PDA

View Full Version : Is it illegal to share an account?



TheMorningStar
09-10-2013, 03:21 AM
I know that trading/selling/buying accounts are illegal but is it illegal to simply lend my account to a friend for like a day or 2 for them to test the game out?

Dropbear
09-10-2013, 03:33 AM
Technical answer: Yes.

Long answer: They can't tell so there's no way to really stop it apart from if your friend lives on the other side of the globe for an IP questioning, and I'd be more worried about giving out your password to someone in the first place. I'd just ask them to make a new account and trade over some cards or something.

Niedar
09-10-2013, 03:41 AM
Of course that doesn't work in alpha.

Xenavire
09-10-2013, 04:00 AM
Slacker backer is still open, so this shouldn't be a topic.

However, it is technically against the rules, but even CZE is unlikely to care - but if your account does get stolen, and they discover that you shared the account, they aren't obligated to help you recover it. (They may try because they are awesome, but don't count on it.)

I think getting a slacker backer is more than enough to cover your needs - you can always foot the bill and if he likes it he pays you back. If he doesn't, you get a second account and more boosters.

Facilier
09-10-2013, 04:02 AM
Generally all/most companies are going to be categorically against sharing to avoid getting dragged into ownership dispute, or two friends getting into a fight and taking it out on the account they share. Basically all Gerry Springer stuff that is going to be both difficult for them to support and an unnecessary imposition on their customer service.

ramseytheory
09-10-2013, 06:24 AM
I backed with multiple pledges. Does this mean I can't give (not sell) one of the attached accounts to a friend or family member?

Gwaer
09-10-2013, 06:27 AM
Sure, you can give them your extra accounts. You just can't access them before or after.

jetah
09-10-2013, 06:48 AM
If you supported with a KS or SB pledge (donation or w/e) then you are free to do as you please with them. If you wish to give those tiers away you can. Just don't give your password/user/email to a friend to let them 'try the game'.


*small print*
I have some friends that I've known for well over 14 years, yeah I might let them try it but I'd be at their house when I log on for them.

ol4ever
09-10-2013, 07:02 AM
Is it legal to have multiple accounts? Can i buy 4 slacker backers and have 4 different accounts?

Xenavire
09-10-2013, 07:08 AM
Is it legal to have multiple accounts? Can i buy 4 slacker backers and have 4 different accounts?

I think they were allowing this, but it required multiple payment sources (multiple credit cards, 1 per account.)

MoikPEI
09-10-2013, 09:14 AM
The only games where I've ever seen account sharing being a punishable offense were persistent-world PvP games where your character/nation were always attackable. Probably concurrent logins will be locked out.

It would also be a weird restriction to only allow one account per payment source. That could get wonky when considering Steam or the Apple and Droid app stores. Realistically, I can see a family using one card for four accounts.

Gwaer
09-10-2013, 10:58 AM
Technically sharing accounts was a punishable offense in world of warcraft, they were just pretty lax about it.

They don't like people having multiple accounts, one of the controls on that was requiring unique payment methods for every single account.

As such your whole family can have individual accounts, payment methods aren't required to play. Then whoever has payment methods attached can do the buying of things, and just pass them out to the family. I think the AH might also be restricted to people with payment methods attached as well. There's going to be some sort of verification process on it at least.

EntropyBall
09-10-2013, 11:39 AM
It would also be a weird restriction to only allow one account per payment source. That could get wonky when considering Steam or the Apple and Droid app stores. Realistically, I can see a family using one card for four accounts.

They have discussed the one-account per credit-card thing, but have also said they are still working on it because its not an ideal solution. They want to prevent people from just creating tons of free accounts, and the CC thing seemed to be the first iteration of how to do that, but I wouldn't be surprised if we saw some changes/clarifications to this policy in the future.

Shadowelf
09-10-2013, 11:44 AM
Accounts cannot be transferred! Against TOS.


