Any lawyers out there?

[whome]

This is sort of a tongue in cheek question but:

VI states that we can't use 3rd party software, but since showeq is open source and we compile it, wouldn't that make it our software and in a sense "2nd party software" (VI being the 1st party)?? ;-)

[Manaweaver]

VI no longer own EQ, its now SOE only.

[PawnOrc]

whome,

Not a bad question but it is pure drafting. All they need to do is either define the term 3rd party or change it to encompass software of a stated class.

Think like a lawyer - why don't I get banned for my virus scanner?

[Old`Fart]

<----- not a lawyer

But let's consider clause 9 of the EULA:

"9. You may not use any third party software to modify the Software to change Game play. You may not use our intellectual property rights contained in the Game or the Software to create or provide any other means through which the Game may be played by others, as through server emulators. You may not take any action which imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our infrastructure. You may not sell or auction any EverQuest characters, items, coin or copyrighted material."

First part: You may not use any third party software to modify the Software to change Game play.

--- Arguably, MacroQuest modifies the software, but I sure don't see SEQ modifying the EQ client on a Windows machine.

Second part: You may not use our intellectual property rights contained in the Game or the Software to create or provide any other means through which the Game may be played by others, as through server emulators.

--- I don't see SEQ accomodating this either. EMU project is cool, but it's not SEQ.

Third part: You may not take any action which imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our infrastructure.

--- Sniffing packets isn't adding to their load.

Fourth part: You may not sell or auction any EverQuest characters, items, coin or copyrighted material.

--- Don't get me started on people that exploit EQ for RL money. But SEQ != PlayerAuctions. :)

So, how again is SEQ violating the EULA?

Perhaps clause 7?

"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 may not copy (except to make one necessary back-up copy), distribute, rent, lease, loan, modify or create derivative works, adapt, translate, perform, display, sublicense or transfer the Software. You may not copy any of the written materials accompanying the CD-ROM. You may not reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile the Software except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable law. The Software may contain license management software that restricts your use of the Software."

The penultimate sentence might seem applicable:

--- You may not reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile the Software except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable law.

However, I really can't see crypto exercises being considered "reverse engineering".

There's my two cents.

[Lisa]

Originally posted by Old`Fart
"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 may not copy (except to make one necessary back-up copy), distribute, rent, lease, loan, modify or create derivative works, adapt, translate, perform, display, sublicense or transfer the Software. You may not copy any of the written materials accompanying the CD-ROM. You may not reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile the Software except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable law. The Software may contain license management software that restricts your use of the Software."

The penultimate sentence might seem applicable:

--- You may not reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile the Software except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable law.


I have not reverse engineered, disassembled, or decompiled the "Software." You bad ShowEQ devs have! :o hehe

[smoothielover]

SEQ does not actually break any of the eula legalities technicall to the letter.

the key here is GAMEPLAY


***You may not use any third party software to modify the Software to change Game play***


perhaps they will change it slightly to

***You may not use any third party software to modify the Software OR to change Game play***

SEQ does in fact change the way you play the game if you use is for tracking named etc. seq is no different to map sites parsers and other similar information site in essence except that this is done realtime. DPS etc is better in SEQ but not significantly

the aspect that is the issue i beleive is the tracking of mobs.

Crypto is NOT reverse engineering unless we use a program to pass mem address info back to seq. thus doing what the poll indicates in announcments is actually the first step in killing SEQ as opposed to the actual idea of keeping it alive IMO.

If you are approached by a GM about any SEQ stuff the easiest way to solve it is " found a map on a map site whuich has common spanpoints and locs for named in general areas"

or

" according to the bestiary i use it said it drops this stuff so im hunting it.

or

The map has a line on sfaest ways to get to places.

if your a druid or ranger they wont really be able to check anything if you run around with track windows being USED & refreshed if your not tracking the mob at the time. if you track without hitting track button it can be VERY obvious your a SEQ user and thus defeating the EULA concept.

legalities are very hard to prove in IT as many are seeing in cases around the world ATM. The courts are ruling based on INTENT not on LEGAL Jargon

MS for instance have no intention of breaking up their company. they are just paying the fines as its cheaper for them. Intent to MONOPOLIZE has changed tho. MS have decreased the purchases of competing products and by not changing their standards away from the GENERIC standards have also displayed INTENT for Linux/novell/;Citrix/others to compete with them.

previous to this they were doing things like MSCHAP and deleting legacy code from DLLs which were not used by MS products and generally no nos in compatibility.

