These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Announcement regarding rewards and prizes to fansites and third-party contributors

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frying Doom
#1181 - 2013-10-23 00:12:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Same page as before

Laws Australia
Wikipedia wrote:
Australia

On 28 June 2001 the Australian Government passed the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (IGA). The government said that the IGA was important to protect Australians from the harmful effects of gambling.

The IGA targets the providers of interactive gambling services. The IGA makes it an offence to provide an interactive gambling service to a customer physically present in Australia, but it is not an offence for Australian residents to play poker or casino games online. In stark contrast to the USA, sports betting online is also completely legal in Australia, with many state government licensed sportsbooks in operation, such as Centrebet, Sportingbet & Betfair.

The offense applies to all interactive gambling service providers, whether based in Australia or offshore, whether Australian or foreign owned.

Russia

Russian legislation, enacted in December 2006, prohibits online gambling altogether (as well as any gambling relying on telecommunications technology).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#1182 - 2013-10-23 00:15:49 UTC
raven666wings wrote:
In this particular case I don't think you'll be able to get back at them from a legal standpoint. For all effects, they are merely selling their business product, the Game Time Codes (albeit through a 3rd party referral system to increase sales and even rewarding it for the effort).

They are indeed not enforcing their own EULA and Term of Service rules to certain costumer(s), but I don't think that there is anything forcing them to. These EULA and ToS documents are created by these companies to act as legal backup that gives them full legitimacy to do whatever they want with the game and the costumers' accounts, they aren't created to protect the costumers in case the company decides to violate its own rules. There is no rule in the whole documents that forces them to enforce any of the other rules.

However there might be national laws written in the Business Code (either in Iceland or in Britain) that forbid a service providing company to have double standards when serving its costumers. It's a matter of contacting the Icelandic Consumer Defense Agency and inquiring them about the existance of such or related regulations and find out whether a lawsuit under such grounds may be filed. If the costumer service double standards are a violation of any existing Icelanding Business law and CCP's practice can be proven in court, then there is the possibility that the judge will deem them guilty of such practice.

Regarding Somer Blink, the best way to legally get back at him at the moment is to contact the Tax Administration Office of the country where he lives and inform them of his activity. He's most likely not declaring any of the income he's getting from the GTC referrals and just that situation has the potential to confiscate a big part (if not the total) of his profits. Like CCP he wont be suceptible of being sued for illegal gambling because he's merely doing it with fake money inside the game, while receiving a real money fee for the referral of the GTC sales.

Please see U. S. v. Scheinberg et al. in post on previous page.

'The indictment alleges that the companies used fraudulent methods to evade this law, for example, by disguising online gambling payments as purchases of merchandise'

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
raven666wings
Cyber Chaos Crew
#1183 - 2013-10-23 00:21:03 UTC  |  Edited by: raven666wings
Frying Doom wrote:
Please see U. S. v. Scheinberg et al. in post on previous page.

'The indictment alleges that the companies used fraudulent methods to evade this law, for example, by disguising online gambling payments as purchases of merchandise'


You are putting this in the same bag as online gambling with real money, but that's not what's happening here. They are converting the real money into isk and rewarding the 3rd party with real money for the increased GTC sales, but still gambling with fake money only. Only if the isk was converted back to real money would this example apply.

The ways to get back at them from a legal standpoint are the ones I wrote before. Of course you can get back at them more effectively by unsubbing and not giving them more money.
Frying Doom
#1184 - 2013-10-23 00:23:18 UTC
raven666wings wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Please see U. S. v. Scheinberg et al. in post on previous page.

'The indictment alleges that the companies used fraudulent methods to evade this law, for example, by disguising online gambling payments as purchases of merchandise'


You are putting this in the same bag as online gambling with real money, but that's not what's happening here. They are converting the real money into isk and rewarding the 3rd party with real money for the increased GTC sales, but still gambling with fake money only. Only if the isk was converted back to real money would this example apply.

So the fact that people are gambling with real money and have no hope of a payout makes it better?Shocked

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
raven666wings
Cyber Chaos Crew
#1185 - 2013-10-23 00:25:55 UTC  |  Edited by: raven666wings
They're gambling with fake money only and there isn't any law that forbids that.
Frying Doom
#1186 - 2013-10-23 00:29:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
raven666wings wrote:
They're gambling with fake money only and there isn't any law that forbids that.

