dear people who buy gil with real money

[csBahamut]

wtf... csBahamut, so you are the one that keeps posting irelevant and and examples that do not make sense.

Just tell me, what does killing a person has to do with gil buyin?

The gil sellers are not killing players and jacking their gil to sell to you, you cannot make a direct analogy on that... You think you write great posts, but trust me, you do not. They do not make sense, and I am sure an english will give you an F for going off topic and making false analogies. God bless your retarded off-topic-ness.

I'm sorry if you can't comprehend what I'm writing. I'd suggest you stay away from any college textbooks then, because you'd REALLY be lost. Maybe you should have someone more intelligent than yourself explain to you what my posts are saying, because all your pionts have been covered over and over already.

Please, stop using supply and demand, everyone knows about it as it is the most elementary concept of economics.

The only reason D2 was ruined was not due to people buying stuff online, but the fact that the items being sold were "duped".
That is why the economy and the game is fucked up.

For FFXI, it is a different story. The gils are obtained by legit players, gil sellers and nonsellers alike. The gils didn't just appear out of nowhere, thus inflating the economy.

This will be my last warning to you regarding posting irrelevent information and examples that do not make sense.

I would hope everyone would understand supply and demand, but I still have to back up my arguments, even if the person already knows about it. They may just have not thought about it.

Nothing is ever ruined because of ONE thing. It takes a series of events to cause another. If you spill your glass of milk, it wasn't just because your hand hit the glass. You could have been distracted, could have forgot it was there, maybe you set it in a place you don't normally set your glass, maybe you were try to catch something you dropped and hit the glass as well. Go talk to any intelligent person( i.e. teacher, professor, engineer, scientist, etc.) and they will tell you the same. The Great Depression wasn't caused by JUST the stock market crash. Something had to cause the stock market to crash in the first place. There's no need for me to go into further detail here, it's all technical babble that anyone who took American History in High School should already know.

As far as we know, gil is not being 'duped', but that doesn't mean it's being obtained in a legal manner, nor does it make it legal. The ToS clearly states that you are not allowed to purchase gil online (maybe not gil specifically, but it's covered under the definition).

Last warning? Please, this is an intelligent discussion, not a flame war. If you don't want to discuss things in a logical and rational manner, then please do us all a favor and not post in this thread anymore.

[csBahamut]

there seem to be solid points on both sides, and this thread is enlightening reading. Lets hope it continues.

Yes, and I highly doubt we will come to any form of conclusive answer to our debate. Like what was stated in the link that StarvingArtist provided, it's up to the courts to decide yet (when it comes to virtual property).

Whether or not gil buying is right or wrong comes down to where it is obtained from. If SE provide a service where people can buy gil, then gil buying is ok. If SE makes it's against the rules in the ToS, then it's illegal to buy gil. Of course, gil sellers make ful use of the loopholes left by the legal systems lack of action on the matter of virtual property.

[lun4tic]

Originally posted by csBahamut
Yes, and I highly doubt we will come to any form of conclusive answer to our debate. Like what was stated in the link that StarvingArtist provided, it's up to the courts to decide yet (when it comes to virtual property).

Whether or not gil buying is right or wrong comes down to where it is obtained from. If SE provide a service where people can buy gil, then gil buying is ok. If SE makes it's against the rules in the ToS, then it's illegal to buy gil. Of course, gil sellers make ful use of the loopholes left by the legal systems lack of action on the matter of virtual property.

The legal system isn't something that can act on it's own. SE has to utilize it in finding and prosecuting the people who sell gil. SE also has to have solid proof that these people were selling gil or other virtual property owned by them beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't think SE cares much since they make 13 a month off people with ONE player, and there's a lot of people out there with several mules. They know that when people buy gil, it could affect that person in either two ways; they either play longer with that gil, or they play less because they don't have to farm.

Most people buy gil so they can keep up with the armor and level further, thus playing more and paying more to SE.

[CarbonFibre]

Originally posted by csBahamut
The economy can stay stable, or it can be rocked hard. It's the fact that it *could* get real bad. Do you want to take the chance that the game will be ruined? Probably doesn't matter to some people, but it does to me. It's the same thing with wearing seatbelts. People assume that they won't get in an accident on that short trip to-from home. Yet, the majority of accidents hapen within less than 1 mile from home.

