DUST Search - Response on legal action against CCP

Yelhsa Jin-Mao wrote:

Everything Dies wrote:

Yelhsa Jin-Mao wrote:

Crash Monster wrote:

I find it amusing to hear how every company on the planet is expected adhere to the rules of all countries simultaneously. I'll bet the EULA gives CCP the right to terminate your Dust account entirely with no recourse on your part.

That sounds like a good counter starting point to your "offer" doesn't it?

EDIT: Or, perhaps just introduce new BPOs and let yout keep the old ones which are then made incompatible.

I think that would serve as justification to publish a particularly venomous blog on CCP and the underhand tactics it uses to silence its customers, and further serve as evidence for a lawsuit against CCP for its mistreatment of customers, poor customer service, and willful neglect of consumer rights.

Just...wow. You think you're the only person on a videogame forum that's threatened to take a company to court? Please tell me, how many of these cases ever even make it to trial, much less rule against the company?

A quick search of EULA over rulings that you might be interested in.

http://boards.lineage2.com/showthread.php?t=257947
A story of a Korean Player who sold virtual in-game items for real money via credit card transactions, the court ruled in his favour and said earnings in game items takes time, resources an skill, and as such can be sold through legitimate channels.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Commander Tzu L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 28	Posted - 2013.11.22 17:59:00 - [1] - Quote I still don't understand what you are actually trying to take them to court about. Honestly I hope you spend money taking this to court and the judge laughs at you and throws the case out. If I were CCP I would let you keep your blueprints, then when 1.7 drops and you try fit them it just says something like "INVALID MODULE" in red and you are stuck there with a blueprint you can't use and no Aurum refunded. Also I read your first comment on the other post, you mention CCP as a third party and that you made an agreement with Sony for those BPOs. Which is interesting to me, because here's Sony's stance on third parties and access to content: "SCEA may provide you with the ability to buy access to a variety of content, including game-specific items, video content, comics and game and subscriptions. All content is provided by SCEA, including content created or published by third parties. Third parties may administer access to some content, including delivery, gameplay or customer service." Emboldened the relevant parts. EDIT: Had to go back and underline the parts as well, wasn't as bold as I'd hoped. Enjoy.
Commander Tzu L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 29	Posted - 2013.11.23 00:38:00 - [2] - Quote Yelhsa Jin-Mao wrote: Everything Dies wrote: Yelhsa Jin-Mao wrote: Crash Monster wrote: I find it amusing to hear how every company on the planet is expected adhere to the rules of all countries simultaneously. I'll bet the EULA gives CCP the right to terminate your Dust account entirely with no recourse on your part. That sounds like a good counter starting point to your "offer" doesn't it? EDIT: Or, perhaps just introduce new BPOs and let yout keep the old ones which are then made incompatible. I think that would serve as justification to publish a particularly venomous blog on CCP and the underhand tactics it uses to silence its customers, and further serve as evidence for a lawsuit against CCP for its mistreatment of customers, poor customer service, and willful neglect of consumer rights. Just...wow. You think you're the only person on a videogame forum that's threatened to take a company to court? Please tell me, how many of these cases ever even make it to trial, much less rule against the company? A quick search of EULA over rulings that you might be interested in. http://boards.lineage2.com/showthread.php?t=257947 A story of a Korean Player who sold virtual in-game items for real money via credit card transactions, the court ruled in his favour and said earnings in game items takes time, resources an skill, and as such can be sold through legitimate channels. I would choose a different case as precedent, this involves South Korea's anti-gambling laws and the point of contention was that he was buying items, not that the game was being changed in such a way to make those items no longer useful.