AND (D) WHO ARE NOT RESIDENTS OF THE US STATES OF ARIZONA, CONNECTICUT, NORTH DAKOTA, MARYLAND, VERMONT OR THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC, CANADA (THE “ELIGIBLE PARTICIPANTS).
North Dakota Century Code, Chapter 53-11 "Contest Prize Notices" 53-11-01 defines a prize as "an item or service of value that is offered or awarded to a participant in a real or purported contest, competition, sweepstakes, puzzle..." 53-11-02 says "a sponsor may not require a person to pay the sponsor money as a condition of awarding the person a prize..." Because you have to pay for Starcraft 2 to play in the open qualifiers, the law prevents Blizzard from payouts. If SC2 had a business model from this decade instead of the 90s, this wouldn't be a problem.
wasn't the old EG house in arizona? I imagine they have a similar law as they're listed with ND so I'm confused as to how no one has run into this issue before.
Its terrible for puck though, he could make a pretty deep run in new WCS
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?
On February 12 2015 15:24 ROOTiaguz wrote: What a strange country. And by strange I mean fucking idiotic.
That's state's rights in action for you. The philosophy behind it is that each administrative region can customize its legal code to service its citizens' principles, but in practice, it kind of just adds to the bureaucracy and fuels a weird fantasy that some states are being held back by the others.
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?
This is the point, laws to prohibit lotteries are generally to protect the revenue base of the state's "official" gambling industry.
By the way, absent some legal precedent the argument that puck isn't allowed to play because being required to own a copy of SC2 to play in a tournament constitutes being forced to make a payment to receive the prize of the tournament sounds very far-fetched to me. These laws are clearly meant to prohibit paid-in lotteries and raffles, not skill competitions.
On February 12 2015 16:03 Seeker wrote: How has puCK been able to participate in WCS in previous years then?
Because no one cares and would never actually prosecute a guy for playing a video game under a law designed to prohibit lotteries.
That said, it's true that the legalese 2015 handbook seems to say you can't participate in WCS if you're a resident of several states, including North Dakota (the language quoted in the OP). The 2014 handbook didn't have this language.
Edit: It also says players from Quebec can't participate... so I guess for example desRow can't either? He didn't make it into WCS this season but still. I wonder whether the legalese in that handbook was actually researched or some guy at Blizzard just copy/pasted it from some other document. Judging by the multiple typos and formatting errors I noticed from a casual look at the section I doubt anyone spent any significant time writing it.
That's why you need to release rulebook of your tournament before the competition even starts, not the other way around. Tbh I don't really believe they will actually shut puck down but the whole annoyance and the pressure it puts on him shouldn't exist in the first place.
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
But you kill yourself. And you kill more people around the world than every other country. So do not try to tell anyone (except for yourself) that you are not an idiotic country.
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
But you kill yourself. And you kill more people around the world than every other country. So do not try to tell anyone (except for yourself) that you are not an idiotic country.
Bashing America at a staff member, with 19 posts under your belt.
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
But you kill yourself. And you kill more people around the world than every other country. So do not try to tell anyone (except for yourself) that you are not an idiotic country.
Just cool it with the US hating, there's a lot going wrong everywhere and all things considered, the USA are one of the best places to live. Give it another five years and everything that's bad about the USA will apply to EU countries as well.
Also, saying bad things about America is the surest thing to get you banned here.
Nice excuses. I know that countries and states like to prototect their right to restrict gambling/lotterie to effectivly just make it a tax for people who don't understand math. But well neither Blizzard or anyone else would have cared unless he brought it up himself.
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.
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.
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.
It seems like Blizzard realized that in fact they don't want to end up breaking the law and changed their rules. How would it have been possible the past seasons otherwise?
On February 12 2015 16:03 Seeker wrote: How has puCK been able to participate in WCS in previous years then?
Because no one cares and would never actually prosecute a guy for playing a video game under a law designed to prohibit lotteries.
That said, it's true that the legalese 2015 handbook seems to say you can't participate in WCS if you're a resident of several states, including North Dakota (the language quoted in the OP). The 2014 handbook didn't have this language.
Edit: It also says players from Quebec can't participate... so I guess for example desRow can't either? He didn't make it into WCS this season but still. I wonder whether the legalese in that handbook was actually researched or some guy at Blizzard just copy/pasted it from some other document. Judging by the multiple typos and formatting errors I noticed from a casual look at the section I doubt anyone spent any significant time writing it.
I've heard someone say that they just basically copied Hearthstone's rulebook
which would make sense, considering there's a lot of RNG involved
i dont get it. gambling is not the same as professional sports. these states have regular sport teams dont they? so why is blizz taking this stuff into account of their rules? makes no sense to me
North Dakota Century Code, Chapter 53-11 "Contest Prize Notices" 53-11-02 says "a sponsor may not require a person to pay the sponsor money as a condition of awarding the person a prize..." Because you have to pay for Starcraft 2 to play in the open qualifiers, the law prevents Blizzard from payouts. If SC2 had a business model from this decade instead of the 90s, this wouldn't be a problem.
Isn't SC2 free to play for custom games via the starter edition? In which case you don't actually have to pay to play in the qualifiers.
Edit: nevermind, I forgot the number of ladder games requirement
On February 12 2015 15:24 ROOTiaguz wrote: What a strange country. And by strange I mean fucking idiotic.
