Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the EU

Anything, including off-topic posts

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, PsiVen, Sabindeus, Aergis

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby Shoju » Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:25 pm

On Mounts: And Like I said, I'm in the camp that feels that they should have been simply removed. I was originally unhappy, but have since changed stances on the lost T7 Glory Mounts, and the original Bear Mount. It should have been removed, continuously, and held as a reward for those who were able to achieve it when it was relevant.

This means, that I wouldn't have my Uld drake or my Sarth drake (on Onisu), but I'm ok with that. I think that those who were able to clear the content when it was the most difficult should have those.

On owning virtual goods in a video game.
That's probably what it boils down to. As I start working on game development on my own, I'm realizing that I don't particularly care for the idea of someone using the code, and collecting the widgets, and then making a profit from it. This, coupled with my.... "moral code" as some have called it, just leaves me with the sense that you purchased the game, you purchased the subscription, not the right to sell the digital stuff you gained access to while owning it.

There are some virtual goods that I am 100% on board with ownership of. But they are "complete" virtual goods, as opposed to components of something else.

(purchasing music from itunes or similar, as compared to characters in a video game)
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby halabar » Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:36 pm

Shoju wrote:On Mounts: And Like I said, I'm in the camp that feels that they should have been simply removed. I was originally unhappy, but have since changed stances on the lost T7 Glory Mounts, and the original Bear Mount. It should have been removed, continuously, and held as a reward for those who were able to achieve it when it was relevant.

This means, that I wouldn't have my Uld drake or my Sarth drake (on Onisu), but I'm ok with that. I think that those who were able to clear the content when it was the most difficult should have those.

On owning virtual goods in a video game.
That's probably what it boils down to. As I start working on game development on my own, I'm realizing that I don't particularly care for the idea of someone using the code, and collecting the widgets, and then making a profit from it. This, coupled with my.... "moral code" as some have called it, just leaves me with the sense that you purchased the game, you purchased the subscription, not the right to sell the digital stuff you gained access to while owning it.

There are some virtual goods that I am 100% on board with ownership of. But they are "complete" virtual goods, as opposed to components of something else.

(purchasing music from itunes or similar, as compared to characters in a video game)


IF the mounts had been removed (like the gun that I want) then I would agree with you. But, since they are RNG drops, all's fair.

Regarding the goods, what I'm really saying is that we need to look at EULA/TOS's overall, and address the issue of virtual ownership. At some point, avatars, goods, and time-based rewards begin to have value. How does that translate to ownership?.. it's a big question.

What happens when users bring content into the games (maps, designs, etc)? Look at the current mess with the community-driven stuff that Blizz and I-forget-the-other-company were fighting over.
Amirya wrote:... because everyone needs a Catagonskin rug.

twinkfist wrote:i feel bad for the Mogu...having to deal with alcoholic bears.
User avatar
halabar
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:21 am
Location: <in the guild that shall not be named>

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby Shoju » Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:06 pm

I disagree. There is a valid way to get them now, I don't think that they need to be even further devalued throught he BMAH.

To me, I just can't see how there is value associated with a character / account in WoW or other video games, unless you are going to start pricing it like a job. Paying someone for the time not the product, since the "product" is a collection of components from a larger construct, in this case, the video game. The EULA spells out that you don't own the characters, the items, the goods, and that you are not allowed to sell them.

In a game like second life, where the user can bring about their own "goods", it's indeed more difficult. From what I understand, the artist maintains the original copyright. Meaning that you could run in to problems attempting to sell a second life account because of copyright law, and the form of copyright law that their production is protected by.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby halabar » Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:36 pm

Shoju wrote:I disagree. There is a valid way to get them now, I don't think that they need to be even further devalued throught he BMAH.

To me, I just can't see how there is value associated with a character / account in WoW or other video games, unless you are going to start pricing it like a job. Paying someone for the time not the product, since the "product" is a collection of components from a larger construct, in this case, the video game. The EULA spells out that you don't own the characters, the items, the goods, and that you are not allowed to sell them.

In a game like second life, where the user can bring about their own "goods", it's indeed more difficult. From what I understand, the artist maintains the original copyright. Meaning that you could run in to problems attempting to sell a second life account because of copyright law, and the form of copyright law that their production is protected by.


And we can agree to disagree on the mounts.