INTENT has changed thus no further action taken

The intent of SEQ is arguable. it can be used to defeat the mobs in a more efficent way and to track mobs in a more efficent way BUT does not circumvent the need for a character to DO THINGS such as grouping/guilds/hunting for xp over time

the fact we can do it better could be layed down as we look closer at the info we get on websites etc.

wether the mob is a lvl 56 or 57 mob doesnt actually mean we are any better off in fighting it INGAME just means we know more about whats happening around us and can plan a little better.

tracking named & mobs in general outside our clipping plane is the only aspect that has changed gameplay. if forinstance seq implemeted a code change in the original source and commented it saying this line sets the distance from your character you can see and set the default value to the max clip plane level then SEQ as a product would NOT change Gameplay. The user of seq changing the clip plane value and compiling would be the incrimating person ie seq would not be responsible for the use in this manner.

Im not a longtime seq user so i dont have a complete understanding of all the functions but from what i have seen so far this tracking zone wide area of SEQ is the only INTENT issue i can see

This is my own opinion but is also in line with what i have seen people banned for over the whole of EQ.

same as the camping in & out tricks. its intent to use to defeat GAME rules. walls are not supposed to be camped through and thus INTENT is wrong. Macroing is INTENT to circumvent the need to use the interface.

Parsing files (logalizer), loging items you have (magelo), Mapping (eqatlas&co), beasts (illias/allakazam) and quest info are not INTENDED to defeat the game they INTEND to educate the game player to things that are consistent and just increase efficency for those who research.

EQW is the only thing i see any discrepencies in this way. EQW isnt actually in breach of INTENT but does Breach Point 7 & 9 of eula i beleive. it changes direct x calls and also SLOWS down the EQ interface this is probably targeted more as a support issue rather than a actual INTENT breach gameplay


these are my own feelings and opinions so VI/SOE may have slightly different veiws but it seems to be the trend worldwide and SOE wise.

if seq was to be ported to windows and not include the ability to track beyond the clip plane i would expect it would not be touched. in reality you can just say i play in a 3rd view screen rather than first person using the f9 views. it feasible you can do this as a non melee. melee would have more of an issue as to hit you have to be facing the mob be the right distance away from a mob for it to be in your height veiwable area but again a dual PC user exhibits the same issues when dualplaying 2 melee and they dont get banned.


if anyone else feels this is wrong please tell me what feature it is as i cant find anything wrong with automapping i do it pretty well manually with a map and a few pins on my pinboard. i also draw circles around general heavy spawn areas and write what lvl mobs are around there and what the mobs are affected by. as oposed to blueadept here i dont think that this information SHOULD be freely given thus my filters wont ever get circulated

blueadepts filters merely give you the named mobs and the things that are likely to drop stuff. now im guessing blueadept actually uses a variant of his filter files that are posted with more alert specifics and hunt settings etc but wont post those either for similar reasons SEQ is not desighed to make the game TOO easy or Shorter as there is no end to it. its merely a tool to get better VALUE for your time and to understand how deal with travelling and hunting.

an idea of what advantages we have is extremly visible ATM

SEQ users in the POK are the ones telling people which ports are where in their guilds etc. this does not mean its easier to win just that you dont go to the worng places and waste your time

i dobt anyone atm would be looking to take a lvl 60 to ANY zone they havent been to hunt in a non group situation. what this means is that PoP has been a smooth expansion for players to get a basic knoledge of. as a community this information is shared to ALL eq users not just SEQ users and thus is not an advantage to us but in fact an advantage to SOE because they dont have to deal with so many petition based on the " umm i clicked the book and got killed on the other side now i cant find my body as its been moved to the graveyard and i cant get to it because of mobs in the way.......WHY DID MY CORPSE MOVE FORM ZONE IT??

obviously this isnt happening anywhere near as much as what it could have if SEQ hadnt had maps made etc. sure muse at eq atlas also has maps but seq had all the locs for ports up 3 days before any of the map sites i went to. i think SOE should be thanking us sometimes not banning us

[Old`Fart]

> legalities are very hard to prove in IT as many are seeing in cases around the world ATM. The courts are ruling based on INTENT not on LEGAL Jargon

I'd be curious to see some discrete examples. I read some of the main outlets, and I don't recall many U.S. state/fed decisions favoring the ever-ephemeral INTENT (of a contract/license) over (its) verbage.

