Duel Logging - Illegal or Not?

[________________Miir]

A post from a Funcom rep in a forum board holds no water whatsoever in any court of law

Actually, this is not a legal issue.
If Funcom says that account sharing is not permitted, they can terminate your account if you are found letting others use your account.


So Cz and Cosmik can whine all they want about no double login and no two people can use the same account all they want, but fact of the matter is, if they violate THEIR OWN EULA, and they violate it against me or my wife, I'm taking their asses to court. And yes, I have more lawyers than they do, so you can bet your butt I'd win.

If they terminated your account and your access to their servers for sharing or multiple account logins, on what grounds would you attempt to sue them?
What jurisdiction?
What damages would you seek?


If you found a lawyer stupid enough to take your case (I have no doubt that you would), your legal fees would far exceed any damages you would be awarded if you "won".

The worst thing Funcom would have to do is refund your unused monthly payments.




---

Some food for thought...


Posting in this manner on the official Funcom forums is rather foolish.

If Funcom were as immature and vindictive as you, they could easily pull an audit on your account, find any minor infringement on the EULA and terminate your account.

[MartekO]

Hmmm, if I (hypothetically, as I don't do this; just inputting my 2cents) logon to someone's elses account, with their permission, and their account is an authorized and fully-paid Account (sec 7), and I also have my own purchased copy of the game and have my own account (and otherwise meet the section 2 requirements), then where does it state that I am violating anything?

It seems to state that the account holder is violating the EULA, not me: Except as provided herein, you may not transfer or share your Account with anyone... (sec 1). Well I didn't share my account; the other person shared theirs with me. If they share the account, they are in violation, not the other person using it, no?

If I am using the other person's authorized account, what am I doing wrong? No one yet in these posts has mentioned they allow others to use their account; rather, they are not the account holder and are using the account of someone else.

Seems like a technicality, but then so is a good portion of this thread. But maybe don't be so fast to flame those that are using another person's account. Flame the correct persons.

Also, just where in the EULA does it prohibit dual-logons?

I know Cz posted the "official" view; but it is probably correct to say that a forum post does not count in terms of the EULA, as it isn't a part of the EULA.

Cheers,
Martek

[________________Miir]

It's pretty simple....
The account holder is 100% responsible for the account.





I know Cz posted the "official" view; but it is probably correct to say that a forum post does not count in terms of the EULA, as it isn't a part of the EULA.

I would expect to see the EULA revised in the very near future.

[binaural]

.

[_______________Vydas]

Maybe the bottom line is who pays the bills. Do you pay for your wife's account? Out of a jointly held credit card?

As has been pointed out elsewhere, what about number 2 on the EULA. Everyone who tried the 7 day free download is in violation?

[binaural]

.

[Nullifax]

Originally posted by Tiran
Go ask a lawyer.

Using someone elses account without permission is THEFT. It's also not permitted. The consequences to them would be banning, if Funcom felt they allowed it knowingly.

You are required to use a legitimate account YOU own to log in.

'Because I can/wanna' isn't justification for claiming with eyes squinted that if you mangle the meanings sufficiently, you can do it.

More to the point, YOU don't decide. Funcom does.

Break the rules, they aren't going to prosecute/sue you. They're just going to ban you. You have no recourse if they do, other than to try to sue them. Go convince a judge you have the right to steal access to someone else's account, and Funcom has to let you. Go ahead. The judge could use a laugh.

Theft can only be prosecuted by the person who was robbed. So, if you "steal" something from someone and they chose not to press charges, then no theft took place. As such, Funcom is not permitted to get involved except to provide evidence of said theft.

[Nullifax]

Originally posted by Miir
[B]if you are found letting others use your account.

permission is the key. If you don't give permission, then there is no problem.

[_________Abby Normal]

As a business FC has the right to refuse service. So long as it can not be proven that the refusal of service is discriminatory, as in “No Blacks Allowed,” then they have that right. All this talk of the EULA is moot. Violating the EULA means that they can sue you. But banning they can do for any, or no, reason.

An official representative has stated that duel logging will get you ban. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It’s like a restaurant refusing to serve someone without proper attire.

If you really want to play two characters at the same time, buy a second account.

[Nullifax]

Originally posted by Tiran
Go ask a lawyer.

