EVE General Discussion

It's not about it just being an in-game resource though, it's that that resource can be purchased with cash. If a game give you in-game tokens and you gamble with those in game tokens for more in-game tokens, that's fine. The moment you then start selling tokens for cash, regardless of whether or not they can be converted back to cash, you're into potential legal responsibilities, since regulation is there to protect people who may blow all of their money on gambling.

Completely irrelevant. If I made a gambling site where you gamble tokens for non-refundable, non-transferable flight tickets, I'd need to be regulated. Whether or not something has value isn;t solely dependent on whether or not it can be converted back to cash.

Even if it were though, CCPs EULA is irrelevant to whether or not it can be converted. Again, imagine a normal gambling site where people buy tokens and gamble with them and can transfer them to each other, then they sell them to each other on ebay, but your TOS says "you're not allowed to sell them!". Of course that's not going to just bypass regulation because their TOS has that random clause. A TOS doesn't magically break your liability.

At no point does that state that it needs to be able to be converted into money, it simply needs to be worth money, and ISK is worth money since you can buy it for money. Again, we're back to the idea that by providing a reward you can't sell on you can somehow sidestep the law. With ISK it's even more obvious than any other tokens too, since you can even use it to pay for services that would be paid for, not just subscription costs but event tickets to fanfest for example. There was even a time you could buy graphics cards with it. You'd have a hard time convincing a court that ISK was worth nothing.

Because there is a distinct parallel between a lack of education and poverty.
Not foreseeing consequences is a symptom of that.
Coupled with financial desperation, the sucker is born.

Gambling is predatory, and it hunts the poor.



Dan

You raise some interesting points - but I'm not sure you've thought them all the way through.

#1:
It is my understanding (confirmed by Lucas and not disputed by anybody) - that steam items are *not* convertible back to actual RL money. They are converted to "steam wallet" money - which is *only* useable within the steam stores. This is highly comparable to PLEX - and while the court has not (to my knowledge) reached a verdict about it (and may never do so as many out-of-court actions have occurred to avoid it)...if the court *did* decide that the CS:GO sites are actual illegal gambling sites it would be an extremely dangerous precedent for anybody running an EVE gambling site.


#2:
Ironically this is one of the worst possible examples you could pick - as almost every detail that caused them to throw the case out does not apply to EVE gambling sites. They are *not* a mini-game within EVE itself, they are isolated *non-gameplay-related* games on non-CCP-owned sites. They also use tokens (isk) that clearly have value outside of their own game - as they are only valuable in EVE. And as stated in point #1 - they can be converted back to RL value for all CCP store purposes - just like the steam items. They also don't need to be weirdly classified as "slot machines" - as they've been operating long enough and doing enough business to simply be classed as "gambling venues" or "gambling organizations". Once again here - the CS:GO case is far more relevant to EVE gambling, and *could* set a very dangerous precedent.


#3:
Again the tokens are *not* provided by the people running the sites, and have value *outside* of the gambling websites. They are not provided "free of charge" and *can* be redeemed elsewhere. They can even be used to purchase tickets with fairly high RL $$$ values - provided by *CCP* - not provided by the gambling sites. Once again there is a very strong parallel to the CS:GO case - and any/all legal precedents set in that case will be very relevant.


And finally:
In this case I suggest you take your own advice - and actually make sure your examples are in any way relevant or fitting before jumping to your own conclusions.

While this is true those funds can still be used in place of real money to buy anything listed on the Steam marketplace and those funds are displayed in real-world currency amounts. While it's possible that the court in these cases will rule that this is enough of a separation of "value" to make what went on not gambling I somewhat doubt it.

Since the Steam Wallet funds can be turned into something with a tangible real-world value that is easily and directly represented in real-world currency this probably satisfies that value argument in a way that PLEX does not, since PLEX (outside of the graphics card case, which has not repeated, possibly for exactly this legal reason) has no value outside the game it's a fairly good buffer between in-game currency and accusations that it has real-world value.



These third-party sites are still games within the game, they're just created by players. They just use third-party tools to run the game. All of the transfer of items still happens within the game and its value system, not a real-world value system.

