Business And Economy Archive
Thread: eBay Jedi: a College Report
wcmi92
Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:07 am
#27
Capitalism. pure and simple. I'd NEVER spend the insane amount of money though they want for Jedi on Ebay.. It isn't worth THAT much to me.
But it is to others, so they pay.
I've not heard of SOE actually banning accounts for this practice, other than those who exploit the game (such as those who use illegal exploits, credit duping, etc).
Why?
Probably because, despite it being "illegal" in the EULA, EULA's themselves are not 100% legally proven as binding. People who conduct legal transations (with respect to the law) are a LOT more likely to be able to drag Sony into court than someone who cheats in the game and makes real money out of it.
And, it wouldn't do Sony's public image any good if CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, et all ran stories about "200 billion dollar corporation bans 200 teenagers from playing game".
Not to mention, Sony isn't innocent here either. They make money off the dozens of accounts the credit sellers must have, AND the fact that the buyers are, after all, paying to pay too.
Even the fact that jedi accounts are sold rather than cancelled means that Sony continues to make money off them being open.
But it is to others, so they pay.
I've not heard of SOE actually banning accounts for this practice, other than those who exploit the game (such as those who use illegal exploits, credit duping, etc).
Why?
Probably because, despite it being "illegal" in the EULA, EULA's themselves are not 100% legally proven as binding. People who conduct legal transations (with respect to the law) are a LOT more likely to be able to drag Sony into court than someone who cheats in the game and makes real money out of it.
And, it wouldn't do Sony's public image any good if CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, et all ran stories about "200 billion dollar corporation bans 200 teenagers from playing game".
Not to mention, Sony isn't innocent here either. They make money off the dozens of accounts the credit sellers must have, AND the fact that the buyers are, after all, paying to pay too.
Even the fact that jedi accounts are sold rather than cancelled means that Sony continues to make money off them being open.
Message Edited by wcmi92 on 02-25-2005 07:19 AM
bluejanus
Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:44 am
#28
Leezeldafuz wrote:
Railean wrote:
Well first what is going to be your recommendation? I think that it is important to first set out a specific goal. If it changes in the end or you were wrong, then all the better, it gives you more material to write about.
Second: Based on this inital recommendation, how do you propose to implement it, and what effects both positive and negative will this have on the game itself.
Third: The root question in all of this is how are third party companies (ebay, credit\item sellers) able to provide this service. Obviously there is a market for this stuff or else it would not be happening to the extent that we see it. So should SOE take the "high road" and continue to "ignore" this aspect of the game and continue to allow these third party transactions to take place or should they try to get into the market themselves by implementing an auction system inside the game.
This is just an example, but it is important to go into a situation that you will be writing about with as many question and specific concepts as possible. That way you know what to look for, and will in the long run make writing this paper much easier.
Just my 2 cents, and good luck with the paper.Well, that's the kind of stuff I'm going to discover with research.
Yeah but you can't exactly just do blind research. There has be some aspect that you'll have to focus in on and find information about.
xixi
Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:11 pm
#29
To clear up how the intellectual rights violations come into play, here's the fundamental reason why it's only a 'bannable' offense, and not a prosecutable offense: (aka why it's in the EULA and not a violation of copyright statues)
When you sell credits a/o characters, you are technically NOT violating copyright law, per se. You're neither reproducing content with intent to resell, nor displaying (arguably) in a public forum with intent to profit.
The time it took to build the character was paid for--which is exactly the same reason why selling used books is not a prosecutable/stoppable offense. The publisher got their list price or some agreed-upon discounted price from either a wholesaler, rack jobber, or retailer for their goods the first time. Therefore, they cannot cry foul on subsequent sales of that same item or items.
(Although trust me when I say there are authors who wish that wasn't the case)
However, this is a bannable offense because under the EULA, which you agree to each and every time you log into the game, you agree NOT to do many, many things. Selling your jedi a/o credits are two such violations implied--if not directly stated in said agreement.
They are at liberty to interpret their own EULA as they see fit to control and protect their content, such as it is.
So they can ban ebay-ers. They can't prosecute them. Yet.
To contrast this with what IS a prosecutable offense in the print-publishing industry, the way this thing works is: wholesalers, rack jobbers, or straight retailer buys x amount of units from a publisher. They may or may not sell all the copies they buy, and it's standard industry practice to return unsold units after a set amount of time--with the covers stripped from the books--for a refund. (there are other ways this can be set up, dependent upon the volume each re-distributer purchases, but I digress)
Now, the publisher did NOT--in effect--receive any form of payment for those stripped books. This is expected, and absorbed into the overhead. And if anyone is caught on Ebay or elsewhere selling stripped copies, you better believe they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and beyond.
To raise the Ebayed jedis and credits to a prosecutable offense would be to take CODE and make those Jedis and credits playable on a different set of servers not affiliated with SOE (or Lucas Arts, technically).
So again, selling jedis a/o credits--while the seller is indeed indirectly profiting off another entity's intellectual property--that 'intellectual property' was paid for by monthly access fees (and will continue to be so, if the character is played). The only recourse they have is to ban the seller for violation of the EULA agreement.
It's my understanding they have banned players for this, but don't aggressively pursue the matter. Banning accounts only costs them money in monthly fees, man hours, legal fees, and whatnot to acquire documentation should the matter be brought to civil court.