Technically account transfering isn't sharing; in essence though it is. You will be 'tranfering' your account details and possibly your credit card assigned to this account to another person

What they will be doing in cases like account transfering/selling is this ;




Players can trade/sell the ITEMS on their account to another person, but they cannot sell an ACCOUNT (it is against our TOS). We'll be watching this closely and take appropriate action.

Thanks!

They could also follow a hands off approach and what would probably be happening in this case is what Xen describes;




However, it is technically against the rules, but even CZE is unlikely to care - but if your account does get stolen, and they discover that you shared the account, they aren't obligated to help you recover it. (They may try because they are awesome, but don't count on it.)

I think getting a slacker backer is more than enough to cover your needs - you can always foot the bill and if he likes it he pays you back. If he doesn't, you get a second account and more boosters.

So any case do it at your own risk

My own opinion? let them see you playing and that would be enough evidence whether they will be liking the game or not. Or why not, persuade them to buy a slacker backer package, which after all is a good deal

(starter will be valued at $10 when the game is released, 25 booster at $50 and vip program at $8. So you are getting $68 worth of stuff for just $50. Actually more than $68 if you consider the fact that beta access at KS cost $10 and that vip program offer 4 boosters per month for half the price (68+10+8 =$86 total value)

Umaro
09-10-2013, 12:07 PM
Also, the two promo cards. :)

zadies
09-10-2013, 12:21 PM
I don't know if they will be taking as hands off an approach as people would like. There are reasons why they don't want the accounts to he sold that have been discussed previously.

Allowing accounts to be shared cuts into their profits because instead of needing 8 of each card you only need 4. Also it gets around ks as the only means to acquire certain perks like DC or RL.

If you don't have the same internet provider it is incredibly easy with the IP address to identify that there may be a case of sharing the account, and then they just need to watch to see if the different IP addresses don't typically play the same decks.

Kami
09-10-2013, 12:27 PM
There are reasons why they don't want the accounts to he sold that have been discussed previously.

I'm more inclined to think it's a liability/legal issue than a 'profits' issue.

There are numerous scams and you could argue buyer/seller-beware but at the same time, CZE would have to be involved due to account ownership issues.

From a company standpoint, it makes more sense to disallow it full-stop.

Turtlewing
09-10-2013, 01:51 PM
I'm more inclined to think it's a liability/legal issue than a 'profits' issue.

There are numerous scams and you could argue buyer/seller-beware but at the same time, CZE would have to be involved due to account ownership issues.

From a company standpoint, it makes more sense to disallow it full-stop.

Pretty much this.

CZE has already said that their policy on selling accounts is not that it's prohibited, but that they do not endorse it, and they will not facilitate it on the forums. This is because they don't want to expose themselves to liability in the event of a transaction going wrong somehow.

Similarly I would expect sharing an account to be against the ToS but they probably won't ban you for it. They just don't want to get involved in the legal issue of what happens if the two "owners" have a falling out and can't agree on how to dispose of the account and it's assets.

Gwaer
09-10-2013, 02:59 PM
They said it was against their tos. Totally prohibited. If there's been an update to that I'd love to see it.

zadies
09-10-2013, 03:42 PM
I think people like to live in happy rainbow land. It's against the tos if you do it they have every single right to ban you.
While companies haven't done so in the past... Which I know is untrue I've seen it done just not 100% of the time... If you want to play Russian roulette with all the money you have invested in the game and they ban you for breaking the rules its your own fault.
It really doesn't matter why you might think it is against the tos if its there.

Zomnivore
09-10-2013, 05:04 PM
The jist of it is, if you're doing it outside the home or w/e, or you're basically leveling an account around the clock.

If its a professional service and they get linked to it and how you're account is associated to that, you're probably going to get boned some time.

If its just you and some bros...you might get like a warning or something and then the next time you get the axe.