Using someone elses account without permission is THEFT. It's also not permitted. The consequences to them would be banning, if Funcom felt they allowed it knowingly.

You are required to use a legitimate account YOU own to log in.

---------
7. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, we hereby grant to you a non-exclusive license to use the Software solely in connection with playing the Game via an authorized and fully-paid Account.
----------

You misread the line. It says if THE ACCOUNT is authorized, not the user. The account is most definitely an authorized account. I however am not necessarily the owner of that account. I am therefore not necessarily an authorized user of THAT account, but it only mentions authorization of the account, not autorization of the user.

It also says "playing the Game via AN authorized and fully-paid Account." This implies that it need not be YOUR account, merely AN account.

[ethernal3]

Originally posted by Abby Normal
As a business FC has the right to refuse service. So long as it can not be proven that the refusal of service is discriminatory, as in “No Blacks Allowed,” then they have that right. All this talk of the EULA is moot. Violating the EULA means that they can sue you. But banning they can do for any, or no, reason.

Actually, it is very unlikely that the EULA would ever hold up in a court of law, mainly because you have to buy before you can read the EULA. Therefore, it's like having a "Warning: Thin Ice" under the ice.
~Chris

[Nullifax]

Originally posted by Tiran
Oh, by the way, dual logging would be classed as an exploit.

The software clearly isn't INTENDED to let you do so. The normal result of logging in when a character is already logged in is that it won't let you.

Tricking the software into letting you log in two characters at once is taking advantage of a bug. Since it's to gain advantages, it would be considered an exploit. Using an exploit is bannable.

THAT I might agree with. They said they don't allow it. that makes it an exploit to anyone who reads these boards. To all others it isn't yet.

However, in terms of it being CLEAR that it is not an intended use for the software, I'd have to argue with you on that. It only becomes clear if you ever have logged in on the second machine and gotten that message "another character is already logged in on this account." If you've never recieved that message it might never have been made clear to you and as such you could argue that your violation merely warrants a warning.

The reason they have warnings and set up rules like this is because otherwise GMs could make up rules on the fly and ban anyone they didn't like for any reason and simply claim "EXPLOIT." The rules are set up to defend the players against GMs abusing their power.

End all and be all though, if they ban you and state that double logging is indeed an exploit and they follow the normal procedures for all other exploit bans, then there's no problem. There IS however a problem when without warning and without telling someone double-logging is wrong, they ban them.

[engelstein]

Point 6 doesn't mention unconditional banning. By stating the terms under which you may be banned, does the EULA disallow banning under other circumstances?

[________________Miir]

i dont mean to be rude but i dont think its funcoms place to tell me what i can and cant share with people in my real life.

You are accessing their servers and using their service.
If you don't abide by their terms, they can terminate your account.

Security, responsibility and liability.



permission is the key. If you don't give permission, then there is no problem

Your account security is your responsibilty, not Funcom's.


needless to say i wont be using his account anymore.. i hpo Funcom wont ban me or something without first letting me know. sorry i didnt read the EULA.

You don't have to worry about your account being terminated if you haven't been letting other people use it.

Your friend's account, on the other hand, is a different story.

I hope Funcom wouldn't be so vindictive as to hunt down that account, pull an audit and terminate it. Seems like it was just an honest mistake.


But ignorance is never an excuse. The reason the EULA comes up every time you launch AO is to prevent someone from using such an excuse.




Violating the EULA means that they can sue you

EULAs are a grey area when it comes to legal action.
They are more like a "Rules of Conduct" for using their service/software.





People will always try to find holes in EULAs to justify questionable activities.

[Nullifax]

Originally posted by Shub
Point 6 doesn't mention unconditional banning. By stating the terms under which you may be banned, does the EULA disallow banning under other circumstances?

In fact by bringing banning up in the EULA, banning becomes part of the legal agreement. So, any reasons for banning not mentioned in the agreement becomes grounds for lawsuit. And yes, you can sue for "unlawful denial of paid service." And yes, depending on the judge and how well you argue your case you CAN get them to give you a new account.

[Nullifax]

Originally posted by Miir
[B]
permission is the key. If you don't give permission, then there is no problem

Your account security is your responsibilty, not Funcom's.

