Purged of Intellectual Property... Is this fair?!

Are you still a premium "customer" if you stop paying?

that fixes all kinds of things, basically you own nothing except your dollar balance if you have one.. the rest can be deleted at will.

Half of the TOS breaks some kind of US law but this one is undeniable - all your Bases belongs to THEM!

Yep. They have been sued and lost over the very issue of not giving someone access to their stuff, but I imagine that the average Joe cannot afford such a lawsuit just to get back a bunch of lost inventory.

Evidence that half the TOS breaks some kind of law? And yes it is true that we don't own anything in LL but our dollar balance. Can you show me any MMO where that is not true? (not going to get into the "is it a game or not" for our purposes it is a MMO) I guess LL could put all his pixels in a jar and mail them to him.

The first time i heard a premium had gotten their account deleted and then someone told me that if they were basic they never would have..My jaw dropped to the floor..I mean i felt like i had just heard one of the most stupidest things i had ever heard before..
There really is no good reason to be a premium after hearing that..There is more incentive to stay away from it as far as what i can see..
Unless you are owning islands

Well, put it this way, it's about five times easier to retain prior customers than it is to get new ones, in just about every industry.

And negative experiences get repeated maybe ten times more often than good ones.

There's no "win" here.

Yeah, I have customers, to not put too fine a point on it, leave my estate now and then by simply not paying. Sometimes they just abandon and watch more cable TV, or maybe they went to the hospital, or maybe their dog died.

Doesn't matter.

There are very few customers who quit for a while, that I wouldn't welcome back.

At 100k+ USD annually, all the freebie players are making their free phone calls, getting their free data storage, and all that wonderful stuff, off the backs of those who pay the bills. In some part off the residents on my estate.

And ya know, I can see how allowing some people in free like that has merit. I really do.

But to hurt Chance like this is just stupid. I think even the Company knows its a messed up situation and would help him if they could.

Yes, but do you let them leave their prims on your estate? Or do you send them back?

This isn't the same... you are storing your stuff in the climate controlled storage in both instances. Only one person pays for storage and will lose it if they forget to pay, and one person gets to leave it there as long as they want.

No, one of you is paying for permission to call the manager's phone number, tokens for the game room, and the ability to rent extra space. When that person doesn't pay for a couple months, they are using services without paying for them.

And my friends are renting the rest of the storage block with perks. I'm going to mention to them that I didn't pay for a month, and I got my stuff auctioned off. Bummer.

Totally inappropriate analogy. The cost of maintaining his inventory is peanuts for LL, whereas it's backbreaking for a landlord.

Especially when they maintain the inventory of multiple millions of free accounts, but would wipe the maybe 10 or 20 thousand lapsed premium accounts (I don't think there are even 100,000 premiums).

It's ridiculous.

The principle is the same, theft of services is theft of services.

So he should pay no penalty for the theft of services he committed?

Linden Labs only lets you "leave your prims on the estate" if you weren't paying but just mooching around on the sandbox. Tell me that's not messed up and I'll call you a liar.

Exactly what service with regards to inventory has been stolen? There is no theft of services as a premium account has no added inventory features over a basic account.

The issue isn't is premium vs. basic. The issue is that the OP agreed to a contract and continued taking the services he agreed to pay for after he stopped paying. It doesn't matter what deal LL has with the "mooches", LL had a deal with the OP and he broke it. All he had to do was drop down to basic or pay his bill. He chose to do neither.

The account is a whole. You rent an apartment from me, you stop paying rent and leave your belongings in my apartment for two months. They are then mine to do with what I want, sell them, junk them or use them myself.

OK, try this analogy.

I'm headed out to put a notice to quit on a RL tenant's door. He knew the rules, and signed them. Hopefully, there is no other spam on his door today, so that the notice does not get lost, or if he were wise, he would check all spam on his door, or review the current lease for ramifications.

He will have two more weeks to make good. He's already had two weeks, as the economy was considered, and the cost of replacing him was considered.

But his friends are renting some other houses, and they consistently pay on time. If they find out that you can go a month without paying, with no ramifications.....then no reason for them to pay either. Yes, it will cost to replace him....and that cost will affect the other tenants, as they will receive no additional perks or upgrades for the next six months.

I have a friend occupying a vacant house for free, just to keep it occupied. He gets no perks, whatsoever, but he is welcome to store his stuff there, for appearance sake, which does me a favor. (concurrency/population appearance). Yeah - it costs a little wear and tear on the house....but not the same effect as having all tenants with perks suddenly stop paying, and having to cover their ass for a number of months.

Things didn't work this way in 2003.

If we want to get technical, persistent data storage during the time Chance was here, back in the day, was really, really spotty. The agreements he clicked through at that time were radically different, and didn't have all the wiggle room clauses either.

So from Chance's perspective, if you want to be a purist like that, the deal Chance agreed to was changed radically, and furthermore, he didn't click through on the agreements to it.

At which point, were this a significant case (and in the grand scheme of things, it's not) ~ but if it were a significant case, the automatic destruction of Chance's assets wouldn't go down very well in a trial seeking justice.

Chance didn't steal anything. He just didn't pay, or use the service, or even agree to the updated terms. Huge difference.

Second Life accounts are free (or $9.95 in the OP's case, which was paid for six years ago). The premium membership is an enhancement to it. There is no theft of services regarding inventory.

And Mickey, to try your analogy... that's just terrible business.

I've been in the estate business a long time, and giving one guy a freebie house while making another pay, then, thowing him out (!) ... no. It's just plain crazy and unfair.

Estates need to be run as transparently as possible, or residents (customers!) will feel cheated and mistreated. And you better believe it will get out, if you ever do stuff like that.

If he didn't like the new terms he had the option to not use the service. Did he keep accepting the stipend? Logged in or not, he was using the service, using it without paying for it is stealing. It all comes down to Chance being either lazy or careless.

And that account as a whole agreed to a contract. When he broke that contract, the whole account was in default.

We have already established that life isn't fair.

That's precisely the issue. Linden Labs penalizes paying customers, and rewards vagrants. This discourages people from being paying customers. This discourages people from doing business with Linden Lab. This discourages people from paying Linden Labs money.

It's like, you give people apartments for free, and about ten percent of them rent a penthouse. If the guy in the penthouse misses a payment, you throw all his stuff out, but the other tenants in the building who are costing you just as much, you leave their stuff alone as long as they want.

It's crazy. Linden Lab has the RIGHT to be crazy, but they're still crazy. They are not acting in their own best interests. They are discouraging paying customers. This is not sensible behavior.

No, it penalizes deadbeat customers who break the contract they agreed to honor.