3 ms·

Can you go into more detail here? Looking at a writeup on the legal definition of value [1], it says > Value sometimes expresses the inherent usefulness of an

Can you go into more detail here? Looking at a writeup on the legal definition of value [1], it says > Value sometimes expresses the inherent usefulness of an object and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods with it. The first is called value in use, the latter value in exchange. Value in use is the utility of an object in satisfying, directly or indirectly, the needs or desires of human beings. Value in exchange is the amount of commodities, commonly represented by money, for which a thing can be exchanged in an open market. This concept is usually referred to as market value. Conceptually, in game items certainly have a an "inherent usefulness", in that they make the game more enjoyable for the person (or person's character) that possesses the item. This value is transferred between players regardless of whether or not the game provides a way to convert it to real money. For all practical purposes, it is impossible for any game that supports trading assets between characters to completely prevent interactions of the form "if you give me this item, I will give you some amount of real world money". It seems that any in game assets meet the legal definition of value (that I understand from that page). This would mean that any transfer of said assets between characters would need to be reported on. I'm open to clarification/correction, with a clear statement that my understanding of this is extremely limited. But it seems like the above is accurate. And seems to fall into the previously mentioned "bat-shit crazy" bucket, if true. [1] Value https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Value https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Value

throwawaygh 5y ago
That’s a generic legal dictionary. And it’s a definition of one word in a term of art. (Digital) representation of value means something more specific in the context of securities law. Something that has intrinsic value but cannot be used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value is unlikely to be regulated as a security.
- RHSeeger 5y ago
  > unlikely There's the thing though. The minute you get to the point where the law is ambiguous, you start seeing law enforcement using it as leverage to get what the want. If the bar is "can they convince a judge that this should count", then they an use it to screw someone over. I'm in favor of strong limitations on the powers granted to government officials, because there ARE bad apples; and giving the good apples power means the bad apples can decide to ruin someone's life because they can. But thank you. I very much appreciate you taking the time to put forth your thoughts / knowledge on the subject.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    > The minute you get to the point where the law is ambiguous, you start seeing law enforcement using it as leverage to get what the want. Regulations are rarely explicitly legislated because legislative bodies don't have the time or expertise to maintain the specifics of regulations. Of course, you always want there to be appropriate scoping, but some division of responsibility between the executive and legislative branches is necessary. I think a good middle-ground here is the updated language from Wyden et al.. I'm not sure how much leverage they have, though -- (D)s won't defect over this issue and it's unclear whether people like Toomey could be brought on board. And if it's not going to flip votes, then changing the language isn't really worth the lift. I would guess the best way to get this change adapted would be to pressure Toomey to vote on infra but insist on this change -- a single additional (R) in the Senate would make this language change over night. But, again, I kind of doubt Toomey considers this a wedge issue. > If the bar is "can they convince a judge that this should count", then they an use it to screw someone over. I'm in favor of strong limitations on the powers granted to government officials, because there ARE bad apples; and giving the good apples power means the bad apples can decide to ruin someone's life because they can. It's not just a judge or a single official. The Secretary will create rules through the regular rule-making process. And then those rules might be challenged in court.

throwawaygh 5y ago

That’s a generic legal dictionary. And it’s a definition of one word in a term of art. (Digital) representation of value means something more specific in the context of securities law. Something that has intrinsic value but cannot be used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value is unlikely to be regulated as a security.

RHSeeger 5y ago
> unlikely There's the thing though. The minute you get to the point where the law is ambiguous, you start seeing law enforcement using it as leverage to get what the want. If the bar is "can they convince a judge that this should count", then they an use it to screw someone over. I'm in favor of strong limitations on the powers granted to government officials, because there ARE bad apples; and giving the good apples power means the bad apples can decide to ruin someone's life because they can. But thank you. I very much appreciate you taking the time to put forth your thoughts / knowledge on the subject.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  > The minute you get to the point where the law is ambiguous, you start seeing law enforcement using it as leverage to get what the want. Regulations are rarely explicitly legislated because legislative bodies don't have the time or expertise to maintain the specifics of regulations. Of course, you always want there to be appropriate scoping, but some division of responsibility between the executive and legislative branches is necessary. I think a good middle-ground here is the updated language from Wyden et al.. I'm not sure how much leverage they have, though -- (D)s won't defect over this issue and it's unclear whether people like Toomey could be brought on board. And if it's not going to flip votes, then changing the language isn't really worth the lift. I would guess the best way to get this change adapted would be to pressure Toomey to vote on infra but insist on this change -- a single additional (R) in the Senate would make this language change over night. But, again, I kind of doubt Toomey considers this a wedge issue. > If the bar is "can they convince a judge that this should count", then they an use it to screw someone over. I'm in favor of strong limitations on the powers granted to government officials, because there ARE bad apples; and giving the good apples power means the bad apples can decide to ruin someone's life because they can. It's not just a judge or a single official. The Secretary will create rules through the regular rule-making process. And then those rules might be challenged in court.