These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Selling characters (account) for real money

Author
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#21 - 2012-07-03 14:51:02 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
BoBoZoBo wrote:
One has nothing to do with the other. Apples and Steaks.

I strongly disagree. Read my above post

Disagree all you want - you are wrong.

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.

Othran
Route One
#22 - 2012-07-03 14:58:14 UTC
Nirnias Stirrum wrote:


And the owner of the license (i.e. CCP), reserve the right to revoke your license agreement for any reason, since thats what you agreed to when you pressed accept on the TOS and the EULA:

Such as say, selling your account for real money :P


National laws > EULA. Oracle's EULA says you can't sell software. Court says you can. Oracle lose.

Software developers can put whatever they like in the EULA, it isn't going to make any difference if a court says otherwise in an area they sell the product. CCP quote the laws of Iceland, which is part of the EEA so they have to comply with EU court decisions if they wish to sell products within the EU.

EULAs aren't worth the paper they're written on in anywhere other than the USA, and even there its increasingly dodgy.
Victoria Sin
Doomheim
#23 - 2012-07-03 15:00:28 UTC
What was the question?

Sure, sell it, buy one, whatever. The only thing to remember is not to get caught.
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#24 - 2012-07-03 15:08:41 UTC
Bootleg Jack wrote:

Well, go ahead and do it, after the ban, get a lawyer, test the precident and let us know how that works out for you.



I like this idea a lot.
@Op - You agreed to the EULA whether you want to rationalise it otherwise or not. You went "click" and that was your consent.
Rant all you want, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#25 - 2012-07-03 15:12:45 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
BoBoZoBo wrote:
One has nothing to do with the other. Apples and Steaks.

I strongly disagree. Read my above post

Disagree all you want - you are wrong.

lol /thread

/c

★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar

Alpheias
The Khaleph
#26 - 2012-07-03 15:21:08 UTC
Thorn Galen wrote:
Bootleg Jack wrote:

Well, go ahead and do it, after the ban, get a lawyer, test the precident and let us know how that works out for you.



I like this idea a lot.
@Op - You agreed to the EULA whether you want to rationalise it otherwise or not. You went "click" and that was your consent.
Rant all you want, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.



I'd say yes and no, game accounts doesn't really fall under this category in my mind, but software licenses such as a Windows license would.

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.

Othran
Route One
#27 - 2012-07-03 15:46:52 UTC
I think the point to bear in mind is that the court ruling does not appear to apply to licences where there is a recurring fee to use the software. It only applies to software where a licence is granted for an "unlimited period".

That means (for example) Steam have a problem* as there's no recurring fee. CCP don't have a problem on Eve (but may have on Dust) as there is a recurring fee associated with Eve.

*the game companies have more of a problem than Steam does - Steam will simply charge a small admin fee to transfer a game from one account to another. Steam still makes some money, games company will not. Interesting to see how that pans out.
Messoroz
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#28 - 2012-07-03 15:55:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Messoroz
Othran wrote:
I think the point to bear in mind is that the court ruling does not appear to apply to licences where there is a recurring fee to use the software. It only applies to software where a licence is granted for an "unlimited period".

That means (for example) Steam have a problem* as there's no recurring fee. CCP don't have a problem on Eve (but may have on Dust) as there is a recurring fee associated with Eve.

*the game companies have more of a problem than Steam does - Steam will simply charge a small admin fee to transfer a game from one account to another. Steam still makes some money, games company will not. Interesting to see how that pans out.


Steam already has the framework to transfer games between accounts for a year now.

On the other side, I'm pretty sure they will be sending the EU a bill for all the time spent recovering games from hacked accounts.

Also, LOL at OP trying to justify RMT. An account is not a piece of software, get over it.
Othran
Route One
#29 - 2012-07-03 16:01:03 UTC
Messoroz wrote:

On the other side, I'm pretty sure they will be sending the EU a bill for all the time spent recovering games from hacked accounts.


I doubt it.

The EU Commission recently did a cost/benefit analysis for business of operating within a EU member state. They calculated that the benefits were around €15bn and the cost of compliance with directives was €60bn.

The EU benefits two countries and Steam isn't from either of them :D
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#30 - 2012-07-03 16:06:49 UTC
The use of EVE requires three things: a software license, an account, and an internet connection.

The last one is entirely your problem and beyond the scope of what CCP can control — you establish that one with your local ISP.

The second one the thing that lets you log on to the servers and mess around with CCP's database content. This is what the EULA prohibits you from reselling. It is a service contract, and has nothing to do with software. As such, it is not covered by the ruling. It's this service that is (largely) the topic of the EULA, where the limits and limitations of the service are explained (such as an SLA where there are absolutely no QoS guarantees).

The first one is the $5 extra you probably paid to set up your very first account, in addition to the $15 for the first month. You can also get that license for free alongside the creation of a trial account through the buddy system or some other means. Technically, you're not allowed to run EVE without a license, but since there is no point in running the software without the service contract, which is sold alongside a license to use it, it's not like they're going to crack down on unlicensed use…

…but they might crack down in people trying to sell copies of the game client outside of their own retail channels (the Atari physical distribution and through download from the website or Steam). This is where the ruling steps in and says that you are allowed to resell that physical box you bought from the store and neither Atari nor CCP can come after you. If you try to sell the client download, they'll do nasty things to you because you'll have a very hard time proving that each download was a license you had bought and then resold.
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
#31 - 2012-07-03 16:11:05 UTC
Messoroz wrote:

Also, LOL at OP trying to justify RMT. An account is not a piece of software, get over it.


I'm not justifying anything, I read an article and wanted to know how this affects the rules of CCP.
I'm in no way or form trying to sell any of my accounts. I love EvE, and my characters are mine until they are biomassed or CCP shuts down eve.