To extrapolate a bit and go back to the previous example. I don't have to declare ISK earnings in Eve on my taxes no matter what country I'm in. If I tried to do it my local tax authorities would tell me no and make me re-file my taxes. However, if I were to win a Steam contest that pays out a sufficiently large number of games I *would* have to declare that on my taxes because those games have real-world value and would clearly constitute a gift for tax purposes (provided the amount was high enough, ect)



They don't have value in the legal sense though. Both you and the OP seem to be getting hung up on the idea that "value" in this instance just means "something that is valued by someone" which is not the legal definition. Someone could certainly argue to the court that the fact that I can buy PLEX gives the ISK a real-world value, but the counter argument is that it can't be turned into real currency again and can't be used to acquire things with real world value the way a currency can (and the way Steam Wallet funds can) and so far that argument has held up legally.

Every example you've given here for a counter argument is predicated on the idea that "value" doesn't mean what it does in fact mean legally speaking, which is something that is worth real-world money, and the fact that the $$$ -> PLEX -> ISK chain can't be reversed back to $$$ is enough to break that. It's also possible that the same argument may undo these CS:GO cases, but it's much more ambiguous in those cases (for the reasons I listed above).

So yeah, all this gambling paranoia is just that, and good for nothing more than cheap forum entertainment.

Plus of course the obvious PLEX can be used for 30 days game time, which has a RL $$$ value. and PLEX can be used to get AUR for the vanity store - which again has defined RL $$$ values.

If CCP were running the gambling sites this would be irrelevant, as it would be in game. But once again - they *are not run by nor affiliated with CCP*.

Not sure where Lucas got his law degree but it didn't seem to come from the US.

CCP has attorneys and they are clearly okay with this. I'm not sure what ICELANDIC law is but stuff like this CAN (not necessarily *IS*) be locally regulated. You have to abide by the laws of the location you are in, both as a person and a corporation.

Since real money to ISK is a one way street. CCP is probably pretty safe. Their penalty for trying to go the other way is the maximum they can legally levy: removal from access to the game.

They regularly demonstrate due diligence on RMT so legally they are probably pretty safe everywhere in the world.

The Gambling Sites that use ISK are also probably okay depending on where they operate out of. Currency exchange is only viewed as such with controlled international currencies. EVE *ISK* hasn't shown up yet on a currency trade board yet so I don't think any competent attorney would have difficulty arguing it's lack of trade value in real life. It's not a physical 'good'. You can't pick it up or print it out and trade for it. Thus it's not property.

If I were to accept Mr. Kell's interpretation, then I could claim in international court that when I was openly attacked in vitual space and lost ships and goods that had 'real life value' that a crime in real life had happened to me and that I was deprived of property. In fact, you could also argue that EVE, the game, is gambling. I spend money for my subscription and for PLEX and I lose it in game all the time in games of skill and contest. Thus, there is no end to the legal junk that could be argued. This is where attorney's make their money.

Now, if Mr. Kell's proposition was actually correct, then the Mittani, a lawyer himself, would've been able to successfully go after IWI in real life, which hasn't seemed to work out that way. So, I think I'll side with CCP and the others here on the idea that gambling in EVE is probably safe for now, but who knows, some lawyer some place may actually successfully argue Lucas's idea to reality in a courtroom someplace. Wizards first rule and all.

Being British that is unlikely.

No it's not. Plus you can buy real world services with it. You can pay to go on a tour run by a third party tour operator with it at fanfest. While their EULA it may protect CCP from direct action related to the conversion and gambling of funds, it certainly won't mean the sites themselves can go unregulated, and since CCP provide the backend that allows those sites to operate, they'd potentially be liable there. The only way they'd remove that liability is to ban sites from using the API if they host unregulated gambling.

No you couldn't because that's simply part of the game service being provided to you. The third party site is taking something of value from that game and allowing you to gamble with it.

You condescend, but if your interpretation here were accepted this thread wouldn't exist as the guys being charged would only have been gambling with in-game items. Getting coins in Fifa and consuming coins in Fifa is all part of the game, but that's what they were gambling with and that's what they are being charged for. Fifa coins by the way are also unable to be sold under their EULA, so they meet the criteria you've set for dismissing ISK. If anything Fifa coins have less reason to be considered to have a real world value since they can't pay for the type of services PLEX can.

