Debate Over the Justification and Legality of RMT

9,900,000 users?

First, off at least 1/4 of the player population has engaged in Virtual Currency transactions, and I'd argue that the amount is even higher than that as it's generally become easier, cheaper, and more accepted over the past few years (even with Western Developer support, see Station Exchange/large Venture Capital funded Playspan; In the Eastern Markets RMT is built right into many of the games).

Here is a study by Nick Yee backing that up: http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001469.php (22% in the study engaged in RMT)

Let's also see that the average amount overall spent is $135.

We are talking about a rapidly growing $2 billion dollar market worldwide that in the next few years has been predicted to hit $5 billion (http://virtual-economy.org/blog/how_big_is_the_rmt_market_anyw)

There is some legal comments over at the EFF, and on the Virtually Blind Site (links in article).

Regarding the rather blatant racism and hate for the (Chinese) "Gold Farmers" I'd have you check out this study: http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001493.php?page=1

With that said, there are many virtual currency providers/suppliers that are awful, unethical, and extremely disrupting to the players experience. However, there are also many PLAYERS that are awful, unethical, and extremely disruptive to other players experience. The goal is to root out and find ways to penalize the bad apples. Part of the motivation behind the GameRates site was to provide a way for the customers to self-regulate the market by providing open information about these providers so that people stopped buying (and economically penalized) companies that engaged in these practices.

However, I don't see Blizzard trying to shut down the entire market. I think it helps their bottom line too much so they play a game of "doublespeak" where they do bannings from time to time if things get out of hand (and as an easy way to make some cash; every account they ban, a farmer then goes out and buys another CD key). A lot of players would quit playing if it were not from RMT.

The main problem here, is the game mechanics of an MMO where some parts are so tiring, repetitive, and generally unfun that they create a $2 billion+ market of people paying others to essentially play the game for them. In the meantime I think you have a legal right to sell your time/labor even if it is in a virtual world if you wish.

BlackHaz: Exchange 2

Players that are disruptive get banned. Companies that disrupt the business of others, especially in violation of copyright laws, get sued and taken out of business.

There are many markets out there that aren't ethical or legal, there is plenty of a market for prostitution, drugs, illegal copies of software and so on. The drug and prostitution markets far exceed 2 billion, have you considered entering that market? It seems very lucrative. I'm sure they could use another source of independent reviews :)

Personally I hope this lawsuit spills over to RMT since it very much seems to apply. I also see that Blizzard decided to name Donnelly personally as well as MDY LLC, which makes me snicker a bit. It seems to me that if he loses the case he will personally be held financially liable for at least some of the damages awarded to Blizzard for the infringement. I hope this is the case as I'm not very familiar with the USA legal system.

The faster the third party RMT business can be destroyed the better. If the game developers want a secondary market for their game, let them add it or license someone else to add it. Luckily most of the actual points of sale operate from within the USA, while most work is done in Asia. So the damage to the RMT market could potentially be enormous as it opens up a venue for the game developers to deal with these leeches. Your site just happens to be a leech on the leeches.

"sell your time/labor even if it is in a virtual world if you wish"

Unlike the real world, you do not have any human rights in a virtual world. The virtual world is wholly owned by someone else and you exist there only because you have agreed to abide by their rules. People who draw parallels between the virtual world and real world, especially when it comes to actual labor, are pretty damn delusional.

GameRates: Exchange 2

I feel as it's more than a bit unfair to compare the market for virtual currency to selling illegal copies of software. As far as drugs and prostitution I'm more of a fan of regulation of those markets when they are dishonest or a harm OTHER members of society as I believe strongly in Mills "harm principle" that there should not be government regulation for victimless crimes.

It's to no concern of Blizzard what I do outside of the game. As long as I acquire items in the game using normal play mechanics I can then if I choose to give those items to anyone in the game I wish. The fact that I happen to do a favor for someone outside the game, send them money via paypal, or bake them a cake, and they then choose to give me those items within the game doesn't change the circumstances whatsoever as it is not Blizzard's authority to regulate what I do outside of the game.

If virtual currency suppliers use exploits, bots, hacks, cheats, or grief other players than they should be punished within the game. If they actually "hack" the servers or infrastructure that the game is based on than they can be legally sued. If they spam players, than they should be punished under anti-spam laws (legal action can be taken).

However, if they choose to kill the same monster over and over again; just as any other player would do to acquire money in the game; there is nothing wrong with that. If they choose to give that money to another player there is nothing wrong with that. However, if that other player previously has done something for them in a real world (outside of the scope of Blizzard's "realm"), which may be related to them giving them virtual currency within the game, Blizzard has no legal right to "sue" that player. If I've played the game for a number of years, and feel like giving the account to a friend, and he pays me for it, I don't see what is in any way "illegal" or even "unethical" about that.

