Skip to Content

WoW Insider has the latest on the Mists of Pandaria!
  • Jabberwoky
  • Member Since Mar 18th, 2010

Are you Jabberwoky? If So, Login Here.

BlogComments
WoW10 Comments

Recent Comments:

Breakfast Topic: Who would be playable in Blizzard vs. Capcom? {WoW}

Feb 2nd 2011 8:15AM Hogger, of course. Probably the last playable character you can unlock by killing 9,000 noobs.

Enter to win a Blazing Hippogryph and other loot {WoW}

Jul 28th 2010 5:46PM Only 5400 entries in 24 hrs? Must be a slow week.

Day 2 entry.

Enter to win a Blazing Hippogryph and other loot {WoW}

Jul 27th 2010 1:11PM Some great items to give away to someone in my guild. I'm not too big on the novelty stuff but I love to give them out for xmas gifts.

Interview: WowLens and a National Science Foundation grant help researchers mine player data {WoW}

May 11th 2010 5:02PM Hey Daniel. I would be very interested in using this addon but my network has a very strick policy against loading third party executables for gaming. Have you taken a look at how warcraftrealms.com uploads data? I use their addon almost daily without a problem.

The OverAchiever: More Accomplished Angler, page 2 {WoW}

Mar 25th 2010 11:03PM Anyone who has problems with the Stranglethorn fishing tournament should transfer to Eonar. Last weekend when I got my 15th win I did not see a single person fishing in my area. It seems that everyone is either banking on a really random Northrend tournament win or they have their achievement already.

The Lawbringer: Interfering with gold farmers {WoW}

Mar 23rd 2010 2:27PM Well I think she (the author) may just be limited to a certain depth of analysis because of the target audience. It is unfortunate because the areas I would really like to explore are probably out of the scope of the audience's interest. It would be great if she could address the specifics on her blog, time permitting. I read some of her material on the matter before. It was very comprehensive but that was likely after hours of research. The deadlines at wow.com most likely don't allow for such research.

I don't even see how she has time to write these articles and complete her studies at the university. My field was not law but I remember doing 3-4 hours of research every day at my university.

The Lawbringer: Interfering with gold farmers {WoW}

Mar 23rd 2010 11:54AM I have been contemplating a method by which players could transfer gold and in-game items between accounts with Blizzard's approval. I'm not sure what tax implications this may have.

1. Blizzard would control and be the final arbiter for all transfers.
2. All transfers must go through an online system setup by Blizzard.
3. Blizzard would certify all sellers as legitimate players that gained these virtual assets without exploit.
4. Payments for the transaction would be made to Blizzard and the "seller" receives payments in the form of credit to use for the purchase of game time, non-critical virtual goods (non-combat pets, mounts, etc), or other Blizzard services. The "seller" in no way receives monetary compensation.
5. Blizzard retains ownership of all items in the game still.
6. Limit the amount of transactions in some way either by time or value or both.

This is a rough idea but would be beneficial for the "seller", "buyer", and Blizzard. The questions I have with this proposal would be: Does the "seller" has any tax obligations due to never receiving monetary compensation? Would there be a value tax on the game time or services provided? Would there then be a real value associated with the virtual assets (even if you don't participate in this service)?

The Lawbringer: Interfering with gold farmers {WoW}

Mar 22nd 2010 11:14PM I would just like to reiterate a couple of issues I had with the previous article that still apply:

I'm stuck on the definition of exploit:

1: to make productive use of
2: to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage
[Merriam-webster.com]

2B. exploit the Game or any of its parts... [ToU]
2C. exploit the Game or any of its parts... [EULA]

Which definition is being applied here? There is no entry for exploit in dictionary.law.com so I'm assuming the general dictionary definition applies.

If it is the first definition doesn't this have implications on people who sell unauthorized strategy guides and websites that post information about the game (reaping revenue from advertisements)?

If it is the second definition doesn't this omit people who sell their service of gathering in-game items legitimately (without a means that gives them an advantage or using a third party application i.e. bot)?

sell
v. to transfer possession and ownership of goods or other property for money or something of equivalent value. [dictionary.law.com]

Wouldn't the "gold sellers" be providing a service? I do not see at any point in which a transfer of possession or ownership has occurred. Blizzard is in possession of the in-game items at all times.

I'm a legal amateur I may not be understanding some key issues correctly.

The Lawbringer: Legal gold sales? Not a Blizzard's chance in Hell {WoW}

Mar 18th 2010 2:36AM "So right now, gold sellers are selling to you what belongs to Blizzard, not the poor sap they "stole" it from."

sell
v. to transfer possession and ownership of goods or other property for money or something of equivalent value. [dictionary.law.com]

Wouldn't the "gold sellers" be providing a service? I do not see at any point in which a transfer of possession or ownership has occurred. Blizzard is in possession of the in-game items at all times.

But as I said in my previous comment I'm a legal amatuer I may not be understanding this correctly.

The Lawbringer: Legal gold sales? Not a Blizzard's chance in Hell {WoW}

Mar 18th 2010 2:13AM I'm a legal novice so I'm going to need some clarification on a particular problem.

I'm stuck on the definition of exploit:

1: to make productive use of
2: to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage
[Merriam-webster.com]

2B. exploit the Game or any of its parts... [ToU]
2C. exploit the Game or any of its parts... [EULA]

Which definition is being applied here? There is no entry for exploit in dictionary.law.com so I'm assuming the general dictionary definition applies.

If it is the first definition doesn't this have implications on people who sell unauthorized strategy guides and websites that post information about the game (reaping revenue from advertisements)?

If it is the second definition doesn't this omit people who sell their service of gathering in-game items legitimately (without a means that gives them an advantage or using a third party application i.e. bot)?