I mean, you could then argue that an MP3 player on a second machine changes the way I play EQ; I mash tradeskill buttons more quickly; or I grind more aggressively.

Heck, the new beta nVidia DRIVERS I install change gameplay. They make the Bazaar run at more than 4 fps.

In fact, the Microsoft Windows Update installs software patches that make my system more stable. That means fewer crashes to desktop from EQ. Ooooop, EULA violation!

You can see where the argument goes.

Ultimately, Verant remotely scanning networks/LAN clients is clearly illegal under the law. The use of SEQ is not CLEARLY in violation of their EULA.

Again, be interesting to see how it all shakes out ...

[three-p-o]

Actually it does. SEQ is a 3rd party.

Party 1 (Server) <-------> Party 2 (Client)
................................|
................................V
....................Party 3 (ShowEQ)

Deffinition of a 3rd party is anyone other than the intended recipients of data. Does not matter if they were not specific in their declaration of this.

"You may not use any third party software to modify the Software to change Game play."

I personally think that the person that wrote this line goofed. I believe what the intended line should have been is this.

"You may not use any third party software to modify the Software or to change Game play."

See that 'or' in there?

I use it to find my way around. Gives me my exact location on a map instead of having to try and plot my location on a printed map.
I use it to warn me of another person's train before it arrives.
I use it to find mobs close to my level that I might be able to fight reasonably well, mobs that I can pull solo, and find out of rare spawn X is up to call in the cavalry.

SEQ is a 3rd party piece of software that changed my gameplay.

[high_jeeves]

The whole discussion is moot. Read the WHOLE EULA... it says, in no uncertain terms, that they can ban you for any reason. If they decide that they are going to ban anyone with an even IP address, they can. They dont need legalities here. As long as they dont charge you again after they ban you, they can disconnect you from THEIR server anytime they want to, for any reason whatsoever.

--Jeeves

[Tadix]

Since we are on the subject about clauses. Did you know that Microsoft has a clause stating that any program written for Windows has to agree to before making a product. In short it says that "the Alt-Tab function cannot be disabled for any program used by windows." Due to it takes away what windows is. The ability to open and run many windows at the same time. And for some reason I don't see why Windows would let one program alone do this. Unless they have changed it but I haven't seen anything saying they did. ;)

edit: Thanks for the information. I feel sheepish now :D

[throx]

Tadix,

That clause is to get your program certified as "Designed for Windows". There's no such clause for generic Windows based programs.

[bonkersbobcat]

9. You may not use any third party software to modify the Software to change Game play. Does "game play" mean how the game operates or how I operate in the game? It could be argued either way.

[Graffix]

All?

Since the EULA is a contract that is agreed to by clicking accept before you input your payment information are you bound by changes to the EULA prior to the expiration of your billing method. We all pay in advance for our game time, and by accepting the terms both SOE and the customer enter into a contract agreement as set forth by the EULA. If they change the terms prior to account re-bill are they in breech of contract?

Although you have to click accept to the EULA change is the new "contract" valid since they broke the last one?

Any lawyer know?

-graffix

ok so i dont know how to read: "we may amend this agreement at any time"
yes i am a moron, flames welcome!

[Old`Fart]

> The whole discussion is moot. Read the WHOLE EULA... it says, in no uncertain terms, that they can ban you for any reason.

Absolutely. They could ban all account holders under the age of 40 today. They could ban all account holders accessing EQ from outside the United States.

The academic argument is whether or not SEQ violates the EULA terms.

And, in the world of PR, which sounds better:

"We banned Mr. So-and-So for violating clause nine of the EULA."

or

"We banned Mr. So-and-so not for violating the EULA, but because we felt like it."

> I personally think that the person that wrote this line goofed.
[missing -or-]

I think so too -- and it boggles me they haven't amended ...

