"(Yonhap Feature) Gamers make real money on virtual items, court says OK
By Kim Eun-jung
SEOUL, Jan. 14 (Yonhap) -- For over a year, Lee Sang-eun roamed a medieval fantasy world in an online role-playing game, Lineage. But the 30-year-old life insurance consultant found the game was taking too much time from his real-world life. So he found another way to play -- using cyber game items he buys with real money -- instantly enhancing his game without having to actually improve his skills.
Lee is not the only gamer who buys and sells game items, such as swords and armors, through dealers in a country where online role-playing games and their secondary markets have grown in popularity, especially following a recent court ruling.
Last month, South Korea's top court ruled that unlike online gambling -- games of luck that are banned by law in Korea -- acquiring game items takes time, effort and skill. Therefore, selling them is legal, as long as the real money that backs the trade goes through legal channels.
"I feel a little awkward paying money for something that only exists on the computer screen. But it's a simple trade of money for someone's labor. I mean, it's real work," Lee said.
Real money, paid through credit card or bank account transfer, must be exchanged for cyber money on sites like Itembay and IMI, which then sell cyber items to players.
The amount of money exchanged online in Korea topped 830 billion won (US$730 million) in 2006 and might have exceeded 1 trillion won in 2008, according to the Korea Game Development & Promotion Institute. The amount does not include individual trading and the black market.
Companies that sell online game items to players welcomed the decision and look forward to a boost in the virtual economy.
"With the Supreme Court's ruling, we expect to put an end to controversies over the online game broker sites regarding whether or not the trading is legal and whether it encourages virtual gambling," Itembay and IMI said in a joint statement released on Monday.
Itembay and IMI launched their Web sites in 2001, following the huge successes of Starcraft by Blizzard Entertainment and Lineage by the South Korean company NCsoft, both released in 1998.
Major game developers, however, had a mixed response to the ruling, citing the infringement of product license agreements that discourage players from trading game items.
"This case rather suggests there has been no explicit law to handle online money randomly acquired in online games. Further and more issues have yet to be addressed regarding real-money trading in online gaming," Kim Gwon-woo, public relations officer at NCsoft, said, adding the company will continue to regulate accounts of players who publicly trade online items for money.
Meanwhile, Kim Tae-gyu, a game engineering professor at Hoseo University, expressed concern that the involvement of real money might take away the fantasy experience that gamers can have only in the virtual world.
"If players are instilled with the notion that game items can be easily turned into real currency, the game doesn't end as it is. That could sometimes create actual problems in real world," Kim said.
With the court's conditional legalization of the cyber-trade, Kim said more comprehensive guidelines for gaming should be prepared soon.
"It is true that the online item trading has kept growing, but the system has not evolved to keep pace with the phenomenon. So it is time to begin open discussion to prepare reasonable regulations."
In a related ruling, a South Korean court last year said that profits earned from trading online money should be subjected to a value-added tax as a way to acknowledge the value of virtual property.
Meanwhile, the ruling in favor of trading virtual items for real money has put the government into an uncomfortable position: On one hand, it is trying to nurture the gaming industry as a major factor driving the economy, but on the other hand, it's trying to clamp down on illegal gambling.
The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism has launched a task force to closely monitor trading following the ruling. It stressed that the ruling doesn't apply to money won on gambling sites.
Law enforcement agencies also expressed concern that such a ruling will make it hard for them to crack down on online gambling.
"If online game money is considered to be earned through good skills and hard work, the rule could be also applied to gamblers. If more players get involved in the off-line trade of online items, it could create more real-life problems that might grow until they become too large to take down in the future," a high-ranking police officer said.
But proponents of the online practice say trading online items for real money has become so common that it is time to deal with the practice in the real world, not set up laws to prohibit it.
Meanwhile, Lee, the life insurance consultant, said, "The point of paying cash for game items is not about buying actual goods. With trading, you buy the ability to have more fun playing ... and I don't think it's wrong."