Not really it's a new area of law and I doubt one lawyer with bias will get anywhere with it. As time moves on though, these sites will potentially find themselves in trouble.

First off, I am in fact well aware that Iceland has the Icelandic Króna as its official currency, however ISK is only its currency code, the symbol for the currency is 'kr'. Also it's explicitly stated in the in-game lore that ISK in Eve stands for "InterStellar Kredits" and it uses a different currency symbol, where as Steam's wallet uses whatever your native currency is explicitly stated to be dollars/pounds/euros/ect.

As for the idea that the CS:GO case is going to set a precident directly applicable here, I've already stated above several reasons why that's questionable. Most notably because the CS:GO related lawsuits rely on the idea that the Skins functioned as poker chips which had value. That literally only works because of the Steam marketplace and the dollar values it assigns to these items.

Also the whole "PLEX can be used to buy Fanfest tickets" thing doesn't really work, legally speaking, because it's taking money CCP has already been given and using it to pay for something they're offering. I vaguely recall someone from CCP saying that's why the graphics card promotion hasn't recurred, because of the potential legal implications, though don't quote me on that I don't have a source for it. Regardless though, that's still a really questionable way to link in-game money to Value since the whole system is internal to CCP and things that they offer. You could argue the same thing about Steam but Steam sells other people's goods and acts as a marketplace, while Fanfest is something CCP entirely runs and profits from the same as PLEX sales.

Also the AUR link is ridiculous, because that's just more virtual goods with no out of game value. Again, if I gank someone's Freighter full of Monocles I don't have to put it on my real-life taxes.



Yes but those airline tickets also represent a real-world service with a defined monetary value, while in-game ISK does not. When you buy game-time from CCP you're paying for access to that virtual world, and legally speaking things within that virtual world have no real-world value unless they're transferable back into cash.

See: previous examples about how I don't have to declare gank proceeds on my taxes.



That's literally all they do. They exist to define and regulate gambling, not to stop someone from self-destructing. This affects things like how it's taxed, and stops people from setting up certain types of predatory gambling operations, but the laws certainly don't exist to stop people from betting their life savings.



See above, you're essentially just allocating money someone else has given to CCP. You can't sell those event tickets and the whole thing remains internal to CCP.

Similarly IGP the guys who run Mechwarrior Online can give away certain virtual items much more freely than others because the ones they sell in their shop directly fall under some Canadian laws regarding prize value, while in-game mechs (despite the fact that you can buy Credits which are used to buy the mechs) do not legally have that same value attribution.



Except it can't, I can't go down to Starbucks and pay for coffee with my in-game currency. That CCP lets me "buy" fanfest tickets with PLEX is entirely at their discretion and doesn't give in-game ISK a real-world value.

[quote=Lucas KellAnd PLEX can be bought with ISK. What you're saying is because the cash is laundered through multiple conversion steps it has no value. That's not how the law works. You can't just say "well i used my tokens to buy another type of token and used that to buy stuff, therefore the original token didn't get me stuff".[/quote]

That is *exactly* how the law works, because I can't back out of those conversion steps. The only reason gambling with poker chips counts as gambling, regardless of what I paid for those chips, is because I can then convert them back into real money. If you take out that step (as some charity events occasionally do) then it's no longer gambling because nothing of value is being won.

Seriously this is getting repetitive, you just keep repeating the same claim with no evidence to back it up, that because you can buy PLEX (an in-game item) and sell it, that the thing you sell it for has value, even though you can't then turn that thing into money. That is not how the legal definition of value works!

A similar example would be:
If I started up a blackjack table across from an arcade - but instead of betting money I bet only tokens for the arcade across the way - would this be gambling?

Clearly within the arcade itself, they can let you win free plays of their own games - and this is not gambling.

But by taking it *outside* of their arcade, and letting you gamble for tokens to *someone else's arcade* - I am in fact providing a clear-cut gambling service for something that has value *somewhere other than my own game*. Even though you can't buy a new car with the tokens - I would still argue that this is, in fact, gambling - and the local police would arrest me for doing something like this.

#1 - why are you only talking to Lucas?

#2 - Do you have any indication that the Mittani is pressing or has any intention to press lawsuits against I Want Isk? Or is that just a conspiracy theory/strawman argument you've come up with so you don't have to actually address anything that has been said?