People are buying 'Merchandise' with real money, with which to gamble. Not much different than buying poker chips to gamble, except that you will lose 100% of the time unless you convert your winnings into plex to pay for your account.

So in this case the bank wins 100% of the time.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
raven666wings
Cyber Chaos Crew
#1187 - 2013-10-23 00:38:57 UTC  |  Edited by: raven666wings
Frying Doom wrote:
raven666wings wrote:
They're gambling with fake money only and there isn't any law that forbids that.

People are buying 'Merchandise' with real money, with which to gamble. Not much different than buying poker chips to gamble, except that you will lose 100% of the time unless you convert your winnings into plex to pay for your account.

So in this case the bank wins 100% of the time.


You can legally buy the PLEX or GTC's coupled with isk tokens and gamble with them inside the game, as long as the gabling service does not reward you with real money. It isn't illegal. For all effects they are selling you the company's service.

Note: I hope you understand I'm trying to evaluate a possible legal standpoint to advocate the players' rights, not CCP or Somer Blink's conducts.
Frying Doom
#1188 - 2013-10-23 01:06:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
As this matter is clearly one for the criminal courts of multiple jurisdictions to decide, it would be inappropriate to comment further.

To be honest I should not have commented at all.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Anya Klibor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1189 - 2013-10-23 01:52:12 UTC
I won't go into any more on the legal aspect just yet, because I would need to cross-check my sources. However, I think if anything it would st art as a civil case in the United States. If there was a judgment against CCP, then the government could look at criminal charges for money laundering and RICO.

However, I don't think--or want--it to be that serious. I want fair application to the EULA by CCP.

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.
raven666wings
Cyber Chaos Crew
#1190 - 2013-10-23 03:03:48 UTC  |  Edited by: raven666wings
Like I wrote before, the only legal ground you could defend here is the double standards verified when providing service to certain clients, by not enforcing the EULA or ToS rules to them. The illegal gambling and money laundering accusations are, in my opinion, unfundamented.
Kirren D'marr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1191 - 2013-10-23 03:11:58 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Surely it would be better for folk to await the outcome of the Somer Blink et al - 'freebies to friends of CCP' debacle, then make a decision to quit or stay?

It seems to me that CCP have accidentally stumbled into this mess, rather than gone into it with malice aforethought, and are now considering their options, which will be based in part on the feedback from the proposed survey.

One always to bear in mind that Eve Online is a game to us, but in reality Eve Online is a business model to generate money for CCP.

My gut feeling is that CCP will weigh up the cost of the money gained from their association with the likes of Somer Blink against the potential financial cost of lost accounts and act accordingly.

I sincerely hope I am wrong and that CCP stop favouring in-game corps with valuable in-game assets, simply because it is wrong.


Unfortunately, we really don't have the luxury of waiting this out. We can complain all that we want, but as long as people are not unsubscribing in large numbers, CCP will think that we are fine with this, and that sends the wrong message.

if they go to weigh the costs, and we are still paying our subscriptions, they will have an incorrect view of what the real costs are of continuing this course of action.

The clearest message we can send is mass cancellation of accounts. If CCP gets their act together, then maybe some or all will return, depending on how satisfactory the solution is. But if we just wait around for CCP to continue to drag their feet, then we are counted as accepting things as they are.

Due to a 3-month sub plan, my account isn't up until mid November, so I'll still be here complaining for a while, but I've already shut down my recurring billing over this. Here's hoping CCP gets the message.

Why a switch on/off? Because the new animation doesn't add anything to gameplay and it's graphically annoying. In other words, it's worse than bad: it's useless. Simple as that.     _ - Kina Ayami_
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#1192 - 2013-10-23 04:49:12 UTC
You guys are barking up the wrong tree on this legal stuff. I'm telling you. Only a fraction of you would have the time, nerve, or money to actually put forth a suit. That suit would just be laughed out of court. You wouldn't make it past the initial hearing. Promise. Remember... in-game items (PLEX included) don't even exist, legally.

Unsubbing would get CCPs attention, but it's about money. It's about policy... not law.

