Do L$ have value or NOT??????

Because LL facilitates the trading of $L for USD on the LindeX, it is quite possible the whole concept of LL issuing $L is completely illegal itself. Under US Federal Securities laws, it could be construed as issuing an unregistered security. Because the $L is traded for USD on the LindeX, are they in fact issuing securities for USD? If so, that IS DEFINITELY illegal under federal securities law - virtual or not. Technically securities, for all intents and purposes, are virtual anyway because you just don't see actual stock certificates anymore.

$L is no different because if you buy $L basically you are hoping someone will pay more for it, or that you can exchange it for something with value, so it appears they are acting like a company issuing stock, i.e. selling virtual securities. ALL BECAUSE THEY OWN THE LINDEX.

The primary problem with this is:
Because of US Federal Securities laws, we may see some "qui tam" litigation as the result. This would certainly bring on a US DOJ investigation and possibly tie up any resources LL might have to defend itself.

Qui tam lawsuits are quite unique. They are basically filed by individuals on behalf of the government. They are also sometimes called "whistleblower" lawsuits.

This type of lawsuit is particularly attractive in our litigious and greedy times because the government is required to do all the work basically and the person filing the suit is entitled to 15-30 percent of the total recovery. Additionally they receive protection from retaliation.

In 2005 alone, a record $3.1 billion was reclaimed from corrupt businesses from qui tam actions. My math sucks, but isn't 15% of 3.1 billion something like 450 million. That's quite an incentive.


"In qui tam provisions the government gives private citizens the right and the financial incentive to retain a private lawyer to file a lawsuit to act in the place of law enforcement."


Lawyers will take these on in a heartbeat without even a consultation fee. It would not surprise me to learn that one has already been filed.

I've at least learned that whatever SL evils you can't blame on the US Government can be blamed on the Lindex.

Hey can you post that one more time? I don't think I get it yet.

You mean her, right?

Yeah, Brenda, LOL. You just beat me to the "Submit Reply" button.

You know that in the exchange you get your US$ from other residents wanting to buy and not from LL, right? When you sell L$ and keep it in your SL account to pay your tier you're really just giving LL the money that you made off of another resident or group of residents that bought the L$ you put up for sale.

LL didn't pay you.

L$ only has value because we want it to. If SL were to go away then there would literally be no L$ anymore since they only really exist in the upper right hand corner of our browsers.

The L$ in your other in-game "accounts" such as SL Exchange, WSE and the late Ginko is really just in the upper right hand corner of someone else's browser and you're trusting them to pay you back when you withdraw or to pay the creator of an object you're buying.

Back when free accounts got 250L down and 50L a week LL wasn't cashing in any US$ and converting it to give to you...they just added the amount to your browser.

OK just checking. I know you're from the West Coast and all....

A L$ is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay you for it.

Just like everything else in the known universe.

(Now, if you want to get into spiritual worth, or something like that...then you will have something to debate. O.O)

I just love the way that some ex-casino owners are so ticked off at LL that they want to destroy the game for EVERYBODY.

And I suppose that if you succeed, Gisela and Chilly, you'll wash your hands and say, "See? It's all LL's fault. We were fighting for you guys but they didn't listen." Nuts to that. Please go and find something more productive to do with your time than making accusations against LL on these forums. At best, it's a waste of time. At worst, it hurts the future of SL and any other online world with an economy as part of its model.

Am I invisible? Have I been muted? Seriously, every time you say this without any citation to your authority, you lose more credibility. At this point, I doubt you have even read the law. I'm trying not to be disrespectful, but it's frustrating to see you attempt to make a legal argument without backing it up with some sort of citation.

I'll start you off: 15 USC 77(b)(a)(1). This section of the Securities Act of 1933 defines securities as follows:

(1) The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a ‘‘security’’, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing.

Please tell me how Lindens fall into this definition. The closest reference I can find is to "any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency". Lindens likely do not qualify as a foriegn currency, but even if they do, Lindex is not a national securities exchange.

I made the analogy to Lindens being the electronic equivalent of casino chips. Dispel me of that notion. Show me some legal authority that says I'm wrong. If you can't cite to any actual authority and explain why it applies, then you have no business telling us what the law is.

I can't believe I'm even having this argument. I have fought for people's rights to gamble online completely apart from SL. I'm a paying member of the PPA, I have called, emailed and written my congresspeople, as well as a number of them that are from other jurisdictions, I have blogged in favor of bills that would make online gaming legal in my state and I have refused to play live at b&M poker rooms that supported outlawing online gaming in my state (and let them know why as well). I have a danged boat at home that I paid for entirely out of online poker winnings, FFS! It's just that this argument is going absolutely nowhere and it deflects attention from the real problem, which is government regulation of our personal lives and our personal activities. The US government has no business telling me what I can do in the privacy of my own home, with my own damn money that I earned and paid taxes on when I'm not hurting anybody else. It doesn't matter if I'm playing online poker, shopping for hair in SL, cybering with escorts or uploading textures so I can put a hot pink flame job on my stupid biplane.

That's the issue, not this juvenile, "I know the law", "No, I know the law.", "Well I know it better" BS. If LL is running an illegal securities exchange, prove it. Show me your authority.

L is traded for USD not tacos



LL will not punish you for buying $L outside the game. However, be aware that LL tracks L$ that are obtained fraudulently. If someone steals a credit card, buys L$ with it, and then sells it on eBay, not only are they punished, but anyone who bought the L$ may be fined 150% of the L$, if LL believes they may have been complicit in the theft.




Purchasing $L through a third party has nothing to do with depositing it with someone who offers you a return on the money you deposit with them.



You are correct LL will not punish you for buying $L outside the game. However, be aware that LL tracks L$ that are obtained fraudulently. If someone steals a credit card, buys L$ with it, and then sells it on eBay, not only are they punished, but anyone who bought the L$ may be fined 150% of the L$, if LL believes they may have been complicit in the theft.




As long as the $L has USD value, there is no process that would allow anyone to gamble in SL. Banning gambling in SL did not remove the legal implications due to the fact $L does have USD value.



$L does have real USD value. Lots and lots of real life incomes are produced in SL. People trade their $L for USD and pay real life expenses with it.



You are correct. This is a virtual world and nothing in it is real. Once the plug is pulled, it all disappears, along with all those real life incomes. The fact remains however, that while they exist in the upper right hand corner of our browsers, $L have USD value.

We as individuals can trade $L for USD with no requirement other than claiming it as income and paying any taxes that may be due.

LL however, cannot do that without subjecting themselves to liabilties from the US laws. This is why the TOS states that $L has no USD - to protect themselves from the liability it would give them otherwise.

Because LL facilitates the trading of $L for USD by virtue of the LindeX (which they own), it is quite possible the whole concept of LL issuing $L is completely illegal itself. Under US Federal Securities laws, it could be construed as issuing an unregistered security. Because the $L is traded for USD on the LindeX, are they in fact issuing securities for USD? If so, that IS DEFINITELY illegal under federal securities law - virtual or not. Technically securities, for all intents and purposes, are virtual anyway because you just don't see actual stock certificates anymore.

$L is no different because if you buy $L basically you are hoping someone will pay more for it, or that you can exchange it for something with value, so it appears they are acting like a company issuing stock, i.e. selling virtual securities. ALL BECAUSE THEY OWN THE LINDEX.

LL cannot sell $L and maintain an exchange, virtual or not, in their own corporation, which is exactly why they have made it a point that they are only acting as agent, but in fact they are not acting as agent (because they regulate the SL economy by issuing more $L).

Because of US Federal Securities laws, we may see some "qui tam" litigation as the result. This would certainly bring on a US DOJ investigation and possibly tie up any resources LL might have to defend itself.

Qui tam lawsuits are quite unique. They are basically filed by individuals on behalf of the government. They are also sometimes called "whistleblower" lawsuits.

This type of lawsuit is particularly attractive in our litigious and greedy times because the government is required to do all the work basically and the person filing the suit is entitled to 15-30 percent of the total recovery. Additionally they receive protection from retaliation.

In 2005 alone, a record $3.1 billion was reclaimed from corrupt businesses from qui tam actions. My math sucks, but isn't 15% of 3.1 billion something like 450 million. That's quite an incentive.


"In qui tam provisions the government gives private citizens the right and the financial incentive to retain a private lawyer to file a lawsuit to act in the place of law enforcement."


Lawyers will take these on in a heartbeat without even a consultation fee. It would not surprise me to learn that one has already been filed.

I invite anyone to read the securities laws themselves here:
http://www.sec.gov.

You can read more about qui tam provisions here.
http://www.whistleblowerfirm.com/faq.html#1

So, if you want gambling to come back to SL (I personally don't care one way or the other, except I believe people should be able to do whatever the hell they want provided they don't hurt anybody else), then get in touch with Congressman Barney Frank's office and see how you can help his effort to repeal or reform the 2006 Internet gambling act that would put LL out of business if it continued to host Internet gambling as defined by that act.

And please, quit berating the rest of us about something in a way that is along the lines of complaining that the sun rises in the east and the birds sing when it comes up. Bitching because a significant source of income has been abruptly cut off is one thing. We understand. Bitching about what neither us in the forums, nor you, nor LL, can fix, AND NOT STOPPING, only makes people learn where the mute button is, and use it. You will be shortly be talking to yourself.

And seriously, everyone, the Internet gambling act really is bullshit, unless you are an anti-gambling freak. Do try to do something about it in RL, ok?

Gisela, you didn't really counter any of the points I made and you're kind of arguing in circles.

Do you really think LL doesn't have lawyers already and wouldn't have consulted a few on something as obvious as a virtual currency exchange?! LL has a lot of issues but I really dont think that's one of them. Keep trying.

Either way I see this argument becoming irrelevant fast (more irrelevant than it already is) once the whole "Internet in 3-D" thing starts to actually happen (server-side becoming open source, etc...). People will be trading in real money coming directly out of their bank accounts. That's the only way SL or it's decentents will be able to cross over the "not a game" barrier in the general public's eyes and start being a viable, long-term business platform like the regular internet is.

Instead of going on a vendetta attack on LL's in-game economy why don't you learn to build so you can start making L$ again now that you can't have a casino anymore?

It's frustrating to have to repeat it over and over, but I'll repeat it as often as I'm asked the same questions over and over.

Each time I've said it, I have quoted my source. I'll do so again.

http://www.sec.gov

I am in no way making any attempt at a legal argument. I am stating my opinion after reading the laws myself.

I completely agree with you on what the issues are regarding internet gambling. That however, doesn't offer a solution as it pertains to SL. My suggestion for the betterment of everyone involved is for LL to ditch the LindeX. I have simply researched why I think this would work and cited the sources that I used to come to that conclusion. Ditching the LindeX would remove the liabilities from LL regarding gaming and many other "virtual" activities in SL. My reading and conclusions based on the law have no real bearing on anything. Laws are subject to interpretation only within the judicial arena. There is of yet no legal precedent and it remains to be tested.

Because of US Federal Securities laws, LL has opened itself to the possibility of "qui tam" litigation. This would certainly bring on a US DOJ investigation and possibly tie up any resources LL might have to defend itself. Obviously, this situation could possibly bankrupt LL and close the grid. It would be nice to avoid that. If LL ditched the LindeX, they could avoid it.

Qui tam lawsuits are quite unique. They are basically filed by individuals on behalf of the government. They are also sometimes called "whistleblower" lawsuits.

This type of lawsuit is particularly attractive in our litigious and greedy times because the government is required to do all the work basically and the person filing the suit is entitled to 15-30 percent of the total recovery. Additionally they receive protection from retaliation.

In 2005 alone, a record $3.1 billion was reclaimed from corrupt businesses from qui tam actions. My math sucks, but isn't 15% of 3.1 billion something like 450 million. That's quite an incentive.

"In qui tam provisions the government gives private citizens the right and the financial incentive to retain a private lawyer to file a lawsuit to act in the place of law enforcement."

Lawyers will take these on in a heartbeat without even a consultation fee. It would not surprise me to learn that one has already been filed.


Just my two cents.



You can read more about qui tam here.
http://www.whistleblowerfirm.com/faq.html#1

Baby Jesus wept.

Getting back to the title of this thread, the answer is simple!

Yes, lindens do have value. I can trade them for other things of value, such as US dollars. I don't see how arguing about if lindens are a currency has anything to do with this simple fact.

LL said that Linden dollars have no value GIVEN TO THEM BY LINDEN LABS. Whether or not they have value to somebody else is a moot point.

It makes sense if you use a simple analogy: arcade tokens. The arcade sells tokens, but in theory you can buy some from someone who doesn't want them, however the arcade does not buy them back. They have no value _given to them by the arcade_. The arcade tokens are a limited license to play the games in the establishment.

However, let's say that someone sets up a poker table in the corner of the arcade and begin gambling with these tokens. And then winners will sell them to people entering the arcade who want to play games. If the arcade turns a blind eye to this they are breaking the law and facilitating illegal gambling.

Well, LL is no different from this hypothetical arcade The only difference is that the players supply the "arcade machines," and LL just sells tokens to the arcade and floor space. Thus, L$ are not true currency, but game play tokens.

The Barny Frank Bill of 2007 is being called a repeal bill, when in fact it is not. Barny Frank's claim that his bill will create an exemption to the ban on online gambling is simply not true. There is no ban on online gambling and the UIGEA did NOT ban online gambling. It only made it illegal to FUND illegal gambling. (note there is no certainty by anyone what exactly is illegal in the online arena at this time).

If you read the bill, the word repeal does not appear a single time. It does not take 26 pages to repeal a bill and this one is just being tacked onto the end of the UIGEA. It doesn't repeal anything and is additional legislation that will put more restrictions on the industry.

This is a typical political ploy. They call it something it isn't and get you to vote for it based on what they call it. That doesn't mean it IS what they call it. This additional legislation is designed purely to correct the UIGEA's inadequacies that are being challenged in the courts already.

This is a good example of how politicians scam us. First, the UIGEA did not receive a formal vote in the entire Congress so they tacked it onto an unrelated Port Safety Bill, hoping no one would read it (which they didn't or it wouldn't have passed.) There was no debate over it and it was submitted 15 minutes prior to the vote, so the chance anyone COULD read it were slim. The Port Safety Bill was sure to pass at that point since most of the Senators had already cast their vote and left. As expected the Port Safety Bill was unanimously approved in the Senate. Once it passed and they scared the beejeezus out of everyone by going after the big online processing companies, they now offer us another and call it a "repeal" to calm our fears. It should send up all kinds of red flags because this bill will effectively remove all competition from the market and place sole power over the industry in the hands of one single US Government Agency - giving ONE person the power to enforce the regulations, namely The Director of Financial Crimes and Enforcement.

read the law here:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/21frank_004_xml_(2).pdf



I am not berating anyone or bitching as you call it. I am simply responding to posts/comments/questions concerning something I feel strong enough about to research and form an opinion. My opinion is based on research and fact. My sources are quoted. It would not bother me to be muted by you or anyone else. In fact, if you do so, that will be one less time I have to repeat something you failed to read before.

I think it goes without saying we all have some interest in preserving the game. I think we have a responsibility to take some kind of action if we see its existence is in danger. That is my reason for protest, posting and demonstration. It should be yours as well if you choose to become involved. Some of you don't care to, but those who do should not be subjected to ridicule or castigation.

Yes, LL owns the game and can make any decision they want concerning it, but that doesn't absolve you or me of any responsibility to do or say what we can to help preserve both LL and the game. My suggestion to that end is to call for LL to ditch the LindeX. I'm not anyone special and they won't listen to me. But if I can help enough other people to understand why, they may join in and demonstrate too or perhaps offer an even better solution to what I see is a very real danger to the game. As individuals, little can be accomplished. But as a group we have considerable power to effect change as long as we are reasonable.



Yes it is. Unfortunately doing something about it in RL involves years of lobbying and deep pockets. I don't have a multi-million-dollar personal industry lobby at my disposal. Do you? I am doing what I can with what I have. The question is: What are you doing?

$L cannot be a true currency because that against Federal Law. That's why LL states in the TOS that they have no USD value. Unfortunately LL is facilitating the trading of $L for USD in an exchange called the LindeX which they own. LL is giving $L USD value by doing that.

It matters not that $L is traded by individual players for USD. The law doesn't apply to players because they did not create the $L nor do they own them or issue them.

You are absolutely correct. I see it very clearly, but lots of people apparently do not.

Uh oh ..

they didnt like me comparing the L$ to Chuckie Cheese Tokens in the other thread.

Thanks, I stand corrected. Should have known better than to expect something of good character from a pol like Barney Frank.

Basic point remains the same: LL is screwed on this point until something substantive is done about the 2006 act. I don't have a multi-million lobbying budget either, but hey, let's do what we can.

And I do not mean to castigate anyone for objecting to this nonsense. But I do reserve the right to complain when someone resorts to pointless hectoring on these forums that CANNOT accomplish what they want to accomplish because these forums are not the place where anything substantive can be done about it.

These forums might inspire people to go address the places where something can be done about it, and I really hope that happens. But complaining here about LL OBEYING THE FUCKING LAW OF THE FUCKING LAND is just pissing up a rope. Get it?

I understand that you are frustrated about repeating yourself. I'm frustrated that you keep repeating yourself also. Please stop. I don't need to know about qui tam litigation any more than I need to know about ex rel litigation under the Miller Act or quantum meruit or habeus corpus or any other type of action with a fancy Latin name. Trust me. I know what a qui tam action is, and they are considerably more complicated than you are making them out to be.

http://www.sec.gov is not a citation to any relevant authority. It is a direction to the SEC's home page. That's not the law, although some of the relevant law is probably there. You said you had read the law to form your opinion. Please show me the specific law that you read.

Look at it this way. Suppose I kicked you in the shins and you sued me for assault. We get up in front of the judge and you say, "He kicked me in the shins. I'm entitled to damages in the amount of $100 for Ace bandages and a co-pay from the shin doctor." I respond by saying, "I kicked her, but shin kicking is specifically exempted from the statutes which create liability for assault, therefore I have no liability. If you don't believe me, go to the state law library and look it up."

What is the judge going to say? When he stops laughing and pointing his finger at me, he's going to tell me to give him a specific citation to my authority for making that claim. If I just repeat myself over and over, I will lose. If, instead, I say, "17 SLCA 58(3)(b)", then I've given him authority. In this case, Title 17 Second Life Code Annotated Section 58 sub 3 sub b (made that up myself). The judge looks it up and says, "Well, I'll be damboozled! Shin kicking IS exempted. Mr. Recreant, you win. Case dismissed." Or, he looks it up and disagrees that the exemption applies and you win. In any event, I have given him a citation that he can rely on.

That's what I'm looking for. Give me a citation to a specific law that you read that applies here. That way I can go straight to it, look it up and decide whether I agree with you or not. At the very least, armed with the same information, we can engage in a discussion of how the law is likely to be applied and what the potential ramifications are for LL and for our community here. It's also possible that I have access to some case law that might be difficult for you to find. I can add to the discussion if you stop repeating yourself and just cough up the citations.

BTW - I apologize for posting harshly before. I was frustrated with you posting the same thing over and over without backing it up.

(Pssst - Translation - Gisela stop playing Internet lawyer when there are real live lawyers reading these forums)