|
Please stop bringing country or state-bashing into this discussion. |
On February 13 2015 11:25 Yakikorosu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2015 11:21 ThomasjServo wrote:On February 13 2015 11:10 Yakikorosu wrote:On February 13 2015 11:06 ThomasjServo wrote:On February 13 2015 10:00 Yakikorosu wrote:On February 13 2015 07:10 ThomasjServo wrote:On February 13 2015 05:31 Cazimirbzh wrote:On February 13 2015 01:24 Skirmjan wrote:On February 13 2015 00:29 Cazimirbzh wrote:On February 13 2015 00:15 Skirmjan wrote:
[quote]
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?! on the off topic of Intel + Show Spoiler +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 +(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.
It is easy to say when it isn't your money or stock value at stake, you're failing to appreciate the broader picture. I personally think blizzard is in the clear, but if I am a lawyer, and one player in ND is a potential lawsuit, I'll steer clear every time
|
On February 13 2015 11:09 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2015 10:29 Cazimirbzh wrote:On February 13 2015 07:10 ThomasjServo wrote:On February 13 2015 05:31 Cazimirbzh wrote:On February 13 2015 01:24 Skirmjan wrote:On February 13 2015 00:29 Cazimirbzh wrote:On February 13 2015 00:15 Skirmjan wrote: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?! on the off topic of Intel + Show Spoiler +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 +(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.
53-11-04.2b is literally, as you already said it, every legal transaction. In that cas, what's the point of the law?
Context of the law bugs me too : a "for a membership group or club" and c "a catalog seller" seem to be very specific compared to b :S
On February 13 2015 11:22 Yakikorosu wrote:Show nested quote +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.
A full account battle.net is required to compete in wcs and, in the context of the Ch.53-11, the sponsor of the tournament/competition(blizzard) asks money (sc2 money) as a condition to compete for a prize (wcs money) and wcs money is sc2 money. It can be considered as a "fee".
edit: worst part is that blizzard cant even send puck what he has already won :S
actually, worst part is "A violation of this chapter is an unlawful practice in violation of section 51-15-02 and is subject to applicable provisions of chapter 51-15." blizzard isnt not in the clear :p
|
correct me if i am wrong but if i live in a state or country where the legal drinking age is 21 and i go somewhere where the legal age is much lower and drink a beer i haven't broken the law.
why is this law different? i mean does it really follow you around ?
edit leaving aside that saying that buying the game sc2, something all the people in this tournament most likely would of bought even if they hadn't intended to go to a tournament ever, is equal to paying a fee to enter said tournament is retarded in and of it's self.
|
On February 13 2015 14:32 magicallypuzzled wrote:
correct me if i am wrong but if i live in a state or country where the legal drinking age is 21 and i go somewhere where the legal age is much lower and drink a beer i haven't broken the law.
why is this law different? i mean does it really follow you around ?
edit leaving aside that saying that buying the game sc2, something all the people in this tournament most likely would of bought even if they hadn't intended to go to a tournament ever, is equal to paying a fee to enter said tournament is retarded in and of it's self.
a resident of ND like Puck cannot receive any wcs money from blizzard and was not even supposed to participate in the tournament because the law of his state forbid blizzard to organize wcs.
The blur is coming from the nature of esport.
Exple: flash (:p) vs puck
where the tournament takes place according to the law?
puck = usa, flash = korea, battle.net = usa. So if blizzard want to be able to organize flash vs puck, they must be sure that laws of both country have been follow otherwise if they break the law of SK, SK can ask for reparation according to international law and will certainly prevent from now blizzard to organize tournament by blocking any traffic coming from blizzard.
