How are MMOs with real money economies allowed to operate? A lot of Massively Multiplayer Online games include a form of "premium" in-game economy that may be purchased with real money (cash) by the player, usually for the purposes of faster progression in the game or cosmetic upgrades. For example, there are Gems in Guild Wars 2 which are originally purchased with cash (but may then be traded in-game using the game's normal currency). Taking the example a step further, Hex: Shards of Fate (an online-only trading card game with similarities to Magic: The Gathering) has a "platinum" currency which may only be purchased using cash via the game's store, and is the only way of purchasing new booster packs of cards in the game. The developers have expressed that they want players to feel that their collection of digital cards has real value and the in-game auction house facilitates trades of cards, the rarest of which are trading for amounts in platinum valued up to about $100 each. The terms and conditions for the game state (as many other games do), and I'm paraphrasing here, that items within the game may not be traded for outside of the game for real currency. Not only does this make monetary sense for the developers, but I assume this is also to avoid a stack of legal troubles around money laundering and gambling/gaming laws in different territories. However, Entropia Universe (wikipedia link) has as its key feature an in-game economy which is tied directly to US dollars, and specifically allows players to "cash out" of the game and back into real money. They have even gone so far as to produce bank cards which withdraw from the game and have now formed an actual bank to regulate trades. My question is why are there not more games which take this approach of a game economy tied directly to real money? I understand that the economy needs to be carefully designed and balanced to avoid over-inflation (in-game) or other exploits leading to in-game currency being "created" from nothing, but the bigger concern seems to me to be the legal issues this would create. Given the amount of random chance involved in the game is this not effectively gambling? If so, how does Entropia Universe allow worldwide users without kicking up a storm of trouble from different regional authorities and governments? Surely this is exactly the kind of thing which is banned in certain US states (I am not a US citizen) or other countries. Is it because the game is based in Sweden and their more permissive laws allow for it? If so, do the laws of the country in which the player resides not take precedent?
I can see at least two defenses. Game of Skill Defense. Already mentioned in the comments. Entertainment Defense. One could claim the game itself is a form of entertainment and, therefore, all funds spent while playing the game are for entertainment purposes only vis-a-vis the game itself. And not any alleged gambling within the game. Consider the fact that the gambling rewards, after all, (i.e., mining stuff) are limited to being used inside the game and have zero utility outside the game. Ergo, all payments are strictly for entertainment purposes.
Those countries have more restrictive gambling laws than others. For discussion of some of those relevant laws, see here. For example, [In Hong Kong], "Under the Gambling Ordinance, a prize draw is considered to be a form of lottery. Lotteries include raffles &amp; sweepstakes... In most cases, prior approval is needed for a prize draw in the form of a licence and for the majority of competitions, this will need to be in the form of a Trade Promotion Competition Licence. Selling, disposing, printing and publishing tickets without a licence are criminal offences ... punishable by fines or imprisonment. Because of Italy's strict restrictions, Unless a promotion falls under one of exceptions provided by the DPR, it is not possible to run multi-jurisdictional promotions, they need to be addressed only to people located in Italy and any activity, including the server, used for the promotion must be located in Italy.
Would a marketplace for trading receipts be legally allowed to operate? Yes, or at least I think so, since it is highly doubtful that any legislation outlaws receipts trading. Unlike other documents, there is no commonplace notion that receipts are secret, non-transferable, or even private. For it to be actionable, the marketplace would have to engage in, or openly promote, practices which are "more unequivocally" illicit. The possibility that some people might pursue receipts for tax fraud, enjoyment of unearned rights, or other illegitimate purposes does not imply that trading of receipts in and of itself is unlawful. For instance, a person might come up with a bizarre --but nonetheless plausible-- hobby of collecting receipts with certain sequences of figures.
Explanatory note #176 on the Gambling Act 2005 specifies: There are some exceptions to the general prohibition on gambling by children and young people. Children and young persons may participate in all forms of private or non-commercial gaming and betting. Young persons may participate in lotteries and pool betting on association football. Children and young persons may use the category of gaming machine with the lowest stakes and prizes (Category D). They may also take part in equal chance prize gaming at certain premises, as provided under Part 13 of the Act. Cribbage and Dominoes are both exempt forms of "Equal Chance Gambling" which can be played on alcohol licensed premises (e.g. pubs). As @richardb points out, while young people (i.e. your son) are normally allowed to take part in Equal Chance Gambling there are explicitly excluded from doing so on alcohol-licensed premises using the "Exempt gaming" provisions as outlined in Sec.280 Children and young people must be excluded from the gaming. So you can't play for money (assuming the absence of a suitable Family Entertainment Centre license or similar), however playing not-for-stakes doesn't fit the definition of "Gambling" in terms of the act. Gambling is defined as either "Gaming", "Betting" or a "Lottery" It's not "gaming" without a prize: In this Act “gaming” means playing a game of chance for a prize. It's not "betting" without a prize: For the purposes of section 9(1) a person makes a bet (despite the fact that he does not deposit a stake in the normal way of betting) if— (a)he participates in an arrangement in the course of which participants are required to guess any of the matters specified in section 9(1)(a) to (c), (b)he is required to pay to participate, and (c)if his guess is accurate, or more accurate than other guesses, he is to— (i)win a prize, or (ii)enter a class among whom one or more prizes are to be allocated (whether or not wholly by chance). And it's not a Lottery either (I won't quote the whole section here as it's a bit wordy but you can check for yourself here) So as long as there is literally no stakes or prize (whether money or otherwise) you can play with a young person in a pub.
It depends in part on what you mean by &quot;money&quot;. US $100 bills are a prime example of &quot;money&quot;. Art 1 §10 Cl. 1 of the US Constitution says No State shall ...coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts... Under the constitution, only the federal government can &quot;print money&quot; in the &quot;universally usable&quot; sense. Anyone can print or otherwise &quot;emit&quot; objects with economic value, and such objects can be voluntarily accepted in trade. State and local governments can incur debts and thus spend money now that they do not yet have, as long as there is no legal limit on a government's ability to go into debt. California could issue IOU-bucks with the intent that a holder could redeem them as real federal money or as gold or silver at some point. This limits the ability of a state treasury to print money, since in principle and practice it is redeemable in gold or silver. Each state has some set of laws and constitutional provisions that prevent writing rubber checks ad infinitum, for example only allowing debt for large capital projects (building) and requiring voter approval; requiring expenditures to not exceed projected revenues; granting emergency debt-mitigation powers (e.g. hiring freezes) to the governor when a state does go into unauthorized debt. In California, Art IV §12 of the state constitution requires a balanced budget, meaning that the state cannot create infinite obligations without infinite revenues. From the legal perspective, private banks do not create money, although non-legally, people may talk about what banks do as &quot;creating money&quot;. At that point in the discussion, we will have left law and moved to the realm of economic theory.
Unless the game is out of copyright, e.g. chess, snakes and ladders, Go, or checkers, your software would probably be considered a derivative work of the copyrighted game and an actionable infringement. The fact that you do not monetize it is not a defense. You would need written permission in the form of a license agreement from the copyright owner to do this legally. The penalties for violating copyright laws in this way could be punishingly serious.
Yes. Being a sequel or using the other assets, in either case, you are making a derivative work. Without a license, you infringe on the right holder's exclusive right to make or license derivative works: A sequel is usually a classic case of &quot;how the story unfolds further&quot;. See Anderson v. Stallone, where the author of an unlicensed sequel script was struck down. A modification of the original game - aka Mod - uses the assets or parts of them. Modding is often contentious, sometimes it is encouraged. Usually, when you install a game, you agree to a EULA that dictates what you can or can't do - so there is the real possibility you violate a contract if you step out of that contract. Some game smithies are modder-friendly and encourage it, as a mod community keeps a game relevant longer. Bethesda for example hands out a modification package for Skyrim and other titles, but it also provides a separate EULA what you can and can't do with these modification-tools. Many games however don't provide a modding pack and have a EULA that explicitly bans users from making modifications or derivative works. As a result, there have been cases against modders, and there are a lot of C&amp;D letters sent out to modders that use assets of games. So there is a high chance that litigation for violation of the contract or copyright infringement can be started. A rather high-profile case that ended somewhat recently was the &quot;Red Dead Redemption Visual Enhancement Mod&quot;. Take-Two sent a modder a C&amp;D, filed suit, and then the parties had arbitration. The arbitration result contains a clause that forbids the author of the mod to ever create any derivative work (aka: mod) for a Take-Two or Rockstar game again. The C&amp;D (as well as the case and leverage in arbitration) hinged on a violation of the Rockstar EULA License Condition i, which bans any modifications wholesale: You agree not to, and not to provide guidance or instruction to any other individual or entity on how to: i [...] display, perform, prepare derivative works based on, or otherwise modify the Software, in whole or in part;)
The developers of the site localbitcoins.com are providing a service that is not itself illegal. They explain their service and its limitations in their Terms of Service (my emphasis): All trades on this site are concluded solely between users of the service, and while LocalBitcoins.com may help in resolving disputes between the parties, it does not itself become a party to such transactions, contracts or relationships. LocalBitcoins.com is not a Bitcoin marketplace but a service enabling its users to set up markets for peer-to-peer exchange by way of creating advertisements for trades directed to other users. Until local or national jurisdictions decide that people advertising to conduct person to person crytpocurrency trades are illegal, the site is legal. Some users of the site may be evading taxes or laundering money, and those could be crimes in jurisdictions, but if so, those crimes are perpetrated by the individuals that have contacted each other through the site, and not the site developers or owners themselves.