EVE Search - Bandwidth/speed capping... Legality?

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Bandwidth/speed capping... Legality?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dantes Revenge Caldari	Posted - 2009.02.07 00:25:00 - [1] We have an issue in the UK and some other countries regarding bandwidth capping and also speed capping (otherwise known as fair usage policy). I feel that this causes an issue with legality as we are paying for a service but not actually getting it. If you pay for an unlimited 10meg connection, that is what you should get. Fair usage policy means you pay for a 10 meg connection but due to the amount you have downloaded over a certain period, you are speed capped to less than half of that. Take Virgin internet for example. You pay for a 20 meg connection but what they don't tell you is that if you download more than 3gb between 4pm and 10pm, you are speed capped to 6 meg for 5 hours. They increase that to 6gb download between 10pm and 4am. If you still go over the limit during that capped time, you get another 5 hours added to it which means for most of the day, you could be only getting a 6mb connection but still paying for a 20meg connection. This seems highly illegal to me since charging for a service that they are not actually providing is in breach of the Sale Of Goods Act, irrespective of what the agreement states. If they should, for any reason, reduce your service, they should recalculate the charges accordingly to reflect the reduction. Continuing to charge full price for a reduced service due to conflicts between what you want and what they think you should use gives rise to companies setting unreasonable limits in order to take money they are not entitled to. For example: A user has been on holiday so has not used the internet connection they have still had to pay the two weeks for. On returning home, they immediately go to BBC IPlayer to download some programmes they have missed out on. If they happen to be fans of soap operas, they may download two weeks worth of Home and Away, Neighbours and such. This might amount to well over 3 gb of data for which they are immediately speed capped. It's unreasonable since, in the previous two weeks, they have not even been online to use any bandwidth although they have still had to pay for it and will still have to pay full price for the period for which they are speed capped. However, if 3gb per night is the limit, the company effectively owes the user 42gb for the 14 days that they didn't use the net at all. Maybe this is a case to put to Ofcom. Open for discussion. -- There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken. All this has happened before and will happen again
Grarr Dexx Amarr Divinity's Edge	Posted - 2009.02.07 00:39:00 - [2] Fair Use Policy. Why the hell are you downloading so much?
bff Jill	Posted - 2009.02.07 00:47:00 - [3] Originally by: Grarr Dexx Fair Use Policy. Why the hell are you downloading so much? But bandwidth is free We live in an age of high res real time streaming video and integrated media on the internets. People are going to need 100gb a month just to browse the internet here in the next decade or so.
Elysarian Minmatar dudetruck corp	Posted - 2009.02.07 01:02:00 - [4] Originally by: bff Jill Originally by: Grarr Dexx Fair Use Policy. Why the hell are you downloading so much? But bandwidth is free We live in an age of high res real time streaming video and integrated media on the internets. People are going to need 100gb a month just to browse the internet here in the next decade or so. Bandwidth is NOT free... All ISP's buy bandwidth from backbone providers on a per-megabyte basis (just like if you were to run a webserver), this is one of two reasons ISP's have a fair usage policy in place The other reason is that, in any area you have to share your "pipe" with a certain number of people, this is called the "Contention Ratio" and is somewhere in the region of between 10:1 and 50:1 depending on your ISP and where you live, upshot is that someone hogging masses of bandwidth for hours at a time will cause lag and slow download speeds for others in their area which will lead to complaints from those people & a bad rep for the ISP.
Dantes Revenge Caldari	Posted - 2009.02.07 01:06:00 - [5] Originally by: Grarr Dexx Fair Use Policy. Why the hell are you downloading so much? Why the hell is the ISP offering me the ability to download so much if it affects others bandwidth? If they can't handle users downloading more than 3gb in 6 hours, maybe they should not be offering speeds that allow them to. I have already pointed out a scenario where fair use policy isn't fair at all. Two weeks of no use means a user then has two weeks worth of use they can have in one night if they wish, after all, they have paid for it. If the servers can't handle the speed the ISP is offering to every user at once, then they should not be offering it. In short, if your servers can only handle 99 users at 20meg, why are you offering the same service to over 100 users? Either you limit the number of users or offer a lower rate to all users or you upgrade the servers and/or your own connection to the internet backbone to allow you to provide the service you are charging for.
bff Jill	Posted - 2009.02.07 01:31:00 - [6] Originally by: Elysarian Originally by: bff Jill Originally by: Grarr Dexx Fair Use Policy. Why the hell are you downloading so much? But bandwidth is free We live in an age of high res real time streaming video and integrated media on the internets. People are going to need 100gb a month just to browse the internet here in the next decade or so. Bandwidth is NOT free... yes it is Quote: All ISP's buy bandwidth from backbone providers on a per-megabyte basis they are selling thin air at a metered rate =P Once you lay the line the bandwidth is free. Enough dark fiber out there just sitting, being unused, because if they just gave bandwidth away and charged for the service of 'being connected' they wouldn't have these treacherous oligopoly money farming scams where they can overcharge for something that's free.
Spaztick Canadian Imperial Armaments Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2009.02.07 01:31:00 - [7] Fair Use Policy is just a cop-out for ISPs that try to sell "unlimited" bandwidth a month. What the *****s in marketing didn't count on was gasp* someone actually trying to use the service they offered. I mean heaven forbid someone take you up on it. I forsee ISPs stating the bandwidth and transfer limits from now on (by the way there was always a limit in place because of server processing limitations and bandwidth of the backbone and other distribution lines, it was just so huge 10 years ago that it was essentially unlimited). After all, everyone needs some type of spacer in their sigs to show it's not part of the post.
Anneke Goulet CUTLASS CORPORATION	Posted - 2009.02.07 01:59:00 - [8] Change your net to provider that doesnt do that? Only way it'll no longer happen is when companies stop receiving their income. I'm paying 3Ç more for same speed per month, instead of taking the cheapest offer. In return the small provider of mine doesnt give 2 cents what I do with my bw, if I max it out 24/7 or if I hold server. Those few times I've had to call in net related issues, I've been answered by human, in the same city and the issue is solved within hours. In the past 3 years, they've thrice upped the speed for the same price(from 2->4->8), had one service break I've noticed (lasted day) and once emailed me with commercial of faster service (for half price if you sign for xyz long time etc).What major provider can claim that? Sure, 3Ç a month more, totals 36Ç a year, but I consider that's saved on amount of booze I would drink to relieve my nerves for net probs. See past the big adverts and you'll see the small companies.
Sanguis Sanies Amarr	Posted - 2009.02.07 05:26:00 - [9] Originally by: Dantes Revenge Open for discussion. They can do this because you signed a contract, in that contract (that I'm guessing you didn't read) it states EXACTLY what each term means (including this like "Unlimited" "Free" "Capped") and also what speeds you can expect UNDER OPTIMAL CONDITIONS. They also set out the terms and conditions of use, if you don't agree with these terms then you are free to cancel you contract and either sign up for a "better" deal with the same company, or a different company or lose your internet all together. If you believe that their marketing or claims are DECEPTIVE (a *very* specific legal definition) and not simply "I didn't read my contract OH NOES!!11!!" then yes you may use Ofcom (or any other regulatory body depending on the country, Australia is the ACCC, I think) and they will investigate and if found to be DECEPTIVE then they will take action and a civil or criminal law suite will ensue and you may find yourself being a beneficiary of this action.
Xen Gin Universal Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.02.07 05:32:00 - [10] Edited by: Xen Gin on 07/02/2009 05:32:15 The UK ISPs over sell their capacity, anyone using an ISP running on the BT copper backbone is delusional if they think they are going to get a full speed connection. For me, when they offer me a service they should deliver, if they say unlimited 20Mbps, it should be there for me to use 20Mbps all the time. What would be fun, would be to have a meter that sits between your router and their modem, have it measure traffic over the months billing cycle, then minus it from the theoretical amount they should be providing you at all times, and remove a corresponding amount from the payment, as a non-usage payback charge! ------ Originally by: Rifter Drifter News just in.. Games are a pastime.. not a way of life. If your not enjoying, stop playing, and don't post about it.
Spaztick Canadian Imperial Armaments Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2009.02.07 06:03:00 - [11] Edited by: Spaztick on 07/02/2009 06:07:09 But that's not fair. Also **** lawyers. God better have a special place in Hell for lawyers. After all, everyone needs some type of spacer in their sigs to show it's not part of the post.
HankMurphy Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises	Posted - 2009.02.07 07:10:00 - [12] 2 words Buyer Beware ---------- "This is Chopper Dave's made for TV movie, Blades Of Vengeance. See, he's a chopper pilot by day, but by night he fights crime as a werewolf... YEAH!"
TheEndofTheWorld Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.02.07 08:49:00 - [13] It is written in contract, isn't it? So what is the problem with it?
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.02.07 08:50:00 - [14] Originally by: Xen Gin Edited by: Xen Gin on 07/02/2009 05:32:15 The UK ISPs over sell their capacity, anyone using an ISP running on the BT copper backbone is delusional if they think they are going to get a full speed connection. For me, when they offer me a service they should deliver, if they say unlimited 20Mbps, it should be there for me to use 20Mbps all the time. What would be fun, would be to have a meter that sits between your router and their modem, have it measure traffic over the months billing cycle, then minus it from the theoretical amount they should be providing you at all times, and remove a corresponding amount from the payment, as a non-usage payback charge! I see your proposal as anti-theft measures. There're no bigger thieves on the planet than corporations.
Marie Duvolle	Posted - 2009.02.07 09:21:00 - [15] You get what you pay for, ofcourse companies be default are bastards and will try/do anything to lure people in and then club them to death but still; you get what you pay for. If one provider starts messing around, TELL them that you'll be leaving them over that practise and switch to another. Don't stir the hornet's nest
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2009.02.07 10:37:00 - [16] Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld It is written in contract, isn't it? So what is the problem with it? The problem (until very recently) has been highly suggestive advertising, often along the lines of 'Up to 8mb/s', and 'Unlimited', not prominently mentioning any FUP or the fact that the median connection speed is typically closer to 3.5mb/s. The situation is improving - I think there's some sort of ISP advertising code of practice that's slowly being adopted.
Da Death Minmatar Relentless Enterprises	Posted - 2009.02.07 11:33:00 - [17] I am happy that we in Thailand do not have so crappy ISP which throttles the bandwith. I use 2 ISP's and download 24/7. Nobody ever asked or will ask. Thats why the term: UNLIMMITED! what the hell do ISP think when they cap the connection? THATS A LIMIT for gods sake!
Antarus Lars	Posted - 2009.02.07 12:25:00 - [18] Totally agree, i used to be with orange broadband (ADSL), Paid for an 8mb connection..., my useage wasnt massive.., as i work from 7 till 7 & obviously i sleep... So somehow on my "unlimited" connection i was overusing for 4 hours downloading a day....... My steady 850kbs was hacked down to 50kbs..., but still charged for the full amount...... permenently reduced i may add. So had to switch ISP & phone provided, orange can go **** themselfs, now me, my family & my partner have all switched provider & i strongly attempt to stop anybody i know joining them. Im now with o2 (be-unlimited), i know a few ppl who download 24/7 who have had no problems, ohh... and im also getting 1600kbs for ú9 a month constant (ADSL2)...
Elysarian Minmatar dudetruck corp	Posted - 2009.02.07 12:32:00 - [19] Edited by: Elysarian on 07/02/2009 12:32:50 The biggest problem in the UK is that you basically have 2 choices: BT infrastructure for ADSL (no guarantee that you'll ever get anywhere near the max download rate as it depends on distance from the telephone exchange) or Virgin infrastructure for cable modems (guaranteed speed up to the Server but dependant on other things beyond that) LLU was supposed to help loosen the grip that BT have on the ADSL market by allowing ISPs to install their own DSLAM's in the exchanges but from the DSLAM to the backbone is still controlled by BT. Until FTTH comes in (who knows when that will actually happen) we're stuck with the same contention ratios of (usually) 50:1 for domestic ADSL, 20:1 for busuness ADSL and (IIRC) 20:1 for cable. this means that your "20 Meg" connection is actually being shared with 20 to 50 other subscribers - hence why the T&C has a Fair usage policy written into it - if those 50 people all try to use max bandwidth at the same time then everyone will get around 400Kbit speeds (minus the usual TCP/IP overheads). EDIT: an ISP is a business at the end of the day and they are there to make money - if they gave away bandwidth I really can't see their shareholders being very happy
Spaztick Canadian Imperial Armaments Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2009.02.07 16:45:00 - [20] I don't know how it worked in the UK, but here in the US the government gave ISPs as subsidies to improve their infrastructure, and you know what they did? They pocketed the money and didn't upgrade a damn thing. So yes, I am going to expect them to give away free bandwidth to me because it's the bandwidth I paid for, otherwise their shareholders are going to lose another $250 a year from me (which has happened to Comcast, but they're a bunch of ****s). And after all this time, I finally removed that annoying sentence in my signature.
Dantes Revenge Caldari	Posted - 2009.02.07 20:33:00 - [21] Edited by: Dantes Revenge on 07/02/2009 20:38:58 Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld It is written in contract, isn't it? So what is the problem with it? It isn't. The contract states that they "can reduce the service if it is seen that the usage is larger than that expected from a normal home user". If they are averaging a home user as one who only browses the web, that is one thing but some users always download, upload and do various other things that can increase usage over a short period. Therefore, what constitutes average? I feel that imposing <3gb download during a 6 hour period of the day when the rest of the day it may not even be used is unreasonable. If they must have limits, it should be on a 'per week' basis as a one-time large download isn't going to prove that you are a heavy user. Imagine trying to dl some game from Steam, some of them are well over 3gb. So you are now considered a heavy user due to this one-time dl. 2mb per second (roughly divide 20mbit connection by 10) for six hours is equal to over 42gb. Allowing that sort of speed means that it is obvious that you are allowing people to download far more than the 3gb limit you are imposing. Imposing such a small limit, especially during early evening when people do their thing after work is an obvious ruse to deliberately cap people to less than a third of the speed they are paying for. Note that you are capped for usage and not time, if you switch your PC off for 10 hours after exceeding the limit, you are still capped for 5 the next hours of internet use when you go back online again. This is like being punished for downloading a large file I say again. If you oversell your bandwidth, it is up to you to upgrade to meet customer demands and not up to the customer to adjust their use to accomodate your shortfall. It would be a bit like advertising that speed limits have been lifted nationally to accomodate fast cars, but then you find the only places you can go at a totally unrestricted speed are 50 yards long with a speed camera at each end as you enter the restricted zone again. Edit: Originally by: Elysarian EDIT: an ISP is a business at the end of the day and they are there to make money - if they gave away bandwidth I really can't see their shareholders being very happy I'm not asking them to give away bandwidth, simply to provide the service they are selling and/or only sell the service they can provide. IE: If I had two cars for sale and sold four than told you that you had to share a car between two of you because I oversold my cars, how fast would you have me in court? -- There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken. All this has happened before and will happen again
Thargat Caldari North Star Networks Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2009.02.07 20:44:00 - [22] Originally by: Super Whopper I see your proposal as anti-theft measures. There're no bigger thieves on the planet than corporations. Other than a possibly disgruntled BoB director Breathing 0.0
Esamir	Posted - 2009.02.08 09:11:00 - [23] Virgin are the worst company I've ever dealt with, and their entire workforce should be executed immediately.
Elysarian Minmatar dudetruck corp	Posted - 2009.02.08 10:28:00 - [24] There is another reason that I can think of as to why an ISP may limit your downloading... What possible reason could someone have for wanting to download multi-gigabyte files in a short period? Piracy is one... and the record/film/game/software companies are trying to "force" ISPs to regulate this. So... to prevent you downloading high-definition copies of films, full games/software packages and loads of ripped albums (only a few examples of things that are multi-gigabyte in size except the latter which are usually only multi-megabyte) they may cap your download speed as a first step, later - if you repeatedly go over this "limit" you might get a warning letter (has happened to people), then possibly have your service terminated. As I say: what legitimate reason does someone have for downloading multi-terabyte files unless they're using illegal file-sharing software? I have broadband not just because it allows me to download stuff quickly but also because the fatter the pipe, the lower the latency and ping times to game servers and the like. ===================================== It smells of spoon! =====================================
TraininVain	Posted - 2009.02.08 11:41:00 - [25] Edited by: TraininVain on 08/02/2009 11:43:18 Edited by: TraininVain on 08/02/2009 11:41:38 Originally by: Elysarian There is another reason that I can think of as to why an ISP may limit your downloading... What possible reason could someone have for wanting to download multi-gigabyte files in a short period? Piracy is one... and the record/film/game/software companies are trying to "force" ISPs to regulate this. So... to prevent you downloading high-definition copies of films, full games/software packages and loads of ripped albums (only a few examples of things that are multi-gigabyte in size except the latter which are usually only multi-megabyte) they may cap your download speed as a first step, later - if you repeatedly go over this "limit" you might get a warning letter (has happened to people), then possibly have your service terminated. As I say: what legitimate reason does someone have for downloading multi-terabyte files unless they're using illegal file-sharing software? I have broadband not just because it allows me to download stuff quickly but also because the fatter the pipe, the lower the latency and ping times to game servers and the like. Twaddle. I buy lots of my games and music online and then download it. Using Steam I regularly make multi-GB downloads. TV is another. Increasingly I can watch TV programmes online perfectly legitimately. TV companies have finally done the smart thing and said "Oh look, here's an audience... now how do we get a cut of this?". I think film companies are catching on too. There's also patches, mods, demos, shareware etc. etc. It is not adequate in this day and age to say any large file must be piracy. Personally I don't mind DL limits too much (as I understand that BT ***s that they are are still a big fat impediment) as long as they're reasonable and clearly stated. What does me off is when I've paid more for the better package and still get **ed around.
Elysarian Minmatar dudetruck corp	Posted - 2009.02.08 12:49:00 - [26] Originally by: TraininVain Edited by: TraininVain on 08/02/2009 11:43:18 Edited by: TraininVain on 08/02/2009 11:41:38 Originally by: Elysarian There is another reason that I can think of as to why an ISP may limit your downloading... What possible reason could someone have for wanting to download multi-gigabyte files in a short period? Piracy is one... and the record/film/game/software companies are trying to "force" ISPs to regulate this. So... to prevent you downloading high-definition copies of films, full games/software packages and loads of ripped albums (only a few examples of things that are multi-gigabyte in size except the latter which are usually only multi-megabyte) they may cap your download speed as a first step, later - if you repeatedly go over this "limit" you might get a warning letter (has happened to people), then possibly have your service terminated. As I say: what legitimate reason does someone have for downloading multi-terabyte files unless they're using illegal file-sharing software? I have broadband not just because it allows me to download stuff quickly but also because the fatter the pipe, the lower the latency and ping times to game servers and the like. Twaddle. I buy lots of my games and music online and then download it. Using Steam I regularly make multi-GB downloads. TV is another. Increasingly I can watch TV programmes online perfectly legitimately. TV companies have finally done the smart thing and said "Oh look, here's an audience... now how do we get a cut of this?". I think film companies are catching on too. There's also patches, mods, demos, shareware etc. etc. It is not adequate in this day and age to say any large file must be piracy. Personally I don't mind DL limits too much (as I understand that BT ***s that they are are still a big fat impediment) as long as they're reasonable and clearly stated. What does me off is when I've paid more for the better package and still get **ed around. I totally agree... just pointing out a "reason" that ISPs may use as an argument for limiting people beyond the others I gave in earlier posts. ===================================== It smells of spoon! =====================================
AlleyKat Gallente Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams	Posted - 2009.02.08 15:06:00 - [27] Originally by: Dantes Revenge We have an issue in the UK and some other countries regarding bandwidth capping and also speed capping (otherwise known as fair usage policy). I feel that this causes an issue with legality as we are paying for a service but not actually getting it. If you pay for an unlimited 10meg connection, that is what you should get. Fair usage policy means you pay for a 10 meg connection but due to the amount you have downloaded over a certain period, you are speed capped to less than half of that. Open for discussion. I couldn't agree more. That's why I changed to a company that gives me what I pay for with no limitations. Most of the ISP's out there are truly awful, Virgin is one of them. Change. AK
rValdez5987 Amarr 32nd Amarrian Imperial Navy Regiment.	Posted - 2009.02.08 17:20:00 - [28] Originally by: Dantes Revenge We have an issue in the UK and some other countries regarding bandwidth capping and also speed capping (otherwise known as fair usage policy). I feel that this causes an issue with legality as we are paying for a service but not actually getting it. If you pay for an unlimited 10meg connection, that is what you should get. Fair usage policy means you pay for a 10 meg connection but due to the amount you have downloaded over a certain period, you are speed capped to less than half of that. Take Virgin internet for example. You pay for a 20 meg connection but what they don't tell you is that if you download more than 3gb between 4pm and 10pm, you are speed capped to 6 meg for 5 hours. They increase that to 6gb download between 10pm and 4am. If you still go over the limit during that capped time, you get another 5 hours added to it which means for most of the day, you could be only getting a 6mb connection but still paying for a 20meg connection. This seems highly illegal to me since charging for a service that they are not actually providing is in breach of the Sale Of Goods Act, irrespective of what the agreement states. If they should, for any reason, reduce your service, they should recalculate the charges accordingly to reflect the reduction. Continuing to charge full price for a reduced service due to conflicts between what you want and what they think you should use gives rise to companies setting unreasonable limits in order to take money they are not entitled to. For example: A user has been on holiday so has not used the internet connection they have still had to pay the two weeks for. On returning home, they immediately go to BBC IPlayer to download some programmes they have missed out on. If they happen to be fans of soap operas, they may download two weeks worth of Home and Away, Neighbours and such. This might amount to well over 3 gb of data for which they are immediately speed capped. It's unreasonable since, in the previous two weeks, they have not even been online to use any bandwidth although they have still had to pay for it and will still have to pay full price for the period for which they are speed capped. However, if 3gb per night is the limit, the company effectively owes the user 42gb for the 14 days that they didn't use the net at all. Maybe this is a case to put to Ofcom. Open for discussion. There are Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 isps. Depending on which one your isp is, that will affect price, and quality of service, as well as whether or not you have bandwidth limitations Ive got 10 mb/s internet, mine will be slowed down if i download like 100 GB in a couple days, but I regularly download around 2-3gb in a day with no issues at all. Then again my internet is technically commercial grade and is a low priced reward for being a long term customer with my isp.
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.02.08 19:13:00 - [29] I'd (Force) my household to change ISP if i didnt lose my Phone service till i chose a new provider for that if i changed ISP. Tascali does a **** internet, but the phone deals actually quite good. Free 1-hour phone calls all week incl peak for chips a month.
Dr Slaughter Minmatar Rabies Inc.	Posted - 2009.02.08 19:15:00 - [30] Edited by: Dr Slaughter on 08/02/2009 19:16:26 Originally by: Dantes Revenge The contract states that they "can reduce the service if it is seen that the usage is larger than that expected from a normal home user". They're not saying 'average home user'. They could even argue that because the majority of their users don't play EvE (as an example) that you are NOT a 'normal' home user. Originally by: Dantes Revenge Therefore, what constitutes average? Obviously you mean 'normal'. Originally by: Dantes Revenge I feel that imposing <3gb download during a 6 hour period... -snip- All good points and I'm pretty much with you on the ****ty way our internet infrastructure is run, used and sold. I work from home (mainly) and often have to download virtual machine images, and ISOs. Which is why I pay for an un-capped service. If you really feel the contract is unfair thouh, research contract law a bit (heartily recommend 'Contract Lawn -Seventh Edition by Robert Duxbury out in the Nutshells range by Thomson Sweet & Maxwell), then take your legal research to a solicitor. If they're significantly impressed you could get a group of users together an make the point to the ISPs legal team. :- edit - epic typo. Should have said 'Contract Law -' not lawn :)

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.