Trade Feedback and Suggestion

"

robmafia wrote:

...

Well, state how it is otherwise then, because in this case I might've made a small misnaming, but the core is absolutely true.

So, go ahead, sources from your side this time, I provided them from mine already with the videos where the sources are posted in as well as the documents stating how goods versus services is handles as well as intellectual property and licenses.

"

Kulze wrote:

Well, state how it is otherwise then.

literally already have.

"

robmafia wrote:

"

Kulze wrote:

Well, state how it is otherwise then.

literally already have.

Source.

Just ignore robmafia. He has trolled every trade thread for years. And will continue to do so for decades to come. He has nothing better to do with his life.

"

TheLockedGuy wrote:

Just ignore robmafia. He has trolled every trade thread for years. And will continue to do so for decades to come. He has nothing better to do with his life.

I know, but now everybody sees he's talking shit :p Unless he's providing actual sources... which I did, proving him wrong for everyone to see in plain sight :)

lolz!

you just threatened to sue tencent over a "good" that you paid... nothing for, because the "license" (lolz!) is free.

but I'M a troll for laughing at this lunacy and pointing out some of the many, MANY flaws?

poe 2019 - pretend lawyer edition

ffs, you literally described a service (and referred to it as a service)... and then insisted this is about a "good."

the best part about this nonsense is that if you actually believed the tripe you typed, you'd be filing a lawsuit.

ie: you're pretending to be a lawyer on a forum for a video game... that you're pretending to sue. and instead of admitting that you don't have a freakin' clue about any of this, you keep cramming pixelated feet into your mouth.

"

robmafia wrote:

you just threatened to sue tencent over a "good" that you paid... nothing for, because the "license" (lolz!) is free.

First reason why you're full of shit, especially in this topic:

I never said I will do it, I said GGG should be mindful about it. Also you didn't get the example from before at all, which lets me once again think you're either fairly dumb or aren't even reading, let#s say second as this is the better option.

"

robmafia wrote:

ffs, you literally described a service (and referred to it as a service)... and then insisted this is about a "good."

Second reason why you're full of shit.

You don't take the time to check the sources and then say it wrong.
An unlimited license = a good
A limited License = a service
Providing infrastructure = a service

Discern multiple layers of the business-model.

"

robmafia wrote:

the best part about this nonsense is that if you actually believed the tripe you typed, you'd be filing a lawsuit.

The third reason why you're full of shit.

I already said that it doesn't apply to this moment in time, hence it's not possible to do so. The only persons able to file an actual lawsuit are those which aren't going against the ToS of the server and are banned nonetheless WHILE also having payed for things in the game.
Hence they would've been blocked from accessing their product and therefore GGG would be legally liable to give them the money spent back.


And with this basically everything is said completely. You didn't provide sources going against it. You didn't read the posts I made, you didn't even check the sources I posted. Hence... your talk is worthless waste of space, the only good thing to do with it is answering in ever more precise ways which will maybe inform players or help GGG looking out for future liabilities which are... fairly new as people are getting knowledge about those only slowly.

*whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh*

the "license" you keep focusing on, for reasons that would defy ANY juris doctor, is FREE.

you're threatening to sue for something that you did not pay anything for. what damages can you attain from a loss of... nothing?

i keep giving you hints but you just insist on doubling-down, each time.

"

Hence they would've been blocked from accessing their product and therefore GGG would be legally liable to give them the money spent back.

lolz!

lolz @ saying i'm full of shit because i didn't check your invalid, n/a sources! ffs!

"

Kulze wrote:

"

robmafia wrote:

good luck suing a new zealand-based company owned by a chinese conglomerate based on whatever country's law/precedent you're hoping to use as a basis.

hold your breath, i'm sure it will work!

Gladly my country offers insurance which gets me cost-free through ALL instances regarding that should it ever come to the situation it's needed.

Also, yes, my chances to win are massive since our law purely goes by facts instead of personal decisions, unlike america once again.

Also, even if it would come to such a situation it's most likely not worth the effort for me, so GGG has nothing to fear, though they have from anyone else with knowledge in this regard and too much time.

Also, good luck trying to get up against the law-gears of the EU as a company, if you're sued there you'll either have to follow the steps which are asked for (In this case it would be a full refund for all payments, nothing else, that's what our law states)... or leave permanently, those are the 2 choices given, others don't exist.
My win-chance is actually nearly 100% here. Nearly because it's still a precedent regarding licenses and ongoing services where you pay something while it not being a subscription (hence time-based) license (Which would be an actual service instead of a good by the way).

"

robmafia wrote:

FACT: you don't own the game in any capacity and you're not a customer.

You're right, I don't own the game, I own the license to the game, big difference. That's what I own, important.
Also yes, by paying any amount of money to receive any amount of stuff I'm automatically a customer by definition.

You're really not the smartest to argue about law regarding a country you're most likely not even aware how it works. Just to say.

bump for this legal slam-dunk.

@Robmafia You have yet to provide any link to show why he is wrong. I am no law expert but Kulze is showing his sources and is making sounded arguments as YOU, on the other hand, are simply saying "You are wrong because I disagree and think you are aridiculous idiot".

IF I had to choose between both arguments, I will go with to one who is trying his best to explain his point of view and showing different sources for me to check.

@Kulze I can say it would make sense in general, but there is a flaw in your base logic.

IF there is a Fruit market that sells bad apple, I can complain about the product quality, but If I sue them, I will lose because nothing forced me to buy said apple. If the apple looked good and cause me food poisoning because it was bad, then I can sue and win because it caused me some sort of health hazard.
IF I need a Membership card and their product becomes shitty over the years, then I can sue.

SO in the end, as long as there is not direct hazard to me or my belongings (Game suddenly cause my PC to fry for example) we are not able to win Lawsuits.

In the end, we can complain about the product we paid for, but our voice over the quality of the game is just one as fans, not as costumers since we did not buy a copy of the game itself.

About TOS and removing service to people after buying. I suggest you go look into Rainbow6:Siege and banning players for hacking and harassing. Perma ban removes the ability to play a paid product and they are no lawsuit pending(There is a lot of ban waves). Care to explain how Ubisoft can get away with it while their HQ is based in EU?