Duel Logging - Illegal or Not?

[___________LostLogic]

The part about possibly getting my wife's account banned because I log in with it is interesting.

In order to keep this from happening I have cancelled her account.

100% EULA compliant now.

[Cosmik]

Originally posted by Megabio



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

Just an FYI, an EULA held up in court during the Blacksnow versus Mythic proceedings. This was the first time, as far as I know, an EULA was tested in this way.

[Darkbane]

Indeed, so you ought to actually read these things...

Of course, if there is a conflict between the EULA and the law of the land (your land anyway), the law is likely to win, especially where statutory consumer rights are involved. In the UK at least, you *cannot* give up your statutory rights, and any agreement/contract that asked you to do so would be automatically null-and-void.

That case may well set a precedent, though we'd need another to be sure. Odd how such an apparently minor case could have such large legal ramifications...

[Nullifax]

Originally posted by user


In the United States you do NOT press criminal charges. Prosecuting criminal charges is the prerogative of the local district attorney (or US Attorney if federal law is applicable). That's one of the major differences between civil and criminal cases. A citizen only has the right to press a civil suit.

Actually when it comes to any crime against another person directly, the government DOES have to rely on the victim pressing criminal charges in order for there to be a case of any kind. The only exception is if the victim is killed or otherwise incapacitated. If you rob from me, if I don't press charges, there is nothing the state can do against you.

[________________Nazu]

I know this is a flame but I can't help myself.

Pip, you are a complete and total idiot if you don't understand that the EULA says you cannot log into someone's elses account with or without their permission.

Geez. Are you trying to be a troll?

[________________Miir]

Originally posted by LostLogic
The part about possibly getting my wife's account banned because I log in with it is interesting.

In order to keep this from happening I have cancelled her account.

100% EULA compliant now.

A bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face, no?

[Nullifax]

Originally posted by Nazu
I know this is a flame but I can't help myself.

Pip, you are a complete and total idiot if you don't understand that the EULA says you cannot log into someone's elses account with or without their permission.

Geez. Are you trying to be a troll?

*sigh*

People seem to mix up the difference between pointing out holes in the EULA and actually supporting the malicious exploitation of said holes. And if anyone tries to say that my logging into my wife's account to play a particular char or visa/versa is a malicious exploitation, they should have their head examined.

First off, the EULA does not say you can't log into someone else's account, it says you may not share your account. In fact, if someone let's you log into their account, THEY are at fault, not you. If you log into someone's account without their permission, they are not at fault, and neither are you as long as you own an account of your own. It says you may not play the game without an account, but it does NOT say you are only permitted to play through THAT particular account, merely that you have to have AN account in order to be permitted to play.

All this is to point out ways in which people can, if they so choose, exploit the EULA in various ways currently, and get away with it. Fact is, this EULA is pretty darned poor as far as protecting Funcom from various forms of theft or ingame exploits. They are in dire need of a EULA revision, or people will continue to do things like log in 2 chars at once.


on another note, I have a question concerning ownership:

Is only the person who's credit card the account is on permitted to play? Or would it be allowed for me to pay for someone else's account as a birthday/Christmas present etc? Reason why I ask is there are a few friends of mine who, if 14.6 sufficiently fixes NTs, I would like to play AO with, but those friends would never pay a monthly fee to play ANY computer game.

[Nullifax]

Originally posted by Miir


A bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face, no?

Whereas you on the other hand give up reason to support your reputation as a total ass.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[________________Miir]

What exactly are you trying to say?


Do you even know the meaning of that particular idiom?






Is only the person who's credit card the account is on permitted to play? Or would it be allowed for me to pay for someone else's account as a birthday/Christmas present etc?

My 2nd account is in my name but my fiance's credit card is registered to it. There's no issues with having someone elses CC pay for the account.

[Nullifax]

Originally posted by Miir
What exactly are you trying to say?


Do you even know the meaning of that particular idiom?






Is only the person who's credit card the account is on permitted to play? Or would it be allowed for me to pay for someone else's account as a birthday/Christmas present etc?

