Romanian Users

In theory, that would seem to work.

In practice, however, it isn't as easy as it sounds. First, having to manually add potentially thousands of exceptions to network banlists is not only labor-intensive, it also can lead to performance issues at the network level. It is why allow/deny rules at the network layer are kept fairly minimal. Second, there is no way to verify that any particular IP address is, in fact, static. Even so, what happens if that person switches ISPs, moves, or leaves SL without notifying, and someone else less scrupulous gets that IP? There's no automatic notification when that IP stops being representative of that resident, and becomes used by someone else. This doesn't even address issues of NAT subnets, where someone could be running a cyber cafe or similar cluster of PCs over the same IP address. Someone gets a blanket exception for an IP covering tens to hundreds of PCs with potentially thousands of unique users that come and go on a daily basis. I won't even get into insecure wireless access points.

So, while LL *could* do what you are suggesting, the question would become whether the real cost justifies the gain, and exactly what the gain would be.



I am a big proponent of fair and ethical business practices, but I am also a pragmatist about it. While "Fair" isn't a fundamental right when it comes to business, it should be something to pursue with all diligence. In many situations, though, factors beyond your control as a business may force your hand, whether it be the law (take a look at the VAT issue), or a critical infrastructure/service provider (ISP/CC processor/etc). I don't know if that is the case in this instance, but I do know it has been in the past with services with which I have been directly involved. It sucks, but that's life. :-/

At any rate, I encourage you to encourage/help your friends get some answers to LL about the situation. I hope they can get the problems worked out.

Yes, I see the issues and the difficulties.

I am not sure what country you are in. I am in the UK. It appears that, in the USA, there are very different practices. To give you an example, if you created something in SL and I reported you saying that you stole it from me, the burden of proof would be on you to prove that you did create it and not on me to prove that you didn't. Until you proved that it was your intellectual property, Linden Lab could remove that content. I know a person who makes skins in Second Life and he had to use a RL lawyer which cost him a fair amount of money after he was wrongly accused by a competitor of stealing textures. That is not the fault of Linden Lab, that is intellectual property law in the USA.

In the UK, you are innocent until proven guilty. It appears, from what I have seen, that in the USA you are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent, at least in disputes over Intellectual property.

I know that Linden Lab has to protect its interests and the interests of the many users of SL. That is why blanket bans will be necessary. However, there needs to be a facility for those who have done no wrong to be able to overcome any blanket bans.

I think there is something immoral in removing a person's right to access a virtual world where they have invested money and time, as well as building a social life with friends and even, in some cases, business contacts. It is also unfair to the friends of that person. People get very close to other people in SL. If a close friend is banned and we never hear from them again, how can we know if they are even still alive?

My RL business is mainly related to SL. If I was banned I would lose a large part of my RL income. I am lucky that I am not in Romania because I wouldn't be able to sleep at night!

I happen to be in the US as well, and yes, the DMCA is a tad biased on the side of creators (as is modern Copyright law in general). In general, if everyone does due diligence and acts within a reasonable time frame, the damage from fraudulent DMCA claims can be minimized. Also, a DMCA take-down notice is NOT a court order; no one has to do anything after receiving one. However, if an OSP does not honor a legitimate DMCA notice, they become liable to be sued for vicarious and/or contributory infringement, depending on the circumstances. So, LL has a duty to honor what it deems as legitimate requests, and has the right to refuse what it deems are illegitimate ones.

You have to remember, there is no "innocent" or "guilty" at this stage. DMCA notices to ISPs, and their resulting actions are NOT backed by court order. They are not the outcome of litigation, they are merely attempts to NOTIFY parties of potential liability, PRIOR to litigation. Proof is mostly irrelevant at this stage, since it amounts to one person's word against another, and LL (or any OSP) is NOT a courtroom/judge/jury.

As an OSP myself, any DMCA notice I receive regarding one of my customers, I IMMEDIATELY forward onto them so that they can turn around a counter-notice within the time frame I have to take down their content ("expeditiously". If they fail to do so, I follow the law and take it down. If they provide me with what appears to be a legitimate counter-notice, I forward it on to the original complainant, and they can then go ahead and slug it out in court, without me having to do anything else, except from court order. By the law, I have to still take their content offline if they fail to themselves, for a minimum of 14 days, which is the timeframe the complainant has to file a case in a district court.

I am also pretty critical of any/all DMCA notices I may receive, and if they in any way appear illegitimate or inaccurate, I can refuse to honor them. It's my risk, but if I have reasonable doubt as to their authenticity, I am willing to risk it for the sake of my customers. Not all ISPs are like that, though. Some will just nuke a customer's entire site over a DMCA takedown for any content that they receive.



Not really; IP cases pretty much require the plaintiffs to make their case. Since they are basically civil cases, though, the standard of proof is lower, only having to show a preponderance of the evidence in their favor to win. Still, that follows the "innocent until proven guilty" rule. The only issue is the "take down" of the disputed content until the case can be determined. Normally, this is done via injunctions/court orders, and that usually accompanies real cases which are filed to back up what amounts to the "poor man's injunction" represented by the DMCA notice.



Again, in principle, I agree with you. However, in practice, there simply may not be. I'm not intending to discourage you from trying for your friends' sake; just pointing out the possibility so you (and they) are prepared for it, and helping to shed some light on why it may be. If there can be, there should be; if not, maybe someday.



Well, there is no "right to access" a virtual world. SL is a "luxury", a privilege. Despite how much one "invests" in it, that fact never changes.

Also, I would have to say, if that person is truly that close to you, then you should have more than one way to keep in contact with him/her. There are friends I have had here in SL that have also disappeared. Some of them have passed from real life, others are a mystery why they up and disappeared one day. It makes me sad, too, as I miss them, but if they didn't want to share more avenues of keeping in touch with them, I can't say that they were that close to me.



One of the primary aspects of running a business is risk management. Running a business in SL has a fairly well-defined set of risks, not the least of which is losing the privilege of accessing SL for whatever reason. The same thing is true in RL, too. You may be in a business which depends on the law allowing you to operate some way. If the law changes, it could potentially put you out of business. If there is a chance that the law could change that way, then you have to manage that as a real risk to the continuation of your business.