Blizzard's legal case against gold spammers
by Mike Schramm 
Jun 1st 2007 at 3:05PM
Here's a real interesting commentary about the recent lawsuit Blizzard brought again a fairly heinous gold seller (we haven't mentioned their name yet, and I don't plan to, but it's easy enough to find out who it is). Blizzard hasn't shared much about the case at all, except for the fact that it's filed in federal court, and that they want this one to serve as a precedent, not just for them, but for any MMO dealing with gold spammers.Cmdrslack (who's a gamer and a lawyer) says there's three ways Blizzard could be handling the case. First, they could be filing under CAN-SPAM law, claiming that even though the in-game mail is never actually leaving Blizzard's servers, it's still illegal spam email (first of all because it doesn't identify itself as advertisement). The second possibility is an much older tort called "trespass to chattels," which means that Blizzard could be saying the gold seller is unduly using their servers, bandwidth, and game properties to advertise their own business. That, says cmdrslack, seems most likely, because there's precedent for it, and Blizzard can easily prove that the spammer has been working on their servers for a while.
Finally, Blizzard could also simply say the spammer is violating the EULA, which they definitely are. More likely, as cmdrslack says, they're using a mix of all three cases to show the spammer is wrongly interfering with their business. (Strangely enough, says Tobold, the one thing Blizzard isn't suing the gold sellers for... is gold selling.) But cmdrslack closes with the same question I will: Seeing as the spammer is based in China, and Blizzard is an American company filing in US Federal Court, just how are they going to enforce the ruling when they win?
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Blizzard, News items, Economy
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
superbeef Jun 1st 2007 3:34PM
I am not a legal consultant, but let me postulate an answer to your proposed question of "how are they going to enforce the ruling when they win?"
...with violence.
(note: I almost went for with a vengence, but that referrence is slightly more played out. Thank you.)
finalforeman Jun 1st 2007 3:38PM
Stop one and another will pop p in it's place. Sort of like illegal drugs, if people still want to buy it, the market will find a way. This and the above mentioned reasons of international litigation are why gold selling will NEVER be stopped. I am glad Blizz is working to control it, but it is an unstoppable force.
Oriion Jun 2nd 2007 1:17PM
"(we haven't mentioned their name yet, and I don't plan to, but it's easy enough to find out who it is)."
Go down about 13 threads to a post by Elizabeth Harper...
franz Jun 1st 2007 4:07PM
Well I imagine if they actually go the whole EULA route (and win) they'll start cracking down on the people buying the gold. Pure speculation of course.
Chi Jun 1st 2007 4:25PM
The simplest solution would be to make it unprofitable for these "gold miners" to exist.
First you find all the folks trading gold in x amounts that given a period of time shouldn't be able to (unless said folks are in someway involved with gold miners). Then seize all their in-game assets and turn around to sell the same services at an even lower price.
So if gold in WoW is being sold at around $440 for 5000 gold, sell the gold (officially) at $10 for 5000 gold.
Thus by seizing said assets from offenders and then reselling it at a even lower price than others can profit, you use economics to defeat the capitalists in East Asia.
Then after sufficient business have closed because of unprofitibility, Blizzard can then ban all the folks who did buy from official sources as well.
Granted this may alienate a lot of users so it might just be best to eliminiate the third party gold miners.
Corrodias Jun 1st 2007 4:29PM
It's inefficient to try to send USD to china directly. Thus, the sellers are probably using paypal and/or an american branch to actually do the exchange. That's where they can be hit.
Prester John Jun 1st 2007 5:04PM
Unless the Chinese company has offices or assets in the US (one of the above posters suggested PayPal; I don't know enough about PayPal to comment meaningfully but that seems to me a definite possibility if the company maintains a PayPal balance that's located in this country or even a more friendly foreign country than China), the most important thing about the suit is its precedential value.
In fact, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Blizzard's lawyers deliberately selected a foreign company for the first suit, as there's a decent chance that the foreign company won't contest the suit, giving Blizzard a default judgment with precedential value in any future cases against domestic gold sellers/spammers.
Draddog Jun 1st 2007 9:16PM
This is an extraordinarly naive suggestion on my part, but if Blizzard would do a better job pricing in game objects and controlling drop rates, you would not need all this gold.