If its you and your family in the same house....who gives a **** you're a rare use case that they don't want to punish because it's unmarketable to harass people who let their kids play on their account...you know a GAME. Or if you have bros and stuff, well it doesn't do a game company too much good to alienate a family or to even want to get into that zone.

Families that game together stay together, and growing that whole genre and sect of family usage is positive for the industry and families and no one wants to poop on that parade because its really something beautiful.

TL;DR

In other words, don't be a dick and game the system and you probably have nothing to worry about.

hex_colin
09-10-2013, 05:21 PM
The jist of it is, if you're doing it outside the home or w/e, or you're basically leveling an account around the clock.

That's a pretty broad generalization. I'll probably log in from 2 different countries a week - should I get banned? ;)

Shadowelf
09-10-2013, 05:27 PM
If its you and your family in the same house....who gives a **** you're a rare use case that they don't want to punish because it's unmarketable to harass people who let their kids play on their account...you know a GAME. Or if you have bros and stuff, well it doesn't do a game company too much good to alienate a family or to even want to get into that zone.

Families that game together stay together, and growing that whole genre and sect of family usage is positive for the industry and families and no one wants to poop on that parade because its really something beautiful.


As i said at the previous page ( Xen actually did :) ), they might take a hands off approach and let you share your account with your family and kids. But if you son/daughter for example decomposes half your collection into mats, or uses your cc to buy $500 worth of packs, or your account was somehow stolen due to sharing your account info with the wrong person, they might not willing or feel obliged to help. So do it at your own risk.

cervidal
09-10-2013, 05:37 PM
Y'all make it far more complicated than it is.

Is it illegal, as in breaking the law? No.

Will it violate the game's terms of service? Most likely. Detection, enforcement, and punishment is at the sole discretion of the company.

zadies
09-10-2013, 06:01 PM
Enh technically breaking a legally binding contract is breaking the law. It is not breaking a criminal law but a civil one.

Zomnivore
09-10-2013, 06:31 PM
eulas aren't legally binding as far as I know.

I think you've got a pretty hard time discerning account sharing because of the portable market so policing anything is probably just not going to happen unless it looks like you've bought into some leveling service or some other ELO leveler or something.


That's a pretty broad generalization. I'll probably log in from 2 different countries a week - should I get banned? ;)

As opposed to the focused analysis we can make based on current policy implementation rofl.

I don't think there are any sources for focused opinions outside of people whom have handled their implementation of a digital tos....but seeing as this is their first venture into that....you get a heaping plate of generalities from other past experiences!

zadies
09-10-2013, 07:16 PM
Actually in the case Vernor v. Autodesk the 9th circut court ruled that eulas were completely legal and enforceable.

Dropbear
09-10-2013, 07:27 PM
Even more important thing: If you use two accounts and go into the same tournament or draft, you are probably going to be permabanned. A lot of tournament admins will watch what accounts are playing/will ask for your user ID. Also, if another person plays on your account in a tournament, that's a serious problem as it's not you who registered to play. Account switching is a serious thing in tournament play.

Zomnivore
09-10-2013, 07:33 PM
Actually in the case Vernor v. Autodesk the 9th circut court ruled that eulas were completely legal and enforceable.

If thats the case, why is gamestop... a very well known company reselling cds?

Shouldn't they be quagmired in legal battles?

Why can any gamer anywhere sell their games back to gamestop? Why is there a 2ndary market for games?

Honestly.

I've yet to hear anything about companies targeting people reselling their old games. So...?

zadies
09-10-2013, 07:35 PM
Becuase of the fact that they don't have as an extensive of a eula as autodesk. Also being legally allowed to sue doesn't make it worthwhile look at what happened to Microsoft with the Xbox One.

Also game publishers suing game stop won't work because then they would have no where to sell their new games.

Gwaer
09-10-2013, 10:05 PM
Some things can't actually be enforced in a eula. First sale doctrine generally overrides eula's that try to take it away.

It's honestly a very complicated subject. Generally speaking, eula's are legally binding until a court rules that they aren't.

Zomnivore
09-10-2013, 11:06 PM
So then, it isn't necessarily true that Eulas are legally binding.

Great, that's kinda what I heard.

Ofiach
09-11-2013, 12:04 AM
To the gamestop comment. You're kinda flying in from left field with that. Blockbuster sold movies and movies had federal bans on using them for profit. When it comes to video games they have always been a "buy the CD own it and do what you will with it" THAT is why everyone was so bent about the XBONE. You paid for it, it's yours, that's it, Gamestop was just there to facilitate buying, selling, and trading. So lets think about it from a common sense standpoint. Movies with ridiculous federal laws all over them allow resale of a single personally purchased copy. Now consider video games, they have much more lax laws and you somehow think that a company that is there to facilitate the buying/selling/trading of these games would be in legal trouble because of some EULA's about resale and cheating? Sorry no you're way off there.

If you duplicate a movie/game and sell it multiple times you're gonna get fined and possibly arrested, if you just sell the copy you purchased they can't do anything. It's that simple.

EDIT: To put it in TCG terms. I've never heard of Wizards of the Coast coming into a comic book store and demanding royalties off of that store selling a super rare card for 100$. The store is obviously seeing profit off something that is trademarked, and the store doesn't have a contract for it, so why doesn't WotC step in and confiscate that card and fine the store?

As to sharing the accounts..... think about it like letting your girlfriend move in. They're gonna mess up your DVD collection, put hairspray and lotions all over your bathroom, and force you to watch a shitload of chick flicks. Then if you two break up she's gonna take all your shit while you're at work and you're gonna come home to a house with nothing but a couple beers in the fridge and that old futon she hated.

On a serious note only do it with someone you trust explicitly. I have friends that i share movies with and drink with every Sunday watching football. I would let them try out my account no problem, just as a tryout though not as an "account sharing" venture. We also have an understanding with eachother that if someone steals something from the others he's gonna get hit over the head with a baseball bat.

You can't do anything to protect yourself if you don't live near the person you're sharing information with. CZE isn't going to come to your rescue. They'll be able to see that an account was being used by two different computers/people and they'll just point at their TOS and shrug.

You better have alot of trust or leverage against someone to let them have account information on something that will probably end up equaling a few hundreds bucks of your hard earned cash.

zadies
09-11-2013, 08:00 AM
Actually the example was very well done between the Xbox and game stop. The fact is that with the wording on the EULAs game companies could in theory sue gamestop for selling the used games first sale doctrine would only protect me selling to GameStop not them reselling it again. The consumer backlash from such a lawsuit is what I was saying stopped this from happening aka the Xbox fiasco.

TheTiwi
09-11-2013, 08:57 AM
Well.. are you sure about it?

BongoBong
09-11-2013, 09:45 AM
Actually the example was very well done between the Xbox and game stop. The fact is that with the wording on the EULAs game companies could in theory sue gamestop for selling the used games first sale doctrine would only protect me selling to GameStop not them reselling it again. The consumer backlash from such a lawsuit is what I was saying stopped this from happening aka the Xbox fiasco.

Why do you think that first sales doctrine is only applicable for you selling to gamestop, but not gamestop selling it after? It doesn't make sense that it would negate the EULA for you, then somehow be reinstated after. The way first-sale doctrine works is that after its been sold they lose any rights to that product, so it doesn't make sense that first sale doctrine could be applicable for you, but not for gamestop. If you are protected by it, then so is gamestop.

zadies
09-11-2013, 12:16 PM
Because the word first in it. Also the EULA for games actually says it is a license Not a product purchase, also the reason it is not taken to court is not due to their inability to win the case against us or GameStop but because they need the reseller until all game transactions move to the cloud, and taking people who legally purchased the game and have a defense would cause a huge PR nightmare.
Even the EFF states that it is the threat of public backlash that keeps it from happening rather then the lack of legal ground.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2013/06/07/eff-weighs-first-sale-doctrine-and-used-games#.UjC-yJDD_0w
They disagree as to if you can buy a used game or not stating that a company can just make it immposible for the game to actually work used rather then preventing you from buying a used game in the first place but either way if you end up with a disk that can't get past the load screen the effect is the same only you wasted your money.

