Using account recovery on an account that you sold

[Spider-Dan]

Legally, no.

If you buy an M16 on the black market and it doesn't work right and blows your hand off when you try to fire, you can't really go to a lawyer and try to sue the guy who illegitimately sold it to you.

Bad analogy, since we aren't talking about the buyer being dissatisfied with the quality or performance of the purchased item, but losing the item altogether (and the original seller regaining it).

A better analogy would be selling someone an un-street-able tuned up car, keeping a copy of the keys, then when they are driving it around (unregistered) and park it to go watch a movie, you jump in and drive it back to your house.

What do you think would happen in this scenario?

[Spider-Dan]

And that's why there are no MMOG fraud cases between players except when RMT is endorsed (look up Second Life). These black market sales are as is, and whoever thinks there are any guarantees that the account won't be frozen is deluding themselves.

The account being frozen is an action by a third-party (Squenix) and does not necessarily have anything to do with any direct action taken by the seller. Such statements do not apply to an account recovery, for rather obvious reasons (i.e. an account recovery must be initiated by the seller). Additionally, you seem to be ignoring the fact that an account recovery in this circumstance necessarily requires the seller to fraudulently misrepresent (to Squenix) the circumstances of how the account changed hands.

If I sell you some contraband and you get picked up by the feds, that's on you. If I sell you some contraband and then steal it back, that's a bit different.

[Wrish]

Some good points although the excerpt you snipped from my post was somewhat disingenuous. My post was clearly summarizing the events, but no worries.

Here's the whole thing if you want the definition (so you don't have to take a sliver out of my entire post again.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

Common law fraud has nine elements:[1], [2]

1. a representation of an existing fact

Though you'd sound like it to every other layman, I take it you're not a practicing lawyer?

The intent to later recall an account is not an existing fact at time of sale. It is treated as a promise, and a broken promise down the line never turns a past action into a crime.

Per point 4, the seller has to know it's not his account to sell (and per #3 it is in fact not his account to sell), in order to commit fraud on the sale of SE's account.

You are right, although for some proceedings it'll be hard to argue lack of knowledge and ignorance after having had to scroll down to accept the terms of use before playing an account.

Selling the account by obvious inference means the seller will relinquish permanent claim on the account.

Supposing the account is sold, which alone could be troubling as just explained.

When you sell knowing that you do not intend to do that, it satisfies items 3/4 as easily as selling an account you know you do not own.

But in practice, proving this? Till beyond a reasonable doubt?

The falsity in item 3 is ANY falsity of which in item 4 the seller is aware of

... the latter "is", of course, implying that any change of heart post-sale, no matter how extreme, cannot constitute fraud.

As to why these are not being prosecuted, who says they aren't? I'm not sure of your source, but no US or State attorney's call me to tell me what they are doing, so maybe you could post some support for this.

Uhhhh, most trials are public, and first-of-kind trials are most sensational? Still nothing in the news. I hear a lot of Second Life legal action, though!

The buyer does NOT have recourse to retrieve the account (that's totally true)....that has nothing to do with having recourse to retrieve monies.

If you think that's a civil matter, I disagree. These are felonies.

But a buyer would retrieve no monies from prosecuting a felony, on that I hope we agree.

Bad analogy, since we aren't talking about the buyer being dissatisfied with the quality or performance of the purchased item, but losing the item altogether

What item; the buyer still has the reg and login codes he bought. SE just no longer accepts them.

A better analogy would be selling someone an un-street-able tuned up car, keeping a copy of the keys, then when they are driving it around (unregistered) and park it to go watch a movie, you jump in and drive it back to your house.

What do you think would happen in this scenario?

Just because a car isn't street legal doesn't mean it can't be property. This would be theft or a variant of misappropriation. And it hardly matters whether you have keys or short the ignition like all the crooks do.

The account being frozen is an action by a third-party (Squenix) and does not necessarily have anything to do with any direct action taken by the seller. Such statements do not apply to an account recovery

Okay, but watch it. All the harm is done at the point of freezing the account, which can be done by a third party with little accountability.

During the subsequent recovery part, they generally won't ask (again) how you lost account. Whether you succeed in recovering account does not impact our disfranchised buyer, anyhow.

Additionally, you seem to be ignoring the fact that an account recovery in this circumstance necessarily requires the seller to fraudulently misrepresent (to Squenix) the circumstances of how the account changed hands.

Irrelevant. And since SE is not paying you, it's not even fraud.

If I sell you some contraband and you get picked up by the feds, that's on you. If I sell you some contraband and then steal it back, that's a bit different.

No, the proper analogy is that I sell you some contraband and then report you to the narcs. It was never about what contraband I gain!

[Spider-Dan]

What item; the buyer still has the reg and login codes he bought. SE just no longer accepts them.

The item being the account?

Surely you are not representing that electronic accounts have no legal gravity? If this were the case then identity theft (committed electronically) would practically be an oxymoron.

Just because a car isn't street legal doesn't mean it can't be property. This would be theft or a variant of misappropriation. And it hardly matters whether you have keys or short the ignition like all the crooks do.

In this case, keeping the keys and subsequently using them reasonably implies original fraudulent intent, so yes, there is a difference between hotwiring it and using a set of keys that you kept after selling the car. There is no legitimate reason to keep the keys to a car after you've sold it, and similarly, there is no legitimate reason to keep an account's information (re: recovery) after you've sold it.

Okay, but watch it. All the harm is done at the point of freezing the account, which can be done by a third party with little accountability.

[...]

No, the proper analogy is that I sell you some contraband and then report you to the narcs. It was never about what contraband I gain!

We're not talking about someone reporting you to the authorities for illicit activity; this thread is not about account sellers GMing the buyers for RMT activities and getting them banned.

The component of the original seller regaining the account is integral to the discussion. Any analogy that does not contain that component is irrelevant. It was always about "what contraband you gained" and it's silly to pretend otherwise.

[machiko]

I see account sellers as people just desperate for money or in a bad situation, you really want to hand money over to someone like that in a situation where you have no other backup that the sellers morals then you are an idiot and 100% deserve to have your money taken again and again.

Buying an account is like buying stolen property, if the item is traced down you get it taken away and you lose the money. Square don't allow rmt of accounts so if you do it and you know your doing wrong accept the consequences. I can't understand why people buy accounts at all, you spend all the money on something easily taken back and in the process you could get your main accounts banned if they bothered to IP trace or try match CC info.

Also find it funny how people are trying to push a moral outlook on FFXI where the endgame community is awash with botters/scanners etc that are used blatantly to block other gamers and waste their time day after day. People already couldnt care less about anyone else on this game so why be retarded and expect better because RL money is involved. If you buy an account knowing the situation you are putting yourself in then your a fucking idiot, the end.

[Grieverao]

Does anyone else find it funny that these same posts, topics and rants will all be repeated in another 6 years? This shit will always happen, some support it, some shun it. But account jacking/buying/selling will always happen as long as SE are making a profit and an MMORPG is available.
It's been said countless times in the thread, you know the risks you face when you buy an account, so prepare for the concequences. There will never be an end to this discussion, just the same old opinions batted back and forth across the boards.

[Howard Roark]

that's the thing that I don't get. are the same people so self righteous about every game they might ever play?

are they so concerned for SE's well-being alone? or do they care equally for Blizzard and Sony too? how about 2k games and Bioware when they pirated Borderlands?


and to the people that truly believe all this.. Brother, can you spare $8.50 for the bus? I'm stranded here and I need to get home to my wife and kid in Buffalo. If you give me your email address I will send you a cheque when I get home. I got robbed an hour ago, I think they were Asian... definitely Asian..

friggin bleeding-hearts, crack me up to no end

[Paladinsane]

Legally, no.

If you buy an M16 on the black market and it doesn't work right and blows your hand off when you try to fire, you can't really go to a lawyer and try to sue the guy who illegitimately sold it to you.

I think there's a huge difference between buying an illegal gun and a breaking a game ToS by selling an account.

Bottom line is account and gil buyers are idiots and generally play as such. But if they legally bought something in good faith then they should have legal recourse when the original owner decides to jack their shit back for free.

[Bikpik]

Like I said before, people aren't selling accounts, they're selling the time they put into those accounts, which is why nothing legal can be done about this ever. As for people recalling those said sold accounts, all their doing is going to make it harder for hacked people to get their info back.

[Phlow]

I think there's a huge difference between buying an illegal gun and a breaking a game ToS by selling an account.

Bottom line is account and gil buyers are idiots and generally play as such. But if they legally bought something in good faith then they should have legal recourse when the original owner decides to jack their shit back for free.

Wrong again. Virtual good are intellectual property of SE.

Again, want to buy a house? It's not mine, but I'll sell it to you.

[S N K]

I know this is going to be a common response, but do you not have a problem with the it's-OK-if-you're-already-elite double standard, where those who sell gil/accounts are savvy entrepreneurs but those who buy gil/accounts are pathetic losers to be mocked and shunned? They're both equally RMT.

I really don't have a problem with it. It's not my money nor my account which I honestly will never sell. I could care less if someone who sold their account to someone jacked it back.

Am I supposed to feel pity or be angry over two different people who broke the ToS in regards to selling and buying of characters?

Far as I see the seller was douchy enough to do it and the buyer was a fucking idiot for purchasing the account in the 1st place.~

[Tagus]

Does anyone else find it funny that these same posts, topics and rants will all be repeated in another 6 years?

There is actually a good argument for not taking part in RMT in this statement, if you look closely enough. The reason why this could still be happening in 6 years is because RMT is not regulated by law. If it was, it would be taxed. Therefore, the RMT'ers themselves will not pursue a course of action that would cause RMT to be regulated because they want to avoid taxation. HOWEVER, because there is no legal precedent set, there is no official basis upon which to judge what level of RMT is punishable by law, and screw jobs like the "account recall" scam will continue as a result. When uncle sam finally does decide to get his part, and he will because he always does, I would definitely not want to be one of the ants under their magnifying glass.

This is also the reason why so many real life analogies revolve around the concept of selling drugs and guns... because they are just about the only thing that people actually sell for profit that are unregulated and untaxable.

[Valisk]

I actually sold my account a year ago, and you know what I did when i wanted to play again? I contacted the buyer and asked if he was still using it. And I bought it back, like any other tradeable commodity.

Intellectual property whatever, I sold the right to use the achievements and levels I invested time to bring about and when I wanted it back I paid to use the same.


I understand how people view selling accounts, and in the end I regret doing so but not for any moral highground that I equate with as being no beter than a catholic looking down on 'heathens', but moreso that I wanted to keep the account I put all that work into.

I like you. Have we met?

[Wrish]

The item being the account?

Surely you are not representing that electronic accounts have no legal gravity?

How many times do I gotta tell ya, you can't buy an FF account under good faith and then lay any claim over it because it was never the seller's to begin with? You can't just buy a mansion for rock-bottom from someone who doesn't own it and then fence it from everyone else. Of course, after having to give up the mansion, you'd go after the seller who misrepresented the mansion as hers, for your money back. So a seller who claims the account as his is risking a charge-back.

If this were the case then identity theft (committed electronically) would practically be an oxymoron.

Legal identification and money are not online matters, even if online actions can affect them. Now ask: Would you have a case if someone stole your online persona?

In this case, keeping the keys and subsequently using them reasonably implies original fraudulent intent

You tend to use fraud very loosely, but law is precise, and that you just described is not fraud because future intent is not an inherent property of the goods. It is a separate crime. That's why keys or hotwiring are immaterial. It is not illegal for you to possess keys to someone else's car - don't some dealers do that anyway as a service? - though the acts of duplicating keys without owner's permission or driving off with someone else's car are crimes.

We're not talking about someone reporting you to the authorities for illicit activity; this thread is not about account sellers GMing the buyers for RMT activities and getting them banned.

The component of the original seller regaining the account is integral to the discussion.

Since it is impossible for the original seller to "regain" the account due to who actually owns it, this line of discussion isn't going anywhere. As I said, you need to stop thinking of account owners as players. The only owner is SE and that breaks so many of those analogies and legal protections.

[ZhiGaruda]

Legally, no.

If you buy an M16 on the black market and it doesn't work right and blows your hand off when you try to fire, you can't really go to a lawyer and try to sue the guy who illegitimately sold it to you.

Terrible example, nothing to do with this scenario, and also false. It is absolutely possible to sue over this situation. Yes, it would be silly, and it is very likely the buyer would end up being charged as well (unless, as stated prior to this post, he gains immunity by some other act), but the seller would also be liable for selling the faulty weapon.

It's the same thing as: If someone breaks into your home, and breaks his/her leg whilst inside, they can file a claim against YOUR insurance and potentially prosecute for an unsave environment. Not saying it's just, but nothing is in America anymore

[Wrish]

If someone breaks into your home, and breaks his/her leg whilst inside, they can file a claim against YOUR insurance and potentially prosecute for an unsave environment. Not saying it's just, but nothing is in America anymore

Considering it's a matter of state law, and our having several dozen states, I wouldn't be surprised by vacillating decisions on this. In general, though, a homeowner does not owe a duty of care toward those entering illegally and thus would not be liable to them for harboring an unsafe environment. However, lawsuit is still possible for excessive force in resisting the intrusion - a classic case being the shotgun triggered by a door being broken down.

In any case, you never prosecute a lawsuit. Prosecution = criminal. Lawsuit = civil. And lawsuit != win. There exists criminal negligence, but this isn't it.

[ZhiGaruda]

Considering it's a matter of state law, and our having several dozen states, I wouldn't be surprised by vacillating decisions on this. In general, though, a homeowner does not owe a duty of care toward those entering illegally and thus would not be liable to them for harboring an unsafe environment. However, lawsuit is still possible for excessive force in resisting the intrusion - a classic case being the shotgun triggered by a door being broken down.

In any case, you never prosecute a lawsuit. Prosecution = criminal. Lawsuit = civil. And lawsuit != win. There exists criminal negligence, but this isn't it.

Ah, my mistake on the choice of words. I'm no lawyer!

[Kaylia]

Selling accout his lame, buying account is lame, stealing it back is just wrong.


I disagree with account buying/selling practice, but aside the fact that SE tell you not to do it, it's pretty much how our society works. You sold your time, you bought someone else time, and that's it. Stealing back your account is scamming someone for 2-3k money, after making a deal with him. That's just low no matter how I spin it around.

[ZhiGaruda]

Selling accout his lame, buying account is lame, stealing it back is just wrong.


I disagree with account buying/selling practice, but aside the fact that SE tell you not to do it, it's pretty much how our society works. You sold your time, you bought someone else time, and that's it. Stealing back your account is scamming someone for 2-3k money, after making a deal with him. That's just low no matter how I spin it around.

Well, boys will be boys, really. I know back when I was 11 or 12 years old, if I sold my account for a thousand dollars, and found out that I could steal it back and re-sell it, I probably would have, too. Do you know how many vidya games you can buy with a grand, man?! So many!!

[Electro]

If you really wanna know more about how to get away with it and whom to target contact www.volumels.com . They are pros at it.