Is legal to sell virtual goods? Is it legal to buy cheap virtual items (as game keys, in-game items, etc.) and then sell or trade them for a higher value? I have some items that went up in price and I'm thinking of selling them. These items can be up to 400€ each, making about 60€ profit with each one. Would it be legal to sell them? What if I was doing this weekly? Is there a maximum amount of money I can make a month with this type of "business"? I know laws depend on countries, but in this case, I think it must be something international related. In-game items are owned by my Steam account and they would be transferred to a buyer via Steam Trade Offer. In case of trading, I would receive his items the same way and in case of payment, I would receive the money on Paypal or PaysafeCard.
The sale of in-game resources for real-world money is usually disallowed explicitly by a game's terms of service. One notable case was Blizzard's successful injunction against Peons4Hire, a World of Warcraft gold farming company. Setting aside terms-of-use considerations (which vary by game/platform), the sale of virtual goods for real money is broadly legal. Wikipedia has a short list of jurisdictions with notable decisions on virtual sales; see the page's references for the official news stories or government documents. Most of the rulings have been positive for virtual-goods vendors, though China has banned the sale of real items for virtual currency (the opposite of your proposed plan) and South Korea has banned the sale of virtual goods for real money outright. Such sales incur normal tax responsibilities, just as any other income does. I don't know if any jurisdictions have imposed special legislation that place income limits or special tax rates for income from the sale of virtual goods. In the case of Steam specifically, the sale of virtual goods is broadly disallowed in Section 2.G of the Steam Subscriber Agreement, but narrowly allowed in Section 3.D. All virtual Steam goods remain the property of Steam, and you have a license to use them, which includes sale in limited circumstances. The prohibition in Section 2.G reads: G. Restrictions on Use of Content and Services ...you are not entitled to: (i) sell, grant a security interest in or transfer reproductions of the Content and Services to other parties in any way, nor to rent, lease or license the Content and Services to others without the prior written consent of Valve, except to the extent expressly permitted elsewhere in this Agreement (including any Subscription Terms or Rules of Use); ... And the narrow permission to perform trades in the Community Marketplace in Section 3.D (per the above &quot;except to the extent expressly permitted elsewhere in this Agreement&quot; exception of 2.G): D. Trading and Sales of Subscriptions Between Subscribers Steam may include one or more features or sites that allow Subscribers to trade, sell or purchase certain types of Subscriptions (for example, license rights to virtual items) with, to or from other Subscribers (“Subscription Marketplaces”). An example of a Subscription Marketplace is the Steam Community Market. You can use the Steam Community Market to trade items for real money; this kind of real-money sale is explicitly allowed and facilitated by Steam. Separately, you can also trade giftable games (N.B.: game trading does not support real money) using Steam's trading system. Applying terms to a game-trade (like requiring payment external to Stream's trading system) appears to be disallowed by the broad prohibition in 2.G, but it's not very clear. The mechanical transfer of the game from one account to another is allowed, but the fact that it is actually a sale in a way that is not explicitly allowed seems to make it against the terms of service. I have no idea to what degree this is enforceable nor to what degree Steam polices against trades that involve Stream-external money transfers (though a cursory search of conversations in the Steam forums suggests they might not care very much).
I am not aware of any law making this illegal. You need to avoid any "bait and switch" tactics, though, like initially offering cola for $1 and then not actually letting them buy it for that price.
First of all derivative works are not exactly "illegal". They are fully legal if the owner of the copyright in the original work has given permission. If no permission has been given, they may be copyright infringements. But they may fall under an exception to copyright. Under US law, the most common exception is "fair use". See this question and answer for more on fair use. But particularly relevant in this case is that a parody is usually a fair use, although as in every fair-use decision, there is pretty much no clear-cut, hard&amp;fast rule on what is and is not fair use. In the UK and much of the EU (or maybe all of it, I am not sure) there is a somewhat similar concept known as "fair dealing". It is also an exception to copyright. So it is possible that such works fall under fair use, fair dealing, or another exception to copyright, or that the rights-holder has given permission. Secondly, copyright infringement is a tort, not a crime, under most circumstances. It is enforced when, and only when, a copyright-holder chooses to take action, sending a take-down notice or copyright complaint, of filing suit for infringement. Some rights-holders choose as a matter of policy not to take such actions, thinking that such derivative works actually benefit them. That is their choice to make. Some rights-holders don't have the time or money to track down and take action against most infringements, and will only act if they think the derivative work will in some way cost them a lot of money or harm their reputation. Some rights-holders may just not have heard, yet, of specific possible infringing derivative works. As for Acta2, it has not yet been approved, the Wikipedia article linked in the questions says: In order for the text of the directive to become law in the EU, it must be approved by the European Council on 9 April 2019 The article also mentions significant continuing opposition. If it is approved, it is not clear, to me at least, how it will affect sites hosting such content, nor how it will interact with the copyright law of individual EU nations. If approved, it will no doubt take some time before enforcement is widespread. And of course it will only apply when EU law applies. If both site and author are outside the EU -- say if both are from the US -- it seems that it could not apply.
When does it become illegal to exchange bitcoin for cash? When the transaction purposefully skips the controls in place regarding anti-money laundering. Generally speaking, the issue is not the mere involvement of cryptocurrency in a transaction, but the crimes a wrongdoer seeks to camouflage or conceal by means of cryptocurrencies. Such crimes typically involve money laundering, identity theft, stolen card numbers, and the like. As quoted in one of the links you provide, "[t]he use of bitcoins in the transactions is a new technological flourish to this very old crime". Is there any direct source or any laws with numbers? Apropos of your first link, mentioning that "a Florida judge threw out money transmitting charges against a bitcoiner" (see also here), I will point out that the court's dismissal of charges against that defendant has been reversed early this year. See State v. Espinoza, 264 So.3d 1055 (2019). Although the judges' narratives of a case are questionable and/or sloppy and to be taken with a grain of salt, the appellate decision cites language from Florida legislation as applicable to virtual currencies (and, impliedly, cryptocurrencies). You will notice that the focus in the Espinoza decision is the interpretation of Florida Statutes in its sections 560.125(1) and (5)(a) (regarding unauthorized vendors), and 560.103(21), (29) (defining monetary value as "a medium of exchange, whether or not redeemable in currency"). As usual, each legislation may present subtle and/or fundamental variations. For instance, the court in Espinoza at 1065 identified that federal law is inapplicable there in that 31 C.F.R. § 1010.100(ff)(5)(i)(A) contemplates that "the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means" (emphasis added), and Espinoza's transaction(s) did not involve a third party. By contrast, the Florida statute does not allude to third parties in that transmission of monetary value, hence preventing the statutory sanctions from being preemptively foreclosed in the matter of Espinoza. What about when someone buys with stolen money or money from illegal proceeds. Did you commit a crime if you sell bitcoin to someone and the money is stolen, or the gift cards are stolen? That also depends on the jurisdiction and the facts of the case. In Espinoza, he was allegedly informed that the cash he received (or was about to receive) in exchange for bitcoins "derived from engaging in illegal activity and that [the buyer] was planning to use the bitcoins to engage in further illegal activity", Espinoza at 1058. The court highlighted the State's argument that "dismiss[ing] a charge of money laundering is improper because money laundering requires intent" (emphasis added), which is sanctioned by section 896/101(3)(c).
But lately he has had his friend use my PayPal account. Someone will send me money and then I transfer it to where he tells me. To cash app or venmo. That's money laundering. Definitely illegal. He said it's money owed for cellphones. People in jail aren't supposed to have cellphones. You are helping him break the law, which means you are helping him break the law.
I think the law there is quite clear - you have 14 days to return the goods for a full refund, except for digital content, which you can't return once you started downloading it. That's what it says. The arguments that you try to give were quite obvious to the law makers. I think you can assume they were aware that "digital content does not have a physical form". Now if you purchased, but haven't downloaded or started downloading yet, then obviously you can get your money back. You came up with some theory that this is a "visual vanity item". You can't see it unless you download it. Once you download it, that's it. If you don't download it, you can return it. Let me repeat this: Your fancy analogies mean nothing. There are in the EU laws about being allowed to return goods for a refund. There's the general rule for buying in a store (no right other what the store offers voluntarily), online purchases (some days to return), and online purchases of digital goods (no return once you started downloading). That's the law. Your attempts at redefining the situation are totally pointless. The law says what it says. What you try to redefine doesn't mean one thing. The law clearly distinguishes several situations, and analogies don't count. What happens counts. You bought from a digital item from an online store that needs to be downloaded. And as soon as you start downloading, there is your right to return it gone. And your reasons for wanting to return the goods are completely irrelevant. You don't need any reasons, and having reasons doesn't help you.
Is that extortion? false advertising? or in any way illegal? Not at all. The owner of the site is simply exercising his right as outlined in the terms and conditions from when the user signed up. And giving users an option for continued use of the site (that is, for him not to exercise a right of which they were always aware) does not constitute extortion.
Are online stores supposed to state the true “order cost”/value of an order on the package/envelope for the customs? Yes Is it common practice to slash 10x off of the price for the customs to not add various fees? Common? Probably no. Uncommon? Also, probably no. Isn't that illegal? Yes Of course, they can claim it was a mistake if ever found out, but if they do it consistently, that seems difficult... Not to mention there must be electronic proof of how much each order actually cost the customer? Yes Look, robbing banks is illegal but people still rob banks. Similarly, ripping off HM Revenue &amp; Customs is illegal but people still do that too. In fact, far more people do that than rob banks.