China's courts say your digital game items are inheritable – Steam and The West disagree

[Morphology]

Oops! It's not that "you could say" you're purchasing a license, you are purchasing a license. Period. Not a product. Don't beg the question by pretending otherwise.

I am not pretending anything, I am not ignoring anything and I am not naive. Why making such infantile assumptions? If you want to know more or understand my reasoning or point of view, just ask, don't assume.

You're sadly naive if you believe the CCP respects property rights, or is "pro consumer", and this article has gaslit you over what the courts actually ruled here. This wasn't a dispute with a corporation over EULA terms, this was a civil case between two women: the man's wife, and his "in game" girlfriend. And the court didn't even make a sensible, consistent decision here, but merely used Babylonian-era "King Solomon" thinking, and gave half to each.

1. Did I say anywhere that CCP, in general, respects property rights? No. Why would you ever entertain such silly idea? The discussion was focused on this case.

2. The article did not gaslight me. Not at all. I feel gaslit by your posts.

3. It does not really matter that this was a civil case between two individuals. This and similar rulings, which you could read more about on reddit, set a legal framework on how to rule in similar cases in future. It becomes de facto, and de jure, practised law. A state prosecutor does not need to summon Sony, Valve or others to sue them for some absurd anti-consumer articles in EULA in order to change how they write EULAa. A state does not have time to waste on such nonsense. They have normal, everyday courts to deal with it.

 

[Morphology]

I might suggest that hyperproliferation of emojis is best relegated to the texts of young teen girls, and not mature adult debate.

I am looking forward to see some maturity.

 

[Endymio]

I am not pretending anything ... don't assume.

We can only go by your own posts, which pretend that a license is really the purchase of the underlying product, and only "sort of like" a license.

1. Did I say anywhere that CCP, in general, respects property rights?

When you called the court decision here "pro consumer". It is not.

3. It does not really matter that this was a civil case between two individuals.

Of course it does. The article frames the decision as a ruling against EULAs prohibiting transfer of digital assets. Instead, it's simply a decision regarding who should receive a transfer, on a platform that already doesn't prohibit such. Think through the logic here; I'm sure it will come to you eventually.

There have been other rulings in Chinese courts that purport to actually support "digital transfer rights". However, examining those closely also demonstrates that no, they do not.

 

[Morphology]

We can only go by your own posts, which pretend that a license is really the purchase of the underlying product, and only "sort of like" a license.

You seem to be confused. Please, ask for any clarifications.

When you called the court decision here "pro consumer". It is not.

It absolutely is. It extended the inheritance right onto digitally purchased and consumed content. As a consumer, your inheritance rights cannot be cancelled by some absurd rumblings in EULA. Ergo, a pro-consumer move by the court. You don't like the word pro-consumer? Tough. Deal with it.

The article frames the decision as a ruling against EULAs prohibiting transfer of digital assets. Instead, it's simply a decision regarding who should receive a transfer, on a platform that already doesn't prohibit such. Think through the logic here;

Please stop advising others to think through the logic and apply this to yourself in the first place. I am sure that the knife case would have never reached the court had customer service of the game company simply split the assets when requested to.

Secondly, the case 2, also in the article, is literally before your eyes. It clearly reads that a court ordered a gaming company to comply with inheritance right. The article also links to the reddit thread where more cases are described in detail. Have fun finding out how companies fight tooth and nail to restrict consumer rights.

 

[Endymio]

You seem to be confused. Please, ask for any clarifications.

Oops! When someone claims unicorns exist or the earth is flat, we normally don't ask for clarification; we simply point out the error.

It extended the inheritance right onto digitally purchased and consumed content.

No it did not. There was no question of property rights in this case; both sides agreed -- and more importantly, the platform provider itself agreed -- that the property belonged to some customer. The only dispute was who it belonged to.

As a consumer, your inheritance rights cannot be cancelled by some absurd rumblings in EULA.

Again: learn what happened here. The EULA in this case did not bar account transfer. The EULA did not bar item transfer. The EULA did not forbid ownership of digital items.

You don't like the word pro-consumer? Tough. Deal with it.

Again, you're claiming the one of the most authoritarian, brutally repressive dictatorships on earth is "pro consumer". And when I note that fact, you deny your own words.

 

[Morphology]

Oops! When someone claims unicorns exist or the earth is flat, we normally don't ask for clarification; we simply point out the error.

You have actually lost the plot, haven't you? You have nothing meaningful to say apart from 'flat earth' word salad.

There was no question of property rights in this case; both sides agreed -- and more importantly, the platform provider itself agreed -- that the property belonged to some customer. The only dispute was who it belonged to.

You don't even pretend anymore that you actually do not comprehend the case. There was no question of property rights in general, correct. There was a question of inheritance of property rights.

The case wouldn't have arrived to court in the first place had the company simply transferred all assets of dead account owner to their spouse and explained in an email to co-owner of digital knife that inheritance rules applied. The dispute started because the company did not apply common inheritance law to simply transfer all account assets to a spouse. Therefore, the court had to remind them that inheritance law applies to digitally purchased content with economic value. The company now KNOWS what they MUST do in future cases like this one, so that they don't waste everyone's time by allowing such disputes to reach courts. You got it finally?

Again: learn what happened here. The EULA in this case did not bar account transfer. The EULA did not bar item transfer. The EULA did not forbid ownership of digital items.

You learn what happened, read the article and associated links several times, stop repeating yourself like a broken record and making up stuff. It's embarrassing. The dispute in case 1 was not about account transfer, but inheritance of specific item. In the case 2, the court ordered a company to apply inheritance right. Can you not see two cases with your own eyes in the article?

you're claiming the one of the most authoritarian, brutally repressive dictatorships on earth is "pro consumer". And when I note that fact, you deny your own words.

You are, yet again, desperately trying to put words into someone's mouth. Read again what I wrote. You note things made up in your mind.

 

[Endymio]

You don't even pretend anymore that you actually do not comprehend the case. There was no question of property rights in general, correct. There was a question of inheritance of property rights.

Look, this isn't complicated. At least attempt to understand. You can have inheritance of digital property without digital property rights: the one hinges upon the other. You mistakenly concluded the court overrode a company's EULA to ensure digital property rights. That. Did. Not. Happen.

There is nothing whatsoever about "digital rights" in this decision, because the company maintaining these virtual assets agreed that someone else owned them. The only question was division. The exact same issue could have come to court had this been a physical item rather than a virtual one, in a case where the girlfriend believed her de facto possession claim and prior interaction with the original owner gave her ownership.

The case wouldn't have arrived to court in the first place had the company simply transferred all assets of dead account owner to their spouse and explained in an email to co-owner of digital knife that inheritance rules applied

Oops! But that isn't even what the court ruled. The court ruled the spouse owned 50%, and the girlfriend the other 50%. That alone should have clued you to the fact that this didn't affirm digital property rights.

 

[Morphology]

That alone should have clued you to the fact that this didn't affirm digital property rights.

Both courts ruled about inheritance. The main complaint in both cases was that some or all assets were not inherited.

You mistakenly concluded the court overrode a company's EULA to ensure digital property rights.

Not at all. Again, the focus was on inheritance, in both cases. Courts ordered both companies to honour inheritance law.

Is there anything else you need clarified?

 

[Xelions]

Oops! EULAs are often successful challenged because of "meeting of minds" failures and other problems -- issues I've documented myself here in other threads. Not because of severability, or because "one clause caused the entire thing to collapse". The search results you provided prove my point for me.

There have been cases where the whole EULA have been thrown out. You do require or are recommended a legal professional to validate EULAs. They are a mere protection mechanism for IP and to deter illegal activity - this is their goal.

The information provided from search results were superficial and if you read further it may in fact surprise you. It does not favour heavily in any direction of the argument.

Also, I might suggest that hyperproliferation of emojis is best relegated to the texts of young teen girls, and not mature adult debate.

4x emojis and your worried about a post degenerating into a teen-girl-like conversation - just for you!

 

[Endymio]

There have been cases where the whole EULA have been thrown out.

But not due to severability failure. Are you even following what this discussion is about?

You do require or are recommended a legal professional to validate EULAs. They are a mere protection mechanism for IP and to deter illegal activity - this is their goal.

Was this a joke? I'm unsure what you intended by the word "mere", but a EULA is a contract, and their purpose is no different than any other contract: to define the terms of a transaction.

The information provided from search results were superficial and if you read further it may in fact surprise you. It does not favour heavily in any direction of the argument.

The search results the OP claimed supported his argument did not do so, and in fact validate my position in an early debate with @yRaz on this subject: EULAs are often ruled invalid because their mere existence does not infallibly prove agreement between both parties: so-called 'meeting of minds' objections.

 

[Endymio]

Both courts ruled about inheritance. The main complaint in both cases was that some or all assets were not inherited.

You're struggling with failure to understand the basic purpose of civil courts: they rule only on the disputed facts between two parties. Everyone involved in this case agreed the assets existed and were freely transferable: the court did NOT rule on this issue.

No EULA barred inheritance nor any other form of property transfer, so the notion that the court ruled that "EULAs which bar ownership of digital assets are invalid" is laughably absurd. You can't change facts by stamping your feet angrily and denying them.

 

[Morphology]

You're struggling with failure to understand the basic purpose of civil courts: they rule only on the disputed facts between two parties. Everyone involved in this case agreed the assets existed and were freely transferable: the court did NOT rule on this issue.

I am not struggling at all, I am afraid. You have not been able to explain either of the cases:
Case 1 - Why did the gaming company fail to transfer a part of jointly acquired asset in the first place when a person inherited the account with related assets? Was it bad customer service that does not know how to transfer jointly acquired assets?

This and other verdicts will embolden other users in the West to push similar cases through European and American courts. It's just a matter of time when we begin to see similar rulings on other side of the globe. You will live to see it.

No EULA barred inheritance nor any other form of property transfer, so the notion that the court ruled that "EULAs which bar ownership of digital assets are invalid" is laughably absurd. You can't change facts by stamping your feet angrily and denying them.

Perhaps read Case 2 again. You can't change facts by invoking ignorance.
Case 2 - Why did the court have to order another company to apply the inheritance law? Will you blame it on poor customer service or poor defence by the company? Remember, the company ChangYou, argued that, under its user agreement, the original user accounts were non-inheritable and non-transferable after death. The court disagreed and ordered that the use of 87 accounts was both inheritable and transferable. The company had to obey the law. End of story.

 

[Northy]

What an odd world emerging where Chinese law affirms the rights of consumers more than western law.

 

[Morphology]

What an odd world emerging where Chinese law affirms the rights of consumers more than western law.

It's called cross-pollination. Inspiration flows both ways. It's just a matter of time when some Western folks get inspired by this and try to test the same idea in a court of law.

 

[Endymio]

Case 1 - Why did the gaming company fail to transfer a part of jointly acquired asset

Look, this isn't rocket science. There are two possible cases here. In one case, a company says some variant of: "by the terms of our EULA, your account and everything in it remains our property, and you cannot transfer it to others". In this case, if a court forces the transfer, it can and does set (at least some) precedent for digital rights.

But this particular case was the polar opposite of that. Here, the company said "your account and everything in it belongs to you, and you can freely transfer it as you wish." And that's exactly what happened: in fact, even before this court ruling, the account contents had already been de facto transferred to his in-game wife, a transfer the company permitted and endorsed. There was no question as to whether or not customer accounts were property which could be transferred; the question before the court was which customer owned the account.

It's becoming rapidly apparent you have little interest in the above facts, but if you slow down and read carefully, you certainly should grasp this.

Perhaps read Case 2 again.

As I've repeatedly told you, your "Case 2" -- which has exactly zero to do with the case detailed in this article -- actually does set a precedent for digital property rights. But for reasons which I'm sure will elude you, even this ruling isn't as comprehensive as you believe, as there are some exclusions which prevent it from being applicable to any and all such cases.

 

[Morphology]

In this case, if a court forces the transfer, it can and does set (at least some) precedent for digital rights.

The court did exactly this. Thank you for finally acknowledging it.

in fact, even before this court ruling, the account contents had already been de facto transferred to his in-game wife, a transfer the company permitted and endorsed.

I will ask the same question, yet again. Why did the gaming company fail to transfer a part of jointly acquired asset with economic value, the knife, together with other inherited contents that were transferred?

It's becoming rapidly apparent you have little interest in the above facts, but if you slow down and read carefully, you certainly should grasp this.

You won't get too far with this approach. You'd better focus on specific questions I asked.

even this ruling isn't as comprehensive as you believe, as there are some exclusions which prevent it from being applicable to any and all such cases.

Do enlighten us, please.