If a gil buyer says that others shouldn't care because it doesn't affect them, wouldn't this sound just like someone not wearing their seatbelt and saying the same thing? In fact, more people not wearing their seatbelts would increase insurance rates for people who always wear it. Does that seem fair? The same applies in-game. The easier gil is to get, the less its percieved value. I also don't understand how any of you guys can justify buying fake game money for real money.

[lun4tic]

Buying fake game character for real money?

You're a hipocrite.

Gil isn't easy to get, it's being farmed then sold. It's not appearing out of nowhere it's being earned then sold.

[csBahamut]

The legal system isn't something that can act on it's own. SE has to utilize it in finding and prosecuting the people who sell gil. SE also has to have solid proof that these people were selling gil or other virtual property owned by them beyond a reasonable doubt.

There's a bit more to it than that. Read this: http://www.themis-group.com/uploads/...20Property.pdf
He explains all about what is going on in the legal world with virtual property. Whether the player or the company, or even no one, owns the virtual data would have a big effect on the real world.

Pitfall #1: What is Virtual Property?
Is virtual property a meaningful concept?
This may seem an odd question to ask, given that every virtual world has objects and that these objects
can belong to individual characters. If one character says to another one, “that's mine!�, any argument
that ensues will be about who owns the object in question, not whether objects or ownership
themselves are valid concepts.

The short answer is that within the virtual world itself, property is a meaningful concept, but within the
real world it is not meaningful in the same way unless the virtual world explicitly recognizes it.
Here's an analogy. Suppose you own a Monopoly set, and invite me and a few friends round for a game.
During the course of the game, I land on Boardwalk and buy it. Do I own it? Well yes, in the game, but no
11 in real life because it's your Monopoly set. Let's say another player had Park Place and that I wanted to
buy it from them but didn't have enough Monopoly money to do so. What would happen if I paid them
$10 of real money for it? Allegations of unfairness and rule-breaking aside, what I've actually bought
isn't real-world ownership of the object, because the seller doesn't real-world own it (it's your Monopoly
set). Instead, I've bought a service from you: for my $10 of real money, you'll give me the property “for
free� in-game.


As a player of virtual worlds, you don't own anything, your character owns it. What's more, you don't
own your character, either - you don't even own “your� account. These are all part of the “set� that is
owned by the developer. Only if the rules of the virtual world acknowledge that real-world ownership
can be transferred does the concept of ownership in the virtual world correspond with the concept of
ownership in the real world.


Nevertheless, players can (and routinely do) claim that they real-world own virtual goods in the same
sense as they own real goods. There are two basic attitudes:
! What can be bought and sold in the virtual world maps identically onto what is bought and sold in
the real world. If I buy your sword on eBay, I now own that sword.
! Trades in virtual objects are actually trades in imaginary tokens that buyers and sellers use as a
13 convenience to represent transfer of the in-world possession of virtual objects . You may
advertise your sword as being for sale at $200, but what you actually mean is that your character
will give the sword to my character if I pay you $200 of real world money (not that either of us
particularly cares about the actual mechanics). Note that this doesn't work for character
transfers.
Of these attitudes, the first one causes most unease among developers as it implies that real-world
commerce laws govern virtual object trades. The second does not do this, although it's just as bad for
developers in other areas (see Pitfalls #3 and #4).

It's these real world commerce laws that bring about problems.

[csBahamut]