Sure Blizzard can choose whoever they want to play their game. The same way that Boy Scouts of America can choose to bar Atheists, Agnostics, and Homosexuals from participating in it's club. That doesn't mean that Blizzard has a legal case against the virtual currency industry (assuming they aren't spamming, hacking into servers, etc.) or that such behavior is in any way unethical.

Remember, that programming code or writing a book, just because it is completely digital and isn't tangible doesn't mean it isn't actual labor and doesn't have value. The same way that you can pay someone to play a game for you, it is still labor, and it still has value even if it is just 0's and 1's. There are a number of academics who have been publishing papers and writing books on this and I'm doubt they are all delusional (although it is a possibility!).

Blackhaz: Exchange 3

I'm not arguing that it has value. It obviously does since it's possible to sell it. Blizzard can control the rules you have to follow within their world. If you do not follow the rules you're loading your client into RAM against the license you have acquired and thereby committing copyright infringement. It is well known that the distribution points for virtual currency are well aware that what they are doing will cause the user to violate their license. As such they are clearly encouraging their customers to commit the violation. I seriously believe that if this case results in damages, it will apply to the secondary markets. If this is true it's a violation of the law and a good citizen, an ethical one if you want, will abide by the rules we have agreed upon as a society. Otherwise they will be punished with a fine or loss of freedom. Furthermore the rules are fairly short compared to the extensive set of rules you have to follow in the real world. You also get the rules presented to you and promise to follow them. Isn't it a bad attribute for a person to willingly break those rules and thereby their promise? I find people who lie to rarely be ethical people.

Blizzard is a company which is trying to choose their customers based off of behavior. I'm sure the boy scouts are free to dictate that people while on their grounds may not have sex. See there's a difference between behavioral rules and attribute rules.

"I feel as it's more than a bit unfair to compare the market for virtual currency to selling illegal copies of software"

It's a 100% fair comparison. It's even violation of the same laws, i.e the ones covering copyright.

"Remember, that programming code or writing a book, just because it is completely digital and isn't tangible doesn't mean it isn't actual labor and doesn't have value"

Virtual currency isn't an original work. It isn't covered by copyright or even any law I know of. Otherwise Blizzard would need police since crimes in the virtual world would be considered crimes in the real world. If you somehow stole something in game from someone it would have to be considered theft in the real world since the item stolen has recognized value. It's probably one of the more interesting things that will come out of a court case around the RMT market. Who really owns the items in game? My bet is that Blizzard owns it all. I'd eat my virtual hat if Blizzard lost that one. So far Blizzard have won some pretty spectacular court cases, the bnetd case being the one that surprised me the most, but it's inherently the same argument.

"which may be related to them giving them virtual currency within the game, Blizzard has no legal right to "sue" that player"

That's what they're working on proving that they have. Since this case has proven so far that they can control what software the user may run on his computer. You need to drop the sense of ownership. You own nothing of what is present inside of Blizzards world. You agreed to this when you installed the software, when you created your account and when you sign into the game. It's covered explicitly in the license you agree to.

"Blizzard owns, has licensed, or otherwise has rights to all of the content that appears in the Program. You agree that you have no right or title in or to any such content, including the virtual goods or currency appearing or originating in the Game, or any other attributes associated with the Account or stored on the Service."

"If this is true it's a violation of the law and a good citizen, an ethical one if you want, will abide by the rules we have agreed upon as a society."

I don't think ethics or morality are determined by social laws. As such, if it is illegal for example to drink alcohol if you are underage and you break this law, I in no way see that as unethical. Similarly if it is legal to commit something immoral lets say, slavery at one time that in no way makes it ethical. I see your point however about "social contract" theory, but have always felt it failed a bit (especially because the society you live in you are born into and don't really have much of a choice).

With a game like World of Warcraft it fits a bit better as you choose to and actually "sign" a social contract theory every time you play the game. Once again however this applies only to the game and not outside legal action in the real world. However, if Blizzard want's to sue you in the game for virtual gold, that's fine with me!

Let us say that they make "corpse camping" (I know you can't really do this in WoW, but let's just use it as it applies to other MMO's) a violation of the EULA. In fact, corpse camping is shown to cause customers to quit the game which is a loss of subscription revenue for blizzard. Could blizzard than sue you for legal damages in the real world? Would such actions be copyright infringement? Could you claim the MMO semi-equivalent to mental insanity and claim you were roleplaying?

If you are arguing that this is a game, and you are making the violation within the game, then the laws and punishments should only apply within the game.

