
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Lord Azraiel
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 22:04:00 -
[21]
I think the real deciding factor here is that his account was hacked and the stuff stolen, not through a normal game method of theft. No game methods were used, a REAL law was broken. Im surprised that they didn't replace it anyways, if proper proof could be given that is.
"I'm comin' for ya, and Hell's comin' with me!" |
Raven DeBlade
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 22:23:00 -
[22]
of course its his "property" he spends his own time and money playing the game and thus gathering the stuff. "intelectual or cyber property IS property.
"To hunt pirates you need time and patience, because even monkeys fall from the trees"
"Any statements made above this line are my persona" |
KIAPieman
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 22:58:00 -
[23]
Edited by: KIAPieman on 20/12/2003 22:59:46
Quote:
Then how can Microsoft own Windows(TM)? If it doesnt really exist? I mean an operating system and items in a game are essentialy just bits of data right? Right.........
wrong, programmers who write programs BY LAW own the program created, microsoft pay those programmers in essence "sell" the computer code they write to microsoft.
in this case its slightly different, the client pays the games owners to be able to "own" things in a virtual world, if the compay fails to safe-guard the game servers and it goes missing due to hacks etc, then the comapy is a fault as they havent held up their part of the contract of supplying a safe server to play on
--------------------------------------------------------
|
Abraxhas
|
Posted - 2003.12.21 02:49:00 -
[24]
Wow, a lot of people know jack sh1t about law here.
Raven is on the right track.
|
Zarthan
|
Posted - 2003.12.21 05:10:00 -
[25]
sure he wont a lawsuit because he sued due to the money he had put into the game. He got hacked lost his stuff and the manufacture didnt refund him his stuff. Thusly the cor ordered a refund on his money. Makes sense to me but if your account gets hacked ccp refunds you so we wont ahve that problem. Also the guy got NO copensation for the tiem he spent, only the money.
_______________________________________________________
Get custom sigs and graphics done here
Unforgivn Website
|
IZON
|
Posted - 2003.12.21 05:28:00 -
[26]
Quote:
"I exchanged the equipment with my labor, time, wisdom and money, and of course they are my belongings," it quoted him as saying of the virtual property he collected online.
The company argued that the value of the virtual property only existed in the game and was "just piles of data to our operating companies."
This sets an interesting precedent. Real time and real money spent acquiring virtual items (data). This case underlines the point that in-game data when aquired using real time and real money can accrue a 'real (non virtual) value'. It would be hypocritical and increasingly difficult for any MMORPG developer to attempt to deny this when they themselves strive to form (manipulate and extend) a symbiotic relationship with the customer's time and labour (in exchange for virtual data) to generate a real income. In otherwords (if a game is being sold as 'merchantable' i.e. fit for the the purpose for which it is designed), then even a rollback, if the customer is not compensated, could be construed as a form of theft. 
"...master! there's a guy in the south village called IZON, he is a Ninja!" |
Crypt
|
Posted - 2003.12.21 06:24:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Crypt on 21/12/2003 06:26:05
I see EULAs being worded considerably different in the near future.
Oh and by the way data is also a tangible item and is considered so by most countries laws.
|
Sanjuro
|
Posted - 2003.12.21 10:02:00 -
[28]
Quote:
I believe theres an MMORPG coming out soon which allows players to legally own what is theirs in-game, the name of the game escapes me though.
This probably isn't what you were referring to, and it's not quite the same thing discussed above (deals more with player created content instead of just aquired content), but still kind of interesting. Seems times are a changin'.
http://lindenlab.com/press_story_12.php
|
Steelrat diGriz
|
Posted - 2003.12.21 10:28:00 -
[29]
Baldour, you are completely wrong there, it IS roperty.
And yes Raven DeBlade, you are entirely correct, owning of virtual objects fits under the intellectual property rights.
Something like: 'Since I play the game ive made it part of my life and culture, what I have and own there is my property.'
This found in Ratifications of of several international conventions, signed by all nations but a few dictator countries.
So the chinese court was in faxt simply following known international law, if not their own domestic one which I know nothing about. |
SwitchBl4d3
|
Posted - 2003.12.21 11:27:00 -
[30]
lol they'd have a field day in EVE
"Teh lord of Nonni"
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |