>However, in most states, items that are sold "AS >IS" are exempt.
What does the law says about "AS IS" then? That by claiming it is "AS IS" you get away from all of those? Why would anyone ever sell something then by not claiming it is "AS IS" and make the lay completely pointless? I know the swedish law specifically says that even if something is sold as "AS IS", it means nothing and does not remove any responsability from the seller. Of course selling used products and such, one should, based on price and such not be able to demand the same as out of a new product (this is also handled by the law), but one still can't get arround the responsability.
>Seriously though, how many people actually take >back the software because they don't agree with >the EULAs?
The thing is, why SHOULD a store accept such a return? Because the EULA says they should? BUt you just decided to NOT agree to it, so that can't be of any importnace.
Also, most (consumer) sale laws in various countries treat a sale as concluded in the shop (when you pay or leave the shop or similary). After that, the purchase is done and the only reason for you to return something is if it is faulty and so on (and the shop typically can repair it instead of accepting a return). There is no need for a store to have a return policy. If one accept that the purchase is not finalized in the store, when is it? Never?
In most sane countries I would say that the law doesn't allow someone to contract away the liability of the products they sell, or the fact that it works and otherwise confroms to what is advertiesed. Thus in those countries such contracts (or part of them) would not be valid.
>This is why you do not actually purchase teh >software.
Ehh, you mean that one did not actually buy the copyright to the software? Of course not, who has claimed that.
Or else, what do you mean by "purchasing software"? If you do not mean a copy of it or the copyright for it, what else can you mean?
>Just a copy of it so First Sale doctrine does >not apply.
Ehh, yes, exactly, you bought a copy of the software. That applies to all thing with copyright. A book is just a copy as well. The first sale doctrine applies to the copy you have just bought.
>My understanding, and I may be wrong here, is >that EULAs are not enforcable because you didn't >agree to them, and have never been successfully >enforced. So basically, they're a bunch of >bullshit that you can safely ignore.
That of course means you can't demand a refund either since that is stated in the EULA that one declined. Hmm, seems like a catch 22, you have to agree to it to get a refund for not agreeing to it...
>Except that most guns aren't used to commit >crimes.
Out of curiosity, what ARE most guns just for? Target practice? Target competition? Hunting? Reccreational shooting? Something else? Might of course vary with country. Just curious since you seem to know.
Not true at all. Of course it has copyright. The copyright belong to whoever made it. The fact that the person might have put it out for anyone to download does not remove any copyright at all.
Didn't Napster actually run the servers you connect to? here we deal with a site that simply has a file which points to were content can be found. You download the file and feed it to your program which in turn connect to servers to get the actual content (from other users connected). Napster sort of ran it all in one sort of. Or am I misstaken.
In many countries simply having links to material that might have copyright is no in it self a copyright infringement. That is all these sites do.
>The Terms of Service for the World of Warcraft >indicate that all items in game are property of >Blizzard
So how can your character have the item to start with? How can your character give the item to another character in the game? Since when is data "property" anyway? Since when is anyone taking the "property" away from Blizzard?
I can agree that they have an agreement with their players not to sell though, but that is another thing and not much about "property".
>3-5 hours a week is 12-20 hours a month. So >you're looking at a cost of $1.25-$0.75/hr. Find >me another form of entertainment that's that >cheap.
Buying new games every second month instead of paying it as subscription. That way one get completely new experience and content and so on for each game. That is one reason why I rather go for new games every now and then instead of playing subscription based games. I get far more for my money buying new!
I allready commented below on why you actually don't need any license or agree to EULA. But lets for the sake of argument assume you would have. How do you in that case (or in all cases since you believe it is needed), run the install program in the first place. Were did you get your "license" to run it in the first place?
Please, I *have* read both the copyright law of my own country and even US copyright law many times. I have read the WoW agreement also. Again, there is nothing in the laws that says you can't take money for a virtual item in a game. This is not a sale of propery as in sale of a CD, a book, a car or whatever. You are not creating a new copy either. It is no more different that me giving another character in the game an item from my own character. That is also copyright infringement according to you? If not, why would giving me money suddenly turn it into copyright infringement?
The licence agreemtn is a completely different thing and really have nothing directly to do with copyright although some things in it have connection. I have never claimed it doesn't cover selling items, what I say is that it has nothing to do with copyright, it has to do with contract and contract law.
Please note that for an american, yes indeed state laws of california might apply, I have no idea if those claim that selling virtual items is considered copyright infringement (I would guess copyright law in US is a federal issue though). As for someone outside US and people buying the game in other countries, most countries do not allow a sale or an agreement connected to a sale to be governed by other countries laws. The reason should be obvious.
So instead of doing like anyone else, pointing vagule in general to copyright (with tons of links, which is of course nice, although I allready know about almost all of them). Why not tell how or what more exactly is the infringement? We can agree that Blizzard has an agreement that makes you not allowed. I hope we can agree that an agreement is all about contract law and have nothing to do with copyright. Copyright infringmenet is basically infringing on the right of a copyright holder which are basically copying and distribution of such copies, public performance and creating derived work. You are doing NOTHING close to that when selling items in a game.
So, what are those rights then? One can't just send out blankek mails claiming "you probably might have done something wrong according to some law or contract or something".
>What ever the situation may be, my orginal point >was that Blizzard is not restricting sales based >on any idea of fair play, but instead as an act >to protected their own Intelectual Property.
Actually I would say THE reason is more fair play than anything else. Again, show me how (in US law then) copyright law applies at all to the sell of in game items. What infringement do one comit when "selling" it? (As oposed to simply giveing away an item in game for example). What "right" are they enforcing that you claim exist in copyright law (or patent or trademark or whatever you refer to by "their property")?
I am very familiar with copyright law. And no, you don't gain "all" rights. You gain some rights specifically mentioned in copyright law. Use is NOT such a right. Thus copyright law does not grant the copyright holder the right to control use. At least not through copyright. The fact that they do it through a user agreement is something else. it is about contract and contract law and has nothing to do with copyright.
Me living outside USA and Blizzard selling their game in my country (they still don't) means THEY have to follow the laws in my country of course. If they don't like that, they should not do bussiness here. They can't sell games or anything else here wanting some other laws to apply. When it comes to copyright laws, they are usually quite similar though. In this case we deal with contract law at most though as I explained.
How eBay do something illegal is beyoned me as they have not (as far as I would guess), agreed to any EULA with Blizzard, hence they are not abound by it. The reason you don't see EQ items, and probably not WoW items either is because eBay themselves have decided that they don't want to participate in it. Not because of some law or due to any EULA.
So, that is not what I ask about. Just by writing something, you can't turn it into something that copyright apply to. In addition, selling items does not in any way include activities that would be copyright infringement which is what I am commenting about, a mail supposedly sent by ebay claiming such things.
I have. I even did it before it turned new here on slashdot. It doesn't really give any clue at all. Besides, I was commenting on the email supposedly sent out from ebay which is the one mostly tossing arround "intellectual property" and how one infringe. Blizzard (and the article which basically is just citing Blizzards annoncement) doesn't really say such things much.
Regarding your first analogy, selling items is not distribution either och public performance. The item is on the realm, it stayes there, and you don't perform any action that is a copyright violation. If it was a copyright violation they would not even have to state it in any EULA since they could just go after people directly. The whole thing is contract isse were one can claim that one has to agree to not sell items if you want to play. If that is an okey demand to make or not is another story.
>Based on this statement I would have to conclude >that you live in a country where prostitution is >legal. Here in the US it is not.
Yes I do, it is legal. Actually the BUYER is the one making something illegal (paying for sex). This is Sweden by the way. However, this is a case were there are specific laws saying that you can't sell or buy (depending on country) sexual services. There is no such law saying that you can't sell virtual property in online games. At least I have not heared about any such law. Usulayy it is very specific cases (like sex) that have individual laws.
>Hmmm, I guess we can all throw out the Digital >Millennium Copyright Act, which states >specificaly that Digital Media (which some people >refere to as Data) is protected by copyright.
I don't live in USA and am not as familiar with the DMCA as with copyright law so can't comment. Are you saying that as soon as some data, fact or info is in digital form it is suddenly protected with copyright? That seems very strange. Still I would say that it won't have much impact since the act of selling an item really does not require any action that would be considered a copyright infringement. At most it involves the transfer of an ingame item from one character to another and I have yet to see a game were one would claim you are not allowed to do that. It is certainly allowed in WoW.
By the way, Blizzard DO sell the current game in other countries than USA, like Australia, New Zeeland and Canada, no?
Most countries have in their copyright laws exceptions making it non infringing to make such copies that are needed to use and run software (like making a copy in memory and insalling to the hard dics). Hence you don't need any permision for it, since it is not copyright infringement.
I fail to see how copyright makes the situation ambiguous. They really have, in themselves nothing to do with copyright. There is nothing in copyright laws that call for the need of EULA.
>because the intellectual property rights owner >notified us, under penalty of perjury, that >your listing or the item itself infringes their >copyright, trademark, or other rights.
