stonewall337

Can you ask him to check and see if you can use (or) or (sp) kits on it? If not its gonna be rather pointless to get since it will just take up bank space while normal helm can go into costume room. or better yet, can you still alch lucky items? I'm pretty sure someone earlier in the thread said you can't. I don't understand why anyone would want to though. Surely you can't have 700+ items in your bank that are more important than these extremely rare (Many currently more rare than blue phats) items. Because, unlike a blue phat, a lucky dfull is useless. It is not tradeable. It is not a good piece of gear. Is can't be alched. Other then any "value" assigned to it because of looks, it has no use. A phat has value because 1.) Its actually valuable as an item with resale value and therefore 2.) It is a status symbol because of the wealth attached to the item, much as owning a fancy car would be. This item is "rare", yes, but that doesn't intrinsically make it "good". There are many, real life objects which are rare, but completely useless, and of no value.

That isn't the right question. The implications are not as important as whether or not their is an actual legal reason to believe that virtual goods are actual property, subject to criminal law, and actually owned by the player.

I was talking to the author of the Emory Law Journal article (she's a good friend of mine who I raid with.) and she stated that it is her belief, under current law, that virtual goods are NOT IP, but actual goods. As such, because it is a contract of adhesion, the TOS do NOT apply (They are not legally binding) as therefore, virtual goods actually DO belong to the player, and not the game company.

Yes, I don't necessarily make a claim as to which is good/right, or even which stance I take, as I'm not quite sure all the legal grounds yet (still looking into it). The other question is "should online theft of property be considered criminal" (see Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Swords and Armor.) As well, the law article states that online goods are MORE then intellectual property (c. pages 23-30 or so). Not sure if that changes how the TOS would work in real life, but its interesting to note that under current definitions, online goods could actually be defined as property (Thus leading up to the question of ownership). This is all mainly for an interesting conversation, and thoughts, implications aside.

To counterfeit means to illegally imitate something. So if virtual goods were actually property, and as such subject to criminal law, then yes, duping items could be considered a form of counterfeiting. A very interesting point to consider.

According to most people's understanding of the Jagex (and likewise, Blizzard's) TOS the account remains the property of the respective company, at all times. However, what about items on the account? Are they likewise the companys? What about cases of theft or fraud? Is that a crime? Whilst some may say no, and whilst some games may restore items at their discretionary leave (reserving the rights to chose under what circumstances to do so) others say YES, it is a crime, or else it should be. Many people here have probably heard the story of the school kid, who was held up at knife point in the Netherlands in 2008, in order to gain access to his RuneScape account and goods. http://insertfunnyname.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/dutch_supreme_court/ This crime was two fold, first it was assault. (Defintion: an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact) This is undisputed, and rather besides the point. The kid was held at knifepoint. Second, it was a type of robbery, either armed robbery involving use of a weapon or aggravated robbery involving use of a deadly weapon or something that appears to be a deadly weapon. I'm not sure if the laws and definitions are the same in other countries. Robbery implies, no it requires the illegal seizure of anothers property. But was Jagex the ones being robbed? No, it was the kid. "Finally, the court found ... that while the Runescape Terms and Conditions did retain ownership of all virtual property in the game and grant a right to use, the goods in question were under the “exclusive dominion” of the victim. The court thus compared the goods to a passport, which is “the undisputed property of the State of the Netherlands,” but can be rightfully possessed by its holder and can be stolen by a thief." This ties into my main points, are/should thefts and fraudulent activities in an MMORPG be considered criminal activities, and are virtual goods then really owned by the company? To the first point, I will lead with this amazing article posted in the Emory Law Journal, titled "Life, Libery, and the Pursuit of Swords and Armor: Regulating the Theft of Virtual Goods". http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1012886 The author argues that, under current law, virtual goods can be considered property, and as such can be regulated, and theft subjected to criminal charges. The article is rather long, so I won't try and explain everything here (Any interest in a guest Times article perhaps?) On to my second point: Are virtual goods actually owned by the game company? According to the TOS, yes. however, in a case several years ago "Bragg v. Linden Lab" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_v._Linden_Lab) the court ruled that since the TOS was a contract of adhesion, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion#Contracts_of_adhesion) they were NOT binding in this case. As such, does this set reasonable precedent to declare online accounts, and the property they contain more then simply a "rental"? Does the fact that their is significant time, effort, and the ability to derive an actual value in the real world for these goods and accounts also tie into the argument to show that these are more then the MMO's property, but those of the actual player? I am not arguing what is better for gamers. I am not arguing that one is good or bad. I am simply showing cases, and as much logic as my brain can muster at 5:30 AM to ask what people decide off the evidence. (please no baseless opinions like "OMFG that ruining teh game".) Should online property be subject to criminal law, and if so, does it become the person's personal property? Or can one of these conditions exist without the other? What do you think? Would there be interest in a more in depth thought of a more specific part of this train of reasoning to read or for a Times article? Let me know. Also, if their are any questions about the Emory article, let me know, and I'll ask the author. ALSO INTERESTING: http://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=law_pubs "Beyond Griefing: Virtual Crimes." this talks about a lot of instances of fraud/theft/etc similar to those which occur in RuneScape.

YOU NO TAKE CABBAGE (Candle).

Completely agree. Just useless things to acquire more money by throwing in some ridiculous flashy update. Yeah what kind of business deliberately makes updates with the intention of making money from it?! Oh... Wait... All of them. Logical flawed premise. It assumes, and as such precludes, the possibility that a better update could not do the same thing. As some people have stated, this is more a gimmick, to draw in customers (Think PT Barnum) rather then cosmetic appeal or enjoyable gameplay (Think graphic reworks and updated fight caves/kiln etc).

