... doesn't libel require you to prove not only false/misleading statements, but damages deriving from such?
Yep. Loss of dollar value = "damages." That's covered by the "is actually defamed"-- that is, actually suffers damage to value of reputation-- requirement of libel.
If I remember, there have been cases of people whose reputation was SO bad that no amount of libel could actually do further damage, resulting in zero recovery.
I actually have no problem with our having zero claim to "virtual assets" but that comes from a general dislike for the idea of tying real dollar values to in-game assets and the implications for taxing and trading that brings with it.
Yeah, but keeping the value of "virtual assets" at zero would probably require some fast legislating. Otherwise, "things," real or not, have whatever value people agree to assign to them. That is, if you can sell a certain item to any of a large number of people for X amount of money, "X" is probably pretty close to the item's value.
(Edit: Also, in the United States, declaring the value of your intellectual property to be zero might constitute a legislative "taking," meaning that the gov't would have to pay you for your loss.)
So without valuation of assets, we would be left trying to quantify "I was not able to have as much fun after he blew up my ship."
Strictly speaking, we have that anyway-- at least for extreme cases. It's hard to prove and the courts are skeptical, but intentional infliction of emotional distress, a.k.a. "outrage," is a cause of action.
(Mind you, it has to be REALLY extreme; the old standard is that it must be the kind of conduct that causes a listener, upon hearing of it, to exclaim, "Outrageous!")
Circumventing security systems, DDoS attacks, and other abuses/violations (outside the game itself) have occurred in the name of "cut-throat fair play", but this discussion would (and has) taken years of study to just scratch the surface of.
Yes-- and many of those actions are both against the EULA and illegal. They're cutthroat, but not fair play, pretty much by definition.
I'll assume for the moment that you're not saying we should tone down the competitive nature of the game because it motivates people to cheat.
As the saying goes, you can't legislate morality.
A very important thing to remember.
Finally, I'm not arguing from one extreme or the other. There is no "the" alternative and if there were, I wouldn't be proposing it. There is a continuum between the extremes with a long gradient of opinions (and furthermore, along multiple axes), mine just falls "elsewhere" not on the "other" side :9.
Oh, I'm aware that what you're arguing isn't all that extreme, politically. The problem is the practical effects of acting on your objections.
Let's say we got to keep rights to our characters-- our creative work on "the System," but Iceland passes a law saying that virtual objects have no value. Leaving aside the difficulty of legislatively devaluing intellectual property, the EULA's choice of law is Iceland, so-- all good, right?
Well, except that, as you said before, the EULA deals with your rights relative to CCP, not to other players. Now, since Abel (who lives in Oklahoma), Baker (who lives in New York), and Charlie (who lives in England)
don't live in Iceland, and are in possession of intellectual property rights that might have considerable value under the laws of anyplace BUT Iceland ...
Let the lawsuits commence!
... However, take a guess what area of law is pretty consistent internationally (mostly for practical reasons, that is, so that commerce can go forward without massive legal battles)?
Yep. Contracts.
CCP probably cannot make you contractually agree that your IP shall have no value, since that is like asking you to agree that the sky where you live will always be gray: you have little direct control. It can, however, ensure that all that value belongs to it, thus disarming any fights over the area.
Is it perfect? No. Is it 100% fair to you, the creator? Maybe not. Is it a workable, effective legal means to achieve what CCP set out to do?
Yeah, pretty much that.
It doesn't take an extremist to object to certain of CCP's terms, but the results of eliminating those terms is, nevertheless, extreme-- and I'm hard-pressed to think of another way they could have done it.
A contract is "do it yourself" law. Literally. CCP crafted an EULA that would establish a legal framework in which Eve would work. It's something I have difficulty faulting them for, especially since I'm hard-pressed to come up with a coherent alternative.
[
Lawyer's disclaimer: the contents of this post are meant for casual argumentative and/or educational purposes, and should NOT be taken as legal advice. Rely on them at your own risk!]
Author
Topic: [Split] Evemail/log sharing discussion (EULA, privacy, consent, etc) (Read 5589 times)