Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Joren" data-source="post: 49436" data-attributes="member: 1959">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</blockquote>

Verification