That's state's rights in action for you. The philosophy behind it is that each administrative region can customize its legal code to service its citizens' principles, but in practice, it kind of just adds to the bureaucracy and fuels a weird fantasy that some states are being held back by the others.
The point was for each state to be a country with its own government but was tied together in union with anews overhead government. That doesn't exist anymore, and our national government has way too much power and fucks not only with our lives, but uses our selves to fuck with others.
Anyways, shitty situation for puck.. he should be okay though.
On February 12 2015 15:24 ROOTiaguz wrote: What a strange country. And by strange I mean fucking idiotic.
Wow. fuck off dude. How dare we have a country that allows groups of people to make their own laws instead of abiding to national ones. Holy shit, what a fucking strange idea. I think it's called liberty? Though we don't follow it to the T, it's better than some bum ass country made from fucking prisoners.
Doesn't feel good, does it? Maybe if you had spent more time learning about shit that matters instead of attempting to be good at a game you clearly suck at, you would understand that while states like North Dakota have strange ass laws, their ability to make those laws is actually pretty awesome despite your disagreement. I understand that you like to be ordered around, and told what to do, but here in America, we like to deal with the consequences of our own free wills.
Not only that, but no moderation on this at all? Once again, it's okay for a popular Starcraft 2 player to troll and bait people, because the moderators know them - yet if I said that, I would be warned and/or banned. I don't mind following rules, but favoring people because their players? Come on. This is obviously not something someone should be posting, and anyone else would likely receive a warning.
On February 12 2015 18:46 TheSayo182 wrote: #The Land of Freedom!
Indeed it is, and your ignorance to the fact that BECAUSE North Dakota can have such a law is apparent by your attempt to be funny. Freedom doesn't always give us what we want in the long run, but it does allow and force us to take responsibility for our own actions.
Indeed it is, and your ignorance to the fact that BECAUSE North Dakota can have such a law is apparent by your attempt to be funny.
How's that even special, it's quite normal for countries to have different laws on certain things from state to state. That "freedom" you guys are so turned on by only lives in your imagination. In fact, you're worse off than many other countries, including (funny enough) australia.
Freedom doesn't define itself by you being able to get an assault rifle in a drugstore (hyperbole) or being able to hatepreach without official consequences.
On February 12 2015 18:46 TheSayo182 wrote: #The Land of Freedom!
Indeed it is, and your ignorance to the fact that BECAUSE North Dakota can have such a law is apparent by your attempt to be funny. Freedom doesn't always give us what we want in the long run, but it does allow and force us to take responsibility for our own actions.
Yes because the requirement in many states to pledge allegiance to the flag isn't effectively trying to brainwash you into patriotism.
On February 12 2015 19:47 Phaenoman wrote: How is pro gaming gambling? Not even a card game or betting.
I think it's because the participation-fee. You pay in, you might or might not get money back. As far as i understand it, a tournament not sponsored(!) by Blizzard and without entry-fee would be totally fine.
edit: it might even be fine if the starter-edition (the free2play) edition would be enough to participate in the tournament (tournaments are custom games, which are free), which it isn't (you need masters-rating to be able to participate).
That's something i read though, so not entirely sure.
edit2: doesn't make the law less retarded in this case though.
On February 12 2015 18:46 TheSayo182 wrote: #The Land of Freedom!
Indeed it is, and your ignorance to the fact that BECAUSE North Dakota can have such a law is apparent by your attempt to be funny. Freedom doesn't always give us what we want in the long run, but it does allow and force us to take responsibility for our own actions.
sarcasm? BTW enjoy to carry around how many weapons you like but you can't drink a beer on the street
On February 12 2015 18:46 TheSayo182 wrote: #The Land of Freedom!
Indeed it is, and your ignorance to the fact that BECAUSE North Dakota can have such a law is apparent by your attempt to be funny. Freedom doesn't always give us what we want in the long run, but it does allow and force us to take responsibility for our own actions.
I don't think that everyone in North Dakota necessarily agrees with their laws, and those who don't can't do much about it. Laws are basically the opposite of freedom, even though they are necessary (in general).
On February 12 2015 18:46 TheSayo182 wrote: #The Land of Freedom!
Indeed it is, and your ignorance to the fact that BECAUSE North Dakota can have such a law is apparent by your attempt to be funny. Freedom doesn't always give us what we want in the long run, but it does allow and force us to take responsibility for our own actions.
It's good for you that you agree with the laws of North Dakota, but not everyone necessarily agrees with them and they can't do anything about it. Laws are basically the opposite of freedom, even though they are necessary (in general).
This. How can you reach the the point where 'look, we are freedom, we can forbid this this and this' is a valid argument?
On February 12 2015 15:24 ROOTiaguz wrote: What a strange country. And by strange I mean fucking idiotic.
Wow. fuck off dude. How dare we have a country that allows groups of people to make their own laws instead of abiding to national ones. Holy shit, what a fucking strange idea. I think it's called liberty? Though we don't follow it to the T, it's better than some bum ass country made from fucking prisoners.
Doesn't feel good, does it? Maybe if you had spent more time learning about shit that matters instead of attempting to be good at a game you clearly suck at, you would understand that while states like North Dakota have strange ass laws, their ability to make those laws is actually pretty awesome despite your disagreement. I understand that you like to be ordered around, and told what to do, but here in America, we like to deal with the consequences of our own free wills.
Not only that, but no moderation on this at all? Once again, it's okay for a popular Starcraft 2 player to troll and bait people, because the moderators know them - yet if I said that, I would be warned and/or banned. I don't mind following rules, but favoring people because their players? Come on. This is obviously not something someone should be posting, and anyone else would likely receive a warning.
Perhaps I should clarify.
America isn't a fucking idiot nation. Sometimes it just appears that way when they do little teensy things that are like have silly laws that prohibit people from playing a video game competitively if they live in certain areas. I do apologize if your feelings were hurt.
As others have mentioned, these states have professional sports teams or individuals.
If someone was to buy equipment from some manufacturer of sports good, would it then be illegal for them to take part in any competition that that manufacturer was involved with?
Or is it down to although you are using the same brand that is responsible for some of the prize pool (even if they are personal sponsors of both you and the tournament?), you could technically use a different brand. Where as there is no alternative to buying sc2 to play sc2.
Also is there no problem taking part in an sc2 competition where blizzard is not providing the prize pool?
Also is there no problem taking part in an sc2 competition where blizzard is not providing the prize pool?
It seems like it would be fine if you wouldn't have to pay for SC2.
Isn't that really easy to circumvent then? Blizz just gives out free SC2 accounts, to everyone, who qualifies for WCS. The qualifier itself has no cash price, so you play it with your own account without being in trouble. As soon as you are qualified, Blizz provides you with a FREE tournament account, so that the anti-gambling law doesn't apply.
On February 12 2015 15:24 ROOTiaguz wrote: What a strange country. And by strange I mean fucking idiotic.
Wow. fuck off dude. How dare we have a country that allows groups of people to make their own laws instead of abiding to national ones. Holy shit, what a fucking strange idea. I think it's called liberty? Though we don't follow it to the T, it's better than some bum ass country made from fucking prisoners.
Doesn't feel good, does it? Maybe if you had spent more time learning about shit that matters instead of attempting to be good at a game you clearly suck at, you would understand that while states like North Dakota have strange ass laws, their ability to make those laws is actually pretty awesome despite your disagreement. I understand that you like to be ordered around, and told what to do, but here in America, we like to deal with the consequences of our own free wills.
Not only that, but no moderation on this at all? Once again, it's okay for a popular Starcraft 2 player to troll and bait people, because the moderators know them - yet if I said that, I would be warned and/or banned. I don't mind following rules, but favoring people because their players? Come on. This is obviously not something someone should be posting, and anyone else would likely receive a warning.
PJSalt :D
These American patriots
you know it's people like you that force us to make fun of the US
On February 12 2015 15:24 ROOTiaguz wrote: What a strange country. And by strange I mean fucking idiotic.
Wow. fuck off dude. How dare we have a country that allows groups of people to make their own laws instead of abiding to national ones. Holy shit, what a fucking strange idea. I think it's called liberty? Though we don't follow it to the T, it's better than some bum ass country made from fucking prisoners.
Doesn't feel good, does it? Maybe if you had spent more time learning about shit that matters instead of attempting to be good at a game you clearly suck at, you would understand that while states like North Dakota have strange ass laws, their ability to make those laws is actually pretty awesome despite your disagreement. I understand that you like to be ordered around, and told what to do, but here in America, we like to deal with the consequences of our own free wills.
Not only that, but no moderation on this at all? Once again, it's okay for a popular Starcraft 2 player to troll and bait people, because the moderators know them - yet if I said that, I would be warned and/or banned. I don't mind following rules, but favoring people because their players? Come on. This is obviously not something someone should be posting, and anyone else would likely receive a warning.
so what you're saying is, you have so much freedom, that state leaders make decisions for you instead of a nation ones?
and if you're gonna backdoor mod, at least be civil, you have so many curse words in that post it's like someone insulted you directly... i thought nationalism was not a thing in the land of the free, what a total over-reaction
edit: i once got banned by TL for responding in a similar tone to yours. difference was, on the other side wasn't a guy criticizing joke-laws in my country, it was some nationalist scumbag calling for formation of union of all slavic people under russian rule. in a thread about ukraine crisis. and i got banned because i allowed myself to get baited into responding. i really don't get how you're still around. must be that popular countries patriotism thing, you know, cuz "mods know them"
Also is there no problem taking part in an sc2 competition where blizzard is not providing the prize pool?
It seems like it would be fine if you wouldn't have to pay for SC2.
Isn't that really easy to circumvent then? Blizz just gives out free SC2 accounts, to everyone, who qualifies for WCS. The qualifier itself has no cash price, so you play it with your own account without being in trouble. As soon as you are qualified, Blizz provides you with a FREE tournament account, so that the anti-gambling law doesn't apply.
As i said, i'm not entirely sure - but it appears that this would already solve it, apparently. At least the logic behind it.
Spalding is a manufacturer and sponsor for many sports but lets say the Nba. They also produce the balls that basically every team is going to have to use in order to play. (There may be other brands?)
I may be mistaken but I am guessing the teams have to pay for the balls and that money can then go into funding the nba and contributing to its prize pool?
Is this ok because spalding is a sponsor and the nba is a separate entity running the competition or because spalding is not the only sponsor or because the balls are not purchased by the individual players or are they simply so big and rich that they can effectively ignore some laws?
There are bound to be other examples but I am just trying to understand where the lines are.