[smoothielover]

the concept of gameplay has to be consistent with other companies or be defined in the eula thus gameplay is defined as "defing the intended rules of the inbuilt game engine. the only thing seq does that is beyond what is researchable is the limitless tracking for all acounts.


is the argument a moot point yes as sony dont have to allow access to their servers to anyone unless they receive a payment. they can reimburse or deny peoples money and thus not allow them access.

the concept of a eula implies that sony are putting down some guidelines for which they will apply bans. if we defeat their arguments and are banned we can take them to court for unfair discrimination if we really want to.

yes seq is 3rd party software but so is directx and a virus checker. they recommend you turn off virus checkers but do not FORCE you and thus accept that some 3rd paty software is erquired. this defeats their own eula. does that make the eula a moot point no again it comes down to intent.

if you abuse the tracking system in seq for named mobs etc then you are intending to take advantage of knowledge not available to the client and ingame rules unless you are a ranger and even then you change the way you track. if you use seq as a log parser solution and a realtime stat gatherer then you of course do not intend to defeat the in game engine. ie if you use a filter file your cheating. suer i cheat technically but i dont cheat to the point where it make other players a disadvantage. same cancepts as ninjalooters and such. they looted the body and thats fine but they get a rep and end up groupless .

using seq to save time and get better information rather than just printing out the bveast guides etc is not really any different.

the other thread re seq users reps atm is hard to argue against. yes we can be assholes if we want to but the general intent for seq is not to defeat the game engine to to make it more efficent to play the game.

AS I SAID BEFORE. you still have to win against the mob and get enogh people to help you. if we really had a bad rep then we wouldnt have enough freinds to take out the mobs we are hunting.

I dont beleive i have ever taken any named mob that had been camped and thus i dont have any moral issues with seq.

macroing is also a hard call. its cheating but its also a extremely bad system design in my view.

tradeskills are based on stats which are not true to life. forinstance the dumbest people i know in my life atm are cabinet makers yet they are skilled with their hands therefor DEX should always be a factor in a trade yet it is completely ignore in some cases. a flawed system means you need to invest money in items not specifically for use in any other area of your character.

a warrior should be a better blacksmith than a chanter yet a chanter's high inteligence & charisma in most cases will prove to be better at learning the skill even though they fail due to low strength.

trades should be capped for classes that dont use them . a warrior makes better armour than a chanter in reality because they know how armour is supposed to feel and move and can test it and make modifications to it . a chanter cant even wear it so they obviously shouldnt be able to make great armour

thats my definition of flawed

macroing simply means you dont have to spend as much time watching the pc doing it. you rarly trade skill while mobs are beating you and you still need to buy and sell the items so its probably just targeted at the people who actually want to cap all their trades. which in fact is what they are trying to allow you the ability to do by giving you skills you shouldnt be able to use.

only 1 skill goes above 200 but they dont say its gotta be the skill you should be doing as a chanter (jewelry) or as a warrior(blacksmith ) or ranger (fletching ) or a gnome ( tinking)



also on the point of they can ban us whenever they want

they have to display some form of infringment or they WILL get sued. personal trauma, depression and several other things have been attempted to be sued for after people played EQ as it was a choice thing for the person to play but if sony ban someone and they top themselves and sony is proven to be responsible for unfair banning which is not in accordance to a breach in the eula and thus causing this death in some part they will get hurt significantly i would expect. i doubt this would ever come to light etc but i think the word that is used is duediligence...prolly not spelt right

any company has to provide a certain amount of due dilligence in their running as a buisness. This means that they cannot use their position in a manner to hurt employees & customers.

basic examples.

sexshops are a good one. we know what they are etc and they can be advertised but ONLY in certain ways

Delis' food has to be consumable else health department attacks them

retail - have to supply product to solve customers needs and in a working order. you cant sell faulty gear and say sorry


as a discuttion on ethics sony have to display some concern over who they ban

[EQDoze]

Did anyone read high_jeeves post?

It seems those of you arguing legal angles, and semantics have missed the entire gist of what makes ALL of that argument moot (i.e. pointless, baseless, a waste of time).

Here it is, in ONE very simple, plain english sentence:

Sony can, and Sony may ban you at any time for any reason, or no reason.


Get it?


---

If they kept charging you after banning you? Simple, they refund the money. Do you REALLY think they're going to go to court over $13 or $26, or even a full year subscription?

Here's a scenario:

Songsinger tells Addmezzer, 'hi snugglebuns!'
Addmezzer tells Songsinger, 'hi snookums!'
Absor appears before you in a swirling mist.
Absor says, 'Greetings Songsinger and Addmezzer, I am Absor, PR Master at SOE.'
Absor says, 'I regret to inform you that we've just found "snugglebuns" to be an offensive term, and are going to ban you, Songsinger.'
Absor says, 'also, because you, Addmezzer, did not take offense at this word we are also banning you.'
Songsinger says, 'but but'
Absor says, 'Sorry'
Absor shrugs.

[homer]

Why do I have this funny feeling that the peeps over at SOE are sitting there reading all this and laughing their collective asses off?

