Vivendi/Blizzard sicks the lawyers on virtual sellers

[sidereal]

Where is Blizzard's standing to regulate the out of context transaction?  I know what the EULA says, the question is, is it relevant?  The EULA cannot bind a third party.  And since the "items" (data) are always under Blizzard's control, in fact are completely meaningless outside of that control, how can the DMCA apply?  Blizzard's IP isn't being exchanged, because it's always right where it belongs: On their servers.

--Dave

It's really, really not an IP issue.  There is no patent, copyright, or trademark problem, so IP law has nothing to do with it.  It's just a term of service.  Blizzard provides a service that lets you play with their bits, and if you play with their bits in a way they don't like (including triggering a transfer of bits in exchange for money), they will terminate your service.  They may also fix their bits (moving the objects back).  The problem is with people trying to apply property law to dreams.

[Roac]

Where is Blizzard's standing to regulate the out of context transaction?  I know what the EULA says, the question is, is it relevant?  The EULA cannot bind a third party.  And since the "items" (data) are always under Blizzard's control, in fact are completely meaningless outside of that control, how can the DMCA apply?  Blizzard's IP isn't being exchanged, because it's always right where it belongs: On their servers.

--Dave

It's really, really not an IP issue.  There is no patent, copyright, or trademark problem, so IP law has nothing to do with it.  It's just a term of service.  Blizzard provides a service that lets you play with their bits, and if you play with their bits in a way they don't like (including triggering a transfer of bits in exchange for money), they will terminate your service.  They may also fix their bits (moving the objects back).  The problem is with people trying to apply property law to dreams.

I think it would come back to whether the customer has any rights to the service.  That is, while most businesses claim the right to refuse service to anyone, in reality they would get in trouble if they decided to decline service to all women, or blacks, for example.  I see no reason why Blizzard couldn't ban people for out of game sales even WITHOUT a EULA, simply on the basis of denying service to those they wish, unless there's a law that protects the customers.  Which there may be one(s), but I don't know enough about law to know either way.

[Krakrok]

The problem is with people trying to apply property law to dreams.

The world wide web is the same dream except that it is in 2d.

[sidereal]

The problem is with people trying to apply property law to dreams.

The world wide web is the same dream except that it is in 2d.

Yes, and if you tried to 'sell' a good player on your espn.com fantasy football team to another owner in your league, what do you think espn would do?  And what do you think your chances would be in court if you argued 'that virtual player is my PROPERTY!'?

[Krakrok]

Yes, and if you tried to 'sell' a good player on your espn.com fantasy football team to another owner in your league, what do you think espn would do?  And what do you think your chances would be in court if you argued 'that virtual player is my PROPERTY!'?

Your response is flawed because you tried to take it back into a "virtual game" style reasoning.

Think of it in the context of selling a website or a domain name. What is a domain name? Virtual property. What is a website? Virtual content. And I think there have been court rulings stating to the effect that you don't "own" a domain name. You're "renting" the domain name for X period of time. When you "sell" a domain name all you are really doing is transfering control of the domain name to another entity.

In 1995 the "virtualness" of buying and selling websites and domain names on the internet was ludicrous to most people. Now it is big business.

In 2005, it seems, the "virtualness" of buying and selling "virtual avatars" or "virtual items" is ludicrous to most people.

In 2015, I'll wager buying and selling virtual avatars and virtual items is a commonly accepted practice.

[sidereal]

No, my response is accurate because it also deals with interacting with bits that are wholly owned and operated by a single entity, but which you are allowed to pretend to own for the sake of fun.  Unfortunately, games are the only environment I can think of where people want to pretend to own bits, so I can't come up with a better example.  The number of dimensions is irrelevant.

A domain name is not 'virtual property'.  It is a licensed right to manage the behavior of traffic interested in that domain name.  At no time do you own it or even pretend to own it, which is why you have to keep paying for it.  You are allowed to resell the license.  If you breach your agreement with the registrar, they can take your registration away from you.  Read the agreement when you register one.  A website is not virtual property.  It is copyrighted content housed on real property (computers).  I don't know the state of law regarding whether or not the bits themselves are considered property, or simply IP protected content.  Regardless, you don't sell a website.  You sell the rights to the copyrighted material, and maybe the computers.  And in no case is it an analogue for selling bits someone else made on a computer that they own under a service agreement which stipulates specifically that you have no right to any of those bits.

Edit to add:  It's entirely likely that in 2015 buying and selling virtual items will be a big business, but it will be endorsed and supported by the entity that actually creates the bits behind the items (see Project Entropia) not in spite of them (see WoW).

[Riley]

Edit to add:  It's entirely likely that in 2015 buying and selling virtual items will be a big business, but it will be endorsed and supported by the entity that actually creates the bits behind the items (see Project Entropia) not in spite of them (see WoW).

But the companies will likely be supporting these transactions because either A) The companies that did not went out of business or B) They lost court rulings in trying to enforce their control over the virtual items and have taken the "if you can't beat them, join them" approach.



I still await the day when one of these cases turns up in court and is tried by real laws - that is the only way anything is ever going to be decided.  Having a bunch of people debate it on message boards just doesn't accomplish much :)  The comparisons between the internet and MMORPGs is somewhat silly, but the main difference between them is that there are clear laws and contracts which have been tried in court over and over again to establish what can be done.  In 1995 there were similar debates about what is right and what is wrong in regards to domain names, squatting, IP rights, etc - now most of those are resolved  by the courts.  By 2015, we should have a lot more definite answers :)