What I would like to know is exactly WHAT illegal activity it is that they think one is doing. Copyright infringement? In what way? Trademark? Exactly what? And so on. Just generally and vaguely claiming "intellectual property" and infringement just doesn't cut it. What exactly do they claim?
But you are not transfering any ownership. The items (or whatever you "sell") are stil there on Blizzards realms. You did not create a new copy either. SUre, a new character holds the item but the player playing a character is hardly the owner of the items, right? Since it is Blizzard, so transfering an item between characters is hardly transfering ownership. By that logic, simply giving away an item in the game would be equally disallowed (and you wouldn't be able to claim it is Blizzard that "own" them to start with).
Besdies, I would say that the whole idea of "ownership" of characters, items and such data as if it was physical obkects is rediculous to start with, but that is perhaps another story.
>Many people have come to accept and agree that >sharing of MP3s is an illegal activity and >should not be done.
That typically involve making a new copy of the music. This is a violation of copyright in most cases. You are NOT making a copy of something when you sell something in a game.
>I assume no one would find it acceptable to be >producing copies of the game, or CD keys, and >selling those.
Again, making new copies would be a copyright violation, you can't do that. No one is making a copy of anything when seeling things in the game.
You are not removing the items (or whatever you sell) from the game, you don't create new ones and so on. the only thing you do is change the item from one character to another. That is most definately allowed would you say not? There is even trade windows and auction houses to do so. If someone want to pay someone for something they do or don't do is completely up to them and is for the most cases neither illegal nor of anyone elses bussiness.
>Selling in game items is no different, they do >not belong to the players, read you EULA.
But it is OK to simply give away something that is not yours? Can my character give your character an item? Claiming ownership of data is one thing, claiming that someone can't give money to someone else is another.
>Blizzard, like Sony before them, is looking to >protect their intelectual property.
Data is for the most part not "intellectual property". You don't get copyright on data for example. You can't claim that a sword is a trademark or that there is a patent on the Iron Boots and so on. SO the whole intellectual property thing doesn't really fit in.
Slashdot Mirror
>However, in most states, items that are sold "AS
>IS" are exempt.
What does the law says about "AS IS" then? That by claiming it is "AS IS" you get away from all of those? Why would anyone ever sell something then by not claiming it is "AS IS" and make the lay completely pointless? I know the swedish law specifically says that even if something is sold as "AS IS", it means nothing and does not remove any responsability from the seller. Of course selling used products and such, one should, based on price and such not be able to demand the same as out of a new product (this is also handled by the law), but one still can't get arround the responsability.
>Seriously though, how many people actually take
>back the software because they don't agree with
>the EULAs?
The thing is, why SHOULD a store accept such a return? Because the EULA says they should? BUt you just decided to NOT agree to it, so that can't be of any importnace.
Also, most (consumer) sale laws in various countries treat a sale as concluded in the shop (when you pay or leave the shop or similary). After that, the purchase is done and the only reason for you to return something is if it is faulty and so on (and the shop typically can repair it instead of accepting a return). There is no need for a store to have a return policy. If one accept that the purchase is not finalized in the store, when is it? Never?
In most sane countries I would say that the law doesn't allow someone to contract away the liability of the products they sell, or the fact that it works and otherwise confroms to what is advertiesed. Thus in those countries such contracts (or part of them) would not be valid.
>This is why you do not actually purchase teh
>software.
Ehh, you mean that one did not actually buy the copyright to the software? Of course not, who has claimed that.
Or else, what do you mean by "purchasing software"? If you do not mean a copy of it or the copyright for it, what else can you mean?
>Just a copy of it so First Sale doctrine does
>not apply.
Ehh, yes, exactly, you bought a copy of the software. That applies to all thing with copyright. A book is just a copy as well. The first sale doctrine applies to the copy you have just bought.
>My understanding, and I may be wrong here, is
>that EULAs are not enforcable because you didn't
>agree to them, and have never been successfully
>enforced. So basically, they're a bunch of
>bullshit that you can safely ignore.
That of course means you can't demand a refund either since that is stated in the EULA that one declined. Hmm, seems like a catch 22, you have to agree to it to get a refund for not agreeing to it...
That assumes most guns are owned to defend your home, is that so? And that many of them actually DO practise.
>Except that most guns aren't used to commit
>crimes.
Out of curiosity, what ARE most guns just for? Target practice? Target competition? Hunting? Reccreational shooting? Something else? Might of course vary with country. Just curious since you seem to know.
>A lot of porn is homemade and has no copyright.
Not true at all. Of course it has copyright. The copyright belong to whoever made it. The fact that the person might have put it out for anyone to download does not remove any copyright at all.
Didn't Napster actually run the servers you connect to? here we deal with a site that simply has a file which points to were content can be found. You download the file and feed it to your program which in turn connect to servers to get the actual content (from other users connected). Napster sort of ran it all in one sort of. Or am I misstaken.
In many countries simply having links to material that might have copyright is no in it self a copyright infringement. That is all these sites do.
>because your character is property of Blizzard,
>unless you modeled, drew, and animated it
>yourself...
How do that answer ANY of my questions?
>The Terms of Service for the World of Warcraft
>indicate that all items in game are property of
>Blizzard
So how can your character have the item to start with? How can your character give the item to another character in the game? Since when is data "property" anyway? Since when is anyone taking the "property" away from Blizzard?
I can agree that they have an agreement with their players not to sell though, but that is another thing and not much about "property".
>3-5 hours a week is 12-20 hours a month. So
>you're looking at a cost of $1.25-$0.75/hr. Find
>me another form of entertainment that's that
>cheap.
Buying new games every second month instead of paying it as subscription. That way one get completely new experience and content and so on for each game. That is one reason why I rather go for new games every now and then instead of playing subscription based games. I get far more for my money buying new!
I allready commented below on why you actually don't need any license or agree to EULA. But lets for the sake of argument assume you would have. How do you in that case (or in all cases since you believe it is needed), run the install program in the first place. Were did you get your "license" to run it in the first place?
Please, I *have* read both the copyright law of my own country and even US copyright law many times. I have read the WoW agreement also. Again, there is nothing in the laws that says you can't take money for a virtual item in a game. This is not a sale of propery as in sale of a CD, a book, a car or whatever. You are not creating a new copy either. It is no more different that me giving another character in the game an item from my own character. That is also copyright infringement according to you? If not, why would giving me money suddenly turn it into copyright infringement?
The licence agreemtn is a completely different thing and really have nothing directly to do with copyright although some things in it have connection. I have never claimed it doesn't cover selling items, what I say is that it has nothing to do with copyright, it has to do with contract and contract law.
Please note that for an american, yes indeed state laws of california might apply, I have no idea if those claim that selling virtual items is considered copyright infringement (I would guess copyright law in US is a federal issue though). As for someone outside US and people buying the game in other countries, most countries do not allow a sale or an agreement connected to a sale to be governed by other countries laws. The reason should be obvious.
So instead of doing like anyone else, pointing vagule in general to copyright (with tons of links, which is of course nice, although I allready know about almost all of them). Why not tell how or what more exactly is the infringement? We can agree that Blizzard has an agreement that makes you not allowed. I hope we can agree that an agreement is all about contract law and have nothing to do with copyright. Copyright infringmenet is basically infringing on the right of a copyright holder which are basically copying and distribution of such copies, public performance and creating derived work. You are doing NOTHING close to that when selling items in a game.
So, what are those rights then? One can't just send out blankek mails claiming "you probably might have done something wrong according to some law or contract or something".
>What ever the situation may be, my orginal point
>was that Blizzard is not restricting sales based
>on any idea of fair play, but instead as an act
>to protected their own Intelectual Property.
Actually I would say THE reason is more fair play than anything else. Again, show me how (in US law then) copyright law applies at all to the sell of in game items. What infringement do one comit when "selling" it? (As oposed to simply giveing away an item in game for example). What "right" are they enforcing that you claim exist in copyright law (or patent or trademark or whatever you refer to by "their property")?
I am very familiar with copyright law. And no, you don't gain "all" rights. You gain some rights specifically mentioned in copyright law. Use is NOT such a right. Thus copyright law does not grant the copyright holder the right to control use. At least not through copyright. The fact that they do it through a user agreement is something else. it is about contract and contract law and has nothing to do with copyright.
Me living outside USA and Blizzard selling their game in my country (they still don't) means THEY have to follow the laws in my country of course. If they don't like that, they should not do bussiness here. They can't sell games or anything else here wanting some other laws to apply. When it comes to copyright laws, they are usually quite similar though. In this case we deal with contract law at most though as I explained.
How eBay do something illegal is beyoned me as they have not (as far as I would guess), agreed to any EULA with Blizzard, hence they are not abound by it. The reason you don't see EQ items, and probably not WoW items either is because eBay themselves have decided that they don't want to participate in it. Not because of some law or due to any EULA.
