These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Poetic Justice for Gold Farming
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2013-08-13 20:50:16 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:
I generally don't turn to internet forums for legal advise, but its my birthday so I'm going to treat myself. In what country and under what law would violating a EULA, by itself, be a criminal act resulting in state forfeiture of assets and felony charges?

Anyone breaching a contract would be liable to pay damages to the party on the other side of the contract. While not directly a criminal matter, intentionally breaching a contract to earn money would not leave you in a healthy legal situation as it could be seen as illegal earnings. Any money you do earn from it would belong to the company owning the game anyway, as they own the "property" you are selling unless they state otherwise. In the case of EVE, seeing as you can buy plex and GTCs legally, and convert them to cash, the breach of contract would be direct loss of earnings for CCP so you'd be liable for that too.


None of that sounds like a criminal matter, but a civil one with any legal proceedings to be brought by CCP against the individuals involved. Still doesn't seem like the stuff of state forfeiture and felony charges and an eventual trip to federal PMITA prison.


It's not likely she'll be charged for fraud regarding the EVE EULA by the insurance company, but the insurance company can argue two things to win their case with the EULA. 1) if the insured property was acquired fraudulently, then they can deny her claim on that basis alone. 2) it shows the woman's tendency to ignore the rules and demonstrates her willingness to commit fraud, so they can argue it is a habit. Along with providing evidence that she has faked the robbery and claimed fraudulently, this material can strengthen their case.



What I don't get, is how the EULA is even brought in as there is no case (so far apparently) concerning any EULA breach independent of this case. So relevance has no bearing.

Hell, it mentioned eve online but never said anything about isk or RMT'ing Eve, only that she played it and likened the reference to swords and gold nuggets bleh.

That chief court reporter is terrible.


The other games that she played may have similar documents that outline similar prohibitions.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#42 - 2013-08-13 20:50:40 UTC
Just seems a bit too much "we won't process your car insurance claim because your car CAN speed and you've been caught speeding before even though it was on the autobahn... but since it IS a fast car, you broke the law so we aren't fixing it".

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2013-08-13 20:53:06 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

But laughing at theft and loss of livelihood is bad.

If she is guilty, it still doesn't serve her right, as she will be sentenced or otherwise punished. If she is not guilty, it still isn't funny.


If she is guilty, if absolutely does serve her right, whether she lost her livelihood or not. If her livelihood isn't an honest one, then she can face the consequences of her choices.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2013-08-13 20:54:24 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Just seems a bit too much "we won't process your car insurance claim because your car CAN speed and you've been caught speeding before even though it was on the autobahn... but since it IS a fast car, you broke the law so we aren't fixing it".


That's not a very good analogy at all.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#45 - 2013-08-13 20:55:17 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



What I don't get, is how the EULA is even brought in as there is no case (so far apparently) concerning any EULA breach independent of this case. So relevance has no bearing.

Hell, it mentioned eve online but never said anything about isk or RMT'ing Eve, only that she played it and likened the reference to swords and gold nuggets bleh.

That chief court reporter is terrible.


The other games that she played may have similar documents that outline similar prohibitions.



I don't think I'm saying it right...

The EULA has no bearing on the lawsuit. AAMI is an insurance company.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Malcolm Shinhwa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2013-08-13 20:55:39 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Who ever said it was a felony? Illegal earnings can still end you up in prison, at least it can in the UK. And earnings through intentional breach of contract are illegal earnings.


Remiel Pollard wrote:
Bull. It was already mentioned that it was income earned through breach of a EULA, which is a legal contract. Earnings made expressly through breach of a legal contract are forfeit at best, felony fraud at worst, in just about every western nation. (which is why most RMT is through China)


[i]"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental[/i]."
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2013-08-13 21:03:37 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



What I don't get, is how the EULA is even brought in as there is no case (so far apparently) concerning any EULA breach independent of this case. So relevance has no bearing.

Hell, it mentioned eve online but never said anything about isk or RMT'ing Eve, only that she played it and likened the reference to swords and gold nuggets bleh.

That chief court reporter is terrible.


The other games that she played may have similar documents that outline similar prohibitions.



I don't think I'm saying it right...

The EULA has no bearing on the lawsuit. AAMI is an insurance company.


The EULA is evidence that gold farming is in breach of a contract with CCP. Items acquired through that breach demonstrate fraud. It demonstrates willingness to break the rules, willingness to commit fraud (which is bad for her defence that the robbery was not fraudulently faked on her own behalf), and it demonstrates that the items that were insured were acquired by breaking the rules in the first place. How many insurers will pay out on your broken car if they find out later that the car was stolen to begin with?

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#48 - 2013-08-13 21:06:37 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Just seems a bit too much "we won't process your car insurance claim because your car CAN speed and you've been caught speeding before even though it was on the autobahn... but since it IS a fast car, you broke the law so we aren't fixing it".


That's not a very good analogy at all.



