The Lawbringer: Gold sellers are criminals!

All our discussions about contract law and the EULA have been dealing with civil law (civil law as in the opposite of criminal law, not the opposite of common law). As has been pointed out before, selling gold is a violation of the Terms of Use and End User License Agreement. What can American courts do to someone who breaches a contract? For that answer, we have to look at the history of merry olde England. Fire up the DeLorean, Marty!
Medieval England (the time period from which law is still recovering) had a bifurcated justice system. If someone had violated a contract, the aggrieved party could sue in a court of law for damages. These damages could be the amount of money necessary to put the victim in the position in which they were before the contract was made. (Example: I promise to mow your lawn, and you pay me $20 ahead of time. I don't mow your lawn; you can sue me for the $20.) Depending on the case, the victim might receive the amount of money necessary to put him in the position in which he would have been had the contract been followed. (Example: same scenario, except not only do I have to pay you back the $20, I have to pay $20 to get someone else to mow the yard.) This is just fine when a problem can be resolved with money.
But what if the problem is something that money just can't solve? Say your neighbor has erected a pig sty near your property. You don't really want your neighbor to pay you for marginally lowering the value of your property now that it stinks. You just want him to get rid of the pigs. You can't sue him in a court of law, since they can only award monetary damages. Instead, you go to what was known as a court of equity, wherein the magistrate -- originally the King's chancellor, but later a separate court system -- could grant an injunction to force your neighbor to stop.
So let's set the DeLorean back to the present. Current civil law allows the victim of a breached contract to sue for monetary damages and equitable measures like an injunction. If Blizzard were actually able to haul Shenhua, IGE or the various other gold sellers into court, Blizzard could sue them for the monetary damages they inflict on the game and get court orders to stop them. And if Blizzard were in any business other than computers, that would be the extent of what could be done to gold sellers.
Selling gold is a crime
But as you might have guessed from the title, gold selling is a crime under a formerly little-known law called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The CFAA gained prominence a few years ago, thanks to Lori Drew.
Lori Drew is the paragon of parenting who felt the need to micromanage her teenage daughter's social life to the point of creating a fake persona on MySpace to befriend, exploit for embarrassing secrets and then dump Megan Meier, an acquaintance of Drew's daughter. The break-up prompted Meier to kill herself, and after an investigation and public outcry, the federal prosecutor tried to convict Drew under section 18 USC 1030 (a)(2)(C) for "intentionally access[ing] a computer without authorization or exceed[ing] authorized access, and thereby obtain[ing] information from any protected computer." To determine whether someone has violated this law, the acts are analyzed using a three-element test:
- Did the defendant intentionally access without authorization/exceed authorized access of a computer?
- Did the defendant's access of the computer involve interstate and foreign communication?
- Did the defendant obtain information from a computer used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication?
Violating the terms of use
Footnote 31 of the opinion however, points out that the elements of felony offense are sufficiently known to not be void for vagueness. For a felony conviction, the three elements above must be met, as well as a fourth that "the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." That's right -- violating the terms of use of a website for financial gain is a felony, punishable by five years in prison. Gold farmers are violating computer fraud law just by existing -- this isn't even taking into consideration sellers who acquire their gold through hacks or keyloggers. Because federal prosecutors have enormous discretion about who they prosecute, though, IGE and their ilk aren't exactly quaking in their boots. That would require a prosecutor who cares about such things, and without a dead kid or equally outrageous behavior, that isn't likely to happen.
So remember folks, when you buy from gold sellers, you are buying from yet-to-be convicted federal criminals. Stay tuned until next week, when in honor of U.S. Tax Day (4/15), we'll be looking at how to fill out a U.S. tax form if you are a gold seller.
This column is for entertainment and should not be considered legal advice. If you have a real legal problem, talk to a real lawyer. If you have questions about law or law school, shoot me an email at lawbringerjd@aol.com or tweet me @wowlawbringer. And in honor of the copyright prof who showed us this in class, Hitler Learns His Law School Teaching Schedule.
Filed under: The Lawbringer






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
wutsconflag Apr 5th 2010 9:18PM
Completely as an aside, what Lori Drew did was unconscionable, and even if it turns out it didn't break any laws, she should still be held responsible for that poor girl's death in some manner. :/
Cyno01 Apr 5th 2010 9:37PM
That's what a wrongful death suit in civil court is for. It's not against the law, nor should it be, to be an incredble bitch.
Lemons Apr 5th 2010 11:50PM
Cases like these are exactly why vigilante justice exists.
Ron May 18th 2010 2:45AM
I could not believe that Lori Drew had complained about neighbors harrasing her after this incident.
jason Apr 5th 2010 9:21PM
Selling gold "may be a crime.
Buying it is not.
That is all.
wutsconflag Apr 5th 2010 9:31PM
Isn't the purchase of stolen goods a crime?
Tinwhisker Apr 5th 2010 9:42PM
It's a crime if you know you are receiving unlawful goods. Therefore, since you know, yes it is a crime.
Butts Apr 5th 2010 9:53PM
As stated in the previous article, "buying gold" in the North American EULA/TOS is not forbidden, yet.
You're still encouraging and supporting their behavior by buying gold, which is something gold buyers don't seem to understand.
I just hope they go ahead and add the ban gold buyer clause already.
