Blizzard puts Peons4Hire out of work
This is probably the best news I've heard so far all year: Blizzard has won an injunction against Peons4Hire (we'll say their name now), which means that the one-time constant chat spammer is now legally banned from interfering with the game. It sounds like Blizzard sued on nearly all the causes that were speculated on a while ago, and as a result, have outright won their case: according to the injunction, In Game Dollar (the company that advertised Peons4Hire) is "permanently enjoined" from "making any use of the World of Warcraft in-game communication or chat system to advertise any website, business, or commercial endeavor."Which means, in no uncertain terms, that we'll never see those ingame tells again. The only drawback is that, as Virtually Blind says, this is an injunction, not a decision, and so it doesn't have the "precedential weight" that a decision might-- Blizzard can't really legally use this to walk away with an easy win in the next case that comes along. But over the course of a few different settlements, including stuff happening in other virtual worlds, there is a legal precedent being established against using one company's service without permission to advertise another.
I'm just happy that, after being driven nuts by all that chat spam for so long, Blizzard was able to walk away with a solid victory.
Filed under: Virtual selves, Odds and ends, Blizzard, Making money






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
JParris Feb 1st 2008 6:07PM
I tried of Dungeons & Dragons Online's free trial the other day, and the first thing that happened when I entered Stormreach City was getting gold spam.
I hope that this injunction leads to more and that sets a solid precedent for ALL games. Or maybe just scares gold spammers off completely. Ugh.
Scoottie Feb 1st 2008 6:14PM
so they create a new company and do it all over again, but at least its something good for us
Zakk Feb 1st 2008 6:14PM
I don't know a thing about law, but couldn't they just reform under a new name and have the restrictions lifted from them?
Psychosis Feb 1st 2008 6:42PM
I think the injunction was probably put under the owners name, not the companies name so this wouldn't happen, but i haven't read in depth so not sure
It's good Blizzard got this victory as it is practically a warning to anyone else trying to sell things by spamming every single channel in Ironforge and Stormwind.
However it will likely die down for a week or two then the spam shall return
Psychosis Feb 1st 2008 6:45PM
**EDIT** Skimming through the PDF file it seems that it involves any business involved with In Game Dollar, so if it can be traced back through ownership, bank details etc then i'm guessing the injunction has been breached
Rich Feb 1st 2008 6:21PM
"Which means, in no uncertain terms, that we'll never see those ingame tells again."
No, it means in no uncertain terms we'll see those ingame offers from peons4hire. We'll still see them for other companies or when P4H reforms as a new company.
Jonathan Feb 1st 2008 6:27PM
I wonder what the lewts were?
Bloodelfer Feb 1st 2008 6:29PM
lol, its basicly fighting against wind!
ok blizz won and we wont hear anything about Peons4Hire
(whoever they are, 1'st time i see them)
BUT SAME people under different name starts spamming AGAIN!
jubei Feb 1st 2008 6:41PM
Yeah, and same for all you people who look down at the guy who sells the stolen stereo's. Where do you get off with your attitude, he's running a legitimate business.
kuri Feb 1st 2008 6:41PM
News to me, hopefully to others:
Peons4Hire filters out your entire line. It's a global wordfilter in WoW. Go try typing it in chat and see what happens O.o
Aaron Feb 1st 2008 6:43PM
Not see peons4hire in WoW for over 6 months really, but WoW is still plagued with a ton of other gold selling and wowtoolbox spam. Unsolicited (sp?) from wowace does a good job of filtering them out though from /say and trade.
lazarhat Feb 1st 2008 6:57PM
Ironic that when I follow the link to VirtuallyBlind to read the decision, lo and behold there's an ad for yet another WoW gold farming and power leveling service. So those guys are supporting the scumbag gold farmers too by doing business with them and accepting their filthy lucre.
-Laz
Vhailior Feb 1st 2008 7:15PM
Rome was not built in a day.
Angael Feb 1st 2008 7:22PM
Everyone should know by now that you can't use real life money to buy in game phat lootz. Unless of course the money goes straight to Blizz *cough* Loot cards *cough*. That of course would be totally unfair.
Kestrel Feb 1st 2008 7:49PM
Despite the negativity in the some of the comments above, this is a huge victory, not just for Blizzard, but for any online providers who do business in California. True, an injunction does not have the same force that a trial verdict would have, but the arguments can still be used by plaintiffs.
For those who didn't read the entire decision, one of the defendants was named: Benjamin Lee. So he, at least, cannot form another company for the same purpose, since he specifically is enjoined by the Court.
One scumbag down.
lazarhat Feb 1st 2008 8:12PM
and thousands more to go
-Laz
Benjamin Duranske Feb 1st 2008 8:23PM
Hey Lazarhat - this is Ben from VB. I hate those ads. They're contextual (served by Google) so whenever I write about a lawsuit related to gold farming, they pop up. I added that one to the list, so it'll be blocked shortly, but another will undoubtedly pop up. Anybody run a site who has figured out how to avoid this, please let me know.
As to the idea of the company reforming, there's language in the injunction that makes that pretty unlikely. In Game Dollar and its owners are prohibited from investing in any company that does anything prohibited by the injunction.
RYan Feb 2nd 2008 9:27AM
http://www.nogold.org/google-adsense-rmt-blacklist/
Here is a pretty complete list of Gold and Item sellers in WoW, I use this on all of my sites and never get any thing like it.
Benjamin Duranske Feb 2nd 2008 11:46AM
Fantastic. Thank you, Ryan! I'm adding them right now.
p-diddy Feb 1st 2008 8:53PM
A couple things: 1) the summary above is incorrect, the article is correct. A SETTLEMENT does not carry the same weight as a decision because a settlement is an agreement between parties; an Order is a decision by the courts. An injunction is a remedy, not a termination of a lawsuit like a settlement or order is. The injunction (the remedy) is part of the settlement (agreed-to termination).
2) If people would RTA, you'd see that part of the injunction is that the company cannot reform under a different name.
*cheers*