do i or dont i own land i bought & paid for from Anshe Chung

Oh yes, I agree with you. Someone have the links to the old threads that deal with this? No sense rehashing it all over again.

There is no purchase price if you rent land in Dreamland. Everybody who is currently renting some land from 2048sqm to 12288sqm in your sims could quit and rent in Dreamland same size for same price. The only difference would be greater choice of landscapes and themes in Dreamland.

There is purchase price if you want to own land in Dreamland, in same way that you own on mainland. Then you earn the right to resell your land, get better tiers and are eligible to share of proceeds in case of sim liquidation.

Earn the right to resell? That's kind lol. Well let's hope they can get the same as what they paid for it, and then they are in the same position as if they hadn't needed to in the first place. I doubt it tho.

I am not sure what narks me the most, the practice, or the holier-than-thou superiority bs.

But of course you can be cheaper per month with your pseudo-ownership option. You have recovered a large part of the capital cost of the land, right at the outset.

And this is probably why you have 50 sims - you can continually recycle the purchase money you just recovered from the pseudo-purchaser.

If we exaggerate to make it clear, it would be possible to own, and rent out, 50 sims without ever having laid out the cash for more than one. Provided you can get back from the tenants the cash for each one before you move on and use the same money to buy the next. This enables very rapid expansion, unlimited by capital available, and lower rents as well.

50 sims for US$1000 investment, instead of US$50,000. An exaggeration, remember ? But it makes the point.

In my opinion your success in this field is substantially founded on your use of the "selling land" language in your sales presentation. I consider it a misuse. I think many naive people are misled, at least initially until they come along for the heavy sales pitch.

This is why I still consider it a misuse of the language, and a dubious practice describable as "bait-and-switch".

It is the huge advantage that this misuse of language gives you that is the true reason for you so aggressively asserting your right to use it.

Your numerous defensive "philosophical" postings, claiming that you are only doing what LL are doing, are in my opinion absolute hogwash. Maybe you have managed to convince yourself that you believe it, but it is surely palpable nonsense to all rational uninvolved observers.

In my opinion you abuse the word "sale" entirely to gain advantage.

As you also abuse the word "deed". As it occurs on the action button it is a verb, not a noun. There is no such thing in SL as an official "deed". If you want to give the word any meaning as a noun, use the new notary service, and create an unforgeable, verifiable, un-repudiatable document to sell to your pseudo-owners. But even then it would have only the backing of your word, and the pseudo-owner could still lose her land, and investment, at the the whim of someone who is at rock bottom only another anonymous resident like themselves.

Don't misunderstand. I think many of your themed sims are a fine contribution to SL, and they have advantages as well as disadvantages.

I simply object to the language you use to sell your service. I consider it a dubious business practice, used to financial advantage, and liable to mislead clients about the true nature of the transaction, and about the actual rights and obligations they are entering upon.

As in the case of the person who started this thread.

Do you offer 3072sqm or 702 prims for 15$ monthly tier? Do you offer 10 different themes in more than 50 sims with landscapes range from desert to tropical islands to mountain lakes to nordic beach?

If not, then please be so kind and mind your own business.

Ellie, I am doing exactly same thing that Linden Lab is doing for exactly the same reasons. This approach is superior as it helps Second Life grow faster.

But given that I also offer normal rental really give you no reason to complain. It is everybody's own choice if he or she want to be "renter" or "owner".

No I offer a product where the label describes what's in the tin. I am minding my own business, the business you chose to make comparisons to. If you don't like it, thats tough, I am going no where.

I am not in the renting business, nor do I rent. It seems to me, that by paying upfront to Anshe, you get the right to resell, and if you own the right amount of land, you get a discounted tier rate. If you just rent, then you can just leave when you want, and not have to worry about anything, and you are paying a slightly higher rate at some levels to do this. Is there anything I am missing?

It's pretty stunning to me that anyone would be fooled by the idea that they can "resell" their land on a private island. In each case listed of "buying" land, the upfront fee does nothing but get you a discounted rent. If you don't pay the upfront fee, you could just walk away from the land and leave the landlord holding the ball. By paying it you are simply saying you intend to stay around a long time and get your discount.

As Ellie said though, landlords here are under no obligation whatsoever to keep honoring the terms mentioned at the beginning of your lease. They don't need to stick to the same rental price. They don't have any obligation to help you "resell". They could even charge a brokerage fee to complete the land transfer since it's always their property to begin with.

Private island land "buyers" should reconsider the renting options. No upfront fee, discount from the mainland tiers, and you get to walk away at any time without worrying about recouping your "investment". Just as you have no way of enforcing any contract with your landlord, they have no way of forcing you to keep paying rent.

I was not aware that this was anyones thread other that Kismet who made the first post asking her question. Which I answered as many others did.

Yes, we do charge $15 USD per month for 2048sqm. No, we do not charge any up front fee and not allow ppl to sell their land to whom they want to, and then buy back the land at 1/2 price from the person when they want to leave. Somehow, I don't care for doing business that way.

I have never "peddled" my land. I answer questions, do not put down anyone else. Our islands speak for themselves and there is never a need to put anyone down. I have even sent on people to Hiro Queso whom I know and respect. Also, have suggested to people that they read and compare what is being offered by the various people who do offer to rent land.

I wonder is Anshe has considered that because she was not here when all of this happened to start with, there might very well have been problems and that as an astute business person wanting to show she is considerate maybe return all of Kismets money as a show of good will. 100% of the money paid for the land not 50% of it. Its just good Customer Service and that too, would be known in the Community.

It's way past the original discussion on the whole issue over whether some one really buys land from the Lindens either, but there is a crucial difference:

Linden Lab is the government, god, and ultimate arbiter of your fate in the whole of Second Life. Sure, they can take back land they sold you. The country you live in IRL can take your land too. Their survival depends on your continued happiness and if they go, there is no more you here either. Your stability of ownership is secure as long as the fate of Second Life is secure.

Private island landlords, on the other hand, are just fellow residents. They own the land. You don't.

So to answer the original question again - absolutely not, in no way shape or form do you own the land! No matter what any landlord might say.

Alliez

I have already asked Anshe twice if she will buy back the land - no answer and I doubt if we will ever get one.

Unsavoury practices and she wonders why people stay clear of doing business with her.

Alexa

This is the heart of the matter. I consider this claim to be absolute nonsense.

You could confiscate everyones land, sell your entire holding, and vanish overnight. SL would still exist. Only your tenants would suffer. You could gain hugely, or might accept loss for personal reasons.

LL would only do something similar if they folded. There would be no SL. All residents would suffer the same total loss, not just those who had chosen to rent from you. LL would gain nothing but would have lost too - the employees their jobs, the investors their cash.

Moreover, if your standing is equivalent to LL's, why don't you give your pseudo-owners the right to set their land for sale in the "about land" box, and purchasers the right to buy with single click, as true sellers/purchasers can ? Because of course, LL own the software, the system, and the world. You don't. Moreover, LL could order you to cease using misleading language tomorrow, on pain of confiscation of your entire assets. Can you do that to them ?

LL could flatten all tier payments without warning, rendering this entire part of your business non-viable at a stroke. Many would object, but more would cheer. Do you have such power ?

This idea that your activities are in any way on the same footing as LL's is total nonsense. A fiction that you use to justify your use of misleading language.


Totally irrelevant. If you are misdescribing one product, the availability of other products doesn't matter. Its the misdescribing that is wrong.

Indeed, in this case it may make the situation even more confusing. By giving them the choice between "renting" and "buying" you even more effectively disguise the fact that the "buying" is in fact only renting with a big non-returnable deposit, and the doubtful honour of having to find a tenant to replace you so that you can try to recover your deposit from this replacement instead of from the landlord who received it.

Every landlords dream. Your first tenant refunds most of your capital cost, and also accepts the responsibility to find you a replacement tenant if he wishes to leave.

Is it any wonder this all needs to be packaged up in misleading language ?

I don't fully understand the policy, but it seems to me that if a person pays a large amount for use of a plot of land no matter who it is from, and then in addition pays a monthly tier fee, then "technical ownership" or not should not matter and they should have a chance to make back some of that initial payment through either "re-selling" the land, "subletting" the land, etc.

I someone just pays a monthly fee that would be considered a rental, but if someone pays a large sum and a montly tier fee, that should be ownership. Whether it's "technically possible" or not should not matter. If the land dealer is honest they will treat these transactions like main land ownership. Either pay the "owner" what the land is worth and make it avaliable to the next buyer, or allow them to find their own buyer. Otherwise it's just plain robbery.

well ppl`s I found a resolution to my problem of having so called bought land from Anshe ( i did pay her 60000 for the land which was only deeded to me which i found out at a later point, maybe i shouldnt have trusted her after all but we all live & learn)... After finding that no one wanted to buy the island from me (i wonder why!!!!!!) I contacted Master Quatro one of Anshe`s *cough* *Angels* asking if maybe Anshe would buy the island back from me ( it was only a few days previousley that i had bought the island for 60000) within a few minutes of me contacting him Anshe im`d me & offerd me half the purchase price for the island... I thought for a few minutes, *could this be the only solution to get away from Anshe & anything to do with her * So i agreed she immediatley asked for a tp & came zooming in *via jet pack* & within what seemed like only seconds she had bought the land back from me for 30000 *half of what i had paid her just a few days previousley* she immediatley had her *for sale* sign back on the island before i could even blink, then zoomed away, with hardly a word...My personal opinions are NEVER again will i EVER have ANYTHING to do with Anshe Chung, I dont care how big a person thinks they are it costs nothing to at least be curtious to someone you have just managed to get 30000 from without any work at all, or to anyone but oh well i guess to make as much money as Anshe obviousley has curteous doesnt enter the equasion

There is no upfront fee for renting land in Dreamland.

People who buy land in Dreamland can sell to whomever they want, as long as that person agrees to the terms and conditions of the land.

More than 300 people own land in Dreamland, some more are renting. This is more than 5% of land owners in Second Life. Honesty, integrity and good service pay off. At ANSHECHUNG.COM we always strife to improve our products, we work hard and mind our own business

Alexa,

It is my understanding that Anshe did buy back the land at 1/2 price from Kismet. I have asked Kismet to post and let us know if that is indeed fact

lol!

This is like one of those times when ads and news headlines collide on a web page - badly.

Buyer loses half of her investment in just a few days, and landlord describes in the very next post how honesty and integrity pays off.

....compare your business to others, then get upset when they reply.

That is positively dreadful. I am appalled that you only got half back.

I was told when I joined SL not to trust Anshe Chung or do any business with her. So pleased I got that information.

Anshe you are nothing but a thief and a bully and the sooner you leave SL the better it will be for everyone.

Give Kismet her other 30k or you will be sorry.

Alexa

Good grief - I am appalled. Usually Anshe has the good sense to realise the importance of avoiding a bad press, and refunds the money once something has gone public in forum like this.

And after her agent MQ had just admitted here in forum that he might have forgotten to give you the explanatory notecards telling you what "ownership" actually meant.

At first sight, this confirms all my worst fears. How many times has this been done to people who don't read the forums, or are too nervous to post here ?

L$30000 is US$115. That could be looked upon as significant fraud if the transaction had been in RL currency in the real world, and if the contract was indeed based on a misunderstanding which resulted from negligent communications.

Stop to compare marketing with reality.

This is not what happened. The way this whole thing went on makes me seriously wonder if somebody has been trying to set me up right from the beginning.

Before I was aware of this thread, Kismet already IMed me and told me that he wants to get rid of the land as quick as possible and that he does not care about money. I passed him one notecard in which the process of advertising and selling land in Dreamland to other residents is described. I also adviced him that most residents sell to other residents and get better price than what I offer as just one last option. He insisted that he does not care about money and just wants get rid of land quick.

So, against my advice, he sold the land to me at loss of 2.4 L$ per sqm. He did not make any attempt to sell land himself. I was polite and friendly all time, despite me being terribly hard pressed that day. It was obviously one bad deal for Kismet, but not because he bought one bad product or paid too much, but because he bought something, then just got rid of it as fast as he could, not pursuing the options most people use who sell land in Dreamland.

The same kinda thing happens on mainland too. I suggest that people make up their mind before BUY something. If they are not sure if they want keep it, maybe RENT is one more suitable option for them.

Excellent!

So it is not the case that players who sub-lease vLand from AnsheChung.com ("buy" in your terminology) can transfer the sub-lease to another player ("sell" in your lexicon) without AnsheChung.com personnel manual intervention?

If one cannot "sell" land "bought" from AnsheChung.com freely to another player without having a third party enable the "sale" then the words quoted in this sentence are being horribly bastardized and seemingly for the purposes of deceptive trade.