Lindens are gonna buy back telehub land at L$10/m -- Fair?

Remember when Club Elite made all their lights red like a bordello and it turned the rest of Federal different colors? My hotel became neon pink, and it you could not tell what color the clothes were in Pendari's store. Even the porn was discolored! See, you get none of that with full bright textures. They are pointless!

ROFL! (Sorry Taco but LMFAO!!)

You just had to add that, didn't you.

Uh huh.

In the case of your land, Anshe Chung isn't eligible for the buy back; she doesn't own the land anymore--you do. From Robin Linden's announcement (emphasis added):

This not-so-subtle point is still lost on some people, Cris.

This is pretty much exactly what I was going to post.

Good to see all is well in the LL universe.

I'm still waiting for reimbursement from the tax fiasco. In which I lost 10s of thousands. Along with half the population.

Were taxes a mistake? Sure they were. I understand. Now pay me. And no, the way they worked it, I still lost thousands.

Fat freakin' chance. LL applies their policy entirely as THEY see fit, and from what I've been seeing, that "fit" revolves around a handful of people that essentially keep this * game * going.

But it's always been like that. And it always will be.

Welcome to SL! You're in our world now! Oh wait, that's SoE...eh, what's the difference.

This made me think of something. I tend to agree with Juani that Anshechung.com will not be getting much if anything out of this deal dollar wise. Most of that business bought their hub land before the dates stated in the announcement.

However, one thing this deal *will* do, is keep a lot of people who recently bought hub land from trying to get their money back from / boycotting / complaining to and about / etc.. Anshechung.com

Of course it is the Lindens that are paying these people back, not the barons they bought from. So the barons still get to keep the money they received when they sold the land. Any land they still hold, if they bought before the announcement dates, they are still going to be able to sell the land and could sell it for more than $10sm in some areas (location location location - still matters for some things).

Actually, I do.

Holy geebus!! I will *never* forget that experience!!

The issue was one of misrepresentation Jake. During the time frame at issue, August 1 to December 5, telehub sims sold at auction for a higher cash price. These sims were marketed as telehub sims. The cash profit was taken by LL for these auction sales. AT THE VERY SAME TIME...LL was developing the code in house to eliminate the very same telehubs which were selling for a premium at auction.

Its not just auction buyers who get the buy back offer, its all members who bought telehub land during the time frame that the decision had been made to eliminate telehubs and the process was under development in LL. Had LL announced the elimination of hubs at the time the decision was made, sometime in or about June 2005, then the cost for telehub land would have not remained elevated. The telehub sims sold at auction would not have commanded as much as 2 times the sales price non hub sims brought in.

I know you can see how and why there were legal concerns about these transactions during this timeframe, and only during this time frame.

The price offered in the buy back plan reflects the average price paid by the purchasers of the sim at auction. That sale price was the actual price LL collected. The resale price charged by those who bought the sim and subdivided it reflected in world market values related to speculation. LL has addressed its portion of the problem related to the potential misrepresentation of these sims as "telehub sims" at the time the auction was held. I use the word misrepresentation in legal sense because the actual code to eliminate these same hubs was under development.

Detrimental reliance arises when one party to a contract reasonable relies upon the word of another to their detriment. It was quite reasonable to rely upon the representation by LL that those sims at auction marketed as telehub sims were in fact hub sims. The vital issue here is that they were not AT THE TIME OF THE AUCTION, in fact actually telehub sims since the procedure was already underway to eliminate the hubs.

This was not a matter of a feature being changed after the fact. The buy back addresses the fact that the sims were sold as hub sims at a time when LL knew hubs were in the process of being eliminated.

The distinction between changing features in SL and misrepresenting a feature as LL collected cash profits on that misrepresented feature is crystal clear legally. They cannot be compared with any honest intellectual effort.

In addition, the TOS excused LL from liability for content loss related to bugs and other accidental occurances. The situation with the buy back elibible hub land concerns an intentional misrepresentation.

If any member feels he or she has a case where there exists intentional misrepresentaiton by LL that caused then a measurable loss in cash damages, they too have recourse. In the meantime, there is no need to become hysterical about the precedent set by this settlement offer. I see it as a very good indication that LL is willing to make good on losses caused by their intentional acts that misled the members into spending money they may not have otherwise spent.

This settlement offer benefits us all when you think about it. Its not a personal statement for or against anyone and I dont really understand the venemous reaction to it. Like any legal matter, where there is a genuine legal issue there is a legal recourse.

I'm glad to see LL making an effort to resolve this situation.

Is it a fair deal for all of those who bought telehub land?

Nope.

Does it change my perception of how I thought LL did business in a fair and just manner?

Absolutly this changed my opinion of LL, I am now leary of any and all monitary transactions from this point forward. As LL was not completly honest with it's customers WHEN IT SHOULD OF BEEN. The timeframe is the part that really bothers me, by their own admission. This is a stumbling block that they set in motion.

However!

I'm glad to see LL making an effort to resolve this situation. But it's kinda sad to watch my hero's fall.

Mar/Cat

Well, Martin, I figured they did right in the end, which is the major thing that counts, and they had mentioned doing something earlier, so they did have it in mind, even before it took place.

coco

One thing though. I'm still waiting to see what the 'opening bid' for telehub lands by LL was set at. Granted, I haven't payed nearly as much attention to the land auctions since they moved the opening bid for sims to $1000. But I don't believe I've seen any that opened for more than that. I could be wrong, but I personally haven't seen otherwise. If anyone has any information to the contrary, I would be happy to take a look.

Now, with that said. If the base $1000 was a universal starting bid, then LL placed no additional value on telehub sims than 'normal' sims. In which case, there was no implication of value by LL. As for them selling and stating that the sim was a telehub. That could be marked off quite readily as LL stating 'Hey. We have rights to various chunks of this land. Please take this into consideration when buying.'

Now, to further this bit. If Linden Labs placed no additional value on their own to these telehub sims, then we'll move onto the next part. I do believe that in all the legal paperwork, they do have clauses that LL places NO value, percieved or otherwise on content within SL. And, hate to break it to you. By legal deffinition, 'land' IS content. So, when you get right down to it, it's no different than a float tube made by say, Ben Linden. (not pointing anyone out lol, just Ben was fresh in mind because I stumbled upon Tubes of Saturn today)

So, in all honesty if the starting auction value is universal, then there is absolutely NO legal recourse against the telehub removal. But, in fairness. That doesn't always matter. People sue for invalid reasons all the time. And quite simply, most companies find it much easier just settling out of court than going through the hassle and fees to successfully win a case. Hence out of court settlements and maintenance of 'no fault'.

I personally will take this as yet another of these corporate cases. Just a simple out of court settlement to save headache and hassle, that costs them absolutely nothing, since they're 'buying' the land back with money they control. Personally I think it sad the kind of frivolous selfishness that brings about these kinds of situations. And I hope noone tries to pawn this 'buy back' off as a generous gesture.

US Justice System > Video Game Terms of Service ???

NO WAY! say it ain't soooo! that's why i NEVER support those pinko consumer rights groups.

I was under the impression that you've felt this way for a very long time. $$$ sigh??? remember???

MJ/MrsJakal

My, this from someone who's not even bound by US legal system. Cute. And by US legal system, do tell me just what US laws were broken, and I will be happy to offer a counter point as to just how they weren't.

Ah, do love when people have snippy, snide comments to make that offer nothing to discussion, and are made from a wholy uninformed view point. Which is why, while I disagree with katykiwi, I at least enjoy seeing the points she brings up in her rather well thought and written posts.

*sighs and settles in, getting ready to preach to the uninformed masses from the Gospel of Talis*