T20 compelled real action on CCPs part. Wait and see how they respond. They are reading these threads. They could respond with something really cool... they have a lot of sharp people working for them. The changes made after T20 were excellent and greatly strengthened CCP and the game itself overall, imho. I'm holding out hope that the game will be better when they decide what to do. Rubicon is crazy awesome. The are making huge changes. They could be bold... we'll see.

There's a wax and wane to the game for sure. Apocrypha up to Rubicon we've been on the wane, and I think everyone sees that. I think Rubicon is going to be huge. It's one of the craziest updates I've seen since I started playing. It opens up a lot of new gameplay. I think CCP sees that too, and so do the players. After Rubicon launches I think we'll see a surge in players, no matter what CCP does about this. The question is will that surge be sustained, or will we wane again once the "shiny" has dulled. Watching BF4 trailers I think DUST is going to be a steep hill for them to climb. I think EvE Valkyrie could open up a whole new market... nothing I'm saying here should be a surprise to anyone. I think most people would agree with me. ...but it's a scary time for CCP. Getting ready to launch a third game while the second starves to death and this one wanes? Yikes. Their hesitation is understandable. I mean... f*** everything else, we're talking about the future of the company and the livelihoods of a fair number of people. Put yourself in their shoes.

So yah this has been bulls***, yah it's SOMER doing 'legit' RMT, and yah we want a response... but the decisions they make from here on out are big, far reaching, and risky no matter what. With a game this complex you just can't tell what will happen no matter what. I for one am not surprised we haven't heard anything yet. They'll probably say something before too long... but getting dramatic about this... not going to do much. The answers are bigger than the players commenting here. Str8up.

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Handsome Feller
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1193 - 2013-10-23 14:59:00 UTC
Handsome Feller wrote:
... however there are additional rules regarding Character sale when compared to any other type. That's my point and if CCP so chooses, they could use those additional rules


raven666wings wrote:
You're missing the point


Handsome Feller wrote:
You're hiding behind details. Details which CCP are more than free to ignore when the inputs and outputs boils down to this:

Buy Lottery Tickets
Receive chance of getting a character

Add as many steps & details in between as you like, but it breaks down the same. Must buy lottery ticket to get character.


raven666wings wrote:
You're still missing the point. They aren't "hiding behind details". They are using the same procedure used by Somer Blink and others that has not only been unsanctioned, but also supported and advertised by CCP.
Handsome Feller
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1194 - 2013-10-23 14:59:15 UTC
Handsome Feller wrote:
No I'm not missing the point. I understand that. You are missing what I have been pointing out all along. Character transfers / sales have different rules to ships etc.


raven666wings wrote:
Yes, once again you are still missing the point


Handsome Feller wrote:
You're going round in circles. No point continuing.


raven666wings wrote:
Lol you definitely should have read the thread before fallin here in a parachute ... PS - You should consider writing english in further posts.
Handsome Feller
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1195 - 2013-10-23 14:59:26 UTC
Handsome Feller wrote:
As it is, CCP could, if they so choose to, easily justify a ban hammer ... due to it being a character sale.


CCP Falcon wrote:
Lotteries for character sales are not permitted under the Character Bazaar Rules.

As such, this thread is locked.


Hey raven666wings,
I knew I wasn't exactly up against any sort of mental might, but I just thought I'd point out how I was right and you were so very wrong. Love how you moaned on about me not getting the point when the point I was making turned out to be superbly accurate and your point wholly inaccurate. I guess life must be tough for you. Oh and just one more thing...

raven666wings wrote:
I hope you didn't get brain damage of some sort.
Sugar Von MurdererTits
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1196 - 2013-10-23 15:01:11 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Surely it would be better for folk to await the outcome of the Somer Blink et al - 'freebies to friends of CCP' debacle, then make a decision to quit or stay?


You said it yourself:

Quote:
My gut feeling is that CCP will weigh up the cost of the money gained from their association with the likes of Somer Blink against the potential financial cost of lost accounts and act accordingly.


That's exactly why. CCP won't take this seriously until they feel a financial impact.

I really enjoy Eve. I even bought the collector's edition as a gift for my hubby. But I don't like that CCP give kickbacks to people who, let's be blunt, earn them money by exploiting gambling addictions. The legality isn't important to me; it's immoral. And I also don't want to play a game where certain select players can bend the EULA to the breaking point while others get banned.

If CCP do something that I feel adequately addresses the issues I can always resub. But I won't hold my breath.

