[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 4C99E351.D08791FC@web.de on 9/22/10 4:06
AM:
>
> Snit wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov stated in post 4C98D184.68A368DA@web.de 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_!"
- Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernorscandalous ruling), (continued)
- Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling), JEDIDIAH, 2010/12/08
- Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling), Snit, 2010/12/08
- Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernorscandalous ruling), Alexander Terekhov, 2010/12/08
- Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernorscandalous ruling), Snit, 2010/12/08
- Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernorscandalous ruling), Alexander Terekhov, 2010/12/08
- Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernorscandalous ruling), Snit, 2010/12/08
- Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling), Alexander Terekhov, 2010/12/08
- Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling),
Snit <=
- Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling), Alexander Terekhov, 2010/12/08
- Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling), Alexander Terekhov, 2010/12/08
- Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling), Alexander Terekhov, 2010/12/08
- Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling), Alexander Terekhov, 2010/12/08
- Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling), David Kastrup, 2010/12/08
- Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling), Alexander Terekhov, 2010/12/08
- Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling), David Kastrup, 2010/12/08
- Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling), Alexander Terekhov, 2010/12/08
- Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling), David Kastrup, 2010/12/08
- Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling), Alexander Terekhov, 2010/12/08