[fripouille]

why are you guys even trying to see if it s violating the EULA and arguing about it ?
Jeeves said it, and many before him : they can ban you just because it s monday, and on mondays they like to ban random players.

[Mr Guy]

Fortunately they are operating in America, the land of the frivolous lawsuit.

Which would you rather be: Distraught 30 year old woman banned from using EverQuest when she did Nothing Wrong (tm); prevented from having meaningful social interaction from a service she paid for; DISCRIMINATED against because she may have used a firewall that put her NIC in promiscuous mode without her knowledge; HARASSED by a faceless CORPORATION that has a legally unenforcable clickwrap agreement; ADDICTED to the game that this corporation has TARGETTED at her; with PHYSICAL ailments such as Carpal Tunnel and RSD because the contract forbid programs designed for HANDICAP COMPLIANCE?

OR:

Major international corporation with lawyers coming out of its ass, but facing a 40,000 member class action lawsuit filed by said woman, drummed up on boards like this one, signed on to by everyone who was ever "addicted" to EQ, especially those who played for tradeskills. The words capitalized above would be the ones hitting front page headlines in stories such as: FORMER EVERQUEST PLAYER CAMPS $10 MILLION CHECK.



How much fun did that nut job Wooley have?

SOE may be in their rights, I still wouldn't want to be them if they ban the wrong nut job, for a flimsy excuse like, we noticed a process attached to our memory (EVERQUEST BANS PLAYER FOR USING ANTIVIRUS SCANNER) or a promiscous nic (EVERQUEST SAYS: CABLE MODEM USERS? NO FIREWALLS)


Gah, I'd have a blast writing the headlines in a case like that. Most people think EQ is evil anyway. Get one old judge from the AD&D days and you are as good as rich.

[MrMaster]

Mr. Guy...All I Can Say Is Awsome... Camps 10Mil Check...Priceless... :p

[TheOne]

When I bought EverQuest I took it back to the store as soon as I had an opportunity to read the EULA. I wouldn't agree to a contract that gave all rights to the issuer and no rights to the purchaser. I was told that I couldn't have my money back.

Since I was unable to read the EULA prior to compensating the seller and I was unwilling to agree to the EULA (i.e. I had to pay before I could know what I was agreeing to and I could not get my money back when I decided the the EULA was too restrictive) isn't the contract void? Just curios as to wether the legal system states that a contract can be enforced when the buyer has no knowlege of what he/she is purchasing.

By the way, I also took back Windows 2000 and was told "too bad."

I guess I'd like to know if the theory is that I'm paying for the right to accept the EULA? What if I don't accept the EULA and I have never played the game? Since the software is "open" I cannot return it to the seller and the producer will not refund my money.

Also I'm curious; they upgraded the game and made it necessary after purchase for me to change to "directX 8.0" which I would just as well not have on my computer. Since they altered the program and made it unusable by me, do I have recourse against them?

Just some legal questions I have. Oh, incidentally the first question that I asked was an argument that MicroSoft itself used in a fight with a Linux manufacturer (i.e. MS said "we can use anything from Linux that we want because their contract is void because of this...").

[Ratt]

EULA's mean exactly jack shit in a court of law. So whether you agreed to it or not is immaterial.

As has already been said, Sony can ban you from their PRIVATE PROPERTY for any reason at all. They would have to refund your unused subscription fee... because that is the extent of damages you incurred from a legal standpoint.

If you wanted to file a civil (or maybe even criminal, but that would be tough) suit against Sony for providing an addictive substance.... you might win with the right lawyer and stupid ^H^H^H symathetic jury... but that's another issue entirely.

None of this constitutes legal advice, of course, because I am not a lawyer. However, my father is :) I ask him about stuff like this all the time and he explains (in mind numbing detail on occasion) about the common falacies of the arm chair lawyers and why most of the tactics proposed on message boards won't work in a real court.

[throx]

Listen to Ratt and High Jeeves.

Sony can ban your ass any time they want.

Sony has a bigger PR department than you do so unless there's a corpse for the media vultures to flock over you aren't going to get headlines for being banned. In fact, no one will care but you.

Did I mention Sony can ban your ass any time they want?

[whome]

I honestly didn't think this would stir up such a debate.