"The point of paying cash for game items is not about buying actual goods. With trading, you buy the ability to have more fun playing ... and I don't think it's wrong."
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/5669/134ev.jpg
LOL exactly my point!
for the last 9 years i have quoted the EULA and always followed it. we all click on "i agree" before we log in. however, this is all based on "virtual property" where one side says that pixels dont have a value and the other side says that those pixels equal over 1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000+) back in 2008, when you can expect that number a lot higher 5 years later.
so to rephrase the OP, whats said is that you earned those pixels with your time, blood, sweat and tears. you also earned them with your credit card by buying items (and pre-play4free the play rights) from the game.
virtual trade is new to us and the game makers are trying to keep this for themselves as long as they can for reasons well understandable, since who would want to share...
additionally there has been online gambling (aden wheel) introduced and in game items that can be bought from the L2 shop and traded in game.
all i am saying is that the developers already put a price tag on in game items and yet declare that they have no virtual value and belong to them. according to this judgement in court, the EULA is as is nullified and needs to be changed, but then again: there is only very few who actually give a ...
What the court ruling says is that: "RMT is not illegal" which is already well known here int he West. If it was no RMT company would exist since all game companies would band against them legally. But people tend to confuse what is "legal" and what is allowed through the EULA. That translates as following: NC can't sue a company for selling adena or a player buying them. There is no law against that (law is what courts enforce). On the other hand NC is allowed to ban anyone that does RMT based on the EULA.
What the court ruling says is that: "RMT is not illegal" which is already well known here int he West. If it was no RMT company would exist since all game companies would band against them legally. But people tend to confuse what is "legal" and what is allowed through the EULA. That translates as following: NC can't sue a company for selling adena or a player buying them. There is no law against that (law is what courts enforce). On the other hand NC is allowed to ban anyone that does RMT based on the EULA.
I see a conundrum in that. "If" ("since") the courts rule that virtual items hold value, banning someone for selling that valuable item legally could be a form of fraud imo. Maybe I missed something though. I don't really know how I honestly stand on how this issue could/should be handled legally.
People care, we're just retired from whining. Virtual laryngitis. Still recovering. It is discussed, but I think most people have either quit or given up on trying to act like we can put any pressure on NCSoft to do anything factorable about the situation.
People care, we're just retired from whining. Virtual laryngitis. Still recovering. It is discussed, but I think most people have either quit or given up on trying to act like we can put any pressure on NCSoft to do anything factorable about the situation.
I think they do just enough to discourage many people from doing it but not enough to even come close to solving or fixing the problem.
I see a conundrum in that. "If" ("since") the courts rule that virtual items hold value, banning someone for selling that valuable item legally could be a form of fraud imo. Maybe I missed something though. I don't really know how I honestly stand on how this issue could/should be handled legally.
No conundrum there. By accepting the EULA, you accept that nothing on your account belongs to you, not even the account itself. The fact that one accpets to trade real for virtual money has no significance in a court of law. You just make the character in the account stronger/richer. Only problem is that the character/account doesn't belong to you. If the owner of the account (NC Soft) wants to ban you it is their prerogative.
One has to prove legally that EULA is bad/illegal in order to be able to claim loss of property.
No conundrum there. By accepting the EULA, you accept that nothing on your account belongs to you, not even the account itself. The fact that one accpets to trade real for virtual money has no significance in a court of law. You just make the character in the account stronger/richer. Only problem is that the character/account doesn't belong to you. If the owner of the account (NC Soft) wants to ban you it is their prerogative.
One has to prove legally that EULA is bad/illegal in order to be able to claim loss of property.
Then in that case it has no value unless NcSoft was to sell that account.
then what about if the player wants to sell his main weapon on ebay for example? according to the EULA he is not allowed to, according to the court the EULA is overruled and he can do with his items what he wants (which is the reason he didnt get banned).
then what about if the player wants to sell his main weapon on ebay for example? according to the EULA he is not allowed to, according to the court the EULA is overruled and he can do with his items what he wants (which is the reason he didnt get banned).