However, when you have someone restricting gameplay like V mentioned above in an organized, blatant, and repeated violation of the EULA, it's not too hard todocument abanable offense and boot them for good.
Duh to that person, and /rolleyes at eJedis.
Leana_Txorana
Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:30 pm
#30
I don't really see something morally/ethically wrong with buying/selling things on ebay/third party sales websites.
==============================================================
Let's see. You agree to abide by the EULA every time you play. In essense you are giving your word you will abide by these rules every time you sign onto the game. You dont think there is an ethic or moral issue with what is in essense lying?
I8TheWorm
Tue Mar 01, 2005 3:29 pm
#31
Not sure if you're a slashdot.org reader, but if not, that's been a pretty hot topic in the past. Here are some links to a few articles if you're interested in some more background on the topic...
Virtual Property Revisited
There.com's Virtual World & Economy
Part One: In A Virtual World, Who Owns Ideas?
eBay launches the era of Virtual Property
John Smedley On the Future of MMOGs (President of Sony Online Entertainment)
Virtual Farming Firsthand
Just a few for reference.
Virtual Property Revisited
There.com's Virtual World & Economy
Part One: In A Virtual World, Who Owns Ideas?
eBay launches the era of Virtual Property
John Smedley On the Future of MMOGs (President of Sony Online Entertainment)
Virtual Farming Firsthand
Just a few for reference.
GraySeven
Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:07 am
#32
TsutoToorima wrote:
Well, simply google 'buy SWG credits', and you will have atleast 5 different sites that pop up, offering credits. Personally, I think its stupid. However, some people get so into their virtual persona that these things become more important. /shrug
The other day when the forums were down, MS Explorer gave me 10 "suggestions" on what to try next. The top 5 were sites dedicated to selling SWG credits, items, loot and accounts for real cash...
This is supposedly against the EULA, is relatively easy to find, and shut down wherever found, but one of the "advertising" banners for this page also showed Ebay advertising sales of these things on their site EVEN THOUGH THEY SUPPOSEDLY WORK WITH SOE TO SHUT DOWN THESE AUCTIONS!.
How do I feel? I feel that these "Ebay" type sites ruin the game experience for me. I play the game to have fun and compete, but how can I compete with someone willing to drop 50 bucks on 5 million credits, or 100 on a Jedi account? It basically invalidates anything I do to advance. Unfortunately, these businesses wouldn't exist if it weren't for the fact that people are willing to pay instead of play.
Kinda like illicit drugs, if people didn't buy them, there wouldn't be any pushers or drug cartels
GraySeven
Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:11 am
#33
Doesn't a company, any company, reserve the right to refuse service? If so, how can banning be brought into civil court? If SOE would ban, say, an account pre-paid for a year after only playing 2 months without refunding the balance then I could see a civil action. But is a civil action even possible for refusal of service, which is all banning really is?
Message Edited by GraySeven on 03-02-2005 12:13 PM
I8TheWorm
Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:14 am
#34
GraySeven wrote:Doesn't a company, any company, reserve the right to refuse service? If so, how can banning be brought into civil court? If SOE would ban, say, an account pre-paid for a year after only playing 2 months without refunding the balance then I could see a civil action. But is a civil action even possible for refusal of service?
Technically, anything can be brought to civil court. However, winning a case is another story. You could take SOE to court, but the judge would likely be angry with you for such a lawsuit, as any company can refuse service to you when you break their EULA.
xixi
Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:49 am
#35
Yes, it's all about covering butts.
This is why you have to /report harrassment in game--so that the offense is documented with clear visual evidence.
Should it lead to a ban and someone triesto sue SOE for their sub fees or sundry refunds a/o damages, it would make for a very short court case when the Judge has a nice big screen shot of a EULA violation.
Kalano
Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:44 pm
#36
ALeoNN wrote:
I think the underlying questions that are to beaddressed by this report are: What is the concept of virtual ownership, and how much is an intangible object valued?
Makes me think of all the Dot com companies and how they made the economy rise to new heights and then have a hard cash that hurt the economy big time a few years back.
I and many many others are still recovering from a virtual stock market that amazed the world. I find it funny that people are willing to invest so much money into something that can up and dissappear in a matter of flipping the off switch.
Investing in a company that has no physical product is a dangerous investment, how do you collect any collateral when its all digital.
The company i work for owns part of my brain. well, i have knowledge of things that i cannot tell others do to intellectual property. The company owns what i know, and i have had to sign a contract stating it also. But what i know applies to physical things, unlike SWG where its all digital.
Jaysin138
Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:18 pm
#37
There is nothing wrong with it. this game is from the US, a free market.
I8TheWorm
Thu Mar 03, 2005 8:08 am
#38
Jaysin138 wrote:There is nothing wrong with it. this game is from the US, a free market.
You're kidding, right? So you're saying it's ok to agree to a EULA but ignore it anyway?
Remind me to never do business with you...
Leezeldafuz
Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:02 am
#39
I8TheWorm wrote:
Jaysin138 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with it. this game is from the US, a free market.
You're kidding, right? So you're saying it's ok to agree to a EULA but ignore it anyway?
Remind me to never do business with you...
Well, I think I know what my recommendation is going to be. "BAN THEM ALL!!! MWAHAHAHA!!!!" (In a morewell-written and non-psychoticformat, of course.) 