And the bolded statement is correct. But what I am saying is that the broad context of that needs to be reviewed, and possibly changed. Right now that are no laws governing it, so we are starting at ground zero. Blizz has opened this can of worms by selling mounts and pets. Since the items aren't earned in-game, and in most cases the purchase involves just that virtual item, that's where a good lawyer might be able to start a challenge. (The way around this would be to sell a pass, that happens to include mounts and pets, but Blizz is going the exact opposite way, making the purchased pets untradeable in Pokewow.)
Amirya wrote:... because everyone needs a Catagonskin rug.

twinkfist wrote:i feel bad for the Mogu...having to deal with alcoholic bears.
User avatar
halabar
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:21 am
Location: <in the guild that shall not be named>

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby Darielle » Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:05 pm

The mounts being available now doesn't make them "fair game" - the point of making them available but not guaranteed was to preserve their "exclusiveness". That is the thing that makes those mounts different from a mount awarded at sheer randomness - like Midnight, which was definitely not hard to obtain, but still feels special to have.

It's entirely possible they'd change their minds on the issue; but there's be 20 other steps like reintroducing mounts people can't obtain anymore first.
Darielle
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby Skye1013 » Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:15 pm

Darielle wrote:The mounts being available now doesn't make them "fair game" - the point of making them available but not guaranteed was to preserve their "exclusiveness".

I'm still not seeing how this makes them any less exclusive... it's not like you can go to the BMAH and always see one up for purchase. It will still be RNG. At this point we don't know how much RNG, but they could easily keep the exclusiveness by making it only show up 1% of the time (or less, depending what all will be purchaseable through it.)

All the BMAH would do is remove the need to go to the raid with X number of other people (which X decreases for each xpac) to see it have a chance to drop.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3549
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby Darielle » Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:31 am

I'm still not seeing how this makes them any less exclusive... it's not like you can go to the BMAH and always see one up for purchase. It will still be RNG. At this point we don't know how much RNG, but they could easily keep the exclusiveness by making it only show up 1% of the time (or less, depending what all will be purchaseable through it.)

All the BMAH would do is remove the need to go to the raid with X number of other people (which X decreases for each xpac) to see it have a chance to drop.


It makes it less exclusive by every definition. It's another source to obtain it on top of the sources that already exist(ed). It's not like they're swapping one source of obtaining for another in the case of % chance - they're just adding more mounts into the pool, and making the ones that people did earn less rare. In the case of mounts that are just sheer rng as opposed to mounts awarded for hard boss kills, it just has no achievement/accomplishment to work against.

The mounts aren't even the thing they're making annoying less exclusive. T3 being reintroduced is worse.

Yogg-0 is something where taking less and less people gets limited by Sanity anyway.
Darielle
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby halabar » Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:38 am

Darielle wrote:T3 being reintroduced is worse..


Isn't that available from DMF anyway? It's all tmog gear now anyway.
Amirya wrote:... because everyone needs a Catagonskin rug.

twinkfist wrote:i feel bad for the Mogu...having to deal with alcoholic bears.
User avatar
halabar
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:21 am
Location: <in the guild that shall not be named>

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby Shoju » Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:46 am

halabar wrote:
Darielle wrote:T3 being reintroduced is worse..


Isn't that available from DMF anyway? It's all tmog gear now anyway.


and to me that is a shame. I really would have liked to see that reserved for those who had it, and I never had a piece of it. In the guild bank I gave to BLDavis, there is a wartorn plate scrap that I won during late BC on a run, but I never got more than that.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby halabar » Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:11 am

Shoju wrote:
halabar wrote:
Darielle wrote:T3 being reintroduced is worse..


Isn't that available from DMF anyway? It's all tmog gear now anyway.


and to me that is a shame. I really would have liked to see that reserved for those who had it, and I never had a piece of it. In the guild bank I gave to BLDavis, there is a wartorn plate scrap that I won during late BC on a run, but I never got more than that.


Come on.. do you actually really even like T3? at least for me, the hunter T3 is Meh at best, and the recolors are actually better looking. I think T3 is romaticized since the original raid is no longer around. If T2 wasn't available, people would be just as up in arms about that, and most of T2 was butt-ugly.