It's either legal or not imo... They have banned people for RMT... Anyways I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of "legal" rmt with nccoins if the prices were reasonable because I would rather see money going into the game and not into some random players pockets.
It's either legal or not imo... They have banned people for RMT... Anyways I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of "legal" rmt with nccoins if the prices were reasonable because I would rather see money going into the game and not into some random players pockets.
-------------------------------------------------
Well i can tell u something. This game still exists because rmt and black market without this it would be dead. All things have purpose. Everyone ingame have what they want and that's nice thingy .
I guess when you click agree you are agreeing to NCsoft's terms of use and any other "club rules" just like any other forum or game you join in. I doubt in court it would stand in your favor because you did agree to the terms.
I'm not saying it's right and you should have some say to your "virtual property". When a company closes a game and it's online servers you are out of everything you invested. You don't get any kind of refund or consolation prize. On the other hand is it actually considered your "virtual property" or NC's? Probably NC's.
ETA: This scenario is playing out on a forum I belong to, someone was banned for not following the rules and now they want to sue. Basically she agreed to the rules and broke them.
I guess when you click agree you are agreeing to NCsoft's terms of use and any other "club rules" just like any other forum or game you join in. I doubt in court it would stand in your favor because you did agree to the terms.
"(c) License Grant - Any Service, Content or Software supplied by NCSOFT is licensed, not sold, by NCSOFT. All title and rights not expressly granted in this agreement, including but not limited to any IP right and the display thereof, are retained by NCSOFT and/or third-parties under agreement with NCSOFT. NCSOFT hereby grants You a revocable, non-exclusive, license for personal and non-commercial use of Service, Content and Software that is non-transferable except as permitted under Section 9(c). YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ANY SUCH LICENSE TERMINATES IMMEDIATELY IF YOU BREACH, VIOLATE, OR OTHERWISE FAIL TO COMPLY WITH EACH AND EVERY PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT AND HEREBY WAIVE ANY RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE HAD TO NOTICE OF TERMINATION FROM NCSOFT. IN THE EVENT OF TERMINATION OF ANY SUCH LICENSE NCSOFT MAY, IN ITS SOLE AND ABSOLUTE DISCRETION, MODIFY OR DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT, ALL RELATED CONTENT, AND ANY CHARACTER ID."
In short you get a revocable license to use in game content. Breaching the terms of the license can render any character or account deleted according to their discretion. As much as NC Soft can't sue an RMT company, none can sue them for deleting their account. I mean both can, but success chances are slim.
I guess, those who gets in game goods, through illegal actions like bot farm and sell it on illegal channels or forms as on their farmer websites, It is maximally illegal.
It isn't question.
But if someone really legally plays keep the rules always, but once he feels, he did bored a game and quit or real life issues force him to quit and he won't be able to return and he would decide, that he would sell his in game goods for real money.
I'm not sure, that they would break the laws so seriously.
If we like it or not, but the black market helps to turn back the items to the game market and gives available item to new players or cheaper prices.
If 40 players stop to play by any reason on a server who example has Baium's Ring and they won't give as gift to someone or won't sell it on black market these goods the past and the player base need to farm out new ones.
But if appears 40 Baium's Ring on market or remain at the friends of those who do stop to play.
Price of the Baium's Ring will drop and become more available to everyone.
One thing is sure, does who farm or play or do anything with different type of bot programs and they wish to get with this additional in game goods, money or real life money are illegal users and they have to receive permanent ban as soon as possible!
I guess, those who gets in game goods, through illegal actions like bot farm and sell it on illegal channels or forms as on their farmer websites, It is maximally illegal.
It isn't question.
But if someone really legally plays keep the rules always, but once he feels, he did bored a game and quit or real life issues force him to quit and he won't be able to return and he would decide, that he would sell his in game goods for real money.
