How is GGG going to stop D2JSP and similar scum?

"

caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaps wrote:

ps: circumventing in game real money trading might arguably deprive company of profits from the use of the service and stuff. that might be fraud though.

That's what I think is going to be interesting when D3 is released. I certainly expect Blizzard to try to shut down item shops, claiming that their activities are directly hurting Blizzard's bottom line, but I don't want to jump to any conclusions when it comes to D2JSP.

You know, different countries have different laws.

"

siis wrote:

You know, different countries have different laws.

lies.

On an unrelated note.. how in the hell has this thread lasted so long?

Because everybody who took part in the discussion is eager to see an official state his opinion.

Ah.. well, I think it is entirely impossible to stop, which is why every online game suffers from this kind of thing in one way or another.

Either it's selling items, or selling accounts, or selling leveling services.. etc.. it simply cannot be stopped. They can limit such activities as much as possible, but nothing else.

If it could be stopped, then companies like Blizzard with huge resources in both capital and manpower, would have stopped it.

it's like asking a politician "how are you going to stop theft from taking place in the city?" they simply can't.

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

Ah.. well, I think it is entirely impossible to stop, which is why every online game suffers from this kind of thing in one way or another.

Either it's selling items, or selling accounts, or selling leveling services.. etc.. it simply cannot be stopped. They can limit such activities as much as possible, but nothing else.

If it could be stopped, then companies like Blizzard with huge resources in both capital and manpower, would have stopped it.

it's like asking a politician "how are you going to stop theft from taking place in the city?" they simply can't.

You're right, but it's sad to see how easy it is for people to have a platform to sell or loan beta accounts, which is already happening.

Well, personally, I think the fact that people are willing to pay for a key in order to play a free game in an unfinished state.. is a good sign for GGG :)

"

dust7 wrote:

Because everybody who took part in the discussion is eager to see an official state his opinion.

But we're not gonna see one, because an official statement of the developer would drive either "side" away from the game. Since there won't be any action taken from GGG against D2JSP, they can't win anything by commenting on that particular topic. It would be a political statement only. I'm sure they had D2JSP in mind when creating the game, they did a lot of research for the currency items and the "no game changing items" in the shop. There's a bit money at stake for an indy developer for that to work properly. But saying "D2JSP is completely okay, spend all your dollars there, we're fine with it" would be undermining that concept pretty much.

"

DragoonWraith wrote:

It's illegal to sell what you don't own. If you claim to own it, accept money, and then don't produce, that would be fraud. If you do produce the item, however, which you exchange for money despite not owning it, that is theft. The right of sale is a component of property ownership rights, and taking another's right to their property is a reasonable definition of theft.

Then how does in game trading work?

At no point does the company lose the item. The company could still do whatever they want with the item. This is only really an issue if the company might be expected to sell items -- i.e. real money trading provided by the company.

"

I'm not a lawyer either, so I could not comment on exactly what the charge would be in court.

Yes you did. You said it'd be theft of some sort.

"

It would certainly be illegal, however. The main problem is that virtual goods are a very new concept and laws have not been precisely tested with respect to them.

Which is why it's difficult to claim that one person agreeing with another person to transfer an item in exchange for money actually hurts the company that hallucinated the items. If you paid me to name a character "dwdwdwdwdwdw" (assuming that's available), would that constitute theft from the game company of a name?

"

I've researched the issue, though, and legal commentors have stated that a company like Blizzard would have a very strong case, were it worth it to them to pursue it.

Who? Why (especially given "...laws have not been precisely...")? Why don't they?

"

EULAs, on the other hand, are legally meaningless, most likely.

That's funny; courts seem to disagree with you. There have been cases finding eulas enforceable.

Furthermore, on what basis can you claim the company owns the items if you reject the licensing of software?

"

Again, it's an untested thing, but most commentary that I have read states that it's extremely unlikely that any court will accept as binding any agreement that is only presented after a sale, and the only signature on which is the pressing of an "I Agree" button.

Good thing here there's no sale for a free game amirite

"

It would, I imagine, go under the same heading that other "black market" affairs would. It's... kind of like ticket scalping, maybe? Certainly illegal, though, and Blizzard will have absolutely no trouble demonstrating damages (which is most likely what has made it not worth their trouble in the past; to get any thing out of it, Blizzard would need to demonstrate some concrete damages, which is somewhat harder with D2 — in D3 it will be very, very easy to do).

ok, so no real damages when no real money trading, real damages when real money trading

"

caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaps wrote:

Then how does in game trading work?

Simple: it is explicitly authorized. Out of game trading is not.

"

caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaps wrote:

At no point does the company lose the item. The company could still do whatever they want with the item. This is only really an issue if the company might be expected to sell items -- i.e. real money trading provided by the company.

It still is not yours to sell. It doesn't matter that they didn't lose it; what matters is that you are exercising a right that is theirs and not yours to exercise.

"

caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaps wrote:

Yes you did. You said it'd be theft of some sort.

I said it was theft, by which I meant that it is the taking of another's property rights without their consent. I consider this a reasonable definition of theft.

"

caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaps wrote:

Which is why it's difficult to claim that one person agreeing with another person to transfer an item in exchange for money actually hurts the company that hallucinated the items. If you paid me to name a character "dwdwdwdwdwdw" (assuming that's available), would that constitute theft from the game company of a name?

Again, what you are authorized to do makes all the difference.

"

caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaps wrote:

Who? Why (especially given "...laws have not been precisely...")? Why don't they?

They don't because lawyers are expensive and it's largely untested; hiring lawyers to work out untested things is even more expensive. See also issues with quantifying damages.

As for who, it's been too long since I looked into it to specify; I'll grant you that this weakens my case, but I've got more important stuff to do than look it up again for an internet argument. The human brain being what it is, I'll even admit I could be wrong and shading my memories more favorably to my case (very, very common, and why professional writing requires explicitly citation, of course), but if you care enough about it, you'll have to look it up. The sensible thing to do is just to assume I'm wrong since I'm not backing up my assertion, of course, which is fine. The whole legal thing has become a massive red herring and we're both arguing something we have admitted we lack expertise in.

It's only distracting from the more important issue, that is, that D2JSP ruins games it gets involved in, regardless of its legality.

"

caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaps wrote:

That's funny; courts seem to disagree with you. There have been cases finding eulas enforceable.

Must have been more recent than the last time I looked.

"

caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaps wrote:

Furthermore, on what basis can you claim the company owns the items if you reject the licensing of software?

Didn't say I agreed with it; it was an aside.

"

caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaps wrote:

ok, so no real damages when no real money trading, real damages when real money trading

Not what I said. Easier to prove damages with RMT, but that doesn't mean damages don't exist otherwise. Determining and quantifying those damages would require hiring people to work it out and lawyers to defend the calculations, which is harder and not worth the money it'd cost to pay those people. Doesn't mean there aren't damages, just that they're harder to quantify.