On February 13 2015 03:08 dUTtrOACh wrote: I don't get it.
Surely, there are professional athletes and whatnot coming out of North Dakota (certainly, it's not a state that's renowned for producing many legendary athletes, but I'm sure there are some).
In what way does participating in a tournament of this nature constitute a violation of this law, anyway? People can bet on virtually anything with an uncertain outcome (up to and including a presidential election). As long as Puck isn't directly involved in any gambling activity or match-fixing, he should have no more problem playing SC2 than a local high-school kid would have playing football, tennis, etc.
Don't know how things are done in Canada(not relevant in anycase)
Harsh, bro
Gambling laws are handled by the provinces.
Honest question, does Canada have a place similar to Las Vegas that I've never heard of?
I know before gambling was legal in Ohio a bunch of my friends would go to Windsor to get their gambling fix
On February 13 2015 02:10 oBlade wrote: It sounds like this problem has more to do with Blizzard than it has to do with any state's legal code.
User was warned for this post
What I mean is we know this didn't come up at all in the 2014 WCS handbook. If I had to guess as to why this language was suddenly introduced, I would think there was a legal team somewhere trying to make sure Blizzard's ass was covered and in this case they went too far by injecting these eligibility restrictions. We only have the citation from North Dakota's code here though so it'd be nice to see what prompted this from the other 4 states and Quebec also. It's speculation anyway because I doubt the guy who posted the ND century code to reddit was the one who authored that part of the WCS handbook.
If you read here it really doesn't seem to apply to anything as a lot of people here also agree. It talks at length about odds and things that really don't seem relevant. I think it's meant to be about stuff like Publishers Clearing House. WCS is interstate and international. The point Blizzard is responsible for their own WCS handbook and that's also why there are people reacting to Blizzard to "let" puCK play.
On February 12 2015 22:18 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: LOL this thread derailed quickly
On topic, surely SC2 is not gambling. Looking at that law mentioned in the thread, I don't see how buying Starcraft 2 is paying a WCS entry fee. A starcraft account is just a tool used to compete not an entry fee. It's like buying your own football shoes to participate in a football match.
Seriously, how can this law apply to a case like this, you're not directly paying money to play in a tournament, you've bought a piece of software probably a long time ago and are using it to participate in a tournament;
Such an interpretation of this law would outlaw, among other things, any kind of console tournament sponsored by Sony or Microsoft (!), and any kind of tournament where a specific object/tool required to partecipate is produced by a monopolistic company that also happens to sponsor the event; for istance, if tomorrow Intel were to become the sole CPU manifacturer, BYOC Lan tournaments sponsored by Intel in North Dakota would automatically be illegal due to your pc's CPU....
The point could even be made for the Operating System! (noooo Microsoft, pleaseee don't sponsor us xD)
yes, you're paying to play in wcs by buying sc2(full account required)
and if Intel try to be "the sole CPU manifacturer", i'll bet on the antitrust laws.
A requirement is a very different thing from an entry fee, or "pay the sponsor money as a condition of awarding the person a prize", in this case there's just a requirement to compete and enter a tournament, NOT receiving the prize (which, when considering the likelihood of a random competitor receiving money in the average non-WCS esports tournament, is actually unlikely)
Besides, what if your StarCraft 2 copy was gifted or actually awarded free of charge by Blizzard in a contest or what not? You can't prove that! If i win a Razer mouse at a Lan, does that mean i'm barred to play in a Razer sponsored competition that requires (for whatever reason) to bring a Razer mouse, or am i the only one able to compete since i give Razer any money?!
If AMD goes bankrupt tomorrow, Intel is automatically a monopolist, and there is nothing against the antitrust law in that
All these arguments are hypotethical of course, and they have to be since nobody has been arrested yet for competing in an esports tournament as far as i'm aware ^^
Puck is qualified so he'll be in this position that is literally described in the law : sponsor (blizzard) awards a prize (wcs money) after he bought sc2 + Show Spoiler +
and spent hours training
(condition) and if you want to go to details, then courtlaw €€€ oups $$$ esport is a new business, law cant change faster than blizzard patchs sc2 and no, blizzard will not pay lawyer for 6 United State States (?) and for the quebécois
He blamed Blizzard for releasing the handbook "late" as the reason he might not be able to play, but this law was already in effect and it's his responsibility to know the law (as it is all of our responsibilities).
On February 12 2015 22:18 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: LOL this thread derailed quickly
On topic, surely SC2 is not gambling. Looking at that law mentioned in the thread, I don't see how buying Starcraft 2 is paying a WCS entry fee. A starcraft account is just a tool used to compete not an entry fee. It's like buying your own football shoes to participate in a football match.
Seriously, how can this law apply to a case like this, you're not directly paying money to play in a tournament, you've bought a piece of software probably a long time ago and are using it to participate in a tournament;
Such an interpretation of this law would outlaw, among other things, any kind of console tournament sponsored by Sony or Microsoft (!), and any kind of tournament where a specific object/tool required to partecipate is produced by a monopolistic company that also happens to sponsor the event; for istance, if tomorrow Intel were to become the sole CPU manifacturer, BYOC Lan tournaments sponsored by Intel in North Dakota would automatically be illegal due to your pc's CPU....
The point could even be made for the Operating System! (noooo Microsoft, pleaseee don't sponsor us xD)
yes, you're paying to play in wcs by buying sc2(full account required)
and if Intel try to be "the sole CPU manifacturer", i'll bet on the antitrust laws.
A requirement is a very different thing from an entry fee, or "pay the sponsor money as a condition of awarding the person a prize", in this case there's just a requirement to compete and enter a tournament, NOT receiving the prize (which, when considering the likelihood of a random competitor receiving money in the average non-WCS esports tournament, is actually unlikely)
Besides, what if your StarCraft 2 copy was gifted or actually awarded free of charge by Blizzard in a contest or what not? You can't prove that! If i win a Razer mouse at a Lan, does that mean i'm barred to play in a Razer sponsored competition that requires (for whatever reason) to bring a Razer mouse, or am i the only one able to compete since i give Razer any money?!
If AMD goes bankrupt tomorrow, Intel is automatically a monopolist, and there is nothing against the antitrust law in that
All these arguments are hypotethical of course, and they have to be since nobody has been arrested yet for competing in an esports tournament as far as i'm aware ^^
Puck is qualified so he'll be in this position that is literally described in the law : sponsor (blizzard) awards a prize (wcs money) after he bought sc2 + Show Spoiler +
and spent hours training
(condition) and if you want to go to details, then courtlaw €€€ oups $$$ esport is a new business, law cant change faster than blizzard patchs sc2 and no, blizzard will not pay lawyer for 6 United State States (?) and for the quebécois
ps : ever heard of nvidia ? :p
53-11-04. Exemptions. 1. This chapter does not create liability for acts by the publisher, owner, agent, or employee of an advertising agency, a newspaper, periodical, radio station, television station, cable television system, or other advertising medium arising out of the publication or dissemination of a solicitation, notice, or promotion governed by this chapter, unless the publisher, owner, agent, or employee had knowledge that the solicitation, notice, or promotion violated the requirements of this chapter, or had a financial interest in the solicitation, notice, or promotion. 2. This chapter does not apply to solicitations or representations, in connection with: a. The sale or purchase of books, recordings, videocassettes, periodicals, and similar goods through a membership group or club that is regulated by the federal trade commission under title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, part 425.1, concerning use of negative option plans by sellers in commerce. b. The sale or purchase of goods ordered through a contractual plan or arrangement such as a continuity plan, subscription arrangement, or a single sale or purchase series arrangement under which the seller ships goods to a consumer who has consented in advance to receive the goods and after the receipt of the goods is given the opportunity to examine the goods and to receive a full refund of charges for the goods upon return of the goods undamaged. c. A sale by a catalog seller that derives at least fifty percent of its annual revenues from the sale of products sold in connection with the distribution of catalogs of at least twenty-four pages that contain written descriptions or illustrations and sale prices for each item of merchandise, if the catalogs are distributed in more than one state with a total annual distribution of at least two hundred fifty thousand.
This post of mine went largely ignored but the 53-11-04 2b. would seem to indicate that it would be exempt from the broader clause as Puck in this case would have consented to the reception of goods, did not object to the quality and did not return them. 53-11-04 2a also seems to refer to any form of media/entertainment, though the term, "similar goods," is wide open to interpretation.
The question would then be, does the relationship between a merchant selling a game trump the clause involving that same merchant organizing an event around their product. I personally am on the side that this is pretty much a non issue and ND can take issue with it if they want, but their law has some holes in it you could drive one of the thousands of trucks in North Dakota through.
On February 12 2015 15:21 duckk wrote: I don't think it will matter. Blizzard has allowed people from these states to play in their tournaments for years. Back in WC3 my friend qualified for USA's Blizzcon tournament and Blizzard said it was fine. WCG also had the same rule and I have never had any problems playing in it.
Also can someone explain to me how Maryland can have gambling laws that prevent entry into these tournaments, but have multiple casinos?
LGCA maintains licensing and regulation of all table and video games, as well as collecting a portion of proceeds. Online games (which pay out money) are illegal if there is a barrier of payment.
Everybody should chill with the nationalist emo raging.
I'm from US and I'm pretty proud of the right I have to have an opinion.
Obviously barring pro gaming legally is really stupid - I would venture a guess that not a single person who reads this forum would disagree.
Just because someone from a different country pointed it out doesn't make them a'merica hater -
Sometimes you gotta call the fat kid fat so he can go on a diet etc.. And news flash - there are probably tens of thousands of idiotic US laws to go along with this one.. and the same goes for the rest of the countries in the world - go eat some ice-cream sand-which you'll feel better ;p the feelz are real
On February 12 2015 22:18 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: LOL this thread derailed quickly
On topic, surely SC2 is not gambling. Looking at that law mentioned in the thread, I don't see how buying Starcraft 2 is paying a WCS entry fee. A starcraft account is just a tool used to compete not an entry fee. It's like buying your own football shoes to participate in a football match.
Seriously, how can this law apply to a case like this, you're not directly paying money to play in a tournament, you've bought a piece of software probably a long time ago and are using it to participate in a tournament;
Such an interpretation of this law would outlaw, among other things, any kind of console tournament sponsored by Sony or Microsoft (!), and any kind of tournament where a specific object/tool required to partecipate is produced by a monopolistic company that also happens to sponsor the event; for istance, if tomorrow Intel were to become the sole CPU manifacturer, BYOC Lan tournaments sponsored by Intel in North Dakota would automatically be illegal due to your pc's CPU....
The point could even be made for the Operating System! (noooo Microsoft, pleaseee don't sponsor us xD)
yes, you're paying to play in wcs by buying sc2(full account required)
and if Intel try to be "the sole CPU manifacturer", i'll bet on the antitrust laws.
A requirement is a very different thing from an entry fee, or "pay the sponsor money as a condition of awarding the person a prize", in this case there's just a requirement to compete and enter a tournament, NOT receiving the prize (which, when considering the likelihood of a random competitor receiving money in the average non-WCS esports tournament, is actually unlikely)
Besides, what if your StarCraft 2 copy was gifted or actually awarded free of charge by Blizzard in a contest or what not? You can't prove that! If i win a Razer mouse at a Lan, does that mean i'm barred to play in a Razer sponsored competition that requires (for whatever reason) to bring a Razer mouse, or am i the only one able to compete since i give Razer any money?!
If AMD goes bankrupt tomorrow, Intel is automatically a monopolist, and there is nothing against the antitrust law in that
All these arguments are hypotethical of course, and they have to be since nobody has been arrested yet for competing in an esports tournament as far as i'm aware ^^
Puck is qualified so he'll be in this position that is literally described in the law : sponsor (blizzard) awards a prize (wcs money) after he bought sc2 + Show Spoiler +
and spent hours training
(condition) and if you want to go to details, then courtlaw €€€ oups $$$ esport is a new business, law cant change faster than blizzard patchs sc2 and no, blizzard will not pay lawyer for 6 United State States (?) and for the quebécois
53-11-04. Exemptions. 1. This chapter does not create liability for acts by the publisher, owner, agent, or employee of an advertising agency, a newspaper, periodical, radio station, television station, cable television system, or other advertising medium arising out of the publication or dissemination of a solicitation, notice, or promotion governed by this chapter, unless the publisher, owner, agent, or employee had knowledge that the solicitation, notice, or promotion violated the requirements of this chapter, or had a financial interest in the solicitation, notice, or promotion. 2. This chapter does not apply to solicitations or representations, in connection with: a. The sale or purchase of books, recordings, videocassettes, periodicals, and similar goods through a membership group or club that is regulated by the federal trade commission under title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, part 425.1, concerning use of negative option plans by sellers in commerce. b. The sale or purchase of goods ordered through a contractual plan or arrangement such as a continuity plan, subscription arrangement, or a single sale or purchase series arrangement under which the seller ships goods to a consumer who has consented in advance to receive the goods and after the receipt of the goods is given the opportunity to examine the goods and to receive a full refund of charges for the goods upon return of the goods undamaged. c. A sale by a catalog seller that derives at least fifty percent of its annual revenues from the sale of products sold in connection with the distribution of catalogs of at least twenty-four pages that contain written descriptions or illustrations and sale prices for each item of merchandise, if the catalogs are distributed in more than one state with a total annual distribution of at least two hundred fifty thousand.
This post of mine went largely ignored but the 53-11-04 2b. would seem to indicate that it would be exempt from the broader clause as Puck in this case would have consented to the reception of goods, did not object to the quality and did not return them. 53-11-04 2a also seems to refer to any form of media/entertainment, though the term, "similar goods," is wide open to interpretation.
The question would then be, does the relationship between a merchant selling a game trump the clause involving that same merchant organizing an event around their product. I personally am on the side that this is pretty much a non issue and ND can take issue with it if they want, but their law has some holes in it you could drive one of the thousands of trucks in North Dakota through.
Blizzard is not awarding a prize for paying Blizzard money. Blizzard is awarding a prize for playing a game. The fact that the game costs money to buy does not turn WCS into the equivalent of a lottery.
No state will ever sue a kid who plays video games for a little bit of money and harms no one, it's ridiculous. It's just up to Blizzard to address their own tolerance for these types of laws existing in some states.
edit: It's not really that relevant whether the law "technically" applies or not because there's no way Blizzard would ever litigate against a state if they actually asserted whatever law they have applies to bar someone from playing in WCS. Blizzard would just give in. Litigating against states over a video game is a dumb idea. That said, no state will ever do this so as said it's just about Blizzard's risk tolerance.
On February 12 2015 22:18 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: LOL this thread derailed quickly
On topic, surely SC2 is not gambling. Looking at that law mentioned in the thread, I don't see how buying Starcraft 2 is paying a WCS entry fee. A starcraft account is just a tool used to compete not an entry fee. It's like buying your own football shoes to participate in a football match.
Seriously, how can this law apply to a case like this, you're not directly paying money to play in a tournament, you've bought a piece of software probably a long time ago and are using it to participate in a tournament;
Such an interpretation of this law would outlaw, among other things, any kind of console tournament sponsored by Sony or Microsoft (!), and any kind of tournament where a specific object/tool required to partecipate is produced by a monopolistic company that also happens to sponsor the event; for istance, if tomorrow Intel were to become the sole CPU manifacturer, BYOC Lan tournaments sponsored by Intel in North Dakota would automatically be illegal due to your pc's CPU....
The point could even be made for the Operating System! (noooo Microsoft, pleaseee don't sponsor us xD)
yes, you're paying to play in wcs by buying sc2(full account required)
and if Intel try to be "the sole CPU manifacturer", i'll bet on the antitrust laws.
A requirement is a very different thing from an entry fee, or "pay the sponsor money as a condition of awarding the person a prize", in this case there's just a requirement to compete and enter a tournament, NOT receiving the prize (which, when considering the likelihood of a random competitor receiving money in the average non-WCS esports tournament, is actually unlikely)
Besides, what if your StarCraft 2 copy was gifted or actually awarded free of charge by Blizzard in a contest or what not? You can't prove that! If i win a Razer mouse at a Lan, does that mean i'm barred to play in a Razer sponsored competition that requires (for whatever reason) to bring a Razer mouse, or am i the only one able to compete since i give Razer any money?!
If AMD goes bankrupt tomorrow, Intel is automatically a monopolist, and there is nothing against the antitrust law in that
All these arguments are hypotethical of course, and they have to be since nobody has been arrested yet for competing in an esports tournament as far as i'm aware ^^
Puck is qualified so he'll be in this position that is literally described in the law : sponsor (blizzard) awards a prize (wcs money) after he bought sc2 + Show Spoiler +
and spent hours training
(condition) and if you want to go to details, then courtlaw €€€ oups $$$ esport is a new business, law cant change faster than blizzard patchs sc2 and no, blizzard will not pay lawyer for 6 United State States (?) and for the quebécois
53-11-04. Exemptions. 1. This chapter does not create liability for acts by the publisher, owner, agent, or employee of an advertising agency, a newspaper, periodical, radio station, television station, cable television system, or other advertising medium arising out of the publication or dissemination of a solicitation, notice, or promotion governed by this chapter, unless the publisher, owner, agent, or employee had knowledge that the solicitation, notice, or promotion violated the requirements of this chapter, or had a financial interest in the solicitation, notice, or promotion. 2. This chapter does not apply to solicitations or representations, in connection with: a. The sale or purchase of books, recordings, videocassettes, periodicals, and similar goods through a membership group or club that is regulated by the federal trade commission under title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, part 425.1, concerning use of negative option plans by sellers in commerce. b. The sale or purchase of goods ordered through a contractual plan or arrangement such as a continuity plan, subscription arrangement, or a single sale or purchase series arrangement under which the seller ships goods to a consumer who has consented in advance to receive the goods and after the receipt of the goods is given the opportunity to examine the goods and to receive a full refund of charges for the goods upon return of the goods undamaged. c. A sale by a catalog seller that derives at least fifty percent of its annual revenues from the sale of products sold in connection with the distribution of catalogs of at least twenty-four pages that contain written descriptions or illustrations and sale prices for each item of merchandise, if the catalogs are distributed in more than one state with a total annual distribution of at least two hundred fifty thousand.
This post of mine went largely ignored but the 53-11-04 2b. would seem to indicate that it would be exempt from the broader clause as Puck in this case would have consented to the reception of goods, did not object to the quality and did not return them. 53-11-04 2a also seems to refer to any form of media/entertainment, though the term, "similar goods," is wide open to interpretation.
The question would then be, does the relationship between a merchant selling a game trump the clause involving that same merchant organizing an event around their product. I personally am on the side that this is pretty much a non issue and ND can take issue with it if they want, but their law has some holes in it you could drive one of the thousands of trucks in North Dakota through.
oups sorry. i am a bit intrigued by the 53-11-04 2b. however i am sure that 53-11-04 2a cannot apply . The sale was not a negative option plans (sc2 not WoW yet^^), blizzard is not a "a membership group or club". I dont really know the specifics of legal terms but i dont believe "contractual plan" and "arrangement" apply for our situation as well. "Exemptions" allows to advertise for such event IF you dont have financial interests in it.
Puck is screwed 53-11-02 is clear A sponsor may not require a person to pay the sponsor money [...] as a condition of allowing the person to [... ]compete for [...] a prize.
and, Yakikorosu, "paying blizzard money" is a requirement to be eligible to be "awarded a prize". The game, application to compete in wcs requires money. It is not a lottery(53-12.1) it's a contest prize (53-11). Indeed, no state will "sue a kid who plays video games for a little bit of money" (^^) but blizzard can be fined for that :S that's why they added severals states in exclusion. " Blizzard would just give in", i think they already have^^ and puck cant get his money :p
On February 12 2015 22:18 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: LOL this thread derailed quickly
On topic, surely SC2 is not gambling. Looking at that law mentioned in the thread, I don't see how buying Starcraft 2 is paying a WCS entry fee. A starcraft account is just a tool used to compete not an entry fee. It's like buying your own football shoes to participate in a football match.
Seriously, how can this law apply to a case like this, you're not directly paying money to play in a tournament, you've bought a piece of software probably a long time ago and are using it to participate in a tournament;
Such an interpretation of this law would outlaw, among other things, any kind of console tournament sponsored by Sony or Microsoft (!), and any kind of tournament where a specific object/tool required to partecipate is produced by a monopolistic company that also happens to sponsor the event; for istance, if tomorrow Intel were to become the sole CPU manifacturer, BYOC Lan tournaments sponsored by Intel in North Dakota would automatically be illegal due to your pc's CPU....
The point could even be made for the Operating System! (noooo Microsoft, pleaseee don't sponsor us xD)
yes, you're paying to play in wcs by buying sc2(full account required)
and if Intel try to be "the sole CPU manifacturer", i'll bet on the antitrust laws.
A requirement is a very different thing from an entry fee, or "pay the sponsor money as a condition of awarding the person a prize", in this case there's just a requirement to compete and enter a tournament, NOT receiving the prize (which, when considering the likelihood of a random competitor receiving money in the average non-WCS esports tournament, is actually unlikely)
Besides, what if your StarCraft 2 copy was gifted or actually awarded free of charge by Blizzard in a contest or what not? You can't prove that! If i win a Razer mouse at a Lan, does that mean i'm barred to play in a Razer sponsored competition that requires (for whatever reason) to bring a Razer mouse, or am i the only one able to compete since i give Razer any money?!
If AMD goes bankrupt tomorrow, Intel is automatically a monopolist, and there is nothing against the antitrust law in that
All these arguments are hypotethical of course, and they have to be since nobody has been arrested yet for competing in an esports tournament as far as i'm aware ^^
Puck is qualified so he'll be in this position that is literally described in the law : sponsor (blizzard) awards a prize (wcs money) after he bought sc2 + Show Spoiler +
and spent hours training
(condition) and if you want to go to details, then courtlaw €€€ oups $$$ esport is a new business, law cant change faster than blizzard patchs sc2 and no, blizzard will not pay lawyer for 6 United State States (?) and for the quebécois
ps : ever heard of nvidia ? :p
53-11-04. Exemptions. 1. This chapter does not create liability for acts by the publisher, owner, agent, or employee of an advertising agency, a newspaper, periodical, radio station, television station, cable television system, or other advertising medium arising out of the publication or dissemination of a solicitation, notice, or promotion governed by this chapter, unless the publisher, owner, agent, or employee had knowledge that the solicitation, notice, or promotion violated the requirements of this chapter, or had a financial interest in the solicitation, notice, or promotion. 2. This chapter does not apply to solicitations or representations, in connection with: a. The sale or purchase of books, recordings, videocassettes, periodicals, and similar goods through a membership group or club that is regulated by the federal trade commission under title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, part 425.1, concerning use of negative option plans by sellers in commerce. b. The sale or purchase of goods ordered through a contractual plan or arrangement such as a continuity plan, subscription arrangement, or a single sale or purchase series arrangement under which the seller ships goods to a consumer who has consented in advance to receive the goods and after the receipt of the goods is given the opportunity to examine the goods and to receive a full refund of charges for the goods upon return of the goods undamaged. c. A sale by a catalog seller that derives at least fifty percent of its annual revenues from the sale of products sold in connection with the distribution of catalogs of at least twenty-four pages that contain written descriptions or illustrations and sale prices for each item of merchandise, if the catalogs are distributed in more than one state with a total annual distribution of at least two hundred fifty thousand.
This post of mine went largely ignored but the 53-11-04 2b. would seem to indicate that it would be exempt from the broader clause as Puck in this case would have consented to the reception of goods, did not object to the quality and did not return them. 53-11-04 2a also seems to refer to any form of media/entertainment, though the term, "similar goods," is wide open to interpretation.
The question would then be, does the relationship between a merchant selling a game trump the clause involving that same merchant organizing an event around their product. I personally am on the side that this is pretty much a non issue and ND can take issue with it if they want, but their law has some holes in it you could drive one of the thousands of trucks in North Dakota through.
oups sorry. i am a bit intrigued by the 53-11-04 2b. however i am sure that 53-11-04 2a cannot apply . The sale was not a negative option plans (sc2 not WoW yet^^), blizzard is not a "a membership group or club". I dont really know the specifics of legal terms but i dont believe "contractual plan" and "arrangement" apply for our situation as well. "Exemptions" allows to advertise for such event IF you dont have financial interests in it.
Puck is screwed :p 53-11-02 is clear A sponsor may not require a person to pay the sponsor money [...] as a condition of allowing the person to [... ]compete for [...] a prize.
Puck is not paying Blizzard money to compete for a prize. He's playing a game to compete for a prize. People are assuming that playing SC2 is equivalent to paying Blizzard money just because SC2 is something puck might have bought for money and this is a big and IMO unwarranted stretch.
Holding a pickup basketball game where the winner gets $10 is not illegal in ND simply because someone bought the basketball.
On February 12 2015 22:18 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: LOL this thread derailed quickly
On topic, surely SC2 is not gambling. Looking at that law mentioned in the thread, I don't see how buying Starcraft 2 is paying a WCS entry fee. A starcraft account is just a tool used to compete not an entry fee. It's like buying your own football shoes to participate in a football match.
Seriously, how can this law apply to a case like this, you're not directly paying money to play in a tournament, you've bought a piece of software probably a long time ago and are using it to participate in a tournament;
Such an interpretation of this law would outlaw, among other things, any kind of console tournament sponsored by Sony or Microsoft (!), and any kind of tournament where a specific object/tool required to partecipate is produced by a monopolistic company that also happens to sponsor the event; for istance, if tomorrow Intel were to become the sole CPU manifacturer, BYOC Lan tournaments sponsored by Intel in North Dakota would automatically be illegal due to your pc's CPU....
The point could even be made for the Operating System! (noooo Microsoft, pleaseee don't sponsor us xD)
yes, you're paying to play in wcs by buying sc2(full account required)
and if Intel try to be "the sole CPU manifacturer", i'll bet on the antitrust laws.
A requirement is a very different thing from an entry fee, or "pay the sponsor money as a condition of awarding the person a prize", in this case there's just a requirement to compete and enter a tournament, NOT receiving the prize (which, when considering the likelihood of a random competitor receiving money in the average non-WCS esports tournament, is actually unlikely)
Besides, what if your StarCraft 2 copy was gifted or actually awarded free of charge by Blizzard in a contest or what not? You can't prove that! If i win a Razer mouse at a Lan, does that mean i'm barred to play in a Razer sponsored competition that requires (for whatever reason) to bring a Razer mouse, or am i the only one able to compete since i give Razer any money?!
If AMD goes bankrupt tomorrow, Intel is automatically a monopolist, and there is nothing against the antitrust law in that
All these arguments are hypotethical of course, and they have to be since nobody has been arrested yet for competing in an esports tournament as far as i'm aware ^^
Puck is qualified so he'll be in this position that is literally described in the law : sponsor (blizzard) awards a prize (wcs money) after he bought sc2 + Show Spoiler +
and spent hours training
(condition) and if you want to go to details, then courtlaw €€€ oups $$$ esport is a new business, law cant change faster than blizzard patchs sc2 and no, blizzard will not pay lawyer for 6 United State States (?) and for the quebécois
ps : ever heard of nvidia ? :p
53-11-04. Exemptions. 1. This chapter does not create liability for acts by the publisher, owner, agent, or employee of an advertising agency, a newspaper, periodical, radio station, television station, cable television system, or other advertising medium arising out of the publication or dissemination of a solicitation, notice, or promotion governed by this chapter, unless the publisher, owner, agent, or employee had knowledge that the solicitation, notice, or promotion violated the requirements of this chapter, or had a financial interest in the solicitation, notice, or promotion. 2. This chapter does not apply to solicitations or representations, in connection with: a. The sale or purchase of books, recordings, videocassettes, periodicals, and similar goods through a membership group or club that is regulated by the federal trade commission under title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, part 425.1, concerning use of negative option plans by sellers in commerce. b. The sale or purchase of goods ordered through a contractual plan or arrangement such as a continuity plan, subscription arrangement, or a single sale or purchase series arrangement under which the seller ships goods to a consumer who has consented in advance to receive the goods and after the receipt of the goods is given the opportunity to examine the goods and to receive a full refund of charges for the goods upon return of the goods undamaged. c. A sale by a catalog seller that derives at least fifty percent of its annual revenues from the sale of products sold in connection with the distribution of catalogs of at least twenty-four pages that contain written descriptions or illustrations and sale prices for each item of merchandise, if the catalogs are distributed in more than one state with a total annual distribution of at least two hundred fifty thousand.
This post of mine went largely ignored but the 53-11-04 2b. would seem to indicate that it would be exempt from the broader clause as Puck in this case would have consented to the reception of goods, did not object to the quality and did not return them. 53-11-04 2a also seems to refer to any form of media/entertainment, though the term, "similar goods," is wide open to interpretation.
The question would then be, does the relationship between a merchant selling a game trump the clause involving that same merchant organizing an event around their product. I personally am on the side that this is pretty much a non issue and ND can take issue with it if they want, but their law has some holes in it you could drive one of the thousands of trucks in North Dakota through.
Blizzard is not awarding a prize for paying Blizzard money. Blizzard is awarding a prize for playing a game. The fact that the game costs money to buy does not turn WCS into the equivalent of a lottery.
No state will ever sue a kid who plays video games for a little bit of money and harms no one, it's ridiculous. It's just up to Blizzard to address their own tolerance for these types of laws existing in some states.
edit: It's not really that relevant whether the law "technically" applies or not because there's no way Blizzard would ever litigate against a state if they actually asserted whatever law they have applies to bar someone from playing in WCS. Blizzard would just give in. Litigating against states over a video game is a dumb idea. That said, no state will ever do this so as said it's just about Blizzard's risk tolerance.
The question is whether or not blizzard is opening themselves up to legal action by potentially awarding prize money to a resident of ND. You're missing the point,it is entirely about whether the law technically applies. Welcome to business.
On February 12 2015 22:18 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: LOL this thread derailed quickly
On topic, surely SC2 is not gambling. Looking at that law mentioned in the thread, I don't see how buying Starcraft 2 is paying a WCS entry fee. A starcraft account is just a tool used to compete not an entry fee. It's like buying your own football shoes to participate in a football match.
Seriously, how can this law apply to a case like this, you're not directly paying money to play in a tournament, you've bought a piece of software probably a long time ago and are using it to participate in a tournament;
Such an interpretation of this law would outlaw, among other things, any kind of console tournament sponsored by Sony or Microsoft (!), and any kind of tournament where a specific object/tool required to partecipate is produced by a monopolistic company that also happens to sponsor the event; for istance, if tomorrow Intel were to become the sole CPU manifacturer, BYOC Lan tournaments sponsored by Intel in North Dakota would automatically be illegal due to your pc's CPU....
The point could even be made for the Operating System! (noooo Microsoft, pleaseee don't sponsor us xD)
yes, you're paying to play in wcs by buying sc2(full account required)
and if Intel try to be "the sole CPU manifacturer", i'll bet on the antitrust laws.
A requirement is a very different thing from an entry fee, or "pay the sponsor money as a condition of awarding the person a prize", in this case there's just a requirement to compete and enter a tournament, NOT receiving the prize (which, when considering the likelihood of a random competitor receiving money in the average non-WCS esports tournament, is actually unlikely)
Besides, what if your StarCraft 2 copy was gifted or actually awarded free of charge by Blizzard in a contest or what not? You can't prove that! If i win a Razer mouse at a Lan, does that mean i'm barred to play in a Razer sponsored competition that requires (for whatever reason) to bring a Razer mouse, or am i the only one able to compete since i give Razer any money?!
If AMD goes bankrupt tomorrow, Intel is automatically a monopolist, and there is nothing against the antitrust law in that
All these arguments are hypotethical of course, and they have to be since nobody has been arrested yet for competing in an esports tournament as far as i'm aware ^^
Puck is qualified so he'll be in this position that is literally described in the law : sponsor (blizzard) awards a prize (wcs money) after he bought sc2 + Show Spoiler +
and spent hours training
(condition) and if you want to go to details, then courtlaw €€€ oups $$$ esport is a new business, law cant change faster than blizzard patchs sc2 and no, blizzard will not pay lawyer for 6 United State States (?) and for the quebécois
ps : ever heard of nvidia ? :p
53-11-04. Exemptions. 1. This chapter does not create liability for acts by the publisher, owner, agent, or employee of an advertising agency, a newspaper, periodical, radio station, television station, cable television system, or other advertising medium arising out of the publication or dissemination of a solicitation, notice, or promotion governed by this chapter, unless the publisher, owner, agent, or employee had knowledge that the solicitation, notice, or promotion violated the requirements of this chapter, or had a financial interest in the solicitation, notice, or promotion. 2. This chapter does not apply to solicitations or representations, in connection with: a. The sale or purchase of books, recordings, videocassettes, periodicals, and similar goods through a membership group or club that is regulated by the federal trade commission under title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, part 425.1, concerning use of negative option plans by sellers in commerce. b. The sale or purchase of goods ordered through a contractual plan or arrangement such as a continuity plan, subscription arrangement, or a single sale or purchase series arrangement under which the seller ships goods to a consumer who has consented in advance to receive the goods and after the receipt of the goods is given the opportunity to examine the goods and to receive a full refund of charges for the goods upon return of the goods undamaged. c. A sale by a catalog seller that derives at least fifty percent of its annual revenues from the sale of products sold in connection with the distribution of catalogs of at least twenty-four pages that contain written descriptions or illustrations and sale prices for each item of merchandise, if the catalogs are distributed in more than one state with a total annual distribution of at least two hundred fifty thousand.
This post of mine went largely ignored but the 53-11-04 2b. would seem to indicate that it would be exempt from the broader clause as Puck in this case would have consented to the reception of goods, did not object to the quality and did not return them. 53-11-04 2a also seems to refer to any form of media/entertainment, though the term, "similar goods," is wide open to interpretation.
The question would then be, does the relationship between a merchant selling a game trump the clause involving that same merchant organizing an event around their product. I personally am on the side that this is pretty much a non issue and ND can take issue with it if they want, but their law has some holes in it you could drive one of the thousands of trucks in North Dakota through.
oups sorry. i am a bit intrigued by the 53-11-04 2b. however i am sure that 53-11-04 2a cannot apply . The sale was not a negative option plans (sc2 not WoW yet^^), blizzard is not a "a membership group or club". I dont really know the specifics of legal terms but i dont believe "contractual plan" and "arrangement" apply for our situation as well. "Exemptions" allows to advertise for such event IF you dont have financial interests in it.
Puck is screwed 53-11-02 is clear A sponsor may not require a person to pay the sponsor money [...] as a condition of allowing the person to [... ]compete for [...] a prize.
and, Yakikorosu, "paying blizzard money" is a requirement to be eligible to be "awarded a prize". The game, application to compete in wcs requires money. It is not a lottery(53-12.1) it's a contest prize (53-11). Indeed, no state will "sue a kid who plays video games for a little bit of money" (^^) but blizzard can be fined for that :S that's why they added severals states in exclusion. " Blizzard would just give in", i think they already have^^ and puck cant get his money :p
I appreciate your point but do maintain that superseding circumstances would allow for Puck to compete within the legal framework od ND. The exemptions clearly stipulate to a legal transaction wherein the buyer has opportunity to return the goods they bought, which is the framework for every legal transaction pretty much anywhere in the US.
On February 12 2015 22:18 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: LOL this thread derailed quickly
On topic, surely SC2 is not gambling. Looking at that law mentioned in the thread, I don't see how buying Starcraft 2 is paying a WCS entry fee. A starcraft account is just a tool used to compete not an entry fee. It's like buying your own football shoes to participate in a football match.
Seriously, how can this law apply to a case like this, you're not directly paying money to play in a tournament, you've bought a piece of software probably a long time ago and are using it to participate in a tournament;
Such an interpretation of this law would outlaw, among other things, any kind of console tournament sponsored by Sony or Microsoft (!), and any kind of tournament where a specific object/tool required to partecipate is produced by a monopolistic company that also happens to sponsor the event; for istance, if tomorrow Intel were to become the sole CPU manifacturer, BYOC Lan tournaments sponsored by Intel in North Dakota would automatically be illegal due to your pc's CPU....
The point could even be made for the Operating System! (noooo Microsoft, pleaseee don't sponsor us xD)
yes, you're paying to play in wcs by buying sc2(full account required)
and if Intel try to be "the sole CPU manifacturer", i'll bet on the antitrust laws.
A requirement is a very different thing from an entry fee, or "pay the sponsor money as a condition of awarding the person a prize", in this case there's just a requirement to compete and enter a tournament, NOT receiving the prize (which, when considering the likelihood of a random competitor receiving money in the average non-WCS esports tournament, is actually unlikely)
Besides, what if your StarCraft 2 copy was gifted or actually awarded free of charge by Blizzard in a contest or what not? You can't prove that! If i win a Razer mouse at a Lan, does that mean i'm barred to play in a Razer sponsored competition that requires (for whatever reason) to bring a Razer mouse, or am i the only one able to compete since i give Razer any money?!
If AMD goes bankrupt tomorrow, Intel is automatically a monopolist, and there is nothing against the antitrust law in that
All these arguments are hypotethical of course, and they have to be since nobody has been arrested yet for competing in an esports tournament as far as i'm aware ^^
Puck is qualified so he'll be in this position that is literally described in the law : sponsor (blizzard) awards a prize (wcs money) after he bought sc2 + Show Spoiler +
and spent hours training
(condition) and if you want to go to details, then courtlaw €€€ oups $$$ esport is a new business, law cant change faster than blizzard patchs sc2 and no, blizzard will not pay lawyer for 6 United State States (?) and for the quebécois
ps : ever heard of nvidia ? :p
53-11-04. Exemptions. 1. This chapter does not create liability for acts by the publisher, owner, agent, or employee of an advertising agency, a newspaper, periodical, radio station, television station, cable television system, or other advertising medium arising out of the publication or dissemination of a solicitation, notice, or promotion governed by this chapter, unless the publisher, owner, agent, or employee had knowledge that the solicitation, notice, or promotion violated the requirements of this chapter, or had a financial interest in the solicitation, notice, or promotion. 2. This chapter does not apply to solicitations or representations, in connection with: a. The sale or purchase of books, recordings, videocassettes, periodicals, and similar goods through a membership group or club that is regulated by the federal trade commission under title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, part 425.1, concerning use of negative option plans by sellers in commerce. b. The sale or purchase of goods ordered through a contractual plan or arrangement such as a continuity plan, subscription arrangement, or a single sale or purchase series arrangement under which the seller ships goods to a consumer who has consented in advance to receive the goods and after the receipt of the goods is given the opportunity to examine the goods and to receive a full refund of charges for the goods upon return of the goods undamaged. c. A sale by a catalog seller that derives at least fifty percent of its annual revenues from the sale of products sold in connection with the distribution of catalogs of at least twenty-four pages that contain written descriptions or illustrations and sale prices for each item of merchandise, if the catalogs are distributed in more than one state with a total annual distribution of at least two hundred fifty thousand.
This post of mine went largely ignored but the 53-11-04 2b. would seem to indicate that it would be exempt from the broader clause as Puck in this case would have consented to the reception of goods, did not object to the quality and did not return them. 53-11-04 2a also seems to refer to any form of media/entertainment, though the term, "similar goods," is wide open to interpretation.
The question would then be, does the relationship between a merchant selling a game trump the clause involving that same merchant organizing an event around their product. I personally am on the side that this is pretty much a non issue and ND can take issue with it if they want, but their law has some holes in it you could drive one of the thousands of trucks in North Dakota through.
Blizzard is not awarding a prize for paying Blizzard money. Blizzard is awarding a prize for playing a game. The fact that the game costs money to buy does not turn WCS into the equivalent of a lottery.
No state will ever sue a kid who plays video games for a little bit of money and harms no one, it's ridiculous. It's just up to Blizzard to address their own tolerance for these types of laws existing in some states.
edit: It's not really that relevant whether the law "technically" applies or not because there's no way Blizzard would ever litigate against a state if they actually asserted whatever law they have applies to bar someone from playing in WCS. Blizzard would just give in. Litigating against states over a video game is a dumb idea. That said, no state will ever do this so as said it's just about Blizzard's risk tolerance.
The question is whether or not blizzard is opening themselves up to legal action by potentially awarding prize money to a resident of ND. You're missing the point,it is entirely about whether the law technically applies. Welcome to business.
Let's play make believe. Let's make believe the attorney general of North Dakota sends Blizzard a letter asserting that they are violating state law by letting puck play in WCS. Will Blizzard (a) hire a crack team of expensive lawyers and litigate in court whether or not the particular state law "technically applies," or (b) trip over themselves to immediately kick puck out of the tournament and tell him that unfortunately he needs to move to another state if he wants to play in WCS?
If you said (a), you watch too many legal procedurals on TV.
On February 12 2015 22:18 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: LOL this thread derailed quickly
On topic, surely SC2 is not gambling. Looking at that law mentioned in the thread, I don't see how buying Starcraft 2 is paying a WCS entry fee. A starcraft account is just a tool used to compete not an entry fee. It's like buying your own football shoes to participate in a football match.
Seriously, how can this law apply to a case like this, you're not directly paying money to play in a tournament, you've bought a piece of software probably a long time ago and are using it to participate in a tournament;
Such an interpretation of this law would outlaw, among other things, any kind of console tournament sponsored by Sony or Microsoft (!), and any kind of tournament where a specific object/tool required to partecipate is produced by a monopolistic company that also happens to sponsor the event; for istance, if tomorrow Intel were to become the sole CPU manifacturer, BYOC Lan tournaments sponsored by Intel in North Dakota would automatically be illegal due to your pc's CPU....
The point could even be made for the Operating System! (noooo Microsoft, pleaseee don't sponsor us xD)
yes, you're paying to play in wcs by buying sc2(full account required)
and if Intel try to be "the sole CPU manifacturer", i'll bet on the antitrust laws.
A requirement is a very different thing from an entry fee, or "pay the sponsor money as a condition of awarding the person a prize", in this case there's just a requirement to compete and enter a tournament, NOT receiving the prize (which, when considering the likelihood of a random competitor receiving money in the average non-WCS esports tournament, is actually unlikely)
Besides, what if your StarCraft 2 copy was gifted or actually awarded free of charge by Blizzard in a contest or what not? You can't prove that! If i win a Razer mouse at a Lan, does that mean i'm barred to play in a Razer sponsored competition that requires (for whatever reason) to bring a Razer mouse, or am i the only one able to compete since i give Razer any money?!
If AMD goes bankrupt tomorrow, Intel is automatically a monopolist, and there is nothing against the antitrust law in that
All these arguments are hypotethical of course, and they have to be since nobody has been arrested yet for competing in an esports tournament as far as i'm aware ^^
Puck is qualified so he'll be in this position that is literally described in the law : sponsor (blizzard) awards a prize (wcs money) after he bought sc2 + Show Spoiler +
and spent hours training
(condition) and if you want to go to details, then courtlaw €€€ oups $$$ esport is a new business, law cant change faster than blizzard patchs sc2 and no, blizzard will not pay lawyer for 6 United State States (?) and for the quebécois
ps : ever heard of nvidia ? :p
53-11-04. Exemptions. 1. This chapter does not create liability for acts by the publisher, owner, agent, or employee of an advertising agency, a newspaper, periodical, radio station, television station, cable television system, or other advertising medium arising out of the publication or dissemination of a solicitation, notice, or promotion governed by this chapter, unless the publisher, owner, agent, or employee had knowledge that the solicitation, notice, or promotion violated the requirements of this chapter, or had a financial interest in the solicitation, notice, or promotion. 2. This chapter does not apply to solicitations or representations, in connection with: a. The sale or purchase of books, recordings, videocassettes, periodicals, and similar goods through a membership group or club that is regulated by the federal trade commission under title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, part 425.1, concerning use of negative option plans by sellers in commerce. b. The sale or purchase of goods ordered through a contractual plan or arrangement such as a continuity plan, subscription arrangement, or a single sale or purchase series arrangement under which the seller ships goods to a consumer who has consented in advance to receive the goods and after the receipt of the goods is given the opportunity to examine the goods and to receive a full refund of charges for the goods upon return of the goods undamaged. c. A sale by a catalog seller that derives at least fifty percent of its annual revenues from the sale of products sold in connection with the distribution of catalogs of at least twenty-four pages that contain written descriptions or illustrations and sale prices for each item of merchandise, if the catalogs are distributed in more than one state with a total annual distribution of at least two hundred fifty thousand.
This post of mine went largely ignored but the 53-11-04 2b. would seem to indicate that it would be exempt from the broader clause as Puck in this case would have consented to the reception of goods, did not object to the quality and did not return them. 53-11-04 2a also seems to refer to any form of media/entertainment, though the term, "similar goods," is wide open to interpretation.
The question would then be, does the relationship between a merchant selling a game trump the clause involving that same merchant organizing an event around their product. I personally am on the side that this is pretty much a non issue and ND can take issue with it if they want, but their law has some holes in it you could drive one of the thousands of trucks in North Dakota through.
Blizzard is not awarding a prize for paying Blizzard money. Blizzard is awarding a prize for playing a game. The fact that the game costs money to buy does not turn WCS into the equivalent of a lottery.
No state will ever sue a kid who plays video games for a little bit of money and harms no one, it's ridiculous. It's just up to Blizzard to address their own tolerance for these types of laws existing in some states.
edit: It's not really that relevant whether the law "technically" applies or not because there's no way Blizzard would ever litigate against a state if they actually asserted whatever law they have applies to bar someone from playing in WCS. Blizzard would just give in. Litigating against states over a video game is a dumb idea. That said, no state will ever do this so as said it's just about Blizzard's risk tolerance.
The question is whether or not blizzard is opening themselves up to legal action by potentially awarding prize money to a resident of ND. You're missing the point,it is entirely about whether the law technically applies. Welcome to business.
Let's play make believe. Let's make believe the attorney general of North Dakota sends Blizzard a letter asserting that they are violating state law by letting puck play in WCS. Will Blizzard (a) hire a crack team of expensive lawyers and litigate in court whether or not the particular state law "technically applies," or (b) trip over themselves to immediately kick puck out of the tournament and tell him that unfortunately he needs to move to another state if he wants to play in WCS?
If you said (a), you watch too many legal procedurals on TV.
Who is talking about blizzard coming to the defense of puck at their own expense? Did you even read what I wrote? You are mincing terms about (a) ND pursuing legal recourse against puck or (b) the aforementioned, by you, blizzard, going on the offensive which they obviously won't do. The discussion is about whether or not the language would allow for puck to compete without blizzard incurring legal risk. Obviously the legal team at blizzard came down on one side of that coin and wrote it into the handbook.
You are neglecting (c) in your list of ideas which is blizzard opening themselves to legal action for allowing what is potentially defined as illegal in the state of North Dakota in their competition, which is the broader issue,rather than the hyperbolic examples you concocted. Regardless of what you, yourself consider to be fees or not, the definition legally can stand.
On February 13 2015 10:29 Cazimirbzh wrote: and, Yakikorosu, "paying blizzard money" is a requirement to be eligible to be "awarded a prize". The game, application to compete in wcs requires money.
This is where I disagree with you. What do you mean "application to compete in WCS requires money"? Are you saying Blizzard requires a "fee" to be paid to Blizzard in order to compete in WCS? If that's true you're right but I've never heard of that.
Buying a game from Blizzard and then later entering a contest where you compete against others playing that game in hopes of winning a prize is not the same thing as paying someone a fee to enter a tournament to win a prize.
On February 12 2015 22:18 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: LOL this thread derailed quickly
On topic, surely SC2 is not gambling. Looking at that law mentioned in the thread, I don't see how buying Starcraft 2 is paying a WCS entry fee. A starcraft account is just a tool used to compete not an entry fee. It's like buying your own football shoes to participate in a football match.
Seriously, how can this law apply to a case like this, you're not directly paying money to play in a tournament, you've bought a piece of software probably a long time ago and are using it to participate in a tournament;
Such an interpretation of this law would outlaw, among other things, any kind of console tournament sponsored by Sony or Microsoft (!), and any kind of tournament where a specific object/tool required to partecipate is produced by a monopolistic company that also happens to sponsor the event; for istance, if tomorrow Intel were to become the sole CPU manifacturer, BYOC Lan tournaments sponsored by Intel in North Dakota would automatically be illegal due to your pc's CPU....
The point could even be made for the Operating System! (noooo Microsoft, pleaseee don't sponsor us xD)
yes, you're paying to play in wcs by buying sc2(full account required)
and if Intel try to be "the sole CPU manifacturer", i'll bet on the antitrust laws.
A requirement is a very different thing from an entry fee, or "pay the sponsor money as a condition of awarding the person a prize", in this case there's just a requirement to compete and enter a tournament, NOT receiving the prize (which, when considering the likelihood of a random competitor receiving money in the average non-WCS esports tournament, is actually unlikely)
Besides, what if your StarCraft 2 copy was gifted or actually awarded free of charge by Blizzard in a contest or what not? You can't prove that! If i win a Razer mouse at a Lan, does that mean i'm barred to play in a Razer sponsored competition that requires (for whatever reason) to bring a Razer mouse, or am i the only one able to compete since i give Razer any money?!
If AMD goes bankrupt tomorrow, Intel is automatically a monopolist, and there is nothing against the antitrust law in that
All these arguments are hypotethical of course, and they have to be since nobody has been arrested yet for competing in an esports tournament as far as i'm aware ^^
Puck is qualified so he'll be in this position that is literally described in the law : sponsor (blizzard) awards a prize (wcs money) after he bought sc2 + Show Spoiler +
and spent hours training
(condition) and if you want to go to details, then courtlaw €€€ oups $$$ esport is a new business, law cant change faster than blizzard patchs sc2 and no, blizzard will not pay lawyer for 6 United State States (?) and for the quebécois
ps : ever heard of nvidia ? :p
53-11-04. Exemptions. 1. This chapter does not create liability for acts by the publisher, owner, agent, or employee of an advertising agency, a newspaper, periodical, radio station, television station, cable television system, or other advertising medium arising out of the publication or dissemination of a solicitation, notice, or promotion governed by this chapter, unless the publisher, owner, agent, or employee had knowledge that the solicitation, notice, or promotion violated the requirements of this chapter, or had a financial interest in the solicitation, notice, or promotion. 2. This chapter does not apply to solicitations or representations, in connection with: a. The sale or purchase of books, recordings, videocassettes, periodicals, and similar goods through a membership group or club that is regulated by the federal trade commission under title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, part 425.1, concerning use of negative option plans by sellers in commerce. b. The sale or purchase of goods ordered through a contractual plan or arrangement such as a continuity plan, subscription arrangement, or a single sale or purchase series arrangement under which the seller ships goods to a consumer who has consented in advance to receive the goods and after the receipt of the goods is given the opportunity to examine the goods and to receive a full refund of charges for the goods upon return of the goods undamaged. c. A sale by a catalog seller that derives at least fifty percent of its annual revenues from the sale of products sold in connection with the distribution of catalogs of at least twenty-four pages that contain written descriptions or illustrations and sale prices for each item of merchandise, if the catalogs are distributed in more than one state with a total annual distribution of at least two hundred fifty thousand.
This post of mine went largely ignored but the 53-11-04 2b. would seem to indicate that it would be exempt from the broader clause as Puck in this case would have consented to the reception of goods, did not object to the quality and did not return them. 53-11-04 2a also seems to refer to any form of media/entertainment, though the term, "similar goods," is wide open to interpretation.
The question would then be, does the relationship between a merchant selling a game trump the clause involving that same merchant organizing an event around their product. I personally am on the side that this is pretty much a non issue and ND can take issue with it if they want, but their law has some holes in it you could drive one of the thousands of trucks in North Dakota through.
Blizzard is not awarding a prize for paying Blizzard money. Blizzard is awarding a prize for playing a game. The fact that the game costs money to buy does not turn WCS into the equivalent of a lottery.
No state will ever sue a kid who plays video games for a little bit of money and harms no one, it's ridiculous. It's just up to Blizzard to address their own tolerance for these types of laws existing in some states.
edit: It's not really that relevant whether the law "technically" applies or not because there's no way Blizzard would ever litigate against a state if they actually asserted whatever law they have applies to bar someone from playing in WCS. Blizzard would just give in. Litigating against states over a video game is a dumb idea. That said, no state will ever do this so as said it's just about Blizzard's risk tolerance.
The question is whether or not blizzard is opening themselves up to legal action by potentially awarding prize money to a resident of ND. You're missing the point,it is entirely about whether the law technically applies. Welcome to business.
Let's play make believe. Let's make believe the attorney general of North Dakota sends Blizzard a letter asserting that they are violating state law by letting puck play in WCS. Will Blizzard (a) hire a crack team of expensive lawyers and litigate in court whether or not the particular state law "technically applies," or (b) trip over themselves to immediately kick puck out of the tournament and tell him that unfortunately he needs to move to another state if he wants to play in WCS?
If you said (a), you watch too many legal procedurals on TV.
Who is talking about blizzard coming to the defense of puck at their own expense? Did you even read what I wrote? You are mincing terms about (a) ND pursuing legal recourse against puck or (b) the aforementioned, by you, blizzard, going on the offensive which they obviously won't do. The discussion is about whether or not the language would allow for puck to compete without blizzard incurring legal risk. Obviously the legal team at blizzard came down on one side of that coin and wrote it into the handbook.
The point you're missing is that "legal risk" for Blizzard is just the risk that North Dakota would ever assert that Blizzard is doing something wrong here. That's why it's completely irrelevant whether the provision technically applies to WCS or not--if it's ever asserted, Blizzard won't ever fight against it.
EPT
