Interview with Bragg's lawyer

http://virtuallyblind.com/2007/08/28/jason-archinaco-interview-marc-bragg/

So, when you bought *your* land, did you think you owned it, or did you interpret "own virtual land" to mean "a license to use computing resources"?

See this:

http://secondlife.com/corporate/tos.php

Just because the sign says "Not Responsible for Your Hat and Coat" doesn't always mean that they legally are not.

The law works in ways that often appear quite counter-intuitive to the layperson.

I 'own' land....but I look at it as owning memory space....and at that.....I never took it seriously enough to assume I have any permanant rights to it. If I get hit by a bus.... my tiers wont get paid...and the land I owned gets kicked back to the seller....again....a private sim.....so in reality...HE is only really renting memory space on the grid too. I just don't see my SL experience as something I can commit to indefinitely....yeah, it's cool for now and I'm having fun. But.... it's the matrix.....all it is, is virtual memory, stored and regurgitated over and over.
I look at any investiment I make in SL as mad money... money I can afford to blow, and lose for my own entertainment and self indulgence. That's it. Land schmand. I rent memory. I never saw it as anything other than that.
*shrug*

how long before this case is resolved?

5 years?? 10 years??

/me places pie to cool on the window sill, gets some plates ready.......

It's actually set to go to trial in December....

those pies might be a lil Moldy by then.

See also:
http://secondlife.reuters.com/stories/2007/05/31/judge-rules-against-one-sided-tos-in-bragg-lawsuit/

The only time the ToS has been tested in court, it was judged (at least partly) unenforceable.

Seeing as how I'm neither an idiot nor fresh off the farm, and have been involved with the internet and its forbearers for the better part of 20 years, I'm going to have to say option "B".

I no more believed I owned the land than I believe I'm actually flying when doing so in SL.

But if you read the Bragg complaint, they do make a pretty compelling case for Philip having made affirmative claims that you do own SL land (but not that you actually fly).

Regardless of your sensibilities on the subject, this will be heard by a judge (and possibly jury) who are not techno-dweebs like us. Indeed, the Bragg complaint used a "Disney World" analogy often in the expectation that the judiciary won't know a prim from a shim.

If this case actually does see its day in court, no matter how it is decided, it will be interesting.

Yep, it will be interesting, but I personally don't see Bragg as having that compelling of a case with regard to the ownership issue (and his "easement" proposal). That would make it impossible for any online service to ban people who break the rules because the ban would be trumped by their entitlement to access their virtual stuff. I wonder if it will come up in court that Bragg admitted in his original press release that he never read the TOS.

Have to agree with Reitsuki here. We only own the license to use computing resources. "Land" is jsut another tool of that.

~Jessy

he found a bug
he knew what that bug would do
he ignored reporting it to LL and abuse it instead

backwards browsing is ok untill u knowlingly abuse it, good riddence

It came up in Bragg's own complaint to the court:Judges have a reputation for not liking surprises about material facts.

* http://lawy-ers.com/BraggvLinden_Complaint.pdf (p.24, claim 126)

I consider myself quite intelligent and when i joined SL everything i read was you will own this and that and yes I believed I owned it. How I can see one can't own land, but does he own the little chunk of memory that the Lindens sold to him?

I view it the same as stocks and shares, I have say 100 IBM shares but i don't think i own IBM, not even a small part of it, but! on the other hand, if someone owns 55% of the shares they can safely say I own IBM. So therefore I do own some of IBM just that it's the light bulb in the men's toilets…

…hmmm I need a light bulb

Banning would only be impossible if another service constantly told users they "own" their virtual stuff. AFAIK, SL is the only VW to make that claim. Depending on the outcome of this case, I expect others won't be too quick to jump on that wagon and LL may be trying to find a gracious way off.

And, quite frankly, if an online service is telling users they own things, there *should* be something in place to prevent arbitrary access impairment. In this case, I think the easement argument is entirely valid. Saying I own something then actively preventing my access to it simply doesn't wash.

Except the question before the court just isn't that simple. Thanks to the OP for the Virtually Blind site which has interesting bits like a mock trial of Bragg v. Linden at Harvard Law School*. The mock jury - who likely know more about law than all of us in this thread put together - found that Bragg's "backward browsing" was improper and LL reclaiming that parcel valid.

However, they also found that depriving Bragg of his properly obtained other property was not supportable.

In case anyone is caused to question my motivations, I simply find this matter fascinating - as do the folk at Virtually Blind (tagline: virtual law / legal issues that impact virtual worlds).


* http://virtuallyblind.com/2007/01/25/harvards-evidence-2007-in-second-life/

Bottom line: Fuck Bragg.

if his suit helps sort out the intricate problems of inttlectual property owenrship in a worldwide 3D relaity, cool. But I hope the result ends in screwing the mofo.

This guy is an ass for sure, he really needs to get a life, Im sure hes a dweeb who is just picked on too much in RL poor beebbbe, I almost feel sorry for the little man

Can you say "LOOOSSERRR"

I actually thought that Bragg's argument was that, whether he read the TOS or not, the TOS didn't appear for a second time when he bought the land. That meant that the exchange of money for land was a whole separate contract of sale, and since the TOS wasn't mentioned at that time, it wasn't included in it. Has that been discussed or defeated or removed now?

I really should know by now that the best discourse here is on the subject of pie.

Fuck pie!

I'm going out in the morning. I will find the biggest mansion I can find. I will find its "For Sale" sign, and I will mark it with the sum of $1. Then I will sue the seller because they won't let me purchase this mansion for one dollar, even though the sign says $1. Its a solid plan, and it will work, because I will cite the case of Bragg vs Linden Lab.

Next step: Finding a way to get around those pesky property taxes.

WHEREAS The management cannot be held responsible for any accidents, incidents, loss of property or life or limb.

WHEREAS For damage caused by lightning, earthquakes, floods, fire, frost, or frippery of any sort, kind or condition, consequently the undersigned take responsibility.

WHEREAS During the term of this Agreement you will become and remain, at your sole cost and expense and at our request, a member in good standing of any then properly designated labor unions, guilds, or other organizations, as defined and determined under the applicable law, pertaining persons performing services of the type and the character - including, but not limited to, reading primary sources instead of third generation glosses by writers who abhor entertaining two propositions simultaneously - to be performed here and hereunder. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require the violation of any written agreement executed between us and any such labor union, guild or other organization which may be in effect at the time of the execution of this agreement, and wherever there is any conflict between the provisions of this agreement and any other, the latter shall prevail, but in such event, the provisions of this agreement so affected shall be curtailed and limited only to the events necessary to permit compliance with such payment of any additional compensation it shall be at the minimum that is permitted thereunder.

I couldn't have said it better, so I will settle for quoting Chip and saying "what he said".

.