Sometimes I am angry about the EU trying to force their opinions into legal systems of individual countries ... and then examples like these show how useful is to have unified legislation so that people don't randomly bump into obscure local laws.
Also is there no problem taking part in an sc2 competition where blizzard is not providing the prize pool?
It seems like it would be fine if you wouldn't have to pay for SC2.
Isn't that really easy to circumvent then? Blizz just gives out free SC2 accounts, to everyone, who qualifies for WCS. The qualifier itself has no cash price, so you play it with your own account without being in trouble. As soon as you are qualified, Blizz provides you with a FREE tournament account, so that the anti-gambling law doesn't apply.
As i said, i'm not entirely sure - but it appears that this would already solve it, apparently. At least the logic behind it.
True. Unfortunately this would require changes to the WCS handbook and, considering that the handbook took ages to write and contains a number of errors (64-man tournament for 31 spots what?), I can't imagine that happening.
On February 12 2015 21:02 Startyr wrote: Spalding is a manufacturer and sponsor for many sports but lets say the Nba. They also produce the balls that basically every team is going to have to use in order to play. (There may be other brands?)
I may be mistaken but I am guessing the teams have to pay for the balls and that money can then go into funding the nba and contributing to its prize pool?
Is this ok because spalding is a sponsor and the nba is a separate entity running the competition or because spalding is not the only sponsor or because the balls are not purchased by the individual players or are they simply so big and rich that they can effectively ignore some laws?
There are bound to be other examples but I am just trying to understand where the lines are.
The caveat as I understand it is you are likely not having to pay spalding for the balls themselves in the NBA, whereas there was for most people who play SC2 a $60-120 entry fee to "get your foot in the door" kind of thing. Now that Blizzard, the owner and developer is sponsor and organizer, who profited from your buying the game to begin with, their legal team is likely taking a wide birth on laws like this, not that anyone in ND's legislature likely would have noticed. I woudln't want to fuck with the gambling lobby in the US myself.
On February 12 2015 19:47 Phaenoman wrote: How is pro gaming gambling? Not even a card game or betting.
I think it's because the participation-fee. You pay in, you might or might not get money back. As far as i understand it, a tournament not sponsored(!) by Blizzard and without entry-fee would be totally fine.
edit: it might even be fine if the starter-edition (the free2play) edition would be enough to participate in the tournament (tournaments are custom games, which are free), which it isn't (you need masters-rating to be able to participate).
That's something i read though, so not entirely sure.
edit2: doesn't make the law less retarded in this case though.
WCS Handbook states the following:
Qualifiers will be open to players that fulfill the residency requirements and are Master-level or above on the official qualifier region’s StarCraft II ladder (preceding or current season). Individual regions may lower the Master-level requirement with Blizzard approval.
Nowhere does it say Master in 1v1 , playing Ranked 2v2 with a free account is possible. So it is entirely possible to play in WCS without buying the game.
On February 12 2015 21:02 Startyr wrote: Spalding is a manufacturer and sponsor for many sports but lets say the Nba. They also produce the balls that basically every team is going to have to use in order to play. (There may be other brands?)
I may be mistaken but I am guessing the teams have to pay for the balls and that money can then go into funding the nba and contributing to its prize pool?
Is this ok because spalding is a sponsor and the nba is a separate entity running the competition or because spalding is not the only sponsor or because the balls are not purchased by the individual players or are they simply so big and rich that they can effectively ignore some laws?
There are bound to be other examples but I am just trying to understand where the lines are.
The caveat as I understand it is you are likely not having to pay spalding for the balls themselves in the NBA, whereas there was for most people who play SC2 a $60-120 entry fee to "get your foot in the door" kind of thing. Now that Blizzard, the owner and developer is sponsor and organizer, who profited from your buying the game to begin with, their legal team is likely taking a wide birth on laws like this, not that anyone in ND's legislature likely would have noticed. I woudln't want to fuck with the gambling lobby in the US myself.
wcs = esl, not blizzard so no puck, only 2 usa flag left on premier league gl suppy and astrea
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.
US state laws are not ignored by everyone for once? Puck should be careful and not have a duck or a chicken on his head when driving over the border of Minnesota.
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. That's like buying your own football shoes to participate in a football match.
not really, shoes in esport = keyboard , mouse if u have to buy game/ticket to play in a tournament, that's an entry fee.
On February 12 2015 21:02 Startyr wrote: Spalding is a manufacturer and sponsor for many sports but lets say the Nba. They also produce the balls that basically every team is going to have to use in order to play. (There may be other brands?)
I may be mistaken but I am guessing the teams have to pay for the balls and that money can then go into funding the nba and contributing to its prize pool?
Is this ok because spalding is a sponsor and the nba is a separate entity running the competition or because spalding is not the only sponsor or because the balls are not purchased by the individual players or are they simply so big and rich that they can effectively ignore some laws?
There are bound to be other examples but I am just trying to understand where the lines are.
The caveat as I understand it is you are likely not having to pay spalding for the balls themselves in the NBA, whereas there was for most people who play SC2 a $60-120 entry fee to "get your foot in the door" kind of thing. Now that Blizzard, the owner and developer is sponsor and organizer, who profited from your buying the game to begin with, their legal team is likely taking a wide birth on laws like this, not that anyone in ND's legislature likely would have noticed. I woudln't want to fuck with the gambling lobby in the US myself.
wcs = esl, not blizzard so no puck, only 2 usa flag left on premier league gl suppy and astrea
ESL is a broadcast partner, Blizzard didn't just outsource everything to them.