Precisely, and as stated in the EULA, you are only in violation if you give someone permission to use your account, aka "sharing." If someone uses your account without permission then you have not shared it with them, they have in a sense stolen from you. You can then press charges if you so choose. If you don't press charges, that's your right, but it does not imply consent. As such, if you merely choose to ignore the theft of gametime someone is stealing from you, that is no one's fault but the thief, and no one's right to prosecute but your own, and no one's right to punish except a court of law.

So, if my wife uses my account and I don't tell her she can use it, then I'm not in violation of the terms of agreement. She is not in violation as long as she herself has an account as well. Likewise for the reverse. If I use my wife's account, etc. etc.

[________________Miir]

Originally posted by PipSlag (aka PipBoy)


blah blah blah....part of the legal agreement....blah blah blah..... becomes grounds for lawsuit....blah blah blah....depending on the judge and how well you argue your case you CAN get them to give you a new account.

The EULA is not a legal document.


The EULA are rules of conduct that must be adhered to when using the service.


If you do not adhere to the rules listed in the EULA, you service can be terminated.



If you feel that your account has been terminated unjustly, you have every right to file a complaint to the BBB and/or request your pre-paid access fees be refunded.


Or you can take them to court.

It would be such a marginal amount, that it would have to be handled by small claims court. Organising your 'case', spending a day (or two) waiting in court for your case to be called would probably end up costing your hundreds of dollars more than any reward you would receive if the judge were to decide in your favor.

[Nullifax]

No actually a EULA is meant as a legally binding contract which is made for copyright purposes. Without a EULA they are open to people making all the hacks and cheats they want. However, since you are agreeing to these terms in a legally binding manner, so is Funcom. As such, anything they do which violates their own EULA can be brought up in a court of law.

If such a court decides that the violation renders the EULA null and void, then the user then has the right to do things like make their own AO server, and such.

[engelstein]

EULAs are legally binding in any state that implements UCITA. I know my home state (Maryland) does, and Virginia may as well.

As such, if you merely choose to ignore the theft of gametime someone is stealing from you, that is no one's fault but the thief, and no one's right to prosecute but your own, and no one's right to punish except a court of law.

By choosing to ignore a crime, you implicitly approve of it. Therefore, you are violating the EULA. By your argument, no one is violating the EULA if you steal someone's account and they don't know. But then, nothing stops Funcom from 1. Adding a retroactive clause to the EULA, 2. Adding a "don't steal accounts" clause, 3. Banning your ass as soon as you log in.

In any event, I doubt Funcom would be impressed by this argument if they caught you stealing someone's account. And no one's going to defend a hacker's right to steal accounts.

Edit: a final thought. This is the kind of dumbass scenario that makes for an interesting game but never amounts to anything.

[psionprime]

Glad I don't live in a state that allows the legality of "shrink-wrapped" contracts.

I am not a lawyer. The following is not advice. It is related from personal experience with forming legal entities. Always consult a local lawyer when in doubt.

Those married, check your laws as you and your spouse may be a single legal entity so, legally, the word "you" in a contract or EULA means either or you and or spouse regardless of being separated indivuduals physically.

The guy with the friend who trusts him so much you have his CC and other personal info ? (/boggle) have him sign a power of attourney agreement and get it notorized saying you have his permission to act in your stead for what ever particular purpose. That would make you, legally, him - for the stated purpose.

The above takes care of the multiple individuals vs single ownership thing - that is, heh, if it applies to your marriage or you trust someone enough to grant Power of Attourney ot them. Have your local lawyer check it (if you really want to go to that extreme over a game )

The point of the FC, with most published games, is the only want one instance of an account running. Two instances of the same account running at once is a bug/exploit as well as possible theft since you only pay for the one account instance but have two running. So, regardless if you, your spouse and a dozen individuals granted with your Power of Attourney are all considered legally the same person - if you only have one account, only one account instance may be running under your control at any given time. Now, any of the legal entities could sit down at a computer running one instance of the game in turn as legally, if is just "you" So, Husband logs off to go to work, Wife logs on same account and plays. That could be considered just fine - if allowed by law regardless of the EULA.

Two separate accounts running at the same time is not a problem. Same as above with the multiple legal "yous". If youze guyz are in control of two accounts, each of those two may be run in one instance at any given time and no more regardless of how many individuals may legally control it. Husband on one account, Wife on another - not Husband, Wife and two kids with a total comination of 4 instances on 4 computers with two being hacked/exploited (etc.)

Hope that helps.