Should LL take legal action against griefers?

Oh god you can't be serious. Please tell me you aren't serious.

Ok, someone decides to fuck around in a privately owned virtual world, so they should be PUT IN JAIL? Are you fucking insane?

No, he's suggesting they should be fined/sued.

Nope, he specifically calls for bars...

If you put them behind bars they'll just go inside the bars and get drunk and do more griefing, and then where will we be?

What?

Nevermind.

Oh, okay.

Oh yes, because god forbid people might actually have to accept punishment for being a total fucking asshole, and destroying other people's weeks of work that they, by LL's own admission, own.

Are you going to put everyone in prison who annoys you? Put a 'griefer' in prison, someone only guilty of commiting a 'virtual' crime, and you have to put everyone who commits a more serious crime in prison too. But what is more serious than a crime in a virtual playground? Here are our heavyweights:

* People caught parking in a no parking zone --> Straight to jail
* People whose dogs sometimes foul on the sidewalk/pavement --> straight to jail
* People found behaving drunkenly on a night out --> In the slammer
* People speeding or driving too slow --> Off to Alcatraz
* Smoking in a public place in California --> The chair
* Making too much noise in Alabama --> Lethal injection
* Drinking under age --> Guantanamo Bay
* Driving without a license --> Public execution by firing squad

It is silly to suggest anything that happens in a virtual space is worthy of any real life punishment unless it has dire real life consequences.

I have a different mindset, Jsecure. I believe people need to accept responsbility for their actions, and that actions should have consequences. I don't view vandalism in SL any different than I would vandalism in real life... It's intentional defacement of another persons property. Why should it be a jailable crime in real life, and not in SL?

Because I really don't see secondlife as real life. I make a clear distinction between the two. Stuff in Second Life isn't real. No matter how much money you throw at second life, you are doing that to make your enjoyment of some computer software increase.

I think the paticular scenarios LL's software feeds to you over the net have no relation to or bearing on real life and should not carry any legal status.

I voted yes. I think the same laws that punish for the distruption of any internet content or service should apply to SL as well. If there exist legal cases where people are prosecuted for intentional malicious actions that lead to the loss of service or data for other internet setups like websites, Lans, etc...I think it should apply to SL as well.

Reitsuki brings up a good point regarding the time spent on work in SL. If he lost weeks of work on his web page because of the malicious actions of a hacker, are those hours of work more valuable than the weeks of SL work lost as a result of a griefer? If so why?


As usual I am hearing the tried and true "slippery slope" argument. It goes like this:
"OH NO! You cant take legal action against someone that repeatedly tries to take down the grid because that would eventually lead to people going to jail just because they annoy you!"


Silly. To this ubiquitous argument I would say you need to keep things in perspective. Close your eyes and replace "SL SIM" with "WEB PAGE". No...nobody is going to jail for posting something annoying on a web page. If, however, you make repeated attacks on that web page that lead to denial of service or loss of data...then you may find yourself sitting before a judge. SL should be no different.

I think even a plot of virtual land in SL is such a small concern, that should someone disrupt it for a period of time with determination, the maximum they should receive for it is community service, a fine, a restraining order banning them from using the service used to access this virtual land (SL, the Internet), but no prison time. I simply don't think any amount of 'service disruption' against a virtual land area justifies a spell in prison.

Well let the consequences for disrupting my work in SL be equal to the consequences of disrutping my work on a web site. Maybe it *IS* just community service rather than Prison. I don't know. I am just saying the loss of 10 hours of SL work should be valued no less by the law than the loss of 10 hours of web page work.

I draw this link between SL work and Web work because:
1. The actual work that we do is very similar in nature.
2. Both potentially yield RL money that could be lost as a result of a user's malicious acts.

Aimee, you make some good points.

Reit, I'm talking seriously now, if you take a COMPUTER GAME that seriously, you should just leave now.

Rose, I have to disagree.

Hacking isn't just "walking in a back door" to a server.

Hacking is a great variety of things, a great deal of which is simply finding someone's password and walking in the front door.

Hacking, by definition, is breaking into a system. It doesn't require a particular mode of access, only that access is obtained without permission. In the case of griefers that uses exploits satisfies all conditions of hacking:
- the entry point is Second Life
- the access is that of altering the land / content in the land
- permission is not given

I would say that LL opening the door to prosecuting griefers in game would be a great move. Even if it was only used in extreme cases (which I would think would be proper), it could be a deterrant.

You don't own any bits on Linden servers. If you think otherwise you have not read the ToS. Thus, although jerky, prim-griefing to cause sim-wiping just is not loss in the eyes of the law. No loss, no case.

esac

Malachi,
1. Servers are owned by Linden Labs. The whole thread has been about them taking legal action, not players, so your first point is moot.
2. Hacking is illegal regardless of loss - like "breaking and entering" or "tresspassing" laws on private RL property. So your second point is inaccurate.

To a certain extent I recognise griefing as another version of playing in Second Life. It's rough and tumble playing, and the Lindens don't like it so they deny service to those who do it, but in the eyes of the law I think those who complain of losing a lot of 'work' should be ignored, because Second Life is a place of leisure and not a co-location server house.

If you really want to do work that can be upheld in a court of law I'd urge you to leave second life entirely and just work on your own actual web site on your own servers. I don't buy that anything in Second Life is worthy of putting anyone in prison for. I think before you log into Second Life you should repeat this to yourself:

I take things pretty seriously * Maybe I make us $ from SL * But that's not it's primary aim, rather a secondary benefit * This is just for fun * it's not real.

My summary? This is a game that you can take seriously (but still a game), and NOT a colo server house which you can treat as a game.

Okay, so essentially, let me get this straight:
You're saying that Linden Lab doesn't have a right to dictate what is allowed to happen on its own servers? That's silly.

Linden Lab owns its servers.
Linden Lab states in its TOS what is not permitted while on its server.
Someone coming along and doing something on someone else's server without permission is hacking.

Linden Labs can do what they like with their servers; they have that right already. But let's say I open a club. If I and most of my members come to decide slow dancing is offensive to us and gets in the way of what we all want to do (chatting and drinking) I could decide to deny entry to those that would slow dance.

Now, I own the club so I can deny entry to who I like, but it's not on to ask the courts to start jailing those who slow dance in my club.

'Griefing' is just another way of using the service LL provides. It is a legitimate use of the SL client as it involves no forced entry to their computer systems. They lindens and the members don't like it, so people are denied entry to the 'club' if they do this behaviour.

But that's a million miles from it being a legal offence.

On the contrary.

What if someone broke into your club in the middle of the night and trashed the place?

I'm sure you'd be on the phone with the police.

Hiro, I think the following identitiy relation may aid your understanding of the issue better than you have demonstrated:any metaphors or analogies you throw at it notwithstanding.

I say absolutely not.

Well, not ABSOLUTELY not, but pushers, flooder scripts, people who crash sims. Just ban em.

Now, people who exploit security holes and bugs to say... steal land and objects and such.... That might require legal action. But anything done within the limits and means of LSL and the game should result only in a ban

*sigh*

This argument has been used so many times and for so many reasons.
It's been argued countless times, and even though I can argue why it's completely incorrect, I've been VERY careful to describe this situation in the frame of RL terms:
- Linden Lab is a RL company
- The servers exist in RL
- There are RL laws and enforcement protecting servers from hacking
- Altering / removing content on a server you don't own without permission while using exploits in code is hacking by defintion
- Linden Lab expressly forbids using exploits to grief in the TOS. Ergo, it denies permission to do so

Now, please don't patronize me, and think before you post some 1-sentence, 2-bit snipe at me. You've insulted my intelligence, as well as everyone else participating in this thread.

Fact is, we need stronger actions.

The contradiction is, LL wants us to govern ourselves.

I believe, after 2 years of observation, we are incapable of it without direct application of consequence. And since that won't happen overall, (i.e. not owning the sim) the notion of self governance in a virtual world, as hoped for by LL, is flawed. Like communism, it does not account for aspects of human nature.

Perhaps the Lawnmower man was correct. My faith, ultimately, is bruised as well. But I conceded this long, long ago, before Phil. I guess he was drinking better scotch.

It's been said before. Perhaps we just need to lower expectations, and punish more vigorously at the admin level. Jail though?

I don't entirely say no. You're onto something eggy, and it should be explored. After all, violation is violation, whether or not there is a law that outlines it.

/cry 4 u.
/cry 4 me.