So, that is not what I ask about. Just by writing something, you can't turn it into something that copyright apply to. In addition, selling items does not in any way include activities that would be copyright infringement which is what I am commenting about, a mail supposedly sent by ebay claiming such things.
> RTFA
I have. I even did it before it turned new here on slashdot. It doesn't really give any clue at all. Besides, I was commenting on the email supposedly sent out from ebay which is the one mostly tossing arround "intellectual property" and how one infringe. Blizzard (and the article which basically is just citing Blizzards annoncement) doesn't really say such things much.
Regarding your first analogy, selling items is not distribution either och public performance. The item is on the realm, it stayes there, and you don't perform any action that is a copyright violation. If it was a copyright violation they would not even have to state it in any EULA since they could just go after people directly. The whole thing is contract isse were one can claim that one has to agree to not sell items if you want to play. If that is an okey demand to make or not is another story.
>Based on this statement I would have to conclude
>that you live in a country where prostitution is
>legal. Here in the US it is not.
Yes I do, it is legal. Actually the BUYER is the one making something illegal (paying for sex). This is Sweden by the way. However, this is a case were there are specific laws saying that you can't sell or buy (depending on country) sexual services. There is no such law saying that you can't sell virtual property in online games. At least I have not heared about any such law. Usulayy it is very specific cases (like sex) that have individual laws.
>Hmmm, I guess we can all throw out the Digital
>Millennium Copyright Act, which states
>specificaly that Digital Media (which some people
>refere to as Data) is protected by copyright.
I don't live in USA and am not as familiar with the DMCA as with copyright law so can't comment. Are you saying that as soon as some data, fact or info is in digital form it is suddenly protected with copyright? That seems very strange. Still I would say that it won't have much impact since the act of selling an item really does not require any action that would be considered a copyright infringement. At most it involves the transfer of an ingame item from one character to another and I have yet to see a game were one would claim you are not allowed to do that. It is certainly allowed in WoW.
By the way, Blizzard DO sell the current game in other countries than USA, like Australia, New Zeeland and Canada, no?
Most countries have in their copyright laws exceptions making it non infringing to make such copies that are needed to use and run software (like making a copy in memory and insalling to the hard dics). Hence you don't need any permision for it, since it is not copyright infringement.
I fail to see how copyright makes the situation ambiguous. They really have, in themselves nothing to do with copyright. There is nothing in copyright laws that call for the need of EULA.
>because the intellectual property rights owner
>notified us, under penalty of perjury, that
>your listing or the item itself infringes their
>copyright, trademark, or other rights.
What I would like to know is exactly WHAT illegal activity it is that they think one is doing. Copyright infringement? In what way? Trademark? Exactly what? And so on. Just generally and vaguely claiming "intellectual property" and infringement just doesn't cut it. What exactly do they claim?
But you are not transfering any ownership. The items (or whatever you "sell") are stil there on Blizzards realms. You did not create a new copy either. SUre, a new character holds the item but the player playing a character is hardly the owner of the items, right? Since it is Blizzard, so transfering an item between characters is hardly transfering ownership. By that logic, simply giving away an item in the game would be equally disallowed (and you wouldn't be able to claim it is Blizzard that "own" them to start with).
Besdies, I would say that the whole idea of "ownership" of characters, items and such data as if it was physical obkects is rediculous to start with, but that is perhaps another story.
>Many people have come to accept and agree that
>sharing of MP3s is an illegal activity and
>should not be done.
That typically involve making a new copy of the music. This is a violation of copyright in most cases. You are NOT making a copy of something when you sell something in a game.
>I assume no one would find it acceptable to be
>producing copies of the game, or CD keys, and
>selling those.
Again, making new copies would be a copyright violation, you can't do that. No one is making a copy of anything when seeling things in the game.
You are not removing the items (or whatever you sell) from the game, you don't create new ones and so on. the only thing you do is change the item from one character to another. That is most definately allowed would you say not? There is even trade windows and auction houses to do so. If someone want to pay someone for something they do or don't do is completely up to them and is for the most cases neither illegal nor of anyone elses bussiness.
>Selling in game items is no different, they do
>not belong to the players, read you EULA.
But it is OK to simply give away something that is not yours? Can my character give your character an item? Claiming ownership of data is one thing, claiming that someone can't give money to someone else is another.
>Blizzard, like Sony before them, is looking to
>protect their intelectual property.
Data is for the most part not "intellectual property". You don't get copyright on data for example. You can't claim that a sword is a trademark or that there is a patent on the Iron Boots and so on. SO the whole intellectual property thing doesn't really fit in.