Bootleg Jack wrote:

Well, go ahead and do it, after the ban, get a lawyer, test the precident and let us know how that works out for you.

Not trying to sell, Just want to know.

Asuri Kinnes wrote:

Disagree all you want - you are wrong.

I'll take your word for it?

Thorn Galen wrote:

@Op - You agreed to the EULA whether you want to rationalize it otherwise or not. You went "click" and that was your consent.
Rant all you want, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

If you sign a paper that you agree to me killing you publicly, will my terms and agreements or the law of the country apply? (Hint: I think the law Shocked)

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}

Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
#32 - 2012-07-03 16:12:30 UTC
Tippia wrote:
*pop*

Good post Smile

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}

Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#33 - 2012-07-03 16:17:14 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:

If you sign a paper that you agree to me killing you publicly, will my terms and agreements or the law of the country apply? (Hint: I think the law Shocked)


Laughable.

Now you're equating real-life death with an online escapism MMO ? Way to go Mr. Intellect.
My final post in this thread.
I refuse to enter intellectual combat against a mentally incapacitated opponent.
Othran
Route One
#34 - 2012-07-03 16:18:38 UTC
Tippia wrote:
This is where the ruling steps in and says that you are allowed to resell that physical box you bought from the store and neither Atari nor CCP can come after you. If you try to sell the client download, they'll do nasty things to you because you'll have a very hard time proving that each download was a license you had bought and then resold.


No that was already established. This ruling (from an Oracle appeal) clarifies that it doesn't matter whether there was physical media or not, you have an absolute right to resell the software if you were granted a licence for an unlimited period.

Prior to the ruling you could only resell software which had physical install media. Now you can resell software which has no physical install media.

That's what this case was all about Tippia.

EA et al are in a world of trouble on this as online multiplayer games with no recurring fee most definitely ARE covered by the ruling.
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
#35 - 2012-07-03 16:22:17 UTC
Thorn Galen wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:

If you sign a paper that you agree to me killing you publicly, will my terms and agreements or the law of the country apply? (Hint: I think the law Shocked)


Laughable.

Now you're equating real-life death with an online escapism MMO ? Way to go Mr. Intellect.
My final post in this thread.
I refuse to enter intellectual combat against a mentally incapacitated opponent.


So this law is not in real life? Ok then. How am I equating anything? You say "You agreed to the EULA/TOS and thats it". Well, the law clearly overrules EULA/TOS, I just put it in a more serious setting. Why should the law > eula/tos matter in one situation and not another?

Personal shitflinging, nice. Best way to end a discussion professionally.

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}

Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
#36 - 2012-07-03 16:24:14 UTC
Othran wrote:

EA et al are in a world of trouble on this as online multiplayer games with no recurring fee most definitely ARE covered by the ruling.

Indeed. I can see why a recurring fee model might not apply, but anything else? I should be allowed to sell it to anyone.

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#37 - 2012-07-03 16:30:08 UTC
Othran wrote:
No that was already established. This ruling (from an Oracle appeal) clarifies that it doesn't matter whether there was physical media or not, you have an absolute right to resell the software if you were granted a licence for an unlimited period.
…but that's just it: a license. The point I'm making is that if you try to create your own distribution of EVE, you're going to have a hard time proving that you have all the licenses you're trying to re-sell. You are free to “re-sell” the license you have to download and run the game, but you're only going to have one of those per account.

Sure, in the end, it won't matter — CCP can't really lose money because without an account (which the new owner have to get anyway) the software is largely useless other than as a screen saver, and creating an account establishes a license anyway so there's no point and no need to transfer the license — but it gives them (and retains, even with this ruling) an avenue to go after people who sell unlicensed copies, and who create service-rep headaches as irate customers contact CCP to complain about how the “totally trustworthy” retailer they bought the software from never mentioned that an account was needed as well.
Citsatllort
Doomheim
#38 - 2012-07-03 16:31:42 UTC
People sell their accounts all the time for real money. There is more than one site that's dedicated to the auction of game accounts. No one cares about the EULA. Unless CCP is going to start buying up all the accounts and then reversing charges on them people will continue to sell for real $$.
Othran
Route One
#39 - 2012-07-03 16:36:21 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:

Indeed. I can see why a recurring fee model might not apply, but anything else? I should be allowed to sell it to anyone.


Eve has a recurring fee. That appears to exempt CCP from the ruling, although I haven't read all of it.

However Dust is a different matter as there is no recurring fee (there is a setup fee AIUI) and would be covered by the ruling. The account could be sold as the setup fee is for the software and account.

There's loads of weasel words to come on this I reckon.

The good news is that ******** game companies who've been lobbying to stop resale of single-player/standalone games have now been screwed by possibly the greediest IT company on the planet - Oracle Lol What goes around etc :)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#40 - 2012-07-03 16:43:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Othran wrote:
However Dust is a different matter as there is no recurring fee (there is a setup fee AIUI) and would be covered by the ruling. The account could be sold as the setup fee is for the software and account.
Nah, Dust will fall into the same pattern as EVE: yes, you need a license to run the software, but you won't be able to actually play without a (non-transferable) service contract.

Here, the ruling rather means that, should you be able to extract the software from your PS3's hard drive, you can give it to someone else and they're allowed to run it (although I imagine that Sony will be slightly upset if you do for various other reasons). But here, too, it will be largely pointless to do such a transfer since anyone is free to download and use the software anyway. The kind of transfers the ruling allows is immensely more work than just creating a license of your own.


edit: Come to think of it, though, what it could mean for Dust is that those beta keys (as well as beta keys for other games) should be transferable — that's a license to use the beta software that doesn't (entirely) follow the rules of the full game. That could be subject to some details in the legalese though.