Gwaer
09-11-2013, 12:46 PM
That's a pretty common mistake people make, first sale doctrine has nothing to do with you selling. That would be first resale.

It basically says once anything is sold the first time (from the distributor) they no longer have control over what the person who bought it can do with it as far as reselling goes.

zadies
09-11-2013, 12:53 PM
True but all current court cases that have involved licensing eulas have gone badly for the consumer. First sale doesn't say that the resold product has to be usable thus why online keys aren't illegal.

Facilier
09-11-2013, 03:15 PM
So then, it isn't necessarily true that Eulas are legally binding.

Great, that's kinda what I heard.

"Legally" is a very complicated, and frequently misused word, usually trying to lump specific events into a very broad category. For example: killing a human may be illegal, depending on whether the legal provisions apply to the specifics of the incident. Fundamentally any potential risk of going against a rules system needs to be evaluated against the likely risk of consequences, and severity of the consequences themselves.

Far as "ownership" of games, that is also a murky subject, as with the constant push towards persistent worlds, many of the games we play are services, allowing us access to certain facilities under set conditions, rather than goods. And as services can be withdrawn. For example it may be much harder to sell to somebody else your gym membership than your couch.

EULAs are still being tested in the courts and there is some regional disagreements, but many of them are agreements you choose to enter into with a service provider, and the popular viewpoint of "lol, not reading that. Gief game" is baffling to me.

Deathfog
09-11-2013, 06:41 PM
They have the right to delete/ban the account if they find cause. Legally you won't go to jail but you risk losing everything in your account outright.

Niedar
09-11-2013, 08:39 PM
"Legally" is a very complicated, and frequently misused word, usually trying to lump specific events into a very broad category. For example: killing a human may be illegal, depending on whether the legal provisions apply to the specifics of the incident. Fundamentally any potential risk of going against a rules system needs to be evaluated against the likely risk of consequences, and severity of the consequences themselves.

Far as "ownership" of games, that is also a murky subject, as with the constant push towards persistent worlds, many of the games we play are services, allowing us access to certain facilities under set conditions, rather than goods. And as services can be withdrawn. For example it may be much harder to sell to somebody else your gym membership than your couch.

EULAs are still being tested in the courts and there is some regional disagreements, but many of them are agreements you choose to enter into with a service provider, and the popular viewpoint of "lol, not reading that. Gief game" is baffling to me.


The court actually takes into account people not reading EULA in things like games and if you try and put some bullshit in it expecting that to happen you will probably not be winning your case.

zadies
09-11-2013, 09:48 PM
People make the assumption that is true, can you name an example case where you had to agree to the EULA before installing the product that the courts sided with the consumer.

I can think of two cases where they sided with the consumer but both involved the consumer not seeing the EULA before receiving the product.

Gwaer
09-11-2013, 10:11 PM
Zadies, you're pretty far off the mark here. Heck the EU just recently invalidated all software Eula's that forbid resale of licensed software. Just do some googling before you start arguing about something. It'll save us all time.

Niedar
09-11-2013, 11:03 PM
People make the assumption that is true, can you name an example case where you had to agree to the EULA before installing the product that the courts sided with the consumer.

I can think of two cases where they sided with the consumer but both involved the consumer not seeing the EULA before receiving the product.

It is not something that is specific necessarily to software EULA but how courts rule on contracts. I don't really feel like hunting down court cases right now but its not that EULA are invalid themselves just that you can't make up any bogus terms in a EULA that you want, they can't be unreasonable as determined by the court.

