Quote:
Quote:
IGE says they don't "Own" the gil, but they are a mediator like Napster, they take your money, and someone else's gil and swap them, chargeing basically a broker's fee. It will also be hard to charge IGE or gilsellers, when they are based outside of the US.
Did you read the interview?
The lawyer prosecuting the case against IGE mentioned how this is similar to drug dealers who facilitate the trade but never have any contact with or possession of any drugs yet can still be prosecuted under conspiracy charges.
QFT!!!!
I'm a journalist, and I used to write stories about methamphetamine labs in Central California. The "broker" position that some say applies to IGE is similar to the absentee "landlords" who lived in San Francisco, while renting their homes to Mexican nationals who came across the border to engage in the drug trade. The arrangement gives the worker bees a place to manufacture and sell their meth... and if they get caught, then it's extremely difficult to connect them to the real dealers, aka the absentee landlords, who can claim they had absolutely no idea what was going on.
On the other hand, there must be an easy-to-track paper (or digital) trail linking gil farmers and buyers with IGE... and, I don't see how IGE can play the "I had no idea this was wrong" card. If the company is indeed merely a broker (aka dealer), then they're still guilty of a) profiting off of the intellectual property of SE, and b) adversly affecting the gameplay of said intellectual property, which DOES translate to a diminshed quality of play for legit, rate-paying customers.
Someone compared IGE's role to that of Napster. Lets not forget, Napster got sued too... and lost! And, the Napster case set an entirely new precedent that other mp3 sites had to follow, forever changing the digitial music trade on the Internet.
I'm surprised nobody has sued IGE until now.
Let's hope this makes some progress!