I'm not sure, that they would break the laws so seriously.
If we like it or not, but the black market helps to turn back the items to the game market and gives available item to new players or cheaper prices.
If 40 players stop to play by any reason on a server who example has Baium's Ring and they won't give as gift to someone or won't sell it on black market these goods the past and the player base need to farm out new ones.
But if appears 40 Baium's Ring on market or remain at the friends of those who do stop to play.
Price of the Baium's Ring will drop and become more available to everyone.
One thing is sure, does who farm or play or do anything with different type of bot programs and they wish to get with this additional in game goods, money or real life money are illegal users and they have to receive permanent ban as soon as possible!
As far as this game goes yes but as far as the courts see it no it's perfectly legal. Although I suspect in years to come things will change... how they will change I have no idea but we will see.
As far as this game goes yes but as far as the courts see it no it's perfectly legal. Although I suspect in years to come things will change... how they will change I have no idea but we will see.
^ This
As the world becomes more attached to the internet for entertainment,shopping and whatever else, I think we're going to see some major laws come into play. There are already states in the US that have laws against internet bullying. When I was in High School 13 years ago this sort of thing was unheard of.
I definitely see some changes coming especially with game counsels being all the rage with online gaming now as well as PC,tablets and cell phones. This is the world we're moving into and I think some regulations are in order.
People care, we're just retired from whining. Virtual laryngitis. Still recovering. It is discussed, but I think most people have either quit or given up on trying to act like we can put any pressure on NCSoft to do anything factorable about the situation.
i think i can see where some confusions start when talking about RMT (real money trade). there is different forms of it:
a) your hated adena spammers, professional botfarmers selling adena for a business
b) players selling hard earned items/adena to refinance and buy new in game stuff (or to maybe even pay for a bill)
c) the game makers via in game shop and/or from website
you can't talk about one without considering the other. you cant say for example you despise botfarmers while you buy adena from your clan mates or purchase shirt scrolls in L2 shop to resell for adena in game.
the part about the EULA that i understand the least is how can the game makers sell you items in game for hard cash that according to the EULA dont even belong to you (all in game items are property from NC soft). now keep in mind that many say "how can you buy that, its just pixels" but on the other hand the court and the game makers consider it as property with value, worth defending and protecting.
What the court ruling says is that: "RMT is not illegal" which is already well known here int he West. If it was no RMT company would exist since all game companies would band against them legally. But people tend to confuse what is "legal" and what is allowed through the EULA. That translates as following: NC can't sue a company for selling adena or a player buying them. There is no law against that (law is what courts enforce). On the other hand NC is allowed to ban anyone that does RMT based on the EULA.
i am sorry to say that you are wrong. that is what the court case was about and according to the judgement from the korrean court, they are not allowed to ban that player and he is still playing.
So, if selling game currency for rl money is legal and thus game currency has a "rl worth", what if a game developer creates an update for a game which nerfs some items and makes them worth less? Can a player then sue the game company about his loss of rl money? What if there is a game bug and a game database has to be rolled back a day, and some player goes "noooo I had a Uber Sword of Ultimate Death drop today, I wanted to sell that" ?
Or what if there is an exploit and some players suddenly have gazillions of in-game gold, which they then want to sell for rl money, can a game company delete those items?
Also, I do not see any mention of NCSoft not being allowed to BAN a player in the article, just that selling/buying items for rl money is legal (so NCSoft cannot SUE that player or the website he is using to sell/buy stuff). I'd still say they can ban a player for "behaviour which is damaging to the game" or whatever, but the item seller can keep the money :-) So the player can buy items, and the items will land on his character, but actually being able to use those items is a different thing, because nothing says the game company has to let that player keep playing.
i am sorry to say that you are wrong. that is what the court case was about and according to the judgement from the korrean court, they are not allowed to ban that player and he is still playing.