In your really weird exemple, it's clear that if you are drunk when you come back to the state which you live in, you can go to jail for consuming alcool before 21.
an about you edit, if you have to buy something in order to compete in a tournament, if it's not an entry fee what is it?
ps: i think my exeple is really bad :D
|
On February 13 2015 14:32 magicallypuzzled wrote:
correct me if i am wrong but if i live in a state or country where the legal drinking age is 21 and i go somewhere where the legal age is much lower and drink a beer i haven't broken the law.
why is this law different? i mean does it really follow you around ?
edit leaving aside that saying that buying the game sc2, something all the people in this tournament most likely would of bought even if they hadn't intended to go to a tournament ever, is equal to paying a fee to enter said tournament is retarded in and of it's self.
No, as much as I think they'd like them to, US laws do not extend outside its borders.
In your alcohol example, there's two or three things working at once.
First, if you take a vacation to England and have a beer at 18, you cannot be prosecuted in the US. However, if you ducked over the border to drink and came back to the US drunk, you're still in violation of US law in that you're guilty of Underage Possession of Alcohol (it's in your blood). Third, there exists a somewhat-wonky law about traveling to other countries with the *intent* to do something there that is illegal here.
The case study on this that I performed was a case of a man who'd left the USA on a vacation abroad for the explicit purpose of utilizing underage prostitutes. While it was legal in that country, he'd actually documented that this was his reason to do so via his emails and chats, and was prosecuted under the law that you're not allowed to travel with the *explicit* intent of violating US law.
puCK could still compete, have any prize money donated in his name to charity, and then start a Kickstarter or Tipjar if he actually needed the money.
However, I am an MBA... IANAL.
|
On February 13 2015 11:32 Cazimirbzh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2015 11:09 ThomasjServo wrote:On February 13 2015 10:29 Cazimirbzh wrote:On February 13 2015 07:10 ThomasjServo wrote:On February 13 2015 05:31 Cazimirbzh wrote:On February 13 2015 01:24 Skirmjan wrote:On February 13 2015 00:29 Cazimirbzh wrote:On February 13 2015 00:15 Skirmjan wrote: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?! on the off topic of Intel + Show Spoiler +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 +(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. 53-11-04.2b is literally, as you already said it, every legal transaction. In that cas, what's the point of the law? Context of the law bugs me too : a "for a membership group or club" and c "a catalog seller" seem to be very specific compared to b :S Show nested quote +On February 13 2015 11:22 Yakikorosu wrote: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. A full account battle.net is required to compete in wcs and, in the context of the Ch.53-11, the sponsor of the tournament/competition(blizzard) asks money (sc2 money) as a condition to compete for a prize (wcs money) and wcs money is sc2 money. It can be considered as a "fee". edit: worst part is that blizzard cant even send puck what he has already won :S actually, worst part is "A violation of this chapter is an unlawful practice in violation of section 51-15-02 and is subject to applicable provisions of chapter 51-15." blizzard isnt not in the clear :p
No, it isn't. An entry fee is something paid in cash for the ability to win a prize - thus, gambling. Requiring an account with SC2 is simply equipment - you'd be required to have shoes to compete in a soccer tournament.
|
On February 13 2015 22:38 Crownlol wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2015 11:32 Cazimirbzh wrote:On February 13 2015 11:09 ThomasjServo wrote:On February 13 2015 10:29 Cazimirbzh wrote:On February 13 2015 07:10 ThomasjServo wrote:On February 13 2015 05:31 Cazimirbzh wrote:On February 13 2015 01:24 Skirmjan wrote:On February 13 2015 00:29 Cazimirbzh wrote:On February 13 2015 00:15 Skirmjan wrote: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?! on the off topic of Intel + Show Spoiler +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 +(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. 53-11-04.2b is literally, as you already said it, every legal transaction. In that cas, what's the point of the law? Context of the law bugs me too : a "for a membership group or club" and c "a catalog seller" seem to be very specific compared to b :S On February 13 2015 11:22 Yakikorosu wrote: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. A full account battle.net is required to compete in wcs and, in the context of the Ch.53-11, the sponsor of the tournament/competition(blizzard) asks money (sc2 money) as a condition to compete for a prize (wcs money) and wcs money is sc2 money. It can be considered as a "fee". edit: worst part is that blizzard cant even send puck what he has already won :S actually, worst part is "A violation of this chapter is an unlawful practice in violation of section 51-15-02 and is subject to applicable provisions of chapter 51-15." blizzard isnt not in the clear :p No, it isn't. An entry fee is something paid in cash for the ability to win a prize - thus, gambling. Requiring an account with SC2 is simply equipment - you'd be required to have shoes to compete in a soccer tournament.