This argument is trending towards the lawnchairs, and I can do that as well.. I'm not thrilled that Blizz is introducing non-rare non-exotic versions of some of the pet skins that were previously only exotic rares. I put in the time and effort to get those rares, and now everyone can have them. Woe is me.
Amirya wrote:... because everyone needs a Catagonskin rug.

twinkfist wrote:i feel bad for the Mogu...having to deal with alcoholic bears.
User avatar
halabar
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:21 am
Location: <in the guild that shall not be named>

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby Darielle » Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:32 am

T3 isn't available at the DMF.

It's like any other tier - some look nice, some look amazing (Priest, Warrior), some look bad, Hunter looks terrible. But it IS exclusive, and they made the choice to preserve that specifically by recolouring T7 instead of using the same colour. Friend of mine still gets whispers about using the original Faith set on his priest and has to explain to people it isn't available anymore.

Me and a friend of mine get glances every time because we have Hydra pets. The original Spirit Wolf back when they revamped Dustwallow that required a Priest to MC and a Hunter to use Tame Beast with Heroism to get it was also amazing for a while.
Darielle
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby Shoju » Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:14 am

halabar wrote:Come on.. do you actually really even like T3? at least for me, the hunter T3 is Meh at best, and the recolors are actually better looking. I think T3 is romaticized since the original raid is no longer around. If T2 wasn't available, people would be just as up in arms about that, and most of T2 was butt-ugly.

This argument is trending towards the lawnchairs, and I can do that as well.. I'm not thrilled that Blizz is introducing non-rare non-exotic versions of some of the pet skins that were previously only exotic rares. I put in the time and effort to get those rares, and now everyone can have them. Woe is me.


No. I hate it Tier 3 sets for a lot of the classes. Warrior, Warlock, Priest, come to mind as cool. But that isn't the point. Remember, I left my paladin in the dust a while ago. And I'm really glad that they didn't go back and try to "give" DK's the option of "T1 - 6". While I the player would have been happy to have more options, I the player would have been sad that it was something else again that they were giving to the masses.

Not everything needs to be given to everyone. People who did things, who accomplished things, should look at their spoils, and feel good for having it. People who didn't do those things, and didn't accomplish those things, shouldn't be able to get it, just because it isn't fair that they didn't get it.

I don't lament not having T3 because I didn't play during Naxx.
I wouldn't lament not having Sunwell gear because my guild wasn't good enough to complete sunwell, if they had taken it out.

I don't cry that I don't have the ghost wolf from dustwallow, or the hydra model from Sholazar because I didn't know about them in time to take my hunter to go get them.

I missed out. I move on.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby halabar » Wed Jul 18, 2012 10:03 am

The T3 choice was an odd choice, but perhaps they did it because so many people were asking for it. As it is, it will be quite hard to get a full set from the BMAH. You would have to catch all the auctions, and then win them all.

Getting a full T3 set might take you the entire expansion of camping the BMAH, and a LOT of gold.
Amirya wrote:... because everyone needs a Catagonskin rug.

twinkfist wrote:i feel bad for the Mogu...having to deal with alcoholic bears.
User avatar
halabar
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:21 am
Location: <in the guild that shall not be named>

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby Teranoid » Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:03 am

T3 has horrendously bad low rez textures to the point where it looks like you're wearing paper armor.

The thing people seem to be missing is that these mounts and things aren't going to always be available. It's not like Mim's head is going to be up for bid every week to the point where it becomes a mount you see everyone and their mother on.

What amuses me most is people didn't care about the prestige of Invincible and Mim's Head when guilds were selling it every week back in Wrath but the idea that one person could somehow bypass the reduced drop rate by outbidding their entire server paying possibly hundreds of thousands of gold is despicable.
User avatar
Teranoid
 
Posts: 1639
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:56 pm

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby Shoju » Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:18 am

I cared then, I cared in BC when people were selling bears. I don't like the practice and would never do it.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby Teranoid » Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:36 pm

Well I'm not saying people in specific but it was nowhere near the uproar people have started over the BMAH when in reality it's actually BETTER than guilds selling it because that money is being taken out of the game rather than just being shuffled to someone else.

I just can't help but look at all the complaining as "It's not fair because I don't have as much gold as other people."
User avatar
Teranoid
 
Posts: 1639
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:56 pm

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby Shoju » Wed Jul 18, 2012 2:10 pm

Teranoid wrote:Well I'm not saying people in specific but it was nowhere near the uproar people have started over the BMAH when in reality it's actually BETTER than guilds selling it because that money is being taken out of the game rather than just being shuffled to someone else.

I just can't help but look at all the complaining as "It's not fair because I don't have as much gold as other people."