Essentially, there are five arguments . In order of increasing sophistication:
1) I own it because I bought it.
The suggestion here is that if I purchase something in good faith, I should get to keep it. The classic
example of this in law concerns purchasing stolen goods: if I buy something that I know (or that any
reasonable person with my knowledge would suspect) to be stolen, I'm guilty of receiving stolen goods;
otherwise, I'm an honest, law-abiding citizen who should not be unduly punished by having to return my
purchase to its original owner without compensation. Some countries take this further: in Japan, for
example, once two years have elapsed from the date at which they were bought, stolen goods don't
15 have to be returned to their original owner at all if the buyer didn't realize they were stolen .
The problem with this approach is that it's terribly unfair on the victim of the original theft. It means, for
example, that if (without your knowledge) someone were to put your soul up for sale on eBay and I were
to buy it for a thousand dollars, I would own your soul and you wouldn't get it back unless I chose to sell it
16 to you .
In the context of virtual worlds, the argument has little merit anyway because players can't really claim
to have bought any item “in good faith�. If the virtual world developer never sells virtual property,
admonishes those who do sell it, and bans the practice under the terms of its End-User Licence
17 Agreement (“EULA�) , it's difficult to see how any player might successfully argue that an object they
saw for sale was bona fide owned by the seller. “I own it because I bought it, and I bought it because I'm
stupid� doesn't work.
2) I own it because I stole it
This is the argument used by squatters. If I take adverse possession of something for a sufficient period,
it becomes mine. In law, there are usually conditions to do with whether or not the original owner
attempts to recover the property, and whether or not they were making use of it; basically, though, if I
18 take something from you that you don't miss for however many years , I can claim ownership of it.
This argument suffers in that the virtual world's developers can maintain that I didn't have adverse
possession in the first place - especially if I'm paying them a monthly fee tantamount to rent. There are
variations in this approach that don't involve any initial “theft�, however, and these could prove more
tiresome. For example, in the UK tenants who rent a house may have a right to buy it after a certain
19 time . It's conceivable that someone could attempt to stretch right-to-buy laws intended for use with
real-world property into the virtual world, although the chances of their succeeding seem (thankfully)
very low.
3) I own the product of my labour.
20 This argument, which has its roots in the philosophy of John Locke , says that because I created
something through my personal endeavours, I get to keep it. There wasn't a 50th level battlemage in the
box when I bought the client software - it only exists because I made it.
Well no, but then there isn't a completed jigsaw in a jigsaw puzzle box, just a bunch of pieces. What
there is, however, is the means by which to create the jigsaw. If I let you borrow my jigsaw puzzle, would
you get to own the completed result? No, you wouldn't.
Ah, but perhaps your artistic input makes a difference? If so, I guess that means I shouldn't lend you my
Etch-a-Sketch, either, then.
Maybe the fact that you're invited to make something is important? Well no, it isn't. Family-friendly
restaurants sometimes have a play area for children. In that play area, there is often a table and a
collection of Duplo blocks. Younger children play with the blocks and make things. They have been
invited to the table, given a bunch of blocks, encouraged to make something, and produced a red
dinosaur with yellow eyes. Do they get to own it? No, they don't. The next kid who comes along will
dismantle it and make something else.
Now there is a problem here, in that “the means to produce� can be stretched a long way. Using this
argument, Microsoft could claim to own anything written using Microsoft Word, except that IBM could
claim to own Microsoft Word because its PCs were used for Word's early development. However, IBM
