Donator

[AgnesIO]

Lets hope they actually use some common sense.

I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to sell VIP? I mean yes - it's useful to have it for prizes - but if you could sell it surely a lot of people would buy it?

It's not like Sulake are losing out.

Well, their theory is yhat if we stopped buying vip we would buy credits on their game. Despite the fact that most the users who bought vip, and buy donator now don't even play the game..

[Chippiewill]

now don't even play the game..

Statistically habbox should just become x and remove all the habbo crap and then we can have donator back... -sighs-

I can always dream. But hopefully habbo will try to bring back the old habbo fansite spirit that used to be so great, it's all gone downhill since the loss of geocities though..

[FlyingJesus]

Loopholes don't work when it comes to intellectual property, they've put out the rules but they can pull down anything they want so being a smart-arse about it isn't practical nor useful.

Did you just decide not to read any of my post other than the word loophole? I quite clearly stated that if the quoted piece was what we've been told, we'd be doing no wrong by making certain changes - fairly sure that doing nothing wrong isn't the same as recklessly breaking IP laws. It's nothing to do with being a smart-arse, it's to do with working a simple solution to a problem

As for your above suggestion of getting rid of "all the habbo crap", good plan if you want the entire site to collapse. Where do you think we get our members from?

[Stephen]

tbh I think donator is doing okay atm

no need to change

I actually like it that you can only get vip in comps or buy it at xmas

[AgnesIO]

tbh I think donator is doing okay atm

no need to change

I actually like it that you can only get vip in comps or buy it at xmas

It is doing alright, but the thing is it doesn't make as much as VIP does.

Although it is nice having VIP exclusively at Habbox, it isn't nice for Habboxs server bills.

[Chippiewill]

Did you just decide not to read any of my post other than the word loophole? I quite clearly stated that if the quoted piece was what we've been told, we'd be doing no wrong by making certain changes - fairly sure that doing nothing wrong isn't the same as recklessly breaking IP laws. It's nothing to do with being a smart-arse, it's to do with working a simple solution to a problem

Because you made the assumption that Habbo cannot legally send a take down notice without any justification, it's their brand, imagery etc. they can do that if they want. I was pointing out the fact that you were suggesting using loopholes in a non-legally binding contract and therefore were not contributing anything.