gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scan


From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling)
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:01:52 -0000

Snit wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov stated in post address@hidden on 9/21/10 8:38
> AM:
> 
> >
> > Snit wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> http://www.goodnewsblog.com/2006/04/17/lotologist-has-amassed-250000-used-lo
> >>> tt
> >>> o-tickets
> >>>
> >>> "Lotologist has amassed 250,000 used lotto tickets
> >>
> >> And if someone had already cashed one in, should he be able to do so again?
> >
> > He may "do so again" by selling used ("already cashed one in") winner
> > ticket to one of his collector friends for a price potentially even
> > higher than original cash option. What is your problem with that?
> 
> Nothing... but he cannot use it to collect from the state again.  I have no
> problem with someone selling game media... but if part of the game is an
> online account, the account might not be transferrable.  So be it.  Heck,

Nothing prevents online game providers from implementing

            GAME OVER, DO YOU AGREE TO DEACTIVATE THE ACCOUNT?

scheme for deactivation. It would still be not a crime to sell
deactivated account credentials. A researcher may well be interested to
buy such account credentials to break the deactivation scheme to tell
online game provider that the scheme is not reliable. And it *would* be
a crime to break the scheme (and sell post-deactivated account
credentials) allowing use of deactivated online game accounts for
playing the game. 

In fact, in the past, one of my kids has sold an online game account
running on *my* name to one of his friends in school. 

You know, in Germany, contracts regarding ongoing considerable payments
with kids are void (one-off "taschengeld" contracts are allowed, see
section 110 BGB http://dejure.org/gesetze/BGB/110.html, see also
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taschengeldparagraph), so my kid was told
when he tried to register online game account on his name that he is too
young (the online game provider required to enter the birth date) and
one of his parents shall register instead. So I've registered the
account on my name and entered my credit card number.

When my kid got fed up with playing the game he considered whether to
retain the account for his younger brother or to sell it to one of his
friends in school. I've told him: feel free to sell it but make sure
that the online game provider stops charging my credit card. He removed
my credit card as payment method and sold the account.

I don't think that we have been engaged in criminal activity.

If online game provider dares to sue me for contractual damages
regarding resale restriction then I simply counter sue asking refund of
all the money charged from my credit card...

regards,
alexander.

-- 
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]