hernandez-vs-ige
Latest
The Lawbringer: Interfering with gold farmers
Welcome to the Lawbringer, your weekly tour of the intersection between law and Warcraft. I am a third year law student specializing in intellectual property law acting as your crossing guard, trying desperately not to get run over myself. So last week we engaged in some speculation about how WoW might change if Blizzard permitted gold sales. Personally, I think that the damage to the game economy and culture would be far more damaging than any legal issues that might develop, but it's worth noting that legal issues could easily develop. As for the here and now, certain facts about gold selling remain: Gold selling is against the terms of both the North American and European EULA and TOU. Gold selling is performed by a number of companies, many of them located outside the Unites States. Gold sellers acquire their gold through obnoxious farming behaviors and account hacking. Gold sellers exist because of gold buyers. Given all this, what can we as players do to stop these locusts? The biggest thing is obviously to NOT buy gold. I really don't think this point can be emphasized enough. Beyond that though, we may be able to take advantage of a legal theory known as tortious interference in contract.
LGJ: The new meaning of 'player vs player'
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: Terra Nova recently posted a note about a Craigslist case that could have some impact on the gaming space. It relates to theories about how players could sue other players, which is something that briefly came up in a World of Warcraft suit two years ago (which settled before going to court). The result of the case was, in no uncertain terms, that a lawsuit under a third-party beneficiary theory could be entirely blocked by a well written Terms of Use. That's not to say that all cases involving third parties are barred, as another World of Warcraft legal battle, the Glider case, was successful; though primarily based on tortious interference. So, while some potential sources of player-versus-player lawsuits may be now foreclosed, I still think there's a range of potential suits that could become prevalent.Of course, this theorizing requires a basic understanding of third party-beneficiaries, and that goes all the way back to the basics of contracts. In a simple contract, there are generally two parties. A basic sales transaction is probably the simplest contract. Say you go to GameStop to purchase inFAMOUS: You give the clerk your $59.99 plus tax, and he gives you the game and a receipt. That was a basic contract for the sale of goods, and the receipt is evidence of some additional terms of the contract for sale, such as the return policy.
GDC09: How to avoid new legal pitfalls in virtual world design and policy
At last week's Game Developers Conference 2009, we got the chance to sit in on Mark Methenitis' talk on How to avoid new legal pitfalls in virtual world design and policy. You may have noticed the sheer quantity of legal cases, rulings and issues surrounding virtual environments and MMOGs that have direct impacts on users and players lately. We found the talk to be an engaging and interesting one, which certainly went a long way towards clarifying some of the past, present and future problems and we've got a tasty summary of the highlights for you.
Hernandez v. IGE: Brock Pierce declaration and Hernandez compel developments
Antonio Hernandez filed a lawsuit in 2007 against IGE, the MMOG-currency for real dollars illicit emporium. Hernandez claims IGE diminishes the overall playing experience for legitimate players and filed on the grounds that stem from farming gold, spamming chat, and camping spawns it allegedly prevented players from receiving full benefits Blizzard intended via World of Warcraft's End User License Agreement. Eight weeks remain in the fact discovery phase under the court's calendar and two recent developments have surfaced. First, a declaration on behalf of IGE's CEO Brock Pierce which states IGE merely holds stock in Affinity Media INC. and does not employ anyone nor have anything to do with the alleged activities in the Amended Complaint was filed. Second, Hernandez has moved to compel production of documents and asked the court to force IGE to respond fully to plaintiff's interrogatories.Virtually Blind has been following the lawsuit closely since the outset and has all legal documentation available for download.
.jpg.cf.jpg)
Hernandez v IGE battle continues
Antonio Hernandez is a gamer with a mission. Since 2007, Antonio's lawsuit has been trying to put an end to gold sales from seller IGE and his case has made more than a few headlines. Antonio was mad at IGE for ruining his game and for companies like it for ruining the experience of other players. He decided that it was time for someone to take a stand against gold farmers, gold sellers, and the people behind the gold selling industry. The battle is still raging and, just the other day, his attorney filed for his gold selling case to become a class action lawsuit. A judge will review it, and if approved, millions of World of Warcraft players, and perhaps those in other MMOs, will have a chance to fight back against gold selling. The lawsuit shows no sign of losing steam, so be sure to take a break in the inn and check back for updates.