Why not, it's the same thing the prosecuting attorney is trying to imply.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#49 - 2013-08-13 21:07:21 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

But laughing at theft and loss of livelihood is bad.

If she is guilty, it still doesn't serve her right, as she will be sentenced or otherwise punished. If she is not guilty, it still isn't funny.


If she is guilty, if absolutely does serve her right, whether she lost her livelihood or not. If her livelihood isn't an honest one, then she can face the consequences of her choices.



I don't see how it can serve her right to have her privacy invaded and stuff stolen out of her home.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2013-08-13 21:08:05 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Just seems a bit too much "we won't process your car insurance claim because your car CAN speed and you've been caught speeding before even though it was on the autobahn... but since it IS a fast car, you broke the law so we aren't fixing it".


That's not a very good analogy at all.



Why not, it's the same thing the prosecuting attorney is trying to imply.


No it's not.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2013-08-13 21:11:30 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

But laughing at theft and loss of livelihood is bad.

If she is guilty, it still doesn't serve her right, as she will be sentenced or otherwise punished. If she is not guilty, it still isn't funny.


If she is guilty, if absolutely does serve her right, whether she lost her livelihood or not. If her livelihood isn't an honest one, then she can face the consequences of her choices.



I don't see how it can serve her right to have her privacy invaded and stuff stolen out of her home.


Like I said, if she is GUILTY and she wasn't actually robbed, it was staged for the insurance as AAMI is suggesting, and IF SHE IS GUILTY OF THAT, then it damn well serves her right, and if she faces charges of attempted fraud for that, then she's going to be having her privacy invaded every day in a prison cell.

Of course, if she was really robbed, that's why I called it "poetic justice", not real justice. The RMT lot can burn for all I care.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#52 - 2013-08-13 21:12:04 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I found it odd you used an opinion piece to flaunt your journalistic view and then defended it by having an opinion.

Like I said, it made me curious.

But did you tip off someone in the AAMI concerning this specific newspiece? That's what I was referring to. (as an open engaging question, not interrogation or anything).


The original link in the OP is not an opinion piece, it is called 'news', the reporting of events that have taken place in the public interest with the facts of the matter at hand, and I didn't flaunt a journalistic view, I expressed a view as an interest party, ie an EVE player. I did present my opinion, yes, but the writer of the article I posted expressed no opinion of their own. I didn't defend anything 'by having an opinion'. That doesn't even make sense.



Your post #s 1 and 9.

Hell, look at the title of your link! Yea that's "news" alright. Stop trying to muddy the waters. You say you posted an opinion/view based on being an Eve player while declaring you had contacts in the associated parties in the news article as a journalist.

Which, as I said, made me curious.

If it doesn't make sense, then why'd you go both ways on the topic?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2013-08-13 21:14:28 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



What I don't get, is how the EULA is even brought in as there is no case (so far apparently) concerning any EULA breach independent of this case. So relevance has no bearing.

Hell, it mentioned eve online but never said anything about isk or RMT'ing Eve, only that she played it and likened the reference to swords and gold nuggets bleh.

That chief court reporter is terrible.


The other games that she played may have similar documents that outline similar prohibitions.



I don't think I'm saying it right...

The EULA has no bearing on the lawsuit. AAMI is an insurance company.


The EULA is evidence that gold farming is in breach of a contract with CCP. Items acquired through that breach demonstrate fraud. It demonstrates willingness to break the rules, willingness to commit fraud (which is bad for her defence that the robbery was not fraudulently faked on her own behalf), and it demonstrates that the items that were insured were acquired by breaking the rules in the first place. How many insurers will pay out on your broken car if they find out later that the car was stolen to begin with?



So you're saying the part where she had receipts, and called each time she wished to add an item to her insurance, even with her premiums getting upgraded, makes her a criminal? Or would you rather forget those parts and just be offended your shiny gold nugget encrusted sword might have been sold to an orc instead of a dwarf?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#54 - 2013-08-13 21:15:15 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Just seems a bit too much "we won't process your car insurance claim because your car CAN speed and you've been caught speeding before even though it was on the autobahn... but since it IS a fast car, you broke the law so we aren't fixing it".


That's not a very good analogy at all.



Why not, it's the same thing the prosecuting attorney is trying to imply.


No it's not.



Yes it is. Would you like a quote, or would you rather take some extra time to reread the article?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2013-08-13 21:15:47 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I found it odd you used an opinion piece to flaunt your journalistic view and then defended it by having an opinion.

Like I said, it made me curious.

But did you tip off someone in the AAMI concerning this specific newspiece? That's what I was referring to. (as an open engaging question, not interrogation or anything).


The original link in the OP is not an opinion piece, it is called 'news', the reporting of events that have taken place in the public interest with the facts of the matter at hand, and I didn't flaunt a journalistic view, I expressed a view as an interest party, ie an EVE player. I did present my opinion, yes, but the writer of the article I posted expressed no opinion of their own. I didn't defend anything 'by having an opinion'. That doesn't even make sense.



