SL "Gambling Violation of TOS or Violation of BLOG?

It is astonishing discovery. I have read the TOS..and i see nothing about gambling for or against in the TOS. And if so, yet have we or have we not agreed upon the terms being changed? So it reflects this so? I say this because we have not been formerly notified of any changes to the TOS per say the judges. "Indeed, a party can't unilaterally change the terms of a contract; it must obtain the other party's consent before doing so... This is because a revised contract is merely an offer and does not bind the parties until accepted."

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070729-court-says-no-to-changing-terms-of-service-without-notification.html

Again, all i see people getting suspensios, items removed, items being returned and the "police blotter" is shows..that the person and like persons are in violation of the TOS.

Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Violation: Terms of Service: Gambling
Region: Templegreen
Description: Terms of service violation.
Action taken: Suspended 1 days.

Is there a TOS violation or a BLOG violation?

This is flawed. There is no change in the TOS about this, there is no agreement with its users. If there is/or was, did I and a few thousand users miss something here?

Have we had a forced agreement on us to these changes via a couple BLOG entries?

For the record the above was NOT me. I took my stuff down weeks ago. I was going by what the BLOG said.

Show us line chapter and verse in the TOS, and show us where we have agreed apon any changes. otherwise this BLOG entry BUSINESS DECISSION Is nothing but MOOT!

This may cover it, I don't know for sure. It's right under the part where LL says they are bound by the laws of the US, and the State of California.

When the TOS changes doesn't it flash up and you have to agree before you can log-in to SL?

Right here...
http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/07/25/wagering-in-second-life-new-policy/



1. The blog entry FORMALLY (not formerly) notifies you of the change.
2. Definition of Terms of Service:

A legally binding agreement that outlines a site's operating policies. All registered users must agree to a site's terms before using the service.

Where in that defination does it say that YOU must agree to policy changes? It doesn't. Second life is a service offered by Linden Lab. It is THEIR business, and as such, they have the right to effect policy changes when they see fit. You do not have to agree to the changes, you can simply quit using the service.

I think they imagined that by selling $L for $USD they may be breaking the law.

check out the pesky difficulty with selling unregistered securties.

It's there.

www.sec.gov


or is it THERE.COM ?????

please read..before you continue this sidling.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070729-court-says-no-to-changing-terms-of-service-without-notification.html

I read it. What was said above holds true... Linden Lab has taken steps to NOTIFY you of the change to the terms. The judge's ruling doesn't say a company must get your APPROVAL before making the change.

Your CC company does this a lot. They send you a letter notifying you of all the changes that will be made. At that point, you can either agree, or you can cancel.

Now, it may be that you're upset with the fact that LL has taken action against gambling without actually including words to ban it in the TOS. Well, the TOS covers it in section 4.1:

Whee, another thread on gambling.

IANAL but:

Contract law, as far as I know, does not require someone to remain a silent accomplice while someone else uses the terms of the contract to break the law.

When do we talk about the Barney Frank Bill again......?

Never mind that, wheres Elex TOS Lawyer(TM) when you need him?

I'm not sure if some people try to avoid seeing it or they simply use the forums to win discussions.

I doubt anybody can disagree that it is a undeniable fact that the TOS is not a part of the BLOG nor is the BLOG a part of the TOS.

I've been in sl since 2005, the ONLY time i read the blog is if i cannot log in, otherwise i might check the forums now and then. And when it comes to TOS changes in the past Linden Labs have usualy done it in accourdance with laws, when you try to login you get a dialog telling you theres a change in TOS and the dialog shows you the new tos and you agree and login or disagree and don't login, or i can click agree and login and violate it and only blame myself later. Since the gambling ban wich is now 2 weeks ago the TOS has NOT changed, so one can only wonder how on earth is it considered a TOS violation when it's not. Legally a such reason for suspension or ban is illegal, the owner of the account can legally force linden lab to reopen it and cover any loss of revenue during the period.

Btw. I'm not trying to defend the gambling sector in secondlife, rather im trying to defend Linden Labs own ass.

If it's supposed to be a TOS violation then make sure to update the TOS, otherwise call it US-Law violation... i doubt BLOG-violation is a legitimate reason, but atleast it would been a true claim.

This rather comical behaviour comes on top of the fact that many lindens consider FREE-GAMES wager, other linden lab emplyoees don't know why solitare is not a game of chance becasue they see the carddeck beeing randomized. So in worst case if you run a FREEPLAY solitare tournament you can risk that not only will they return the solitare games you have rezzed (reason: "wagergames/game of chance" but also they may suspend your account for socalled "TOS-Violation", now that is not funny at all it's just ridiculous. Are they drinking at work ?

Actually, based on the "land stealing" lawsuit now in progress, a judge _has_ ruled that the TOS is a "contract of adhesion".

In other words: if LL change the TOS, you do have the right to refuse the changed TOS, but if you do, you can't access SL anymore. However, this means the loss of all your SL-based assets, up to and including an RL livelihood. Even with notice, there is no way to take those things out of SL. The judge decided that this means that your hand is being forced regarding the decision to accept/reject the updated TOS, which is what has enabled the lawsuit to go beyond the judge banging his gavel and saying "you agreed to those terms, so it's hard luck".

Which is relevant if the ToS needs changing over the gambling issue...
but as far as I can tell it does not. Real law changed.

Online casinos are unlikely to get 'grandfathered' and allowed to continue
just because they pre-dated the new law. Whether they're in secondlife
or not.

I know, understand, and respect the need for a loose TOS, im not stating this, nor really am i stating that it should be rock solid...

I just think the TOS needs an update/revamp...gambling (chance games and some random games as well), and all staff and residents should agree to it..if not then we are seeing the chaos as we are seeing...games of skill being returned as if they were games of chance...chances are vendor machinese could be returned. Bank ATM's. ect ect. The madness has to stop somewhere.

I think that the TOS should reflect this directly..instead of just a blog. Vague terms have there place in the TOS to handle a variety of situations... however.. some of the ambiguity that has happened in the past 3 weeks or so needs to be addressed.

PS..the "Now, it may be that you're upset" statement ect. AD HOMINEM comments are common, i forgive you!

Gee. I just had a tremendous thought today. Ever since i have been in Second Life, i have never read a BLOG...reason is, they are BLOCKED and i have always been given a DNS @ my present living location. So have i OFFICIALLY read the BLOG? I can honestly say i have always attempted to do that, and on the other hand have never been successful to read any blog.

Blocked? If you haven't sufficient access to read blogs from your site, then chances are strong that participating in secondlife also violates whatever network usage policies the people that control your network have. They just haven't blocked this site yet.

HOG WASH... I happen to be an American who happens to work in China, China BLOCKS BLOGS. One has to love every AD HOM attempt here. Get off it with me. ok, the subject is two things. BLOG and TOS. Do you realize China is not the only country that blocks BLOGS, India does as well.

FYI please read why.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3260

But then again another stab at trying to sideline the issue at hand. AD Hom tactics just don't get it with me, so stop trying.

Well then next time you could perhaps volunteer a little more information so that when folks are TRYING to fathom what on earth your problem may be they might have a chance to leap off a cliff in the direction of something that might be even REMOTELY relevant.

That you mis-interpreted my response as an AD HOM attack is your error.

Good luck getting help... you'll get no more attempts from me.

Rusty, he wasn't asking for help, he was making a statement. *shrugs*

Under US Law, gambling is NOT illegal. Funding it with US dollars is, and only SOME forms of gambling. Free to play games are perfectly legal in the eyes of the law.

Under US Law, changes to the TOS do HAVE to be approved by the users of the service otherwise they are null and void. If there is no change to the TOS, then the rule does not exist. Therefore, under the eyes of the law, US Law as well as California law, Linden Labs is actions are illegal. They are not allowed to ban people, take their stuff, etc, for violations of a TOS agreement that does not yet exist.

We would, or at least I would, appreciate a response to this from Linden Labs themselves.

Actually you highlight the difference. The judge ruled that posting the information on a website is not sufficient notification. Your CC company sends you a letter, that is considered sufficient notification.

It would be in the interests of LL to do what Blizzard do with WoW and make you agree to the TOS again when they make updates or change the TOS.

As i pointed out earlier, LL have always done so in the past, whenever they changed the TOS there was a dialog poping up and you had to accept it to login.

Ah right, I haven't been here long enough to see that then. I'm surprised it hasn't been implemented for this change.

Me too, actualy after REALY, REALY studiying this case i came to this conclusion (it's very thin, but still)... in early 2006 us govt changed it's law towards internetgambling an action that was taken after one politician got bribed (officialy known as donation) by the rl casino tycoons, something that changed the law. So basicly what one can say is that TOS section 1.5 refers to that and doesnt have to be changed, wich is an undeniable fact, but the question is then why did LL break the law for past 6 months ?

Sorry, yes, you're right. My previous response stands though. If accessing blogs is against 'national policy' then they're just as likely to ban something like SecondLife in it's entirety on just as feeble a whim.

If the reason given in Inyur's link is true, you'd think they'd just have someone blocking the anon-repeater sites as they were found instead of amputating an entire form of communication to prevent people from seeing a few pages. What if a list of repeater sites gets published in SecondLife? *poof* Inyur won't have to worry much about ToS changes or blog updates after that point.

More Hog Wash. I don't have to volonteer anything that is not relavent to the subject at hand. I wasn't asking your help. That is your error, double so with your AD HOM tactic's.