Okay, since you've read it, how do you think the Section I-22,23 relate to Steam specifically? I'm asking you to read those words and try to understand them and make a judgement.
I personally feel like Section II is a typical case layout. But I find it strange about the equivalence made in that Section. Your thoughts?
Do you think that Section III is demonstrating a system in which you are presented the opportunity to gamble? I'll be honest, James' makes a good case. But that doesn't matter because 1999 NY v. Nintendo of America had the same groundwork and was dismissed. The issue came into the case that, Pokémon cards did not carry any inherent value, unless you went to a third party and that third party offered money. Thus, insulating Nintendo from a closed loop system. Let's keep going!
Section IV-A-78 seems to me as a stretch to close the loop. It's the same argument I've aforementioned. But my question for you is, when does the system close in this case? And do you think (87) is a fair comparison? At what point does the proof of an economy constitute gambling? Do we need to go after all blind boxes? Your thoughts, since you've read the case?
Section IV-A-89, at what point is it Valve's responsibility to go after third party sites who are doing what people do in the real world? Attaching monetary value to cosmetic items in video games, I mean. Do you think the SSA obligates them to? What are the chilling effects of that? I feel like that could give corporations a lot of power, and I don't like that.
The listing of selected enforcement opens James' case to a lot of attacks. I think it's a failure on her part, as it will weaken the case in front of a judge if Valve's lawyers just immediately rip it to shreds.
Section V just feels like TCG all over again.
Now the danger to children, again, if we go with this being a danger to children, then ALL TCGs are a danger to children. They open packs looking for rares, right? Same concept. But how are children getting that much access to money? That's starting to sound like a parent problem. Who is letting their kids spend hundreds of dollars? Like, that's just bad parenting.
The Causes won't hold water. They're not air tight and are very vulnerable to attacks. But hey, I'm just an idiot, right? Just another Dunning-Kruger dingbat? Which is just hilarious that you keep bringing it up, misunderstanding the actual study and flaws of it. What would you say that is?