For example, epic flying mounts. Sure I can spend hours and days playing to raise the 5000 GP I need, but if I can't play for more then a few hours a week, this goal is far off and difficult to obtain. So it's easier for me to buy the gold off of someone else. Same with some of the better BOE equipment. If it dropped more often, I wouldn't have to pay 100+ gp in the AH.
I applaud Blizzard for going after gold famers, but I'd like to see them revisit their own economy as well. Setting goals is one thing, setting goals so high that they cause people to buy gold is another.
And no, I don't accept the "well you could just do without" line either. If I want an Epic flying mount, I should be able to obtain it with a medium amount of effort, not a maximum amount.
Coherent Jun 1st 2007 7:01PM
The enforcement issue is an interesting question and depends on how much pull Blizzard has in China.
It's entirely possible that Blizzard has managed to make some friends over there that would be willing to deathtouch the gold farmer on the pretext of international cooperation. Really, it depends on who is making money for who. Blizzard makes money for a lot of people, while the farmer is only making money for the farmer.
This is why it's a good idea to participate even in a corrupt marketplace - if you're making money, you can use that to crush your enemies, whereas if you weren't participating, your enemies would have way more pull than you would.
So maybe some high chinese muckity-muck has told Blizzard that if they can win an American judgement against the goldfarmer, they'll be able to make the gold farmer assets and personnel disappear.
Very gangster, but it works for Blizzard.
Randim Jun 1st 2007 8:47PM
@5 and all the others that say Blizz should sell gold -
Blizz can't sell gold. The players would scream to high heaven each time a new high cost item is put into the game.
"Blizz just wants us to buy more of their gold!!111" @%^#%& you Blizz!!!
Plus, the cost of the items would become ridiculous.
I really don't think they care about gold sellers that much, just the spammers.
Michael Jun 1st 2007 9:27PM
@10
The only effort in getting 300 riding skill is time
The new daily quests for Ogri'la and SkyGuard can net you about 40+gp a day plus vendor grays. So an extreme casual who only logs in long enough to do their daily quests (maybe an hour or 2 a day) can have their 300 riding skill in 50 days (not necessarily consecutive.
If they cannot stand to wait 50 days then they need to play more. Buying gold to get the mount just cheapens the reward.
HotSauce Jun 2nd 2007 2:20AM
Blizzard could sue the company(ies), get "some" profit gains, and wait around a couple months for other organizations to start farming.
However, in my own opinion, I think they would rather ban the accounts, have the organizations re-purchase WoW retail, and make profit that way.
I'm not a lawyer or whomever the hell estimates profit which can be made from filing a lawsuit and actually winning. I'm not a mathemetician, and so my math may be wrong. I think overall, though, that banning accounts and making the users purchase WoW is more like a DoT. It's a slow process at first, but if you're banning about 1,000 accounts a month, 1,000 new WoWs will be purchased. That will be $49,990 per month for WoW itself, an additional $39,990 if BC is purchased along with it. Making a total of $89,980 per month. That's $1,079,760 a year.
Or they could just sue an organization, and make probably "some" profit, that's if the organization doesn't declare bankruptcy.
So someone please flame me for my post, but that's just my opinion.
Gatowag Jun 2nd 2007 3:07AM
HotSauce,
No need to flame, I just think that if Blizz is going to ban their accounts, then they would only need to renew an account instead of going out to pay for the actual game (and BC) itself.
Considering they actually have the game and all files still on their computer, a new account would be all that they would need. Just felt like pointing that out.
HotSauce Jun 2nd 2007 3:58PM
@12
Like i said, flame away, i'm not taking it to the heart in anyway, because I know I have flaws in this opinion. However, when you ban an account, the CD-Key is banned also I believed, and to create a new account, you need a new CD-Key, which requires the purchase of game. Although I could again be wrong.
Daibazar Jun 2nd 2007 4:53PM
Name the company already. We all know that its Peons4hire. You're not libeling the company by naming them as the target of a lawsuit.
Wedge Aug 16th 2007 4:13PM
Blizz should just put a limit on how much gold can be traded, say 25g/day. Make it too long a process that people wanting 1000 gold would only get it after 40 days of trades. I don't know anyone that would sign up for that kind of wait.