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: Snit
Subject: Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling)
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:01:53 -0000
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.26.0.100708

Alexander Terekhov stated in post address@hidden on 9/22/10 4:06
AM:

> 
> 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,
>> maybe someone wants to sell old CDs as coasters.  :)
> 
> 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.

Pretty much what I said.  :)

> 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.


-- 
Survey: <http://nitobi.com/survey/>
241 of 571 said they use Dreamweaver (42%)
Tim Adams: "_80% DO NOT USE Dreamweaver AT ALL_!"



reply via email to

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