Company sued over virtual land

[Wraith]

Article.

It's been well known for a while now that players in MMORPG's are willing to pay large sums of real life money in exchange for goods/land/equipment etc in their chosen game. Well now someone is suing the company behind the game "Second Life" for terminating his account after he invested $32,000 into buying "land" in the game for re-sale.

The problem is, he bought the land by utilising a loophole in the game mechanics where he was able to alter the URL of an auction so no-one else was able to bid, meaning he was able to get the "land" dirt cheap (if you'll excuse the pun ).

To my way of thinking, I'd say the case should get thrown out of court as he obtained the land by underhand methods. I feel it should at best be considered unfair trading practices, at worst, fraud. In fact, if anyone should be in court it should be the player.

Wraith

 

[Ronin Storm]

[mod]Felt like a discussion, not merely a link. Moved from LiveHive to The Soap Box.[/mod]

 

[Pestcontrol]

Funny this comes up here, i just read this wired article on the same event: http://wired.com/news/culture/0,70909-0.html?tw=wn_culture_games_1

imho, what mr bragg did is an exploit and sueing the game company over taking due measure is very brutal, I hope he loses and i hope the terms and conditions of Second Life are such that Linden are eglible to do what they did, but time will tell. It's hard to say how the law will decide in these cases that really don't have any precedents as it's a totally new phenomenon.

 

[Wraith]

i hope the terms and conditions of Second Life are such that Linden are eglible to do what they did

I'd be surprised if they weren't. Have you ever read an EULA (end-user license agreement)? It's sometimes quite shocking what they put in those things.

Anyway, like both you and I have already said, he deserves to lose, so lets hope that's what happens.

Wraith

 

[lt.kirby]

this virtal land stuff is very weird...

 

[decky101]

quite odd and scary i didn't not know there were more people out there in the world like nanor. really i would like a poll: who would be willing to spend 000's of pounds on virtual land really will its value ever appreciate?

 

[Wraith]

quite odd and scary i didn't not know there were more people out there in the world like nanor. really i would like a poll: who would be willing to spend 000's of pounds on virtual land really will its value ever appreciate?

Well, as soon as people lose interest in the game and stop playing it, any "assets" you have in the game will be worthless. So no, it won't appreciate and it will be useless as an asset.

Having said that, people spend lots of money on things that will not appreciate in value. Examples are cars, nights out at the pub, computers etc. There are many reasons for purchases like these. Cars for example, are practically a necessity for many people, nights out at the pub are just a good time (unless you're a violent drunk )and computers are a mix of fun and necessity. I think people who pay for "in-game assets" (and I mean the end-buyers rather than those doing it to make a profit) are doing it for the same reason as people go out with friends - enjoyment. Having the better equipment increases their enjoyment of the game, and is therefore considered by them to be a worthwhile purchase.

Amateur psychology at it's best (or at least it's drunkest ).

Wraith

 

[Pestcontrol]

Have you ever read an EULA (end-user license agreement)? It's sometimes quite shocking what they put in those things.

Well, EULA's can be rejected when they are tested in court, when the terms are clearly not in compliance with the law. For example a EULA that excludes warranty or return for an ordinary product won't hold up, as a business you are always required to bear limited responsibility for functioning of the product sold.

The purpose of a EULA is not to screw you over, but to provide clarity in case of a conflict, it is a document both parties can fall back to as it is something they have both agreed upon when the deal was made. A good EULA will do just that, it will be clear and it shouldn't be overly unreasonable, as that would just be overruled in court.

Many EULA's are not written in a very professional manner by trained legal staff however, and thus abused by managers/shop owners who just want to avoid responsibility, in typical manager fashion.

 

[Wraith]

Well, EULA's can be rejected when they are tested in court, when the terms are clearly not in compliance with the law. For example a EULA that excludes warranty or return for an ordinary product won't hold up, as a business you are always required to bear limited responsibility for functioning of the product sold.

The purpose of a EULA is not to screw you over, but to provide clarity in case of a conflict, it is a document both parties can fall back to as it is something they have both agreed upon when the deal was made. A good EULA will do just that, it will be clear and it shouldn't be overly unreasonable, as that would just be overruled in court.

Many EULA's are not written in a very professional manner by trained legal staff however, and thus abused by managers/shop owners who just want to avoid responsibility, in typical manager fashion.

Very true. But what I was trying to get at is that adding in a clause to say that people violating the terms and conditions of the game getting their accounts closed is probably not against the law. For an MMORPG where you have to pay a monthly subscription (as I assume is the case for the game in the article), there is a continuing contract, and therefore this falls under contrtact law. While I know nothing about American contract law, I'm fairly certain that in the UK the EULA would be upheld by the courts, as UK contract law states that as long as the terms and conditions of a contract are communicated to and agreed to by both parties, (and they don't contravene existing legislation like the warranty exclusion), then the T&C's are a part of the contract.

If that is so, and he has violated a (valid) clause of the T&C's, he is in breach of the contract and therefore the company are entitled to make the contract null and void.

Add to that my point in my original post where I said that I believe what he did is dangerously close to breaking the law (fraud). If what he did was fraud, then by definition he is in breach of the contract, so the company will have the right to cancel the contract.

Wraith

 

[Fi$hy]

Supposedly yes, presuming the game would remain popular.

This guy bought the land using a loophole which allowed him to buy it at a lot less than it's market worth (in game that is)

So in theory he could then sell it on gradually at the market price to other gamers, making massive profits

 

[lt.kirby]

there just all weird