"An entry fee is something paid in cash (sc2) for the ability to win a prize (wcs competition) "
shoes in esport = keyboard , mouse
if u have to buy game/ticket to play in a tournament, that's an entry fee.
legal definition of what's a fee is not the same everywhere. The money you gave to blizzard when you bought sc2 can be considered as a fee to compete on WCS. The definition can be disputed but the fact that blizzard has a monopoly on the requirement/condition to compete on a tournament is a strong argument to call it a fee.
what matters the most is that this situation is a violation of chapter 53-11 of ND century code. Even if you dont consider buying sc2 a fee, this transaction of money is illegal according to ND century code.
ps: thus, gambling ???
|
why are we even pretending that puck will win anything? he will be out in his group, so don't worry guys, no harm done.
not trolling.
|
btw....north dakota? really bro? you gotta get the FCK outta there, man....
|
Puck already has won money is the main issue.
|
On February 12 2015 17:41 ROOTiaguz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2015 16:45 Waxangel wrote:Given the selective and arbitrary nature with which Blizz has enforced its rules in the past, hopefully this won't be a problem. On February 12 2015 15:24 ROOTiaguz wrote:
What a strange country. And by strange I mean fucking idiotic. fuck you, at least we don't have to worry about being eaten by dropbears Dropbears don't kill you to eat you mate. They just do it because it's fun. That half second of sheer terror as the neck cranes upwards and the scream is aborted halfway beneath 80 pounds of condensed fuzzy murder, THAT my friend is what a Dropbear lives for.
<3
|
On February 14 2015 00:04 ThomasjServo wrote:
Puck already has won money is the main issue.
his fault to not check beforehand if he is doing something illegal. you cant just say "this worked all the time before"
|
On February 14 2015 02:14 graNite wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2015 00:04 ThomasjServo wrote:
Puck already has won money is the main issue. his fault to not check beforehand if he is doing something illegal. you cant just say "this worked all the time before"
I don't think that is the logic at all, nor do I think the regulation applies given the stated exemptions. It would all boil down to whether or not the cost of the game is legally defined as a fee, which Blizzard's/Activision's legal team seems to think it does.
I would argue that the impetus falls to Blizzard to provide ample notice to WCS participants of changes in WCS policy as the organizer of the event; they clearly had no issue with his participating or having paid him more than $5,0000 in 2014 for WCS.
http://aligulac.com/players/317-puCK/earnings/
|
I never understood US politics...
I just hope it all gets better and that puCK may continue to compete in WCS.
|
Couldn't Blizzard just man it up and gift him a copy of the game? He could then compete, wouldn't he?
Pretty sure it would be a good "investment" as far as marketing and advertising goes, on Blizzard's end... And they wouldn't lose much (read, anything, because it's not like puck would buy that account if it wasn't handed to him)
|
On February 13 2015 14:32 magicallypuzzled wrote:
correct me if i am wrong but if i live in a state or country where the legal drinking age is 21 and i go somewhere where the legal age is much lower and drink a beer i haven't broken the law.
why is this law different? i mean does it really follow you around ?
That only addresses the offline portion of the tournament. There is an online portion of the tournament which puCK presumably participated in from his place of residence. That alone could be enough for the state of North Dakota to assert that this law applies to WCS participation, even if the final rounds are held in a different state.
|
your Country52797 Posts
Looks like puCK can play in WCS after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