I can see that point of view. (the not fair about gold thing) When I left the game, I was down to ~20k or so, but my half full GB was probably going to pull in.... ~75-100k in Panda opening (which reminds me... BL better cash in).

For me, offering things on the BMAH that were skill rewards at one time, or removed from the game like T3, is just not a good idea. I understand that people like it, but in the end, I feel it hurts the culture of the game. Not that it should surprise me, I feel like a lot of big additions have hurt it.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby halabar » Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:58 pm

Shoju wrote:
Teranoid wrote:Well I'm not saying people in specific but it was nowhere near the uproar people have started over the BMAH when in reality it's actually BETTER than guilds selling it because that money is being taken out of the game rather than just being shuffled to someone else.

I just can't help but look at all the complaining as "It's not fair because I don't have as much gold as other people."


I can see that point of view. (the not fair about gold thing) When I left the game, I was down to ~20k or so, but my half full GB was probably going to pull in.... ~75-100k in Panda opening (which reminds me... BL better cash in).

For me, offering things on the BMAH that were skill rewards at one time, or removed from the game like T3, is just not a good idea. I understand that people like it, but in the end, I feel it hurts the culture of the game. Not that it should surprise me, I feel like a lot of big additions have hurt it.


But it's OK for guilds to sell them?
Amirya wrote:... because everyone needs a Catagonskin rug.

twinkfist wrote:i feel bad for the Mogu...having to deal with alcoholic bears.
User avatar
halabar
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:21 am
Location: <in the guild that shall not be named>

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby Darielle » Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:57 pm

Guilds selling them also ruins the prestige. Handmaiden is far less special than Mimi's specifically because there are dozens being sold every week. I think it's up to 12% of the raiding tracked by WoWprogress having Heroic Madness down now, that also makes it less special.
Darielle
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby Shoju » Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:52 am

halabar wrote:
Shoju wrote:
Teranoid wrote:Well I'm not saying people in specific but it was nowhere near the uproar people have started over the BMAH when in reality it's actually BETTER than guilds selling it because that money is being taken out of the game rather than just being shuffled to someone else.

I just can't help but look at all the complaining as "It's not fair because I don't have as much gold as other people."


I can see that point of view. (the not fair about gold thing) When I left the game, I was down to ~20k or so, but my half full GB was probably going to pull in.... ~75-100k in Panda opening (which reminds me... BL better cash in).

For me, offering things on the BMAH that were skill rewards at one time, or removed from the game like T3, is just not a good idea. I understand that people like it, but in the end, I feel it hurts the culture of the game. Not that it should surprise me, I feel like a lot of big additions have hurt it.


But it's OK for guilds to sell them?


Didn't I just say I didn't like that either?


Oh Right. I DID


Shoju wrote:I cared then, I cared in BC when people were selling bears. I don't like the practice and would never do it.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby degre » Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:10 am

halabar wrote:And back to the whole point of this thread...

The key issue that really needs to be resolved by various governing bodies is: What defines "ownership" in a virtual world, if anything can be owned at all, and what are the requirements to maintain ownership, and how does that occur when a vendor controls the virtual world.

Shoju's clearly in the camp of there is no ownership at all, and that the developer of the world owns everything (and if I was a software developer I'd probably agree). But I think we are going to get to the point in virtual places (and in social media) that the issue needs to be addressed, and the rights or lack thereof can't simply be buried in a TOS/EULA.

We won't be able to address account selling under that underlying issue is resolved.

I guess here we're making a mess by mixing up account with actual games.

What has been ruled is that when you buy a piece of code it's yours, hence if you want you can resell the digital copy on the principle that you could have done the same if you bought a physical disc, it is your copy, you have the rights to own that copy of that licensed game, it's yours.

When talking about accounts is way different, you never owned anything, I think I've seen it explained already somewhere, but to make a point, you are 'renting' a login with very specific rules (TOS/EULA) and those rules say that your lease doesn't allow you to be passed to someone else.


Shoju wrote:I don't play games so that I can pay my way to the top, or exploit something to beat it. I play games for the challenge. Not because I want to brag to someone else and say "LOOK AT ALL THIS HARD WORK!" But because I don't personally feel the sense of satisfaction in playing a game with things that I didn't feel like I earned.