and Microsoft wouldn't have sold any of their products if they had asserted these conditions in their
EULAs, so they didn't. Many virtual world developers are of the opinion that their creations will be more
21 attractive to players if they do assert these conditions in their EULAs, so they do.
The thing is, with the jigsaw and the Etch-a-Sketch and the Duplo, people are being invited not to “make
things� but to “make things for fun�. It's not work, it's play. If you start regarding it as work, you're
breaking the implicit conditions under which you were given access to the necessary materials. With
virtual worlds it's the same, but for the fact that the conditions may be explicitly expressed as an EULA.
The root of the problem, then, is that some people consider to be work what is being sold to them as fun.
22 They wish to be recompensed as if it were work . They weren't paid to make what they made, therefore
they own it themselves. Except, because they paid to make it and were only allowed to do so on
condition they don't own it, they don't.
Note that there may be Intellectual Property (“IP�) laws that apply here irrespective of why the act of
creation occurred. These are discussed in Pitfall #5.
4) I'm selling my time.
This refined argument was used by a company called Black Snow, who were banned by Mythic
Entertainment (developers of Dark Age of Camelot) because they hired inexpensive workers in Mexico
to farm virtual goods that were then sold on to players. Mythic's EULA bans the buying and selling of its
virtual objects, but Black Snow claimed that this wasn't what they were selling. Rather, they were selling
the time and effort they had put into obtaining the virtual objects. Black Snow took Mythic to court, but
unfortunately (from the point of view of this paper) neglected to pay their lawyers; the suit was dropped
before it was heard. Nevertheless, people buying and selling virtual objects on eBay will routinely claim
that they're not selling the objects concerned, just the time and effort the invested in obtaining them.
Ingenious though the argument is, it doesn't stand up very well. “I'm not selling counterfeit coins, I'm
selling the time and effort I put into obtaining them� wouldn't save you from a term in prison.
Besides, if the time and effort required to obtain something were all that mattered, it would be fine for me
to pay you to take my driving test for me, rather than have to bother with all those tedious lessons
myself. Time and effort are not the only factors here, as we shall see in pitfall #5.
5) I own it because you made me buy it
This final argument turns the accountability for the sale back onto the virtual world developer. The
player claims that although the developer says one thing in words, they say another in their deeds: the
design of the virtual world is such that it actively encourages players to buy and sell virtual goods in the
real world.
Here, the player is painted as a hapless victim of circumstances - an honest individual subjected to
unreasonable pressures to do things they don't want to do. The almost exquisite highlight of this
argument is that virtual worlds are designed to favour “time-rich people� (i.e. ones who can spend hours
every day playing them) and that this is unfair for “time-poor people� (i.e. ones who have to work during
the day, making them relatively cash-rich). Surely players who are time-poor but cash-rich should be
able to counteract the excessive advantage that time-rich players have? It's inequitable otherwise.
Stirring though these appeals to unfairness are, they're a red herring. The same counter-argument
used for point 4) above works: it's unfair that time-rich people can get an MBA when cash-rich people
can't, so why not let cash-rich people simply buy the qualification? Well, because not everyone is
capable of getting an MBA no matter how much time they have; similarly, not every player is capable of
reaching level X in a virtual world. Claiming that it's merely lack of time that's preventing you from
advancing is like saying that lack of time is all that stops you from being a laparoscopic surgeon. Plenty
23 of things stop you from being a laparoscopic surgeon , of which lack of time (or money) is but one.

