[DGD] Commercial question

[Stephen Schmidt]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Felix A. Croes wrote:
> It seems to me that you are confusing "income" and "profit".

I am not, although I agree that they often are confused. My
concern is over the definition of income. Consider again
the last two examples:

> Stephen Schmidt <schmidsj at union.edu> wrote:
> > Example: Ten people start a mud. The server host charges
> > $50 per month. One gets the bill and pays it - the other
> > nine each give $5 to the one who pays it. This seems
> > legal, but it's getting tenuous.
>
> It's legal -- the $5 from the other nine is income for the
> one who pays the bill, but it's not income made through the mud.

It's not clear to me why this is not income made through
the mud, when the second example:

> > Example: One person starts a mud and nine people play it.
> > Each of the nine players gives the one who started it
> > $5 to cover the server costs. This is not legal.

is income made through the mud. In either case, the person
who pays the server bill has received money from others on
condition that it be used to pay the server bill. If it is
income in the second case, it seems to me like it should
be in the first case as well. What is the distinction that
makes it legal to take money from the first set of people but
not the second? I had assumed that, in the first example,
the nine people contributing were playing as well as having
helped start the mud. Is that the critical point? If it is
not, then would the following sequence be legal?

1. Able starts the mud.
2. Baker players and makes a level 20 character.
3. Baker deletes his character, hence is no longer a player.
4. Baker gives Able $50 to help cover the server bill.
5. Baker creates a new character and resumes playing.

It seems to me that that should be illegal too, but it is
hard to argue that Baker is a player at the time he gives
his donation. So that suggests that whether the donor is
a player is not the relevant factor. But if not, then I'm
not sure what is.

I hope I'm not carrying this on at too much length - I raise
the points because I think it's better to discuss this before
it becomes a legal case, rather than after.

Steve