About Copyright AND IGE-related

[aeiouy]

Quick question Oloh, I know you are not dispensing legal advice, but are you a lawyer?

On to my question, this has been debated a bit on the official forums, and I am on the very unpopular side of the argument... But many people seem to content that re-selling virtual items to others is some kind of violation of copyright. I don't see it that way.

In fact I think the game companies are probably hesitant to pursue a copyright infringement claim because they are afraid of players been awarded rights to their virtual property and characters.

I am not a lawyer, and don't know everything, even if I pretend like I do in a heated discussion. Why let the truth stand in the way of a good argument.

Regardless, what are you thoughts on it being a copyright violation to acquire an item legitimately in-game trade it to another player in-game and in exchange receive outside the game compensation for it. Be it sending money to IGE, giving your friend a ride to work, or taking your wife out to dinner.

[Feyshtey]

Here's a post (http://www.silkyvenom.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3929&postcount=10) from Oloh in this thread (http://www.silkyvenom.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3).

It covers your question of copyright quite well.

And yes, Oloh is a lawyer.

[Oloh]

Wow, thanks Fey...even my secretary won't do that for me!

Fey is absolutely right. The cliffnotes:

Yes there is a Copyright claim, for a variety of reasons. More importantly, there is a contractual claim. Contracts can always amend the relationship defined by the Copyright Act. So, even if the Copyright Act did not provide a solution (which, again, it does), the parties could agree to a solution by contract.

[aeiouy]

Thanks for the point to the other post.

I might ask why someone couldn't allow someone else to play half their putt-putt holes for them. The holes were paid for, so why couldn't I play 9 holes and then let someone else play the other 9 holes.

Surely Putt-Putt could tell you, that you could not do that, and they could even kick you out... But legally, is it clear that someone would be unable to do that? What is the violation? I don't agree with the concept that a copyright holder can just make up any rules they want and everyone simply has to accept them. That seems to seriously supercede the entire original intent of copyrights.

In a general sense, is there any responsibility of a copyright holder to enforce their copyright restrictions in a equivelent manner? I know companies must protect their trademarks or fear losing them. Is it possible for copyright holders to pick and choose who and how they enforce their policy? Can they only enforce it for some people but not others? My guess is yes they can... but I really have no idea.

I know the copyright laws are extremely complex so I appreciate you excusing my ignorance here. How do things like coupons and free game passes etc work for something like putt-putt? If putt putt gives me a generic free game pass, I can go out and pretty much give that to whomever I want in exchange for whatever I want, and the person can come to putt-putt and play. As far as I can tell, unless they marked it with some kind of specific name or access to use, they can't really prevent you from selling that access to their business.

Finally, just to screw this analogy up a bit more, what if I am on a putt-putt course and I was given a green ball by the employee and someone else got a red ball. Halfway through the game we switched balls. Heck I even paid the guy $5 to switch balls. I am not violating Putt-Putt's copyright, I am not doing anything illegal. If they wanted to make a rule that you can not switch balls, they certainly could. They could even kick me out, if they caught me. But they are not going to be able to win a civil action against me for what happened.

I think Game Developers have a lot of problems in this area when it comes to protecting their games. I think they face the real possibility of losing control over virtual property to players. I also think if they go around suing players ununiformly they are going to open themselves up to discrimination issues. they going to go after the guy who bought 10 plat from IGE, but the guy who got 10 plat from his wife because he washed her car.

Regardless, I am out of my depth, but I do believe the game developers/publishers want to avoid testing this in court for as long as possible, because the upside is not terribly high for them and the downside is fairly low.

[Feyshtey]

Your example of playing half the holes at putt putt doesn't really sound like a copyright issue to me. But I'm not a laywer.

Putt putt isn't intelectual property, or artistic representation, or print.

Regardless, by paying for the round of golf, you paid for your right to play a round of golf. No more, no less. It's not transferable if that's the rules of that particular course. And yes, it's enforceable. Most courses go so far as to say that you're not allowed on the course at all, unless you have paid for your round, except of course for your caddy being along with you. And if your caddy were to hit so much as one ball without paying the course to do so (not you, the course), you could both be tossed. It's not putt putt, but the reasoning is the same.

You pay for a service. Accepting funds to transfer that service to anyone else is not in the agreement you made with the course. The course is under absolutely no obligation to honor any deal you made with anyone else when it concerns the service at the course.

[panjandrum]

I think the way they get around that is the same as the 'escort' services operating in most major cities. Strictly speaking you are not buying an item from I.G.E or anyone else, you are merely paying for the time they spent acquiring the item. the trading of items in game does not in any way violate terms of service. The sticking point is the terms of the trade. If I find the uber sword of slaying all and give it to a friend, that's ok. But if he then buys me a drink for giving him the sword it's wrong?

