[MUD-Dev] Blacksnow revisted

[Steve {Bloo} Daniels]

Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:
> From: "Steve (Bloo) Daniels" <bloo at playnet.com>
 
>> I'd be careful about accusing companies of deliberate
>> misrepresentations in bad faith in a public setting.

> I know. See the word "allegedly" in the quoted material above.

[Missed allegedly there. Apologies, though, like chicken soup, it
couldn't hurt]

>> There is such a thing as a 'natural monopoly' and these do not
>> offend antitrust law.  The most common natural monopoly derive
>> from...you guessed it...intellectual property.

> But selling a service is not selling intellectual property, and a
> monopoly on a pure service is unprecedented. Blacksnow are selling
> their time and effort in obtaining something you want and handing
> it to you, all of which they are perfectly licensed to do on
> DAoC. I am allowed to go and get the item, I am allowed to give it
> to someone else, and the service of doing so is not Mythic's
> property. Whether the *item* is Mythic's property is really quite
> irrelevant, and whether I got paid for the service is also quite
> irrelevant.

Technically, there is some distinction between selling a service and
licensing intellectual property.  This situation is the latter.
Mythic lets people play with their stuff for a fee, but can wholly
revoke access.  It's their ball, for $10 a month you get to play
with their ball on their field.  You can kick it, throw it, fumble
it, steal it as long as your on their field.  You can wear this
uniform or that uniform, play with this group or that group, etc.
Under the EULA, one of the things you cannnot do is substitute
someone else for yourself (if my recollection of the EULA is
accurate from reading last month).

[Pardon my smirk as I enjoy my 'ball and field' ownership metaphor.]

>> True.  Mostly because this case is a question of Contract law,
>> not property.
 
> That's an oversimplification. Blacksnow claims that Mythic
> cancelled their accounts and had their auctions closed on various
> sites through the normal IP-protection mechanisms because Mythic
> claims the items and characters and accounts are their
> intellectual property. Even if we assume that all of this is true,
> Blacksnow is selling the promise of a service they will perform,
> and Mythic has no right to regulate Blacksnow's promises to
> perform services.

Simplification is good.

Does Blacksnow have a right to make promises it cannot deliver?
There's a word for that.

Ask this question: if Mythic's servers went down for a prolonged
period of time (by choice or fate), could Blacksnow sue them for
damages?  The resounding "No" is deafening.  There is no legal basis
for damages.

Could the players who purchased the subscriptions sue Mythic?
Possibly, depending on the exact fact pattern and the terms of the
EULA (can't remember if it has a 'no refunds' policy or not), but
probably not.  (

A general principle of property transfer law, you can't transfer
more rights to a property than you have.  A fundamental fact in
nearly all of the MMOG situations is that the players really don't
have much.  When the whistle blows, you leave the field with what
you brought - nada.  Mythic's EULA is very tight on that.  Licensees
agree that Mythic owns everything and that selling, auctioning, or
transferring anything is a violation of the EULA.

>>> If Blacksnow goes into court and seeks a remedy for events that
>>> never happened, how much of a remedy do you think they're going
>>> to get?
 
>> I'll take your question at face value.  The merits of the case
>> would not be heard.  There is no question or controversy.
 
> Which is precisely my point. I haven't seen a direct statement
> from Mythic as to what happened. According to them, they have
> contacted auction sites and asked them to "respect our wishes" in
> not allowing the sale of items/accounts. That could mean any
> number of things, but one thing it does NOT say is anything about
> who "owns" the items or accounts. I have a grave suspicion that
> Blacksnow is filling in some of the various blanks in the case
> with guesswork and rumor, without actually knowing the facts. And
> if they did, the entire issue not only does not get heard, but the
> public *perception* will be that Blacksnow "lost" even though the
> case was never legitimately argued.

I think you're correct about the guesswork.  But I also don't think
the questions about property and such would *ever* be examined in a
dispute of this sort, at least not in the face of a clear and
thorough EULA.

>> Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer.
 
> I love legal humor.

Hehe.  I plead guilty to coming up with that one.  You know who
comes up with all the lawyer jokes, right?  Lawyers do.  We've got
an image to keep up.  ;-)

-bloo

Disclaimer: I'm still not your lawyer.



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev