Here's a potential copyright violation of my own (however I doubt Jason D
would mind). I very interesting post about this topic on the EQ Vault's
board. BTW - mea culpa (on blaming Verant for banning the wrong - person)
evidently - both the rape story and the sacrifice WERE from the same
individual (who was banned) according to a post on the Backstage Board

Slyde

Let me start with this. It really frightens me that so many of you have
quoted Verant's EULA as if it were an ABSOLUTE legally binding document, and
that you further defend it as being impenetrable, absolute, and Verant's
vanguard against any letigious action.

I, in real life, actually AM an attorney, one who specializes in civil
rights and constitutional law. I've also seen more than a few cases
revolving around business contract law and licenses, so this is an area I
can speak to effectively and knowledgeably. Before I continue, let me tell
you Mystere that if I in anyway had the time, I would represent you pro bono
on this case. However, I am currently far too consumed in other pro bono
cases to be able to give your worthwhile cause the attention it would
require, though I have passed this on to my firm and my local Bar
Association group in case anybody wishes to assist you. I strongly urge you
on your own to seek counsel on this matter.

Okay, let me start. First of all, Verant's inclusion of a clause saying that
they can ban or cancel an account for "any reason" is about as legally
binding as, well, it's absolutely NOT legally binding at all. I can't even
compare it to anything because it's ABSOLUTELY not enforceable. It's akin to
the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." It's a scam, a hoax,
a thin veil that attempts to convince the reader that they have fewer rights
than they actually posess.

This fact is compounded by Verant's continue modification of the EULA and
its forcing of you to click "I agree" everytime you attempt to play the
game. It's tanamount to civil extortion, and I don't know of a single judge
that wouldn't toss the entire EULA out in a civil trial.

Let me restate this in simple terms. The EULA for EQ is bunk and is merely
there so that Verant can protect its intellectual property and to make you
think you have no recourse should they violate your rights.

Now on to the story itself. Did Mystere violate Verant copywrite? Probably.
Is the violent nature of the story questionable? Possibly. Is there a moral
question that comes into play because the victim of the story is a minor?
Depends on your individual morals. Is the story pornographic? Doubtful. Is
it "kiddie porn" ABSOLUTELY NOT.

As someone posted previous to this, fictional stories about fictional
characters that do not exist in real life do NOT constitute child
pornography....at least, not by federal statute, and not by California law
(which is relevent because that's where Verant is located).

Even if it was child pornography, it doesn't allow Verant to cancel
Mystere's account. For one, Mystere's posting of this story and her legal
contract with Verant are mutually exclusive -- one has absolutely nothing to
do with the other. For another, it violate's Mystere's First Amendment
rights. As I said above, Verant probably has a copywrite infringement case
against Mystere, but since he in no way attempted to profit from this post,
Verant would have a difficult time proving civil damages in a civil court.
This by the way is Verant's only real recourse to Mystere's post -- bringing
her to civil court. In now way does it translate into a right by Verant to
severe a business agreement with Mystere, certainly not without explanation
or warning.

At this point, Mystere has two real modes of filing civil suits against
Verant. First, as a violation of her civil and constitutional rights.
Secondly, as a breach of contract for discontinuing a normal business
arrangement with her without cause or explanation in a manner that is both
arbitrary and capricious.

Again, Mystere please seek professional legal counsel on this matter.

-Jason S., J.D.