The point I was making about RMT, was that the transaction that is "illegal" or a "copyright infringement" occurs outside of the game. The actions that you are doing within the game are perfectly legal by the game rules. They only become illegal, when you give someone some money outside of the game. If the farming companies turned into a charity, and just for the fun of playing the game and helping people in the game they started to give away the gold for free they would not be violating any of the game rules or committing what you consider "copyright infringement"

Blizzard's rules stop when you stop playing the game. Blizzard can't sue me for choosing to give someone five dollars and then that person choosing to give me 500 gold pieces inside a video game. Arguing that such an action is immoral is laughable. I give my friend, or let's say my son, or even a little brother ten USD and he in turn gives me 500 pieces of gold in the game that he spent all night playing to acquire? You consider this action immoral? Who is it hurting? What if you say you are paying your little brother for his labor outside the game time spent playing WoW (which is labor) and he choose to give you 500 gold within the game? I don't think this step is even necessary, but have seen people put in a little legal "trick" like that when they are selling accounts notifying the buyer that he is buying the time it took him to level the character, but not the actual character. People have also sold "a piece of paper" with a username/password of an account on it.

This is partly why the comparison to selling illegal copies of software doesn't work. In that example you are actually stealing software and selling it. Here you are not stealing anything. You aren't even hurting anyone. You are playing the game in a decent manner, and it's only defined as illegal due to your behavior outside of the game.

When you give your lets say little brother $10 to give you a gift of 500 gold within a virtual world you aren't really hurting anyone. In fact, it would be 100% by the rules for him to give you that 500 gold just because you were friends or guildmates. Blizzard has no right to regulate what you do outside of their game and the EULA doesn't apply to actions that you commit while outside the game when it is not in your RAM. If I want to give my brother $10 that's fine. If he wants to give me 500 gold inside the game that's fine too. But Blizzard says if this transaction that occurs outside the game world is related than you are committing copyright infringement and can be sued for such behavior?

When did blizzard turn into a totalitarian state that could control what you did with real money outside of their game world?

I also think you are going to have a hard time proving damages if the gold farmers play the game using normal game mechanics combined with the large percentage of people that would stop playing the game if the gold farmers didn't exist. Blizzard could shut down the virtual currency operations nearly completely if they wanted to (or make gold insanely expensive) through automatic tracking software. Remember, they do control the entire world and can log and monitor everything. We wrote an article on how even one mass banning session doubled the price of gold. Plus, if they started banning gold buyers, people would stop buying gold, it wouldn't be worth the risk. However, that would alienate their customer base and they would lose customers so they play this game of doublespeak where they semi-regulate the industry to appease those who hate the gold farmers, but tolerate it because it brings in money. It's also why I doubt you will see a legal case unless the farmers are spamming or hacking (which currently way too many do, but we are trying to change that and I don't defend such virtual currency sellers).

Remember that these RMT companies are not little companies like MDY that are easy to push over. IGE was valued at one point by Goldman Sachs as worth $220 million and in fact Goldman Sachs invested a decent chunk of money into them. I'm sure the lawyers looked over the business before such a transaction took place.

Blackhaz: Exchange 4

I'm going to skip the moral and ethical debate since there's such a huge difference as to what is ethical in different societies. It's also pretty tangential.

To be honest I think you raise a very valid point, can an EULA dictate what you do outside of the game? If it is really considered a binding contract it should be possible. In some states however non-compete clauses are invalid so it seems very situational.

Regarding your corpse camping example that would more than likely be copyright infringement by the user and be as the EFF mentions punishable by a fine. I don't think the law has really caught up to reality here and there probably needs to be proper regulation. Copyright infringement is such a stretch but as it's been argued successfully before so this is where the lawyers will go.

As for claiming insanity in game, you really have to let go of the confusion you have between reality and the virtual world. In the eyes of the law the virtual character is not a person. You are responsible for all actions you take and those actions need to abide by the rules set forth in the EULA and ToS or you are not allowed to copy the client from the hard drive to RAM. Making that copy will be copyright infringement.

"I also think you are going to have a hard time proving damages"

This is probably not any harder than proving the damages caused by bots. It will be interesting to see how much Blizzard will be awarded. The case is far from over.

"Remember that these RMT companies are not little companies"

Heh, even if the company was valued at 220 million USD it's still a small company. Perhaps not a tiny one but a very small one. For a company with a total value of 220 million to go up against a giant such as Activision Blizzard would be very foolish. If they filed a suit there would be massive damages just from the fact that it was filed alone. Goldman Sachs were also very displeased with that investment. I would love to see the 220 million USD valuation sourced because I strongly doubt it with the market cap and competition they are currently operating under.

"so they play this game of doublespeak"

So you keep saying. I don't think they do any double speak at all. They hunt the RMT market and ban them and they say that they do not want them in the game. You simply make up some figures in your mind about these gold farmers being a major source of revenue to Blizzard. Which I strongly doubt.