Wow some new armor looks amazing, bandos looks meh. Void melee is hawt.

Yes, some things are truly opinions (This movie is boring, this food tastes bad, this armor looks like crap) and some opinions are just baseless statements (The government is run by communists). There is a difference in how valid one or the other is.

That's a cool opinion you have there. Thank you for sharing it twice, we all care a lot about it. Your deep insight into this upcoming update has provided the graphics team with renewed insipiration, and as such they'll be binning it and hiring you as a professional advisor. You're sarcasm about an opinion is illuminating. You add so much to the discussion. New armor looks meh, some is boss some is shit. That is my opinion.

No Then to hell with Dungeoneering for the BXPW, because players want their tokens!... Oh wait, this one's F2P, so it doesn't affect them. :P It's just this one's opinion, but skilling (except Prayer) seems to be the optimal thing to do for the BXPW time period. This one gets the feeling like preparation for things will be more valued than diving into the things themselves. :-k ~D. V. "Really, no token boost makes it not that great of a BXPW thing. Skilling FTW!" Devnull People who do DG during BXPW don't care/need tokens. *cough* 109 DG (as of almost 15 months ago when I quit). Hell I PK in DG gear since tokens are so easy to get. rnt u cool bro Yep. I also like to make fun of idiots through logic too deep for them to comprehend.

No Then to hell with Dungeoneering for the BXPW, because players want their tokens!... Oh wait, this one's F2P, so it doesn't affect them. :P It's just this one's opinion, but skilling (except Prayer) seems to be the optimal thing to do for the BXPW time period. This one gets the feeling like preparation for things will be more valued than diving into the things themselves. :-k ~D. V. "Really, no token boost makes it not that great of a BXPW thing. Skilling FTW!" Devnull People who do DG during BXPW don't care/need tokens. *cough* 109 DG (as of almost 15 months ago when I quit). Hell I PK in DG gear since tokens are so easy to get.

No you didn't just miss it. The wheel is just a gimmick, where it landed is not related to what item you get. Or rather, the item isn't decided by the wheel, the wheel simply shows what item you won.

Ya I still don't know why a server capped at 2k people lags when some other games have servers with 10x that on at a time with no lag.

If you have no intention of being a member when what does it matter if you get a rare lucky item? Just discard it. If you might want to be a member in future then just keep it stored until you do. As being being unable to spin until you discard to get members... well. You couldn't spin before Tuesday so what difference does it make? That's an illogical argument to make. Just because you didn't have something before doesn't mean you can't criticize flaws in the system, or things you don't like.

Yaaa Insults! What a way to make your point stronger and more true! The point is, what is the point of this update? Any lore backing? Any story line? Any reason to give people rare items? Or is it a marketing ploy to get people to keep or get members? If its the later thats a short term fix for a large issue.

In both what happened here and the example you gave, the deal wasn't done because the funds didn't exchange hands. That point was never reached, because something happened before to prevent it - your friend broke your shit, a person abused a glitch to end the duel. There was a period of time where anything could have still happened...say the glitcher got two lucky hits and the TC hit zeros, or your seller backed out of the deal. How is that equivocation? How is that not a logical conclusion? Meh. In my example there was no chance of a sale not being conducted outside of exterior, negative influences. In other words, it was a "sure thing" except for these outside factors negatively influencing events. In yours, there is a possibility in normal interactions, excluding but not precluding negative external factors. Different types, different examples, different definitions. Equivocation. Also way to exclude the rest of the argument where I explained (already) why you were incorrect.

Losing potential profit = losing potential profit. If you had something you were going to sell for 200 bucks and a friend broke it, you lost the potential to earn 200 bucks. Logic. Pretty sure that's what everyone already said :P No one is disagreeing with you. No, you are wrong. You would have had that 200 dollars, the deal was done. The item was broken, you lost the potential profit, which is = profit. That's similar to someone skipping out on rent, its not money in your hands, no, but its money owed you, money you are entitled to, and its still wrong. Simple logic. The step between this type of potential profit and actual profit is more one of cheating, here, then anything else. I will agree, in some cases losing potential profit is only POTENTIAL, (Which was your point, not mine). In this case, however, and in the case I used to illustrate, its really profit, before you have the money in your hands, but money you would have otherwise had. You are trying to use equivocation to prove a point, but since equivocation is a fallacy, it doesn't work logically. Use the term in the correct, and in a similar manner to that which I use it if you want to have discourse, otherwise you'll be unable to discourse on similar grounds.

Unless they applied some special circumstances to these items (highly doubt it), you will always have the item and will be able to use it as soon as you get members. It won't ever disappear. For example, if you are a member and have loads of members items and then fall back to F2P, your members items will never disappear. They will always be available in your bank. You just can't use them until you get members. I think they might have meant items won in the lottery which are members only.

Except in a lottery you have to put something into it, and the house always win. If Jagex charged, and gave out 90% of the winnings every other day or w/e, it would combat inflation and actually not just be free items.

Losing potential profit=Loss. If I had something I was going to sell for 200 bucks and a friend broke it, I lost 200 bucks. Logic.

First off: Yes. They want more money. They killed half a population of bots that were paying membership. I would be too. Why fault them for keeping funds being generated so the game survives longer? And the huge xp lamp is just as rare as the items, and the medium lamps, as far as I can tell, don't give you a choice of the skill that they affect. Therefore, they are far, far less powerful then Effigies are/were. Wouldn't it be better to make good content to keep people playing rather then something like this?

Is it everyone on every world or just on the world you are on?

Mainly, I don't see WTF the point of this update was, or is? What are they trying to do?