The 2015 StarCraft II World Championship Series is a series of events organized by or in cooperation with Blizzard Entertainment. They are designed to include three major StarCraft II broadcasters, ESL, GOMeXP and SPOTV Games.
On February 12 2015 21:02 Startyr wrote: Spalding is a manufacturer and sponsor for many sports but lets say the Nba. They also produce the balls that basically every team is going to have to use in order to play. (There may be other brands?)
I may be mistaken but I am guessing the teams have to pay for the balls and that money can then go into funding the nba and contributing to its prize pool?
Is this ok because spalding is a sponsor and the nba is a separate entity running the competition or because spalding is not the only sponsor or because the balls are not purchased by the individual players or are they simply so big and rich that they can effectively ignore some laws?
There are bound to be other examples but I am just trying to understand where the lines are.
The caveat as I understand it is you are likely not having to pay spalding for the balls themselves in the NBA, whereas there was for most people who play SC2 a $60-120 entry fee to "get your foot in the door" kind of thing. Now that Blizzard, the owner and developer is sponsor and organizer, who profited from your buying the game to begin with, their legal team is likely taking a wide birth on laws like this, not that anyone in ND's legislature likely would have noticed. I woudln't want to fuck with the gambling lobby in the US myself.
wcs = esl, not blizzard so no puck, only 2 usa flag left on premier league gl suppy and astrea
ESL is a broadcast partner, Blizzard didn't just outsource everything to them.
The 2015 StarCraft II World Championship Series is a series of events organized by or in cooperation with Blizzard Entertainment. They are designed to include three major StarCraft II broadcasters, ESL, GOMeXP and SPOTV Games.
Indeed, you're right
Blizzard is responsible for the coordination of partner management, direction, and government of the World Championship Series
from wcs-player-handbook-v1.1.0.
and for those who think free battle.net account is good enough
HAVE AUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A FULL BATTLE.NET ACCOUNT REGISTERED ON BLIZZARD’S NORTH AMERICA BATTLE.NET SERVICE (A BATTLE.NET LIGHT ACCOUNT IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR T HIS TOURNAMENT)
On February 12 2015 15:24 ROOTiaguz wrote: What a strange country. And by strange I mean fucking idiotic.
Wow. fuck off dude. How dare we have a country that allows groups of people to make their own laws instead of abiding to national ones. Holy shit, what a fucking strange idea. I think it's called liberty? Though we don't follow it to the T, it's better than some bum ass country made from fucking prisoners.
Doesn't feel good, does it? Maybe if you had spent more time learning about shit that matters instead of attempting to be good at a game you clearly suck at, you would understand that while states like North Dakota have strange ass laws, their ability to make those laws is actually pretty awesome despite your disagreement. I understand that you like to be ordered around, and told what to do, but here in America, we like to deal with the consequences of our own free wills.
Not only that, but no moderation on this at all? Once again, it's okay for a popular Starcraft 2 player to troll and bait people, because the moderators know them - yet if I said that, I would be warned and/or banned. I don't mind following rules, but favoring people because their players? Come on. This is obviously not something someone should be posting, and anyone else would likely receive a warning.
Great post, made me lol.
First of all, Australia has a legal system fairly similar to the US, we have federal (commonwealth) laws and state laws. Lots of stuff (education, health, crime) is done at the state level. We have that too.
Iaguz is actually just commenting on how bizzare the law itself is.
As for the rest of your ad hom attacks - well - you said it yourself, it's obviously not something someone should be posting, and I'd expect you'll get moderated in due course.
On February 12 2015 22:48 KOtical wrote: oh wow this is really dumb.... esports = gambling??? then every other sport where u can earn money should be gamblin to...
There are some fair, but rather outdated points about what the law's original intent was in the reddit thread. Things like stopping offers/scams saying things like, "You could win 1 Million USD if you buy X." It is pretty obvious Blizzard is just covering its ass with regards to the statute.
On February 12 2015 22:57 ZenithM wrote: eSportZ litterally illegal, hence badass.
Soon the players will play in cages instead of booths, the casters will be shirtless and dead drunk and there will be strippers and heavy music to gain maximum badassness.
On February 12 2015 23:14 TBO wrote: do ND laws actually apply when the competition is outside of ND? I have no clue how the US law system works.
Not in the strictest sense, but laws as apply to what a state defines as "gaming" (read gambling) are a bit different, it isn't at all uncommon to hear at the end of commercials in the US, "Offer not valid in States XYZ," likely for much the same reason as Blizzard is not offering prizes for ND.
I think Puck lives in Fargo/Moorhead based on his description, the town is split by a river, Moorhead is Minnesota, Fargo is North Dakota, so he very realistically could have handled this residency issue, really pretty shitty.
On February 12 2015 16:27 digmouse wrote: That's why you need to release rulebook of your tournament before the competition even starts, not the other way around. Tbh I don't really believe they will actually shut puck down but the whole annoyance and the pressure it puts on him shouldn't exist in the first place.
100% Correct!! Blizzard seriously dropped the ball on this and should be ashamed at how unprofessional that actually is.
You have a new tournament set up without a RULEBOOK in place for the players to look at and have a better understanding of how things will work for the new WCS...
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)
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.
