Roleplaying Game Taken to Court

[Oracular Vision]

Actually, all of you are wrong.

http://www.lgu.com/publications/softlicense/15.shtml

which reinforces something I remembered seeing a few years ago, i.e., fine-print warnings to which you do not sign your name are not contracts. Playing a game is NOT a contract. Paying someone to let you play is a contract in that they agree to let you play and you agree to pay them. They DO NOT get the right to tell you what to do when you are not playing. It is not illegal for them to claim that it is, but it is not valid and has not been held to be so by the courts. Contracts require the consent and knowledge of both parties, fine print warnings do not constitute such. If they frighten off people with scary words, thats what they intend. Notice they are not suing the individuals, but the auction board itself. There's a reason for that - no contract.

 

[omedon]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dragonblade
As someone who studied economics I think this whole issue is absolutely fascinating. Particularly when you look at the hard data compiled by the economist who conducted the study of the "underground" EQ and Dark Age of Camelot economy.

He found that based on real world transactions for the fictional EQ currency, it is being traded for a about one penny per platinum piece. Which makes the fictional EQ currency more valuable than the Japanese yen! And simply based on the real world dollar amounts being traded for in-game items, EQ has a GNP on par with Bulgaria!! And EQ doesn't even exist outside of cyberspace!! Absolutely fascinating!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you please post a link to this article or at least some information on how to track it down? It sounds very interesting.

 

[bmcdaniel]

Oracular Vision-

FYI, your summary of current thinking on shrinkwrap provisions is pretty far off the mark. The Step-Saver case cited in that article has contrary authority in ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996). Most commentators believe that ProCD case is better reasoned. Finally, to the extent that Step-Saver addresses itself to contract law (as opposed to copyright law), the Federal Electronic Signatures Act implicitly overrules Step-Saver, and the draft UCC (which has been adopted by some, but not all states) explicitly overrules Step-Saver.

FWIW, contract law generally follows "objective" principles, which is to say that it is irrelevant whether you actually understood and consented to the agreement, only whether an objective and reasonable person would believe you did.

IAL.
-BM

Actually, all of you are wrong.

http://www.lgu.com/publications/softlicense/15.shtml

which reinforces something I remembered seeing a few years ago, i.e., fine-print warnings to which you do not sign your name are not contracts. Playing a game is NOT a contract. Paying someone to let you play is a contract in that they agree to let you play and you agree to pay them. They DO NOT get the right to tell you what to do when you are not playing. It is not illegal for them to claim that it is, but it is not valid and has not been held to be so by the courts. Contracts require the consent and knowledge of both parties, fine print warnings do not constitute such. If they frighten off people with scary words, thats what they intend. Notice they are not suing the individuals, but the auction board itself. There's a reason for that - no contract.

 

[Joren]

Another lawyer, weighing in...

This issue can quickly become a LOT more complicated. Try these on:

First hypothetical

If I have paid the appropriate fee to a MMORPG, have a character that I have built up on my computer, and then have a guest come over to play the MMORPG on my computer, can that guest play my character? Why?

Second hypothetical

If I have a poor friend who cannot afford to play, can I pay his/her monthly fee (in other words, I own the account), and allow him/her to play on a regular basis? Why? What if I'm paying for my child to play?

Third hypothetical

If I have played for a long while, become sick of my character or of the game, and choose to stop playing, can I allow someone else to pay the monthly fee and play my character, if I do not charge the person anything? (i.e. I "transfer" my account to them, but the account remains in my name) Can I allow someone else to play my character/use my account if I continue to pay for it?

Fourth hypothetical

If I have played for a long while, become sick of my character or of the game, and choose to stop playing, can I allow someone else to pay the monthly fee and play my character, if they agree to give me $10 for the right to play my character?

* * *

I think the focus on the "buying" or "selling" of the company's computer code may be misfocused. Instead, if someone pays me $100 for my Mighty Longsword of Butt-Kicking, what do I do? I choose to manipulate my character in-game to give the sword to another in-game character, the act of "giving" being competely legal and allowed under the game software and license. The problem is my "motive" for making the exchange.

Now, as has been pointed out in this thread, a business, as a general rule, can exert significant control over how its property and resources are used by customers (e.g. the restaurant example). A restaurant could kick someone out for no reason or for some reason, without violating the law (unless the reason was discriminatory in nature). Bringing the example closer to the MMORPG situation, a weekly magazine could cancel your subscription for no reason (so long as it refunds the unearned portion of your subscription fee or gives you a suitable replacement). It seems logical that (unless they have contractually bound themselves) a MMORPG can cancel an account for no reason, or some reason, so long as that reason isn't discriminatory and so long as they refund some or all of the unearned online fee.

