Looks like Bragg got his stuff back

I didn't miss your point at all. That is because I actually have an I.Q. greater than that of a jar of peanut butter.

Put the two next to each other:

(1) He wasn't saying that we all win because one of us got away with something.

(2)He is saying we all win because LL's draconian punishments, namely blanket confiscation without a reasonable recourse, were called into question.

One of those weighs more than the other. And the one that weighs the most is (1).

Therefore, we lose.

coco

We don't lose Cocoanut, LL will have tightened up their rules to ensure that the next time someone tries a trick like that, then they have the upper hand. Well I hope they will have anyway.

Nobody likes to see someone getting away with it. On the other hand, LL need to ensure their house is in order and hopefully this case will have shaken them into a position that they do.

I hope you're right.

coco

I'm questioning how you knew he had 100,000$ in legal fees


Furthermore - how you know they were real legal fees or something a lawyer buddy wrote up.

Its real easy for lawyers to claim they are owed a bunch of money that they aren't. Its part of the reason they have developed such a horrible reputation.

Both Bragg and LL lost, in my opinion. Neither probably got what theywanted out of this, despite possible protestations to the contrary. Had it gone to trial, they both would have probably lost evenmore, so it was a good idea to settle.

Where does that leave us, the paying customers?

Unfortunately, the probably value of a precedent of the judge's ruling on the TOS is probably lessened in that I doubt is it will get published in the Fed. Supp. One the plus side, the cases cited and the judge's reasoning can be applied to other cases.

The big gain for us is the very public revaltion of holes in LL's supposedly invincible armor. Bragg took them on and he hurt them, badly. I have no sympathy for Bragg whatsoever, but what he did to was show that the big boys can be taken down. This is no suprise to trial lawyers, generally we know that the bigger they are, the harder they fall if you have the facts and/o the law on your side. This shows the average customer that LL can be vulnerable, given the right circumstances.

Even more importantly, it shows the management of LL that they are not quite the super cool big shots they think they are. A good smart lawyer can have a lot of fun raking a CEO over the coals in a deposition or onthe witness stand without their platoon of yes men to run interference for them. I suspect that Rosedale was wetting his pants over that possibility. He would NOT have enjoyed it. I believe this case shook them up, a lot. Whether they learn from it or not is anyone's guess.

Sooz

Bragg probably spent hundreds of hours with his lawyer, in depositions, court and at trial strategy meetings. Then there are the legal fees in excess of $100,000 if Linden Lab did not pay that as part of the settlement agreement. If you consider that getting away with something that's your opinion but the facts would seem to contradict it.

The settlement is hardly a precedent to encourage other SL users to hunt for exploits to abuse without fear of repercussions. Only an idiot would believe that they now have greater freedom to abuse exploits because of the settlement. LL can still easily suspend or ban any user's account. It just had to afford some due process to the matter which is something it should have had to have done all along.

So yes in comparing one player "getting away" with one isolated series of exploits to all players in SL specifically, and potentially all players in MMOG's in general, benefitting from a court ruling that strikes against a standard and blatantly unfair TOS term regarding due process for players, one thing does clearly weigh more than others if you're willing to take of the Bragg-bashing blinders and look at the big picture.

You didn't acknowledge point Dagmar's (1) at all in your first response, so it seemed to me you were missing you point. Now I see that you do acknowledge point (1), but you simply consider point (2) to be greater. Now, that is reasonable. Thank you for clarifying.

oh, yes, and *ahem* "I Disagree."

Umm did you even bother reading the response to the interrogatories to see what it is? It's an official response filed with the courts. Bragg's attorney was not some "lawyer buddy" and it was not something he "just wrote up".

Generally speaking attorney's do not file false statements with the court regarding legal fees and for good reason outside of moral compulsion. To do so is a violation of the attorney code of ethics for every jurisdiction in the United States and can get the submitting attorney in serious trouble with their state bar as well as with the court.

So no it is not "real easy for lawyers to claim they are owed a bunch of money that they aren't" in filings submitted to the court and it is not part of the reason they have developed such a "horrible reputation." Negative public perception about lawyers is largely if not entirely based on ignorance, stereotyping and prejudice fanned by the sensationalist media coverage of the industry.

In a survey I read a number of years ago the majority of people when polled said it was their perception that lawyers in general are not trustworthy yet a majority of the people also said when questioned specifically about their lawyer that he or she was the exception to the rule. Makes you wonder.

Ohh please. There are plenty of law firms that jack up legal fees all the time.

Ive had to deal with one. Every time they had their computer call me and I wasn't there their I supposedly owed them another $20.

I don't have any blinders on whatsoever.

I know what this guy did, and I followed the entire case from the outset. I'm not nearly as good as insulting people as you are, though, I'll give you that.

There are a lot of things wrong with the way LL does things, in my opinion.

But none of them - NONE of them - rises to the level of knowingly using an exploit to gain a personal financial advantage, then adding injury to insult by taking the company you cheated to court and costing ALL of us more money.

I'm the LEAST fan of the TOS. I'm the least fan of the entire judicial "system" at LL.

But I draw the line at seeing anything good come of or for someone who cheats.

coco

I pray they don't. Those 'crusty class 3's' in Mainland are some of the highest valued real estate in SL, particularly if they are Fully Terraformable. He'd be really cleaning up then, going from a sim woth about $2000 to one worth about $20,000.

I'd have to hate him then, and I respect him for standing up to LL.

Standing up to LL is easy. More people should take it up.

Using an exploit to enrich oneself is cowardly. Taking the people you cheated court over it is avaricious and self-glorifying. This guy is a lawyer, and he takes people to court for the fun of it, I believe.

He will also threaten to sue YOU - or ME - or anyone else who says a cross word against him.

I will never in a million lifetimes respect a cheater.

coco

Firstly, standing up to LL is easy, but fruitless for most people. They don't have the time or money to get into a real legal battle, even when they would win if they did take it to court. As for cheating, this guy cheated no more than landbot masters cheat when they use 3rd party programs to beat fair competition with other human beings. Again, most folks couldn't afford an RL legal battle with LL, even knowing they're right. This guy may not have been right, but he could stand up for himself in a way most can't. I respect his willingness to put in his own resources to do so.

While I may not condone his methods, LL has permitted far more cheating in SL when there was no risk to THEMSELVES. When someone cheats and they loose money, only then does the fit hit the shan. I don't respect his cheating, but his willingness to say no to LL in court. I'd rather be among cheaters than those who practice situational ethics.

i agree.

I disagree. I think (2) is more important than (1). If we want to move toward a real metaverse, we need to have a world with a proper power of law, not a unilateral dictatorship. If one person getting away is the price of moving toward a proper law in SL, it is a small price to pay.

Well said. And made realize i had my 2's and 1's confused in my response. Oh well... you all know what I meant.

Me too. LL really dodged that bullet.

QFT. I'm very disappointed. I think LL should have given him back any money that wasn't obtained from profits made on fraudulent auctions, but he deserved to be permabanned, and he deserves to lose his license to practice law. Let's not forget that he tried to sue LL for the money he expected to make from the sale of his ill-gotten land (!!), not just to get his other assets back. What does that tell you about his character?

I disagree, because the end NEVER justifies the means.

coco

I consider landbots to be cheaters myself, in a way.

But LL doesn't consider them cheaters, and in any case, they are totally different from people who knowingly use exploits.

I see the back door to Macy's open after hours. I go in and help myself to unpriced merchandise, leaving a dollar on the counter.

Macy's finds out, takes the stuff back, and throws my butt out on the street.

I get incensed, and take them to court, saying that it was POSSIBLE to enter the store, and their fault for not locking the door.

Macy's settles with me.

Hey - I'm still a crook and a lowlife.

Originally on this case, it was my opinion that LL shouldn't have taken assets he gained legitimately, and LL should have a better appeals system.

Although I still believe both those things, I rank them lower in importance than my total disgust with a cheater lawyer who takes people to court right and left.

coco

One small correction to your analogy... Macy's finds out, takes the stuff back, and everything else you have at home that you bought legitimately before this happened, plus the entire balance on your Macy's Gift Card, which had nothing to do with the theft, then throws your butt out.

As I said, Adz, that part I am in agreement with. In fact, when the case first broke, that was the point I made.

coco

First, the real victory was that LL is no longer omnipotent in SL. What Bragg did was to publically hold them up to a higher power's authority. For that I am greatful.

Whether or not LL finds landbot masters cheaters or not, isn't the end all and be all of the arguement anymore. I may not have the wherewithall to fight botmasters and LL, but LL now knows it's possible for someone else to do so, as does the entire SL community. LL likely won't ban landbots any time soon, but at least there is some accountablity the next time someone else comes up with a great scheme to rip off their fellow residence or LL. They might be ripping off the independently wealthy guy or gal who can fight in court and then sue LL for letting it happen. Bragg was no more or less a cheater than a botmaster. The only difference was WHO he cheated, namely LL rather than his fellow resident. He cheated the big guy rather than the little guy.

Your Macy's analogy is flawed. Macy's doesn't make its customers sign a contract that emtitles Macy's to come into their homes at any time, and take back the stuff that was purchased without refund, without there being any legal recourse whatsoever. LL had just such a policy in it's TOS. Bragg forced them to realize that that doesn't hold water in a court of law. When one purchases something, the manufacturer doesn't have the right to come and take it back, and then bar you from trying to reclaim. Bragg cheated, true, but that doesn't mean that LL should have a broad scope of rights that no RL business, like Macy's, could ever hope to have.

And finally, LL would never have created a fairer appeals system if Bragg handn't gotten in their faces and their pocketbooks. No business entity does ANYTHING because its fair, or the right thing to do. They do what is most profitable. Bragg showed LL that their TOS couldn't protect them from legal challenges, and that it could be far more costly to keep this open-ended TOS which translates to 'whatever LL feels is in it's best interst regardless of whether or not it's fair'.

Yes, but that's an actual fee (as dumb as it is).

The price was called into question of knowing the figure or having a friend write up a fake one for the courts (which is punishable by 10-15 years in a court of law, btw, and much longer in a federal court). I think the person who questioned implied that the legal bill was fudged just for one purpose and wasn't actually the price owed.

It was the price owed. Now the itemized probably shows stupid fees, but they are chargable by contract. Anyone see the bill Opri to Birkhead in the Baby Daddy Anna Nicole case? $600,000 bill to pay for HER dry cleaning which she'll also write off. Same precedent here. Just because they do charge it, doesn't make it right, but does make it a legit charge.

You'd be surprised but the law world in the US watched this case VERY VERY VERY closely. And no, I'm not talking about armchair lawyers, but old crusty middle aged men who don't even use a computer.

Yay, Macy's. Hope Bragg shops there.