How has Blizzard not answered to this yet? WCS begins in 2 days, and puCK's group is in one week... Maybe if clarification could come faster than the handbook (and a faster handbook would have prevented this in the first place lol) it would be nice
On February 13 2015 00:40 OtherWorld wrote: How has Blizzard not answered to this yet? WCS begins in 2 days, and puCK's group is in one week... Maybe if clarification could come faster than the handbook (and a faster handbook would have prevented this in the first place lol) it would be nice
On February 12 2015 15:24 ROOTiaguz wrote: What a strange country. And by strange I mean fucking idiotic.
The philosophy behind it is that each administrative region can customize its legal code to service its citizens' principles, but in practice, it kind of just adds to the bureaucracy and fuels a weird fantasy that some states are being held back by the others.
Very well said.
State's rights only comes up when one state wants to unfairly discriminate on people based on sex, race, wealth, ect... then eventually the Supreme Court settles it, and said state pretends they never discriminated.
I don't understand why the North Dakota state law applies for competitions outside of North Dakota. If Puck went to Vegas and won a ton of money, would he be breaking the law in North Dakota? No, he won the money in Vegas. So as long as WCS doesn't host it's competition in North Dakota he should be fine.
On February 12 2015 19:47 Phaenoman wrote: How is pro gaming gambling? Not even a card game or betting.
I think it's because the participation-fee. You pay in, you might or might not get money back. As far as i understand it, a tournament not sponsored(!) by Blizzard and without entry-fee would be totally fine.
edit: it might even be fine if the starter-edition (the free2play) edition would be enough to participate in the tournament (tournaments are custom games, which are free), which it isn't (you need masters-rating to be able to participate).
That's something i read though, so not entirely sure.
edit2: doesn't make the law less retarded in this case though.
Qualifiers will be open to players that fulfill the residency requirements and are Master-level or above on the official qualifier region’s StarCraft II ladder (preceding or current season). Individual regions may lower the Master-level requirement with Blizzard approval.
Nowhere does it say Master in 1v1 , playing Ranked 2v2 with a free account is possible. So it is entirely possible to play in WCS without buying the game.
You must be ranked Master or above on America in the current season.
Ok, it does not precise "in 1v1", but I guess it is implied considering it's a 1v1 competition. But well, it is not the first time Blizzard contradicts itself >.>
On February 12 2015 20:19 Startyr wrote: As others have mentioned, these states have professional sports teams or individuals.
If someone was to buy equipment from some manufacturer of sports good, would it then be illegal for them to take part in any competition that that manufacturer was involved with?
Or is it down to although you are using the same brand that is responsible for some of the prize pool (even if they are personal sponsors of both you and the tournament?), you could technically use a different brand. Where as there is no alternative to buying sc2 to play sc2.
Also is there no problem taking part in an sc2 competition where blizzard is not providing the prize pool?
Arizona and Maryland have professional sports teams. North Dakota, Connecticut and Vermont, I'm not sure, unless they have minor league teams. These things usually happen to states with small populations. Their politicians are usually free to craft overly broad laws and without enough people doing different things, they usually don't run into problems like this.
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 ^^
On February 12 2015 20:19 Startyr wrote: As others have mentioned, these states have professional sports teams or individuals.
If someone was to buy equipment from some manufacturer of sports good, would it then be illegal for them to take part in any competition that that manufacturer was involved with?
Or is it down to although you are using the same brand that is responsible for some of the prize pool (even if they are personal sponsors of both you and the tournament?), you could technically use a different brand. Where as there is no alternative to buying sc2 to play sc2.
Also is there no problem taking part in an sc2 competition where blizzard is not providing the prize pool?
Arizona and Maryland have professional sports teams. North Dakota, Connecticut and Vermont, I'm not sure, unless they have minor league teams. These things usually happen to states with small populations. Their politicians are usually free to craft overly broad laws and without enough people doing different things, they usually don't run into problems like this.
Sporting teams is a bad comparison since the league doesn't pay a prize to the players. The teams pay the athletes as salary.
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.
435.1 SS Rule of FTC (From what I am reading this is basically defining "a merchant," being made to disclose the full terms of a sale prior to its close.
I am a bit fuzzy on my legalese but this exemption would seem to apply, that being said the legal department of Blizzard is probably more familiar with this shit than I am.
Wouldn't Puck's having purchased and consented to the quality of SC2 by extension be exempt from this statute?
On February 12 2015 20:19 Startyr wrote: As others have mentioned, these states have professional sports teams or individuals.
If someone was to buy equipment from some manufacturer of sports good, would it then be illegal for them to take part in any competition that that manufacturer was involved with?
Or is it down to although you are using the same brand that is responsible for some of the prize pool (even if they are personal sponsors of both you and the tournament?), you could technically use a different brand. Where as there is no alternative to buying sc2 to play sc2.
Also is there no problem taking part in an sc2 competition where blizzard is not providing the prize pool?
Arizona and Maryland have professional sports teams. North Dakota, Connecticut and Vermont, I'm not sure, unless they have minor league teams. These things usually happen to states with small populations. Their politicians are usually free to craft overly broad laws and without enough people doing different things, they usually don't run into problems like this.
Sporting teams is a bad comparison since the league doesn't pay a prize to the players. The teams pay the athletes as salary.
What about Tennis or Golf, both of which award money to players based on their success in tournaments? Both are individual competitions structured much like SC2 (Tennis moreso than Golf due to brackets and head to head games).
Are golfers from Arizona not allowed to play in the PGA? In fact, Arizona just hosted the PGA Phoenix Open last week and paid out over $6 million. How could Arizona allow that in their own state, but not allow a resident to travel to LA or Germany or South Korea and win a SC2 competition there? This makes no sense to me.
On February 12 2015 20:19 Startyr wrote: As others have mentioned, these states have professional sports teams or individuals.
If someone was to buy equipment from some manufacturer of sports good, would it then be illegal for them to take part in any competition that that manufacturer was involved with?
Or is it down to although you are using the same brand that is responsible for some of the prize pool (even if they are personal sponsors of both you and the tournament?), you could technically use a different brand. Where as there is no alternative to buying sc2 to play sc2.
Also is there no problem taking part in an sc2 competition where blizzard is not providing the prize pool?
Arizona and Maryland have professional sports teams. North Dakota, Connecticut and Vermont, I'm not sure, unless they have minor league teams. These things usually happen to states with small populations. Their politicians are usually free to craft overly broad laws and without enough people doing different things, they usually don't run into problems like this.
Sporting teams is a bad comparison since the league doesn't pay a prize to the players. The teams pay the athletes as salary.
What about Tennis or Golf, both of which award money to players based on their success in tournaments? Both are individual competitions structured much like SC2 (Tennis moreso than Golf due to brackets and head to head games).
Are golfers from Arizona not allowed to play in the PGA? In fact, Arizona just hosted the PGA Phoenix Open last week and paid out over $6 million. How could Arizona allow that in their own state, but not allow a resident to travel to LA or Germany or South Korea and win a SC2 competition there? This makes no sense to me.
Probably because the money is paid out by the PGA itself or the org running the Phoenix Open, which is distinct from its sponsor(s)? I mean here it looks like the issue is that Blizzard sells SC2 AND pays out the money to WCS participants. If, say, it would be KeSPA which would pay out the money for WCS to players instead of Blizzard there would be no problem, right?
On February 12 2015 20:19 Startyr wrote: As others have mentioned, these states have professional sports teams or individuals.
If someone was to buy equipment from some manufacturer of sports good, would it then be illegal for them to take part in any competition that that manufacturer was involved with?
Or is it down to although you are using the same brand that is responsible for some of the prize pool (even if they are personal sponsors of both you and the tournament?), you could technically use a different brand. Where as there is no alternative to buying sc2 to play sc2.
Also is there no problem taking part in an sc2 competition where blizzard is not providing the prize pool?
Arizona and Maryland have professional sports teams. North Dakota, Connecticut and Vermont, I'm not sure, unless they have minor league teams. These things usually happen to states with small populations. Their politicians are usually free to craft overly broad laws and without enough people doing different things, they usually don't run into problems like this.
Sporting teams is a bad comparison since the league doesn't pay a prize to the players. The teams pay the athletes as salary.
What about Tennis or Golf, both of which award money to players based on their success in tournaments? Both are individual competitions structured much like SC2 (Tennis moreso than Golf due to brackets and head to head games).
Are golfers from Arizona not allowed to play in the PGA? In fact, Arizona just hosted the PGA Phoenix Open last week and paid out over $6 million. How could Arizona allow that in their own state, but not allow a resident to travel to LA or Germany or South Korea and win a SC2 competition there? This makes no sense to me.
I would have to ask how the prize pools are funded for Golf and Tennis. I have to imagine that most of the pool is out of pocket for Blizzard whereas more lucrative sponsorships in sports like Tennis and Golf probably fund the winnings for the tournament.
I'm confused as to how WCS is considered gambling. These States all have anti gambling laws, meaning you can't 'bet' your own money to make money, unless it's an State sponsored event. The only way in which WCS can be considered gambling is if WCS makes its participants purchase competitor passes (like MLG does). If that ISN'T the case, than WCS shouldn't count as gambling.
On February 13 2015 02:37 Felix.Ice wrote: I'm confused as to how WCS is considered gambling. These States all have anti gambling laws, meaning you can't 'bet' your own money to make money, unless it's an State sponsored event. The only way in which WCS can be considered gambling is if WCS makes its participants purchase competitor passes (like MLG does). If that ISN'T the case, than WCS shouldn't count as gambling.
All boils down to definitions of game of skill vs. game of chance. Pinball for example, has historically been considered gambling at least at its inception.
On February 13 2015 02:40 digmouse wrote: Again, the code and the WCS rule won't effectively ban puck or anyone, just the rule being there is stupid.
Right, so that's just completely misleading to include that in the rules than.
On February 13 2015 02:41 ThomasjServo wrote: All boils down to definitions of game of skill vs. game of chance. Pinball for example, has historically been considered gambling at least at its inception.
Yes true, but that holds true for most games. Participants in WCS games aren't gambling anything personal. They literally have nothing to lose, except maybe time. If WCS has no entry costs, than its not considered gambling. Puck is basically playing the lottery.
On February 13 2015 02:46 Djzapz wrote: It's unfortunate because those laws are not behaving the way they were designed to... They can safely be ignored, I'd argue
I'm from Quebec and that law is annoying. I can't win canadian raffles over $100. I recently won $50 though so that's cool.
Yeah, it's really nasty. From what I remember when I lived there, there's some sort of clause that the organizer of any event that's considered "gambling" has to pay some government ministry a certain % of the winnings or profit.
At least it doesn't take long to claim you're a resident of another province, so desrow could get out of that pretty easily.
On February 13 2015 02:46 Djzapz wrote: It's unfortunate because those laws are not behaving the way they were designed to... They can safely be ignored, I'd argue
I'm from Quebec and that law is annoying. I can't win canadian raffles over $100. I recently won $50 though so that's cool.
Yeah, it's really nasty. From what I remember when I lived there, there's some sort of clause that the organizer of any event that's considered "gambling" has to pay some government ministry a certain % of the winnings or profit.
At least it doesn't take long to claim you're a resident of another province, so desrow could get out of that pretty easily.
It's weird to me that where I live would change which prizes I can get in another country. I mean if I go to the US and I win a prize yet, what right does Quebec have to fuck with me. + Show Spoiler +
I mean if I go to Amsterdam, Quebec doesn't follow me around slapping my hand saying NO YOU DON'T DO THAT, NO YOU DON'T SQUEEZE THAT. Also we want you to pay sales taxes on shit you buy overseas. NO! I'm in another place, I live by this other set of rules.
This law is silly and shouldn't still be used. Clearly it is some sort of prohibition style gambling law meant to keep all the gamblers (mmm, money!) in North Dakota. I mean is this serious? Surely this type of BS can't still be happening in 2015, can it? So let me get this straight, if Puck goes and competes in a Starcraft tournament in another state or even canada or something, he can't legally obtain the money because he live in North Dakota? please tell me i'm totally misunderstanding this, because i'd rather be called a dumbass because i don't understand than actually be faced with the reality that this type of thing actually exists in the most powerful country in the world.
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.
Remember how much clamoring there was to put in region locks based on residency? And now, we have new rules in the handbook clarifying how residency affects participation. Imagine that.
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), but in the United states localities decide what is legal as far as gambling is concerned. Which is why there is a problem with puck being a resident of North dakota
On February 13 2015 03:09 mvdunecats wrote: Remember how much clamoring there was to put in region locks based on residency? And now, we have new rules in the handbook clarifying how residency affects participation. Imagine that.
Be careful what you ask for.
This isn't to do with region locks in the least, this is to do with Blizzard's/Activitions legal team identifying local legislation that could cause issues for their company should they pay out money to Puck. Occam's razer, no prize money to players residing in ND.
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)
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?
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.
I honestly really don't know. I've never gambled in Canada... Well not yet at least.
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?
Uh, I'm not aware of anything like that. I know that Niagara Falls has some gambling and stuff. But it hardly compares, really. Montreal has a fairly big casino. But nothing huge and shiny and as lively at night as Las Vegas.
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?
Uh, I'm not aware of anything like that. I know that Niagara Falls has some gambling and stuff. But it hardly compares, really. Montreal has a fairly big casino. But nothing huge and shiny and as lively at night as Las Vegas.
I was just thinking about it, because of how strong the gambling lobby is in the US, even within states themselves. Las Vegas for example Sheldon Adelson and Las Vegas money is at least in part responsible for what killed online poker in the US (for real money that is) an example from Minnesota with local gambling influences, was that a local casino run by a Sioux tribe struck a deal with the local horse track to pad racing purses (the pay out to farms that raise racing horses and what have you) to keep slot machines out of the horse track.
Yes this is idiotic, probably just an outdated law that needs to be reviewed. dude don't reminded me that online poker is a scam, that's why they banned it, how the hell does ppl get AA, KK, 1010, and flop is A, K, J, 10, 2, well short story I lost with KK, but how the hell flopping a set is 1/7.5, getting pocket pair is 1/221. how that is that not a scam. so I leave that online betting scam with my must unlucky hand ever hitting odds that are near idiotic
This isn't about Blizzard's business model not being from this decade but rather that state's law being from a several decades ago, politicians trating people as if they were their property.
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.
From the OP it looks like the situation for Quebec is similar to puck's.
On February 13 2015 03:55 Ottoman042 wrote: Yes this is idiotic, probably just an outdated law that needs to be reviewed. dude don't reminded me that online poker is a scam, that's why they banned it, how the hell does ppl get AA, KK, 1010, and flop is A, K, J, 10, 2, well short story I lost with KK, but how the hell flopping a set is 1/7.5, getting pocket pair is 1/221. how that is that not a scam. so I leave that online betting scam with my must unlucky hand ever hitting odds that are near idiotic
On February 13 2015 03:55 Ottoman042 wrote: Yes this is idiotic, probably just an outdated law that needs to be reviewed. dude don't reminded me that online poker is a scam, that's why they banned it, how the hell does ppl get AA, KK, 1010, and flop is A, K, J, 10, 2, well short story I lost with KK, but how the hell flopping a set is 1/7.5, getting pocket pair is 1/221. how that is that not a scam. so I leave that online betting scam with my must unlucky hand ever hitting odds that are near idiotic
Those odds are the same in live poker though.
you would have to play both quite extensively to understand where he's coming from. I don't want to start an argument, just asking you to understand where he's coming from first before you do. I have actually never lost in live poker by baiting bluffs with pocket aces (maybe like once or twice and max) and i've been playing for a decade, online that is asking to be broke it happens almost every single time..
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
EPT
puCK stated on his twitter account that due to law reasons he might not be able to play in WCS, long story short as he is from North Dakota, the state law there bans gambling/competition which on a wider sense includes progaming.