Thus, I think it would be within their power to cancel your account for selling a item/character for real money(tm). However, I would argue it is not a breach of contract for you to engage in those activities. In addition, there is little, if any, quantifiable harm to the MMORPG company from the alleged breach, so it would be difficult, if not impossible, to have a valid breach of contract claim.

Way more than you wanted to hear, no doubt....

Joren

 

[Tsyr]

Another lawyer, weighing in...

This issue can quickly become a LOT more complicated. Try these on:

First hypothetical

If I have paid the appropriate fee to a MMORPG, have a character that I have built up on my computer, and then have a guest come over to play the MMORPG on my computer, can that guest play my character? Why?

Second hypothetical

If I have a poor friend who cannot afford to play, can I pay his/her monthly fee (in other words, I own the account), and allow him/her to play on a regular basis? Why? What if I'm paying for my child to play?

Third hypothetical

If I have played for a long while, become sick of my character or of the game, and choose to stop playing, can I allow someone else to pay the monthly fee and play my character, if I do not charge the person anything? (i.e. I "transfer" my account to them, but the account remains in my name) Can I allow someone else to play my character/use my account if I continue to pay for it?

Fourth hypothetical

If I have played for a long while, become sick of my character or of the game, and choose to stop playing, can I allow someone else to pay the monthly fee and play my character, if they agree to give me $10 for the right to play my character?

I'm more familiar with the EQ legalities than the newer games, but...

Regarding point 1: Technicly, no, not according to Verant, although they generaly turn a blind eye since it's basicly impossible to prove. They refused to help in cases where two people share an account though.

Point 2: In the first case it would I think depend on whos name the account res in. In the second case, you can (Verant had to go through this with those new child privacy acts), but you are technicly the owner of the account.

3 & 4 - No, I don't think so.

 

[Joren]

Responding to Tsyr:

I have not read the Verant license agreement or terms and conditions, but...

Where does Verant get the right to dictate who uses the software once I buy it?

GM doesn't dictate who uses the car I buy.
McDonalds doesn't dictate who eats the fries I buy.
Borders doesn't dictate who reads the books I buy.
Amazon doesn't dictate who watches the video I buy.

None of these companies dictate that I can't sell what I bought to whomever I want for whatever price I want.

In fact, I can sell my copy of MS Office if I want, so long as I don't retain a copy on my computer or in hard-copy form.

The concept of "property" in law is made up of a bundle of rights. What property rights am I buying when I buy a MMORPG game?

I have the right to use the software (or not - since the company can terminate my account or refuse to give me an account).

I have the right to sell the software (or not - since it is non-functional without the online component, and I can't transfer the account tied to the software).

So what am I buying? The software is useless without the online account, and apparently I have no rights in the online account.

Nor do I have any rights to determine how I manipulate my in-game character... A MMORPG company contends that it has the right to dictate what my permissible motives are in choosing to give my Longsword of Ogre Slaying to Foo.

If Foo gives me in-game money - no problem.
If I just happen to like Foo - no problem.
If Foo changes the oil in my car for free - uh oh.
If Foo gives me $20 - no way!

I just think it's ridiculous for any company to attempt to dictate what a consumer's permissible motivations may be in using that company's product in the manner in which it was intended.

When we get to the idea of transferring an account, which is an "out of game" item, MMORPG companies have a better position. They can argue that an account is unique to an individual, and that they, as a business practice, will not transfer an account to another person. But my question is whether the account is tied to the person who pays for the account or the person who "plays" the account? Obviously, for business reasons it would have to be tied to the payor.

Thus, if I pay for the account, and someone else plays on the account, and reimburses me for the money I pay, then how is Verant harmed? My out-of-game "contract" exchanging payment for play is none of Verant's concern, so long as the software is being used in the manner it is intended to be used.

Joren

 

[Tsyr]

I think the legal point is that, while you bought the disc, and the box, and the manual, you never bought the space on their server... you leased it. And they do have the right I belive to dictate terms under a lease.

 

[Oracular Vision]

Joren is right.

 

[KnowTheToe]

This is really an interesting concept. I never thought of the possibility of selling such things. I find it hard to believe with allof the cheat codes available in games, that people would be willing to pay anything for the character and items. I guess that is why my wallet is empty.

 

[Tsyr]

Cheat codes? In Everquest? Uhhhh... not last I checked. A bug now and then, but...