Court Rules Against Linden Lab Terms of Service
|
|
SuezanneC Baskerville
Forums Rock!
Join date: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 14,229
|
05-31-2007 20:00
From: someone Court Rules Against Linden Lab Terms of Service
Posted Thursday, May 31st, 2007, at 12:44 pm Eastern by Mark Wallace
Tags: governance, law, metaverse, news, Second Life, virtual commerce, virtual worlds
According to a court brief I’ve just been emailed, a Pennsylvania court has allowed a lawsuit filed against Philip Rosedale and Linden Lab, makers of the virtual world of Second Life, to move forward despite Rosedale’s motion to dismiss the suit or have it arbitrated. The decision is significant in that the court has judged the SL Terms of Service to be insufficient to the job of adjudicating this particular dispute, and the judge in the case went so far as to characterize the ToS as a contract of adhesion — a contract that isn’t necessarily enforceable because it has more or less been forced on a party with weaker bargaining powers (i.e., the SL user) on a “take it or leave it” basis. The brief itself is linked from this Web page. The decision could have important ramifications for the way in which many virtual worlds come to be governed, possibly giving more rights to their residents than they have enjoyed before. more at 3pointD: http://www.3pointd.com/20070531/court-rules-against-linden-lab-terms-of-service/
_____________________
-
So long to these forums, the vBulletin forums that used to be at forums.secondlife.com. I will miss them.
I can be found on the web by searching for "SuezanneC Baskerville", or go to
http://www.google.com/profiles/suezanne
-
http://lindenlab.tribe.net/ created on 11/19/03.
Members: Ben, Catherine, Colin, Cory, Dan, Doug, Jim, Philip, Phoenix, Richard,
Robin, and Ryan
-
|
|
Dnali Anabuki
Still Crazy
Join date: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 1,633
|
05-31-2007 23:30
I've been waiting for this decision. Thanks for posting this. This is huge. It means that the value of our virtual property including $L is not just decided by whatever TOS LL comes up with to protect itself.
Since Marc may have acquired some of his property fraudulently, he may not get all of his money back but even if they rule that he gets some back, that means there is a value to SL property in the RL. Whoopee.
|
|
Elanthius Flagstaff
Registered User
Join date: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 1,534
|
06-01-2007 00:40
Sounds fair and reasonable to me. In my dream world all these ridiculous click through contracts would be deemed null and void. The current state of affairs encourages people like Amazon, Google, eBay and every two bit website to put absurd requirements in their contracts in the hope that something sticks.
Anyone here ever read Google's TOS? Well, you agreed to it already and Google lawyers could use it against you in court.
_____________________
Visit http://ninjaland.net for mainland and covenant rentals or visit our amazing land store at Steamboat (199, 56). Also, we pay L$0.15/sqm/week for tier donated to our group and we rent pure tier to your group for L$0.25/sqm/week. Free L$ for Everyone - http://ninjaland.net/tools/search-scumming/
|
|
Rusty Satyr
Meadow Mythfit
Join date: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 610
|
06-01-2007 00:40
From: Dnali Anabuki that means there is a value to SL property in the RL. Whoopee. "Whoopee." indeed. Those dad-blamed internal revenuers will be creepin around our property next. :-/
_____________________
Cory Linden: "As we’ve talked about, the long term goals for Second Life are to make it a more open platform."
SecondLife: LL made the bottle... we made the whine, er, wine.
|
|
Dnali Anabuki
Still Crazy
Join date: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 1,633
|
06-01-2007 09:10
From: Rusty Satyr "Whoopee." indeed. Those dad-blamed internal revenuers will be creepin around our property next. :-/ This I deduct my SL expenses on my RL taxes, thats fine with me. What it means is that LL will be obligated to reimburse us for inventory loss and we will be creditors they have to pay if they go bankrupt. It means our land and goods will be seen as having RL value. And it means the Penn court is willing to make new law. To me, this is huge for the future of virtual reality whether located in China or run by a large corp. |
|
Elanthius Flagstaff
Registered User
Join date: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 1,534
|
06-01-2007 09:25
From: Dnali Anabuki This I deduct my SL expenses on my RL taxes, thats fine with me.
What it means is that LL will be obligated to reimburse us for inventory loss and we will be creditors they have to pay if they go bankrupt. It means our land and goods will be seen as having RL value.
And it means the Penn court is willing to make new law.
To me, this is huge for the future of virtual reality whether located in China or run by a large corp. I didn't see anything about any of this in the article. I know that is what the lawsuit is ultimately about but this ruling doesn't have any bearing on that whatsoever. (as far as I understand it)
_____________________
Visit http://ninjaland.net for mainland and covenant rentals or visit our amazing land store at Steamboat (199, 56). Also, we pay L$0.15/sqm/week for tier donated to our group and we rent pure tier to your group for L$0.25/sqm/week. Free L$ for Everyone - http://ninjaland.net/tools/search-scumming/
|
|
Kalel Venkman
Citizen
Join date: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 587
|
Of course not.
06-01-2007 09:52
From: Dnali Anabuki This I deduct my SL expenses on my RL taxes, thats fine with me.
What it means is that LL will be obligated to reimburse us for inventory loss and we will be creditors they have to pay if they go bankrupt. It means our land and goods will be seen as having RL value.
And it means the Penn court is willing to make new law.
To me, this is huge for the future of virtual reality whether located in China or run by a large corp. Oh, it doesn't mean anything of the kind. All it means is that it's possible to contest parts of the Terms of Service. You're jumping to the conclusion that some portion of Terms of Service have been declared invalid in some way, and this is not the case. All that's happened is that the Pennsylvania court has said that it's possible to argue the matter, not that any such argument has been successful. It only clears the way for debate, and resolves nothing in and of itself. Further, each state's body of contract law applies generally to its own state, and in the area of internet law there are still a great many gray areas in interpretation and implementation. Also, there are declarative statements made by Linden Lab in the terms of service which severely limit their fiscal liability and may not simply be rewritten by the court. They may be stricken, but not rewritten in the plaintiff's favor. And finally, every one of the decisions of this court may be, and probably will be, appealed by one side or the other. This isn't going to be setting any legal precedent that will have any effect whatever for the immediate future. You might see some minor fallout from it four or five years from now, but if anyone is planning on whipping out that checkbook to set a legal action in motion, launching a law suit because they think they smell blood, they'd be better off putting that checkbook away and not making a fool of themselves for the half-decade it'll take to see what effect, if any, this ruling will have on Second Life. |