BlackTiger™ Apr 6th 2010 4:35AM
>>Isn't the purchase of stolen goods a crime?
Why do you think gold necessary was stolen? Read less newspapers.
99% of gold is "white". It was sold by normal players to goldsellers, not "stolen".
BTW, Blizzard don't care, imho. Why? Our chats are full of "adverts", coming from same nicknames, even from "mains". "Goldselling" is good for them, actually. Yes, they can say(!) "it's bad", but it's just not true. It makes "hi-end content" "more available". Instead of farming thousands and thousands and thousands of virtual money, people can just buy it hard cash. Yes, it makes game stupid and everything worthless, but this is how Blizzard made it.
Protocollie Apr 6th 2010 7:52AM
@BlackTiger™ man, there's nothing I love more than a person with a smug attitude who's wrong about literally everything they say.
Chris Anthony Apr 6th 2010 9:18AM
@BlackTiger, even if we were talking about stolen money rather than "ill-gotten gains", it wouldn't matter that 99% of the gold sold isn't stolen; that 1% taints the whole rest of it (especially since there aren't actually physical gold pieces being shuffled around; it's all numbers in a database).
I encourage you to read about Gonzalez v. Raich (which Amy linked above). The Federal government successfully argued that marijuana grown and consumed in your own home constituted interstate commerce, based on the following logic:
* If you're growing your own marijuana, you're not buying from a dealer, and therefore affecting his sales.
* Even if you had bought from a dealer in your own state, the dealer you would be buying from might get some of his marijuana from a supplier in a different state.
* Even if the dealer had bought from a supplier in his own state, the supplier might be obtaining marijuana from a farm in a different state.
Therefore, based on that series of "might"s, growing and consuming marijuana in your own home is considered interstate commerce: it MIGHT affect the bottom line of a dealer, supplier, or farm in a different state.
Knowing that, do you really think that 99% of sold in-game currency being legit is going to stop the government if they want to crack down?
cygnus Apr 6th 2010 10:58AM
Why im i still able to see jason and blacktiger's posts apart form the background?
@blacktiger: I see 99%, I dont see your source. You say blizzard dont care, while they state they've spent 1 billion dollars trying to stop it.
@jason: No its not a crime, neither what Lori Drew did. The fact its not punished doesn't mean its right.
Its on us players to stop the gold selling, its all blizzard could do (knaaaaaaaaaak) to stop it.
Shaibachan Apr 6th 2010 11:30AM
@BlackTiger - Actually, the gold is Blizzard's property, not the players. I cannot give my gold to someone else to sell, and I cannot sell it to someone because it doesn't belong to me in the first place. Selling someone else's property IS stealing. If I came over and sold your possessions (house, car, clothes, computer) without your consent, that would be stealing. Just because the item being sold is virtual doesn't make it any less of a crime.
Epicuro Apr 27th 2010 10:52PM
@Christ Anthony
Thanks for sharing that! I can't believe that a court of law could use such retarted logic. By the same logic, if I fart, someone could smell it, get disgusted, and not feel like buying weed anymore...
So does farting then constitute interstate commerce?
In fact, you could apply this logic to ANYTHING, since EVERYTHING is interconnected in *some* way.
Titusx Apr 5th 2010 9:33PM
Sweet! I love this column even though I'm an engineer. More than U.S. law, what about international law? Cause to my understanding the majority of the sellers are outside of the US. What can be done to stop those scumbags? How can we bring the law to them?
MW Apr 5th 2010 11:21PM
Because Blizzard is incorporated in the United States, the laws of the United States apply to the Intellectual Property of Blizzard and the contractual agreements with anyone who does business with Blizzard. At least that's how I understand it.
psychodude Apr 6th 2010 12:46AM
@MW: Sort of depends on where you live. Many American companies have disclosures in their policies directed at EU citizens for example since the EU isn't quite in favor of sending their citizens across the ocean for trial.
Also it's of course not to forget that even if something goes on trial in the US it holds little value if the case is versus someone living in let's say China where the government probably could give a damn about the US court results, highly doubt they'll say 'go do your time in the US boy, see you in several years'.
DarkWalker Apr 6th 2010 10:31AM
I guess US law will not matter in most countries where Blizzard (or Activision, or Vivendi) have any kind of presence, at least on cases brought by Blizzard against foreign companies or individuals. For example, here in Brazil about any judicial fight between Blizzard and a Brazilian resident would have to be handled by Brazilian justice, applying Brazilian law (including our consumer protection act, which heavily favors customers); our rules for venue selection almost always choose the defendant residence, and even if a Brazilian person or company did sue Blizzard the case would stay here, as, even though WoW itself is not sold here and Blizzard does not have a direct presence in the country, both Activision and Vivendi do have offices here and could be considered Blizzard's representatives.
Blizzard's own ToS have a section close to the end illustrating some of the changes local laws could have on the contract.
Hollow Leviathan Apr 5th 2010 9:40PM
Amy is making light of the victims of absconding lawnmowers everywhere. This is a slap in the face!
Hivetyrant Apr 5th 2010 9:42PM
I'm curious about whether or not buying the gold then, really is illegal or not?
Buying stolen goods for example is illegal (different scenario I know, but similar enough) as long as you were aware the goods were stolen.
So If I now know that selling Gold is illegal, does that mean I'm an accessory to the crime by buying the gold?
I mean, if a friend wanted to you buy gold........ :P