Thank you for an actually reasonable presentation of the events in question. I understand why people can get suspicious, but nobody seems to know how to behave ever when imp scroll stuff comes up :/
if it helps, then i'm glad. really, it all comes down to looking at the finer detail that FR publicly shows about the user and putting 2+2 together. if the anon who reported the situation has anything else to show outside of that, i'd be happy to see it, because it's possible they know something that booleano isn't letting on and i have no access to it.
it's fair that people can feel suspicious when FR is rife with RMT/unallowed trades, and has a history of kickstarter item disasters (imp scroll dupe apocalypse comes to mind), though i agree that people need to step back a little bit and do more digging or think more critically. not everyone who gets a rare thing needs to be called out.
Honest truth, at a code level, there is nothing wrong with selling for real life cash. It's not a site item yet, staff has no real jurisdiction to stop it.
actually, codes that are redeemable for items can be legally protected under voucher laws varying by state. it's similar to a gift certificate in the eyes of the law; it is an unredeemed cash value asset.
GOD i swear on my life i found a page that outlined what states had some precedent about virtual goods codes, but it eludes me now.
however, i do have this: https://irblaw.com.sg/learning-centre/selling-online-game-accounts/
while this specifically covers accounts, items, and currency, because the ONLY value and use of a virtual item code is that it provides a service/item/currency/feature that is tethered to the intellectual property of the site upon redemption, and FR has outlined in their EULA - on which this law site outlines is the only *truly* important part of the item's ownership rulings - that these things are NOT to be traded, they DO have legal standing to protect their game codes as you do not have the right to sell or trade their IP outside of the guidelines they set, which includes RMT. i STRONGLY recommend that if you have more questions, you reach out to a lawyer who has worked cases about digital goods before. they would know infinitely more than me, because unfortunately, virtual goods are NOT treated as personal property almost everywhere, which makes it impossible to research more into.
there's a neat thing, though! a couple of years back, there was a court case in europe about whether or not digital game items/goods can be considered personal property (a user was complainant against the developers for removing their access to goods they had bought with RLC), as you buy them just like any other item in real life. i wish i could find that court case, because it was genuinely fascinating, and i do believe it ruled in favour of the player. i had found it while researching MMO scams and the like (i THINK this one was habbo hotel, but good luck finding that court case amid the countless others i'm not allowed to talk about here), and i wish i could remember more about it, because it set a precedent. while it wouldn't mean anything to a US company like FR, it was a very important court case.
while, yes, that is singapore, i have several PDFs on the matter that outline EULA as being legal contract for the US/UK/etc., too, but again, i'm just going to refer you to speak to a lawyer on the matter instead. they're flat out going to be the right person to talk to, no matter how many documents i show you. law is a crazy thing, and there's always loopholes and exploitable contextual situations that only a lawyer is going to be able to advise you on more accurately.
Why the fuck would someone call a lawyer for theoretical discussion on an anon comm I'm more trying to figure out why folks want some player ostracized and potentially banned over an unproven trade or sale of a code that could have been with a person that never agreed to the EULA.
Because that's what it feels like.(I know none of the parties involved.)
Honest truth, if FR doesn't want the codes sold at this point, they need to just bite the bullet and disable all remaining Kickstarter codes unless the backer contacts them.
hey man, I've been running all over places and asking my own friends in law about this to try and compile things for you. if you wanna start slinging foul language at someone who is giving you genuine advice - because law is bullshit complex and im NOT a lawyer - and has been going deep just to find something plain jargon enough to understand, then you're on your own. you can satiate your own curiosity. it is now your cross to bear.
Dude, I was more telling you that you're going way overboard on hypothetical shit talking on an anoncomm if you're consulting lawyers for this discussion. I don't plan on doing anything with this. I don't understand why you would even go that far on curiosity. Lawyers are too expensive for idle speculation. I have no Kickstarter codes. I don't need legal advice.
There is no cross to bear. Just a bored anon you are taking way too seriously.
two opposing-ish viewpoints on the same issue, from two separate law reviews in the US. (the duke one is pretty short and digestible but is also a little older, for what that's worth. i wasn't cracking into westlaw for case law cites for an ARR comment, sorry anon.)
i'm not an expert, but to the best of my knowledge, virtual item codes are governed by contract law in the US and not property law. use of the KS voucher code is governed by the EULA that any player consents to by making an account on flight rising. because you have to consent to the EULA to make an account - which you have to do in order to redeem any code, because you have to be logged into an account to redeem - anyone who purchases a voucher for RLC and wants to actually use it on FR is subject to the EULA.
the contract (or agreement) between the parties to purchase/sell the KS code is separate from the contracts players make with FR via the EULA, and those two contracts don't really intersect with each other.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mindlessflight) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
anonrerising2022-05-03 09:24 pm
Re: Booleano
(Anonymous) 2022-05-08 03:10 pm (UTC)(link)Re: Booleano
(Anonymous) 2022-05-08 03:52 pm (UTC)(link)if it helps, then i'm glad. really, it all comes down to looking at the finer detail that FR publicly shows about the user and putting 2+2 together. if the anon who reported the situation has anything else to show outside of that, i'd be happy to see it, because it's possible they know something that booleano isn't letting on and i have no access to it.
it's fair that people can feel suspicious when FR is rife with RMT/unallowed trades, and has a history of kickstarter item disasters (imp scroll dupe apocalypse comes to mind), though i agree that people need to step back a little bit and do more digging or think more critically. not everyone who gets a rare thing needs to be called out.
Re: Booleano
(Anonymous) 2022-05-08 05:51 pm (UTC)(link)Re: Booleano
(Anonymous) 2022-05-08 07:07 pm (UTC)(link)Re: Booleano
(Anonymous) 2022-05-08 10:53 pm (UTC)(link)Re: Booleano
(Anonymous) 2022-05-09 05:37 am (UTC)(link)however, i do have this: https://irblaw.com.sg/learning-centre/selling-online-game-accounts/
while this specifically covers accounts, items, and currency, because the ONLY value and use of a virtual item code is that it provides a service/item/currency/feature that is tethered to the intellectual property of the site upon redemption, and FR has outlined in their EULA - on which this law site outlines is the only *truly* important part of the item's ownership rulings - that these things are NOT to be traded, they DO have legal standing to protect their game codes as you do not have the right to sell or trade their IP outside of the guidelines they set, which includes RMT. i STRONGLY recommend that if you have more questions, you reach out to a lawyer who has worked cases about digital goods before. they would know infinitely more than me, because unfortunately, virtual goods are NOT treated as personal property almost everywhere, which makes it impossible to research more into.
there's a neat thing, though! a couple of years back, there was a court case in europe about whether or not digital game items/goods can be considered personal property (a user was complainant against the developers for removing their access to goods they had bought with RLC), as you buy them just like any other item in real life. i wish i could find that court case, because it was genuinely fascinating, and i do believe it ruled in favour of the player. i had found it while researching MMO scams and the like (i THINK this one was habbo hotel, but good luck finding that court case amid the countless others i'm not allowed to talk about here), and i wish i could remember more about it, because it set a precedent. while it wouldn't mean anything to a US company like FR, it was a very important court case.
Re: Booleano
(Anonymous) 2022-05-09 06:49 am (UTC)(link)Re: Booleano
(Anonymous) 2022-05-09 08:22 am (UTC)(link)Re: Booleano
(Anonymous) 2022-05-09 04:59 pm (UTC)(link)Because that's what it feels like.(I know none of the parties involved.)
Honest truth, if FR doesn't want the codes sold at this point, they need to just bite the bullet and disable all remaining Kickstarter codes unless the backer contacts them.
Re: Booleano
(Anonymous) 2022-05-09 11:29 pm (UTC)(link)Re: Booleano
(Anonymous) 2022-05-10 12:56 am (UTC)(link)There is no cross to bear. Just a bored anon you are taking way too seriously.
Re: Booleano
(Anonymous) 2022-05-10 02:01 am (UTC)(link)https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&context=dltr
two opposing-ish viewpoints on the same issue, from two separate law reviews in the US. (the duke one is pretty short and digestible but is also a little older, for what that's worth. i wasn't cracking into westlaw for case law cites for an ARR comment, sorry anon.)
i'm not an expert, but to the best of my knowledge, virtual item codes are governed by contract law in the US and not property law. use of the KS voucher code is governed by the EULA that any player consents to by making an account on flight rising. because you have to consent to the EULA to make an account - which you have to do in order to redeem any code, because you have to be logged into an account to redeem - anyone who purchases a voucher for RLC and wants to actually use it on FR is subject to the EULA.
the contract (or agreement) between the parties to purchase/sell the KS code is separate from the contracts players make with FR via the EULA, and those two contracts don't really intersect with each other.
Re: Booleano
(Anonymous) 2022-05-10 02:31 am (UTC)(link)