I have come to the following personal conclusion: EQ isn't fun without showeq. So either I don't play because it's not fun, or I have some fun and chance getting banned. The destination for both paths is the same, but the latter lets me have fun a little bit longer ;o)

For the EQ developers out there, here are things to add to the game to remove my desire for showeq:
-a mapping skill
-a better con'ing system
-a mini radar like AC has (so I can med and heal safer)

After all wouldn't it be better to spend the time and resources removing the need for showeq rather than trying to break it?

[smoothielover]

Retail trade laws in oz may be different but in oz if the package is opened the RETAILER cannot do anything about a direct refund because it isnt' their fault or their agreement. BUT the local distrivutor (UBIsoft) should be able to check if a key has been used via a email etc and if it hasnt then they can provide a refund and re package the product.

The EULA is read BEFORE enterign your account code and the account codes is SPECIFICALLY what you are purchasing. the fact theres cd etc doent matter that much. By not activating the account code you shoud still be entitled to a refund via distrbution channels.

the fact the eula has the disclaimer "we can ban you for what ever you want does NOT make the EULA perfect and unchallengable BUT yes it makes it less likely to be challenged on this basis. again they have to demonstrate due cause. we pay UPFRONT for the service which means that they are contractuallly bound to provide a service as requested. sure they can put the we can ban you for whatever line in there to deter people from challenging BUT the fact that they have the ability to put for instance "if you agree to this you lose all your civil rights as a consumer does not actually mean we DO.

If i remember rightly it took someone actually challenging the eula on a privacy rule to get them to actually make it so you had to agree each time you logged in. i remember somethign along the lines of. "the login process has been changed to suit legal needs so we can search the everquest directory for updating files.


this was part of the original Eula on the everquest CD pre kunark but wasnt done each time and thus was against the law.

this proves that the legalities of the EULA are not 100% perceent from day 1 does that mean its still binding. probably but its not UNCHALLENGABLE

i also agree with the concept that we wont win tho

the ethical aspect i would like to close my involvement on this thread is actually......

If any software package has a eula and it is not in accordance to other previously defined laws (privacy, trade & service) then does it in fact waive these previous rights.

My gut feeling here is that the government and local laws will OVERIDE a EULA if deemed innappropriate.


basically on the software development level it boils down to - just because you wrote a eula doesnt actually mean is legally upholdable without being take through a legal process.

previously as i mentioned it was PROVEN that the eula was not all encompassing of the privacy laws and thus they made a chance to the login process.

[high_jeeves]

previously as i mentioned it was PROVEN that the eula was not all encompassing of the privacy laws and thus they made a chance to the login process.


What change to the login process? If my memory serves, I have been clicking on the EULA "I agree" since beta...

Also, all this talk about law is irrelevant. The servers are their private property. They dont have to deal with the law to ban you from them. Think of it like cable. You pay for a month of cable, if they find you stealing premium channels during that month, they will cut your service immediatly. You have no right to the rest of your month of cable that you paid for because YOU broke the contract. Same thing here.. YOU defaulted, so they dont have to hold up their obligation to you.

Once again, bottom line: Their property, their rules... they can ban you for anything they want. You have no legal right to not be banned. You agree to this fact BEFORE you pay them. Granted, the EULA doesnt allow them to break any existing laws (IE, the EULA couldnt say that if you cheat, they can kill your mother), but banning you from THEIR property doesnt violate any laws.

--Jeeves

[smoothielover]

cant remember the exact details after this amount of time but it was done pre velious. from memory it was along the lines of please agree to the second eula agreement which should have been included in the first Eula to allow us to perform the patching process. i may even be before the kunark patches as i started playing pre kunark and saw this firsthand

[high_jeeves]

That was just because they modified the EULA.. you have always (since beta) had to click through it, if I remember correctly.

--Jeeves

[UserZero]

HeHe. You are all correct sirs! SOE can ban anyone for any (or no ) reason, BUT you can also file a suit for actual and punitive damages against anyone for any (or no) reason. You only have to convince the court of your claims. SOE could even be sued for forcing you to sign a contract (click!) under duress, but you (being the plaintiff) would have to "prove" (i.e. convince the court) that you have been wronged. Having been involved in class-action suits before, I know that as the number of plaintiffs grows to be >100, the courts become more attentive and more sympathetic. Just ask our good friends at Philip morris for some insight into this quirk of human nature. IMO, I think we should all TRY to get our accounts banned, so we have more legal "meat" for the courts to chew on...


A wave of fear swept over the Ivory Tower as they
banished the demons by the thousands, only to
have them reappear in lawyers offices across the
nation.