My 2nd account is in my name but my fiance's credit card is registered to it. There's no issues with having someone elses CC pay for the account.

Sorry, I should have phrased it "Much in the way you..." instead of "Whereas you on the other hand..."

[user]

Originally posted by PipSlag (aka PipBoy)


Actually when it comes to any crime against another person directly, the government DOES have to rely on the victim pressing criminal charges in order for there to be a case of any kind. The only exception is if the victim is killed or otherwise incapacitated. If you rob from me, if I don't press charges, there is nothing the state can do against you.

By definition a crime is wronging the State, that's what differentiates it from civil tort. The idea is that allowing crime harms society as a whole. Granted if you refuse to cooperate, the government isn't going to be able to get a conviction and therefore isn't going to waste time prosecuting. Still, an overzealous DA can in fact prosecute for a criminal violation regardless of any citizen "pressing charges." An example would be how every once in a while in Georgia they prosecute for consentual sodomy. Practically speaking however, what you say is quite true, since without knowledge of the crime (such as a police report in the case of theft) there isn't a lot the DA can do.

[___________LostLogic]

Originally posted by Miir


A bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face, no?

Not really, I lose nothing by cancelling the 2nd account.

[______________skrime]

Originally posted by user


By definition a crime is wronging the State, that's what differentiates it from civil tort. The idea is that allowing crime harms society as a whole. Granted if you refuse to cooperate, the government isn't going to be able to get a conviction and therefore isn't going to waste time prosecuting. Still, an overzealous DA can in fact prosecute for a criminal violation regardless of any citizen "pressing charges." An example would be how every once in a while in Georgia they prosecute for consentual sodomy. Practically speaking however, what you say is quite true, since without knowledge of the crime (such as a police report in the case of theft) there isn't a lot the DA can do.

Yes, the definition of crime is wronging the state, but the state will not know that a crime has accured unless the victim confronts it making your argument meaning less

[______________Pie314]

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."

If it was thin ice to begin with, you'd probably be able to see the sign regardless

[Snuble]

Sorry but you lost me in your logic there lost logic. If its your wifes account, and she is using it, why did YOU cancel it? And if she was not using it, then I have a real problem understanding where you broke the EULA...

Oh well, better continue NOT to look into other peoples private lives

[engelstein]

Mythic's EULA has held up in court, but I recall some commentary I read that stated that the ruling only applied to Mythic and BSI, thus was not intended to create a precedent on EULAs. Having no legal training, I can't support or refute that argument.

In any event, UCITA is law in Maryland.

Edit: if there's snow on the ice you wouldn't see the sign.

[_______________Ylara]

.....ok, so what if I pay an installment on my boyfriend's account? Does that mean that he is not allowed to play that month?

[________________Miir]

Originally posted by Ylara
.....ok, so what if I pay an installment on my boyfriend's account? Does that mean that he is not allowed to play that month?

It doesn't say that anywhere.

The person to which the account is registered to (the name on the account) is the only person that is allowed to play it (as per the EULA).

You mother, brother, sister, fiancee, husband, ex-girlfriend, neighbour, unvle, co-worker or boss could be paying for the account for all Funcom cares.....

[_______Revolutionary]

Originally posted by Miir



You mother, brother, sister, fiancee, husband, ex-girlfriend, neighbour, unvle, co-worker or boss could be paying for the account for all Funcom cares.....

There is the real issue...FC doesn't give a sh*t about anything except getting every single cent they can (and obviously by the way they treat customers...they just want it now and aren't even looking to the future). FC doesn't care who pays for the account, or really even who uses that account, they just don't want more than one person using the same account, if that happens, they lose money.

[________________Nazu]

Uhhhh no. Have you ever played an online game before Rev?

What FC doesn't want a thousand phone calls and emails to their CS dept from pissed off account holders about how someone else who had access to their account messed with their characters or deleted items x, y and z or got an offical warning for trying to exploit or changed their password or (fill in the blank).

Were it not for those kinds of complaints, I'm sure FC wouldn't give a rip about who played on your account.