Your post #s 1 and 9.

Hell, look at the title of your link! Yea that's "news" alright. Stop trying to muddy the waters. You say you posted an opinion/view based on being an Eve player while declaring you had contacts in the associated parties in the news article as a journalist.

Which, as I said, made me curious.

If it doesn't make sense, then why'd you go both ways on the topic?


How are you not understanding what I am saying? The article in the link is the news. I expressed my opinion based on that news. The title of the link is irrelevant, the content of the article is the news, the content of my post is opinion on the article. How are you so incapable of distinguishing between the two? It's really not that hard. My 12 year old sister can do it, dude.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#56 - 2013-08-13 21:15:59 UTC
Relevant youtube linkage

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#57 - 2013-08-13 21:16:06 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

But laughing at theft and loss of livelihood is bad.

If she is guilty, it still doesn't serve her right, as she will be sentenced or otherwise punished. If she is not guilty, it still isn't funny.


If she is guilty, if absolutely does serve her right, whether she lost her livelihood or not. If her livelihood isn't an honest one, then she can face the consequences of her choices.



I don't see how it can serve her right to have her privacy invaded and stuff stolen out of her home.


Like I said, if she is GUILTY and she wasn't actually robbed, it was staged for the insurance as AAMI is suggesting, and IF SHE IS GUILTY OF THAT, then it damn well serves her right, and if she faces charges of attempted fraud for that, then she's going to be having her privacy invaded every day in a prison cell.

Of course, if she was really robbed, that's why I called it "poetic justice", not real justice. The RMT lot can burn for all I care.



Poetic justice would be her checks being bounced (RMT payments).

Her personal privacy being invaded over ingame currency is a bit of a stretch.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2013-08-13 21:17:57 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Just seems a bit too much "we won't process your car insurance claim because your car CAN speed and you've been caught speeding before even though it was on the autobahn... but since it IS a fast car, you broke the law so we aren't fixing it".


That's not a very good analogy at all.



Why not, it's the same thing the prosecuting attorney is trying to imply.


No it's not.



Yes it is. Would you like a quote, or would you rather take some extra time to reread the article?


I've read the article. The insurance company is denying her claim and countersuing "accusing Ms Fincham of staging the theft in order to fraudulently claim on her policy."

This is not the same thing as stating that it's POSSIBLE that you can speed in a car so you can't have your claim. The analogy was ****, there are no parallels.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2013-08-13 21:18:49 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

But laughing at theft and loss of livelihood is bad.

If she is guilty, it still doesn't serve her right, as she will be sentenced or otherwise punished. If she is not guilty, it still isn't funny.


If she is guilty, if absolutely does serve her right, whether she lost her livelihood or not. If her livelihood isn't an honest one, then she can face the consequences of her choices.



I don't see how it can serve her right to have her privacy invaded and stuff stolen out of her home.


Like I said, if she is GUILTY and she wasn't actually robbed, it was staged for the insurance as AAMI is suggesting, and IF SHE IS GUILTY OF THAT, then it damn well serves her right, and if she faces charges of attempted fraud for that, then she's going to be having her privacy invaded every day in a prison cell.

Of course, if she was really robbed, that's why I called it "poetic justice", not real justice. The RMT lot can burn for all I care.



Poetic justice would be her checks being bounced (RMT payments).

Her personal privacy being invaded over ingame currency is a bit of a stretch.


Like I said, that's why I called it MY OPINION. And my opinion remains that RMT folks can burn. And I hope it's painful.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#60 - 2013-08-13 21:19:28 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I found it odd you used an opinion piece to flaunt your journalistic view and then defended it by having an opinion.

Like I said, it made me curious.

But did you tip off someone in the AAMI concerning this specific newspiece? That's what I was referring to. (as an open engaging question, not interrogation or anything).


The original link in the OP is not an opinion piece, it is called 'news', the reporting of events that have taken place in the public interest with the facts of the matter at hand, and I didn't flaunt a journalistic view, I expressed a view as an interest party, ie an EVE player. I did present my opinion, yes, but the writer of the article I posted expressed no opinion of their own. I didn't defend anything 'by having an opinion'. That doesn't even make sense.



Your post #s 1 and 9.

Hell, look at the title of your link! Yea that's "news" alright. Stop trying to muddy the waters. You say you posted an opinion/view based on being an Eve player while declaring you had contacts in the associated parties in the news article as a journalist.

Which, as I said, made me curious.

If it doesn't make sense, then why'd you go both ways on the topic?


How are you not understanding what I am saying? The article in the link is the news. I expressed my opinion based on that news. The title of the link is irrelevant, the content of the article is the news, the content of my post is opinion on the article. How are you so incapable of distinguishing between the two? It's really not that hard. My 12 year old sister can do it, dude.



Easy. I'm questioning your claims as being a journalist and the integrity therein since you used that to try to back your opinion up.

I am indeed understanding what you're saying. Which is why I brought your objectivity into light in the first place.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.