Edit: I have never, nor likely will used any of the offline selling services and am not a lawyer...but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once.

[aeiouy]

For the record, the Putt-Putt analogy was not mine. It was one someone else used, so I just stretched it for continuity.

:)

[Feyshtey]

For the record, the Putt-Putt analogy was not mine. It was one someone else used, so I just stretched it for continuity.

:)

Actually, I think it was Oloh that used it :)

I think the way they get around that is the same as the 'escort' services operating in most major cities. Strictly speaking you are not buying an item from I.G.E or anyone else, you are merely paying for the time they spent acquiring the item. the trading of items in game does not in any way violate terms of service. The sticking point is the terms of the trade. If I find the uber sword of slaying all and give it to a friend, that's ok. But if he then buys me a drink for giving him the sword it's wrong? Escort services are perfectly legal. Escort services who have employees who 'donate' additional 'services' during the course of the escort are not.

You can try to rationalize it any way you like. But if someone is deliberately playing a game of symantics to get around the terms of the EULA, they are guilty. Your friend buying you a drink because you gave him an uber sword is not remotely the same as a company (or individual) who gives a perfect stranger in-game items in exchange for real-world cash. You know it as well as anyone.

You can call it paying for the time it took to get the item. You can say your just charging a courier fee. But the truth at the end is that you bought the item (or sold it). Both the buyer and the seller know the reality. They even know it well enough to change their description to try to circumvent the truth.

And regardless, the whole paying for the time it took to get the item (or gold) is a farse. Are you trying to tell me that the real-world price being saught for the items is based on the time it took to get it? Hell no. It's based on the value of the item. It wouldn't matter if a seller got really lucky and got the item in 5 minutes, or it took him 100 days. He's going to sell that item for the market value of the item. Not based on some hourly scale. Which means without question that the item is being sold, not the time being spent to acquire it.

[Dillgaar]

the problem is that the putt putt analogy doesn't fit with the world of MMOGs.

When you play putt putt you are paying a rental (for one round) of putt putt on their course with the llowance for the use of their equipment (putter and ball)

In Vanguard you aren't renting reusable resources. You are licensing the use of their software and connection to their servers while under THEIR control. You have no right to the software nor to anything that comes from your time using the software (characters, levels, gear, etc)

Therefore if you sell items you are actually breaking the licensing agreement because now you have gone outside of your agreement specifically between you and the company which expressly allows you and only you to the rights to USE the resources based upon your use of their game. Each player agrees to this when clicking "I agree" to the EULA and therefore agrees to these restrictions if tey wat to play the game.

EDIT: to clarify a bit more, in game, resource trading is fine because of the fact it is one resource being traded for another without any external influence. going outside of the boundries of the game is the problem and where the breakage occurrs. Bringing in game resources to an external source would be like taking one putt putt course's ball and putter and using it to play on another course. It would be very frowned upon, and illegal.

[Raya]

Interesting thread here.

I think a better analogy might be of that between an MMO and a movie. When you plunk down your $8 or however much it costs to see a movie, you are not buying anything. You are RENTING a seat in the movie theater with the express purpose of watching a movie. You are not entitled to any part of that movie...nor do you have any claim on the stars, the scenery, the dialogue, the story. You are simply renting space in the theater that portrays a different world than the one in which you live.

Obviously the analogy breaks down when it comes to trading in-game things, but I think on an overall view it fits. It makes sense to me anyhow :)

[panjandrum]

I understand that the 'paying for time' thing does not pass a smell test, I'm still wondering if it will pass a legal test. If that's not the one that IGE et al are using then why has no developer shut them down? Is it purely lack of reason? Laziness?

I just think that there are enough threads everywhere complaining about this activity that some developer would have shut them down if they could.

At a certain doesn't it become, I'm betting there is a legal term for this but can't drag it out, basically acceptable due to lack of enforcement? Along the lines of driving about 10mph over the speed limit or any other number of overlooked crimes.

Again, just playing devil's advocate here.

[Martuk]

Wow, thanks Fey...even my secretary won't do that for me!

Fey is absolutely right. The cliffnotes:

Yes there is a Copyright claim, for a variety of reasons. More importantly, there is a contractual claim. Contracts can always amend the relationship defined by the Copyright Act. So, even if the Copyright Act did not provide a solution (which, again, it does), the parties could agree to a solution by contract.

That was an excellent read Oloh. I have to say one thing. I'm glad your on our side. :D