I think you are wrong here, not me. The issue for this ruling here is if RMT companies (and trading) are legal or not:
"Last month, South Korea's top court ruled that unlike online gambling -- games of luck that are banned by law in Korea -- acquiring game items takes time, effort and skill. Therefore, selling them is legal, as long as the real money that backs the trade goes through legal channels."
NC obviously tried to outlaw them in Korea by presenting them as "online gambling" and failed.
On the other hand there is no mention that court prevented NC from baning the player (unless you have another reference to the subject). I stress again the differences between something being "illegal" and "against the EULA". In the first case courts are involved. On the second the only judge is NC Soft.
ok, lets put it this way:
IF the EULA would state that its ok to shoot people in real life that PK'd you in game, would that make it legal? no of course it doesn't and we all know that. the EULA is the End Users License Agreement and by 'agreeing' you agree to what someone thought was 'ok' to put in there. by saying "whatever you find in the game is mine" is maybe something you agreed on but that doesnt mean it can be legally enforced.
by the court putting a value on the virtual items it does the same thing:
simply telling you there is a value, its your property
or in our made up example: its not OK to shoot people in real life even though you agreed to it thru the EULA.
let's put a different light on this: if the company says there is no virtual value or the value is -0.0001 cents they would imply that their company has no value either except thru other things like in game billboards and advertising cash flow, but since there is no advertising except outside of the game to get more players into the game, then there would be no company value either. how can you steal or be punished for something that either doesnt hold any value or the value is -0.001 cents.
the value would be put onto the item when its sold for IRL currency of the same amount that someone was willing to pay for it.
someone said that people got banned from the game for IRL money trade. i am asking you if they really did or if they got a warning like everyone else and i am not talking about spamming adena shouts and getting your player/account blocked. i am talking about getting banned and capable of getting back into the game ever again.
("you have been virtually PK'd from NC west, no more internet for you!") :D
edit:
one more thing to add is that blizzard entertainment had problems with this as well back in the peek days of diablo 2. there was thousands and thousands of items sales on ebay alone. what the players figured was that they added a legal disclaimer into their sales stating that they where not selling the items itself, but where charging a finders fee for the item to reimburse them for the time it took to find and trade the item with the new owner.
ok, lets put it this way:
IF the EULA would state that its ok to shoot people in real life that PK'd you in game, would that make it legal? no of course it doesn't and we all know that. the EULA is the End Users License Agreement and by 'agreeing' you agree to what someone thought was 'ok' to put in there. by saying "whatever you find in the game is mine" is maybe something you agreed on but that doesnt mean it can be legally enforced.
by the court putting a value on the virtual items it does the same thing:
simply telling you there is a value, its your property
or in our made up example: its not OK to shoot people in real life even though you agreed to it thru the EULA.
let's put a different light on this: if the company says there is no virtual value or the value is -0.0001 cents they would imply that their company has no value either except thru other things like in game billboards and advertising cash flow, but since there is no advertising except outside of the game to get more players into the game, then there would be no company value either. how can you steal or be punished for something that either doesnt hold any value or the value is -0.001 cents.
the value would be put onto the item when its sold for IRL currency of the same amount that someone was willing to pay for it.
someone said that people got banned from the game for IRL money trade. i am asking you if they really did or if they got a warning like everyone else and i am not talking about spamming adena shouts and getting your player/account blocked. i am talking about getting banned and capable of getting back into the game ever again.
("you have been virtually PK'd from NC west, no more internet for you!") :D
edit:
one more thing to add is that blizzard entertainment had problems with this as well back in the peek days of diablo 2. there was thousands and thousands of items sales on ebay alone. what the players figured was that they added a legal disclaimer into their sales stating that they where not selling the items itself, but where charging a finders fee for the item to reimburse them for the time it took to find and trade the item with the new owner.
I am not sure what is your point here; is it that court ruling says that virtual items have real money value so selling them is ok, so NC Soft can't ban you for doing RMT?