[csBahamut]

Not much more guys, sorry, but it seems no one bothers reading anymore...

Pitfall #2: Responsibility
If you accept (or if the law accepts) virtual property as a concept, you as a developer become a
custodian rather than an owner - you have responsibilities. Of these, the one that seems to attract the
most attention from pro-commodification players is an obligation to ensure that virtual property retains
its value.
Value comes from the effects of many subtle interactions of human desire. If no-one wants something,
it's worthless; if everyone wants it, it's priceless. Virtual objects are no different from real objects in this
regard; where they do become distinct is that they only have value because of the software that
provides their context. If the software were to change the meaning of a virtual object, that object's value
would also change.
This assumption of responsibility places virtual world developers in a very awkward position. It implies
that, as controllers of the software that determines the intrinsic characteristics of virtual objects in their
custody, developers have a duty to ensure that these characteristics do not change in such a manner as
to affect unduly the value of their associated objects. This puts severe - perhaps impossible -
constraints on them.

There's quite a bit of explanation of this one in the paper.

And lastly,

Pitfall #5: Intellectual Property
Who owns the copyright of virtual objects? The law, as it stands, isn't really very clear on the subject.
Virtual world developers have traditionally claimed all intellectual property (“IP�) in their products.
Some, most notably Second Life, do cede IP to players but still in a limited way. But why would a VW
developer care whether players had full IP rights over “their� creations or not?
Consider the following scenarios:
1) The better offer.
The player JohnX designs a neat virtual hoverbike for the virtual world VWX. It's his technology, and
VWX's developer happily grants him the IP. Everyone likes the hoverbikes: they put in orders for them,
customise them, race them, request improvements. Then, one day, a rival developer comes to JohnX
and says, “Gee, John, you're a great designer/programmer. We'd like to hire you.� JohnX accepts. Now
he works for another company. Now he wants every hoverbike removed from VWX. They're all his IP
one way or another.
2) The art within art.
JaneX creates a virtual, pole-less magnet. Any object of this kind will stick to any other object of this kind
until a player removes it. JaneX manufactures a thousand shiny spheres tinted in various colours, and
makes all of them pole-less magnets. She builds a staggeringly impressive statue out of them.
Everyone who comes and looks thinks it's brilliant. One player takes a screen shot and puts it on their
web site. “Hold on�, thinks JaneX, “that's my IP. That player has no right to publish it on a web site
without my say-so. Come to that, the developers have no right to publish it via players' client software
without my say-so. I should ask for a licence fee.�
3) The sponsor.
The McCola corporation likes the demographics of VWX's player base; it's willing to pay the developers
$20,000 a month to have virtual copies of McCola products appear in VWX. Its competitor, Burger Up,
also likes the demographics of VWX's player base; it's willing to pay a Chinese teenager $200 a month
to spam VWX with virtual copies of Burger Up products.
4) The reputation.
A bunch of VWX players get together and form The Guild of Schoolgirls. They choose as their avatars
the sweetest young thangs they can create, and spend their playing time hanging around corners
saying, “Like, blue, duh!� and similar phrases incomprehensible to anyone but a schoolgirl.
Incongruous though these characters may be, they're regarded fondly by most people, as harmless
role-players who make VWX the fun place it is. “It takes all sorts!�. The media get hold of the story and
publish interviews with the Schoolgirls. The Schoolgirls get their own fan club, web sites are set up
about them, and it's all great publicity for the virtual world with whom they're indelibly associated, VWX.
Then, one day, a pornographer pays the guild leaders $10,000 each to publish pictures of their avatars
indulging in naked lesbian sex sessions.
5) The dispute.
JackX spends two months programming a virtual pinball for VWX. VWX doesn't have any pinballs, and
JackX isn't a great programmer, but he sticks at it and produces a serviceable model that meets with a
warm reception from the other players. JillX sees the pinball and thinks it's a great idea. She may not be
as imaginative as JackX but she's a much better programmer, and within a week her mega-pinball hits
the virtual streets. No-one wants to play JackX's pinballs any more, they all want to play JillX's. JackX is
not at all happy. He has another idea, for gravity-free 3D virtual pinballs, but doesn't want to be ripped off
a second time. That's why he's going to patent it. In fact, he's so unhappy that he's going to patent it and
only license it to other VWs. See how many people stay with VWX playing stupid gravity-restricted
pinballs when all their competitors have the new, exciting, gravity-free ones!


The other three situations in the above examples are routinely covered in existing EULAs, whether
52 53 these recognise the player's IP or not ; however, if the developer does accept that players have IP
interests in their virtual world, three awkward issues are immediately raised:
! Minors are generally prohibited by law from signing away their IP. Even if they lie to VW
developers and say they aren't minors, the developer doesn't get to enjoy any IP rights signed
over to them by such players.
54
! Many countries give moral rights to authors (i.e. content creators) under article 6bis of the
55 Berne Convention . Some go further, decreeing that these are basic human rights that as such
56 cannot be signed away . In most of the EU, for example, there are rights of integrity (the author
can object if distortion of the material prejudices the author's honour/reputation) and rights of
attribution (the author can demand their name appear on their work). The first of these could be
particularly painful for VW developers to guarantee.
! Again, many countries have strict laws against unfair contracts. If a contract is too one-sided -
even if it was entered into voluntarily and did not involve a monopoly or cartel - then a court can
render it void. Is demanding all IP rights just so that people can “play a game� too one-sided?
Note that all of the above could apply even if the developer denied that players had IP rights in VWs. The
courts get to do the deciding, not the developers.

and the cue de gra

Conclusion
Different groups of people involved in virtual worlds want different things, not all of which are
necessarily compatible with the wants of others. Some of these wants are self-defeating, some are
misguided, some border on the paranoid, but as yet no significant disputes have been tested in the
courts. All parties therefore believe they are in the right.
The situation we have at present is relatively stable, but it cannot last. Sooner or later, those who make
and interpret laws will have to formulate judgements about virtual worlds. Who knows what new laws
might be enacted? Who knows what old laws may be retooled to apply? Will the courts make the right
decision for you? Or will they put you in a situation you find intolerable yet from which you are unable to
escape?
The biggest pitfall of virtual property comes from the fact that the concept is so new: there aren't the
precedents, either in law or in practice, to be certain how it will finally be managed. Working with the
unknown, while perhaps exciting for those who enjoy gambling, is nevertheless on the whole bad for
business.
The biggest pitfall of virtual property is this: the uncertainty of its status in law.

If you want to know more, just read the paper.

[Edit]

Sorry for the mass of long posts.

[HDS]

CSBahamut, you might want to calm the fuck down? you are the only person in this thread that is so serious about the topic. This is just a game; if this game is ruined, you still have a real life you know... you don't have to be that worried or anxious about people cheating.

[csBahamut]

CSBahamut, you might want to calm the fuck down? you are the only person in this thread that is so serious about the topic. This is just a game; if this game is ruined, you still have a real life you know... you don't have to be that worried or anxious about people cheating.

So, those who take a hobby seriously, would you tell them it's jsut a game? How about the Yankees and Red Sox players, can you tell them it's just a game? How about SE? This isn't just a game. It's a business for SE. And who are you to tell me what I can care about? Yes, I'll still have a life, and I'll keep on living finding other things to do with my time. But, I care about this game. I play this with family and friends. It's how I keep in touch with them while being so far away. Is there anything wrong with wanting to protect that?

Oh, and I am quite calm. Remember, I wasn't the one typing in all caps and using profanity.

And since you didn't read it the first time, I'll quote it again for your sake.

Pitfall #3: The Game Conceit
Virtual worlds aren't games, but almost all of them use the same conceit: the players agree to give up
some of their real-world freedoms (i.e. to play by the rules) in order to gain new freedoms and benefits
32 32 (e.g. have fun). In Ludology, this is known as the magic circle ; players who break the magic circle are
branded as spoilsports whom people will think twice about playing with in future.

It's a game in one sense, yet, it's not in another.

[Edit]

Also, how about presenting refutes to my counter-arguments instead of continually changing the subject.

[Onte]

CS, for the love of God and all that is holy, will you please stop hiding behind that freaking Virtual Property link? You've posted that link and hidden behind it so many times in this thread, I can't even count. You're holding that sucker up like a sinner clings to a bible.

[csBahamut]

Instead of attaking me personally, why don't you provide reasons why that link is wrong. Providing quotes and links to other articles that refute the ideas in the link I 'use like a bible.'

"Sinner clings to a bible"? Isn't that a contradiction? I would think that a sinner would be staying away from the bible, or at least what a religious person would consider a sinner. If you're refering to the fact that the bible refers to every human being as a sinner, then that phrase should really refer to a religious sinner, who knows that they sin, sticks to the bible. A little clarification on your part should help, because that statement can have a greatly varried meaning based on a person's religious stance and upbringing.

If all you want if for me to simply stop posting, then there's an easy solution. Don't post anything that I can comment on^^. No responses work extremely well. You could also explain your stance on gil buying better. Like, where you draw the line. I wonder sometimes if you guys even realize that there are circumstances where I do think it's ok to purchase gil. I don't like gil buying in FFXI right now because it is against the ToS. If SE had gil buying, I wouldn't have such a big problem with it. I just wouldn't play FFXI then. Seems more like you guys have a person grudge against me, rather than wanting to come to some agreement.

[HDS]

You are on my server O.O

Is the information in you signature accurate cs?

[emitsu97]

I think both sides are getting irritated because noone is seemingly understanding of the other's point of view. I'm not choosing sides. One side is easy and clear cut: The rules say no and therefore it's bad. The other side is not so black and white because their's more factors involved. Both sides have valid points, just one side is easier to back because there's actual print regarding it.

The overall feeling of this thread is that of a witch hunt. Noone's gonna be happy about being hunted and killed over something seemingly trivial in they're eyes. And those doing the hunting have no understanding of the reasons or circumstances regarding those they hunt. Niether side is willing to meet in the middle but rather to keep at a distance of understanding and fight their own fight, never really knowing their "enemy".

[csBahamut]

Yes, it is. I'm also the leader of my small linkshell.

I think we need to redefine what exactly we are discussing. Are we discussing whether or not SE should allow gil buying, or are we discussing gil buying with reference to SE's current stance as stated in the ToS? I know I've been refering to SE's current stance as stated in the ToS. It could be quite easy for this whole thread to misinterpreted either to either way.