Anyway, this the last from me. Fly safe all. o7
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1197 - 2013-10-23 15:12:04 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Sugar Von MurdererTits wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Surely it would be better for folk to await the outcome of the Somer Blink et al - 'freebies to friends of CCP' debacle, then make a decision to quit or stay?


You said it yourself:

Quote:
My gut feeling is that CCP will weigh up the cost of the money gained from their association with the likes of Somer Blink against the potential financial cost of lost accounts and act accordingly.


That's exactly why. CCP won't take this seriously until they feel a financial impact.

I really enjoy Eve. I even bought the collector's edition as a gift for my hubby. But I don't like that CCP give kickbacks to people who, let's be blunt, earn them money by exploiting gambling addictions. The legality isn't important to me; it's immoral. And I also don't want to play a game where certain select players can bend the EULA to the breaking point while others get banned.

If CCP do something that I feel adequately addresses the issues I can always resub. But I won't hold my breath.

Anyway, this the last from me. Fly safe all. o7


Yes, I don't quite care about the legality (I think it'd be a stretch to say CCP have done anything legally wrong), but I do find it quite... distasteful... that they seem to favour organisations that thrive off addictions and which operate solely for their own benefits (rather than all the organisations that operate for the sake of the community). The fact that they favour any in-game organisation at all is quite bad for the sandbox, but the type of organisation they've picked, and the extent to which they cater for them... it's rather awful.

The fact that CCP have went silent after giving a half-arsed reply that didn't address the biggest issues is the lamest part. Every single person can see that for what it is: Burying your head in the sand and hoping it'll blow over. Maybe it will, but I'm personally done.
raven666wings
Cyber Chaos Crew
#1198 - 2013-10-23 15:49:30 UTC  |  Edited by: raven666wings
Handsome Feller wrote:
Hey raven666wings,
I knew I wasn't exactly up against any sort of mental might, but I just thought I'd point out how I was right and you were so very wrong. Love how you moaned on about me not getting the point when the point I was making turned out to be superbly accurate and your point wholly inaccurate. I guess life must be tough for you. Oh and just one more thing...


Your recurrent use of formal fallacies doesn't seem voluntary, what you're presenting really seems incapacity of racional thought (hence the brain damage analogy).

Having a CCP representative lock that thread doesn't mean you were right. It means he acted on arbitrary judgement and/or misinterpreted the situation like you did.
Handsome Feller
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1199 - 2013-10-23 16:32:19 UTC
raven666wings wrote:
Handsome Feller wrote:
Hey raven666wings,
I knew I wasn't exactly up against any sort of mental might, but I just thought I'd point out how I was right and you were so very wrong. Love how you moaned on about me not getting the point when the point I was making turned out to be superbly accurate and your point wholly inaccurate. I guess life must be tough for you. Oh and just one more thing...


Your recurrent use of formal fallacies doesn't seem voluntary, what you're presenting really seems incapacity of racional thought (hence the brain damage analogy).

Having a CCP representative lock that thread doesn't mean you were right. It means he acted on arbitrary judgement and/or misinterpreted the situation like you did.


You can try to change history, but you'll fail. Unless you manage to hack these forums I guess. Though CCP probably have backups. Poor you.

I do wonder why you are pretending I was not correct. Do you always have this many issues with reality?

Me: I think CCP could invoke the lottery rule for character sales here. Shame dnsblack didn't do this with an iScorp.
You: No you're missing the point. You are wrong. You're missing the point. You're missing the point. You're wrong.
CCP: We are invoking the lottery rule for character sales and putting an end to this sale.

Even with me being proven correct, you're still pretending that's not how it is. Delusional isn't a sufficient word here. I'll not bother to reply anymore as at best, you're being thoroughly dishonest and at worst, you need to seek professional help to get you back in touch with reality. I hope you get better soon.
raven666wings
Cyber Chaos Crew
#1200 - 2013-10-23 16:42:32 UTC  |  Edited by: raven666wings
Handsome Feller wrote:

Even with me being proven correct, you're still pretending that's not how it is.


Your recurrent use of formal fallacies doesn't seem voluntary, what you're presenting really seems incapacity of racional thought (hence the brain damage analogy).

Having a CCP representative lock that thread doesn't mean you were right. It means he acted on arbitrary judgement and/or misinterpreted the situation like you did.