Ofiach
09-12-2013, 01:08 AM
EULA's are legally binding as long as they don't infringe on rules already set in stone. As Niedar said an EULA can't make up magical rules and expect them to be held up in court. E.G. if an EULA said "If you agree to this that means we're allowed to steal your identity and use credit cards in your name to fund our drinking binges," that part of the EULA would be invalid. Come on "Common sense" isn't that hard!

I know I'm going to get ripped apart for this next part. Common sense in this forum seems even lower than in most other forums. I have a feeling it is a culture quirk with TCG players. Most spend so much time analyzing every single little rule and word in the game they play that when it comes to thinking in broader strokes it just doesn't work. The real world is shades of grey and doesn't work like a perfectly worded Card Game, it never has and never will. I know that's not going to make me alot of friends here, but someone had to say it.

in the most generic terms possible account sharing is like duplicating a DVD and selling off a copy. Letting a friend use your account for a couple hours is like loaning them a movie. Give out your password at your own risk and don't expect anyone to help you out if you get burned. The EULA warned you

zadies
09-12-2013, 07:17 AM
I did Google. Let me be much more specific then give me a case in an US court where the EULA has been invalidated that forced you to say you read it.

Also really given hex does not have you purchasing a license for the software that ruling is rather under whelming to use as a defense of I can breach a tos whenever I want and not get punished for it.

Just be glad the latest and greatest attempt to expand the cfaa law in the US didn't get past earlier this year or it literally would have been criminally illegal to do this. Though breaking certain parts of a tos are still illegal just unlikely to get showing up in court.

Even using a proxy server to surf anonymously can be brought to trial. Craigslist v. 3tapxase Though in that case it was used to get 'around' a cease and desist order. But basically it infers they ban you once for whatever reason and you make a second account to continue playing your are commiting a felony in the US.

Zomnivore
09-12-2013, 10:41 AM
They're not going to ban you if little timmy gets on and plays and drops your rating or w/e. You'll probably have to go through a ticket system to undo any damage he did with a credit card...but I'd hope that they'd have some understanding of parental limitations.

So you know.

They're not going to do something where you can then go post on the forums and say "hey look how crappy these people are, they screwed me because lil timmy got on here" at least, they probably won't screw you until you ACTUALLY screw their public image by making w/e easily demonizable behavior apparent.

If you come off as a tosser out of the whole thing...ya, you're probably going to be straight up screwed to a wall.


Also I think its pretty nasty to have an all DTCG and no cash out for your collection, if they ban you, but I guess thats a risk you take. Its something I want them to address, look you played a collectables game, and exhibited x y z behavior we're going to ban you. I'd like to see an alternative action be the main thing they do if you're exhibiting bad behavior. I think the action of banning taking all your stuff and burning it, is pretty much like the most repulsive concept to think about in regards to the digital format, and how vulnerable it makes people.

LNQ
09-12-2013, 11:19 AM
I think the action of banning taking all your stuff and burning it, is pretty much like the most repulsive concept to think about in regards to the digital format, and how vulnerable it makes people.

I agree. If HEX wants to be the MTG of the digital realm, in addition to making sure they leave the secondary market for cards untouched, collections should be safe unless you do something that everyone agrees is criminal (hacking or scamming).

Just like I love the comments that no card is going to be nerfed or adjusted, only banned if they prove to be OP, I would love for CZE to have a similar stance on your collection. Unless you're an absolute criminal, your collection is something you bought with your money and is yours. Accounts could be banned from playing tournaments and ranked games, but the collection should be kept separate and safe even if you get banned otherwise.

zadies
09-12-2013, 11:43 AM
I actually think the threat of a ban simply because it torches everything will lead to much more civilized behavior if you know your going to be out several thousand dollars for being an ass your much less likely to act like one.

Just because some can take you to court for something doesn't mean they will but being willfully ignorant and think there is no legal reason for the company or the government to make a case against you is really just asking for it.