Lawsuit claims IGE dug too greedily and too deep
Out of sunny Florida comes a storm ready to rain on the parade of gold sellers everywhere. Gold seller IGE has found itself sinking deeper into a stack of complaints thanks to one concerned gamer. Antonio Hernandez is fed up with the spam, inflation, and annoyance that stems from gold selling and has decided to do something about it. He has filed for a class action lawsuit that claims inflation in the virtual economy, thanks to gold sellers, forces players to spend more time behind their keyboard in an attempt to makes virtual ends meet, thus costing them more money. "This loss of time, conservatively, amounts to hundreds of thousands of hours of subscriber time and causes the irreparable harm of driving subscribers away from World of Warcraft." Since the announcement was made, Antonio has already been flooded with letters of support from the WoW community. The reason for the support is not only because Antonio is trying to end gold selling, but because he is an active member of the virtual community he feels has been wronged. "The lawsuit," says case consultant and professor Greg Lastowka, "has more of a feel of a community trying to enforce its rules rather than a game company trying to enforce its power over the participants." The community is a strong one, and to add to the power players wield, the game companies are taking a stand with them. Blizzard has announced that they support the lawsuit and stated that gold selling is a very serious concern of theirs.The case dives headfirst into a world with no clearly defined boundaries. The Florida justice system, having issued a subpoena to IGE demanding their transaction details, accepts that the subject of virtual law is real enough for concern. This is a good sign for players since their rights are also what are at stake. As Hernandez's lawyer, C. Richard Newsome, asks, "what are the rights of the [virtual world] community members when they go online?" The community members supporting Antonio have made one thing crystal clear concerning that question. They desire a fair game and hope to collapse IGE's virtual gold mine right on top of IGE's head.
Lawyers representing gold farmers threaten Lum the Mad
Late last month Scott "Lum the Mad" Jennings put up a post on his well-known MMOG blog site about an ongoing legal battle. It involves former IGE (yeah, the gold farmers) CEO Brock Pierce and co-founder of the company Alan Debonneville. Lum's excellent post, which quotes heavily from the lawsuit documents unearthed by the site Virtually Blind, does little more than sum up the case in one location. Not only have we been following the case along with the VB site, but numerous others have as well.And yet, in a post on the Broken Toys site today, Lum notes that somehow he's the one that has received legal threats from Brock Pierce's legal team. They've basically asked him to take down the post by the close of business today (February 15th). Mr. Jennings, being a practical person and with no interest in going toe-to-toe with lawyers, is planning to do just that. He does get off a nice shot back at them in his response, saying "I welcome your client's renewed dedication to legal documentation and remind him that there are several outstanding end user licensing agreements attached to games I have assisted in operating in the past, regarding the explicitly forbidden trade of virtual items and characters in said games that he and his company have performed and expedited, that would benefit from his and his company's attention."Of course, their harshly worded note has prompted responses from other MMOGbloggers, such as these posts from Ryan Shwayder and Matt Mihaly. Perhaps Pierce's team should have considered the impact before they asked Lum to take down his post about the lawsuit. This one, over here on his site. His post concerning Brock Pierce and Alan Debonneville. This post right here.
Hernandez drops HK IGE - Florida Economic Crimes Office investigates
If you've been following Hernandez vs IGE, you'll probably be a bit surprised to find that the Plaintiff (Hernandez) has dropped Hong Kong Internet Gaming Entertainment Limited (IGE) from the Defendants. USA IGE US LLC (the other IGE) remains on the docket. The Plaintiff alleges that IGE is gold-farming, spawn-camping, devaluing gold, spamming chat, and generally screwing up the experience for everyone else.
Herndandez vs IGE - IGE withdraws motion to stay/dismiss
There has been a new development with the uncertified class action Herndandez vs IGE. The Plaintiff alleges that IGE is gold-farming, spawn-camping, devaluing gold, spamming chat, and generally screwing up the experience for everyone else. Defendant IGE filed a motion to stay/dismiss in favor of arbitration on 26 October. IGE has now changed it's stance and withdrawn that motion, and gives the impression that it will answer the complaint in court. That could only be an impression, however.
Class action versus IGE
Benjamin Duranske at Virtually Blind kicks off coverage of another virtual worlds lawsuit. In this case, it's a third-party beneficiary contract class action claim (Whew. Try saying that three times fast) against IGE and their alleged actions in World of Warcraft. The plaintiffs allege, basically, that IGE is gold-farming, spawn-camping, devaluing gold, spamming chat, and generally screwing up the experience for everyone else.