If, as you say, you play games for the challenge and only for that, for the personal satisfaction of having earned something, how does it change to your personal feeling if other people obtain it in a different way? You know, people are different, the fact that you love a challenge doesn't mean that everyone is playing this game for the same reason, people have different motives.

If you truly played only for the personal satisfaction of completing a challenge you wouldn't care how other obtained the same coloured pixels you've been given, because you would be satisfied with your own challenge.

Since, on the other hand, you are very sensitive and polemic about others obtaining the same coloured pixels, it appears that contrary to what you claim, you actually care a lot about others and about showing your different coloured pixels that make you stand out as different and/or better.

For how much you can claim that you don't care, all your words point very much in the direction that you DO care, and a lot, you are just lying to yourself.

Mind that I am more sympathetic towards your point and I somehow share the idea, however, we have to consider that the vast majority of users play for different reasons, if their buying a mount gives me new raiding content, hell yeah, sell the whole stable!
On EU-Kadghar: Degre | Beldegre | Degrotto | Koshien | Sousuke
User avatar
degre
 
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:11 pm
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby halabar » Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:40 am

degre wrote:When talking about accounts is way different, you never owned anything, I think I've seen it explained already somewhere, but to make a point, you are 'renting' a login with very specific rules (TOS/EULA) and those rules say that your lease doesn't allow you to be passed to someone else.


Agreed, under the current laws (or lack thereof). My point in all of this though, is that there need to be a broader discussion regarding "ownership" in regards to virtual goods, and that Blizz (and other developers) have opened the door on this by selling items for real currency.
Amirya wrote:... because everyone needs a Catagonskin rug.

twinkfist wrote:i feel bad for the Mogu...having to deal with alcoholic bears.
User avatar
halabar
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:21 am
Location: <in the guild that shall not be named>

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby Shoju » Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:28 am

halabar wrote:
degre wrote:When talking about accounts is way different, you never owned anything, I think I've seen it explained already somewhere, but to make a point, you are 'renting' a login with very specific rules (TOS/EULA) and those rules say that your lease doesn't allow you to be passed to someone else.


Agreed, under the current laws (or lack thereof). My point in all of this though, is that there need to be a broader discussion regarding "ownership" in regards to virtual goods, and that Blizz (and other developers) have opened the door on this by selling items for real currency.


Since the TOS/EULA language pretty explicitly states that you don't own the account, you don't own the pixels, you don't own any of it, this is the part that I'm having a hard time with.

They sold you the right to play with, or be accompanied by, or carried by, a different set of pixels, because you paid more money. They didn't sell you a piece of merchandise. If it were merchandise, and you could own it, you could then, theoretically, remove it from their servers.

But you can't. So you don't own it.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby halabar » Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:43 pm

Shoju wrote:
halabar wrote:
degre wrote:When talking about accounts is way different, you never owned anything, I think I've seen it explained already somewhere, but to make a point, you are 'renting' a login with very specific rules (TOS/EULA) and those rules say that your lease doesn't allow you to be passed to someone else.


Agreed, under the current laws (or lack thereof). My point in all of this though, is that there need to be a broader discussion regarding "ownership" in regards to virtual goods, and that Blizz (and other developers) have opened the door on this by selling items for real currency.


Since the TOS/EULA language pretty explicitly states that you don't own the account, you don't own the pixels, you don't own any of it, this is the part that I'm having a hard time with.

They sold you the right to play with, or be accompanied by, or carried by, a different set of pixels, because you paid more money. They didn't sell you a piece of merchandise. If it were merchandise, and you could own it, you could then, theoretically, remove it from their servers.

But you can't. So you don't own it.


Shoju, I agree with you, under the current laws.

But what if it was classified as merchandise? (Hell, I believe I am getting charged sales tax on it. If it's not merchandise, than why am I paying a sales tax?)

Think civil rights movement. I want to reconsider the laws. Liberty for virtual goods!!!
Amirya wrote:... because everyone needs a Catagonskin rug.

twinkfist wrote:i feel bad for the Mogu...having to deal with alcoholic bears.
User avatar
halabar
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:21 am
Location: <in the guild that shall not be named>

Re: Selling accounts may soon be legal - already is in the E

Postby Shoju » Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:13 pm

In some states you don't pay sales tax for food. In some states you don't pay state income tax. In some states, you get taxed for buying virtual pixels in a video game.

I don't want them to reconsider the laws. I want them to say: "No. It's part of the game. You agreed to the contract" and move on.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest