MY space sued for 31 mill is LL next?

Get off your high horse. I am just stating my opinion based on the same information that you have. I am not the official judge in this case and my opinions are not going to decide anyones future.

I peppered my comments with ameliorating comments such as "seemed to" and "I didn't see any" info, ... It's an opinion piece, not an objective news report.

If you have more info that might change my opinion go ahead and submit it. If you think we shouldn't discuss topics like this unless we have complete information, say so. But if you just want to stifle my opinion because you don't agree with it or because it represents an unpleasant reality, then just keep your mouth shut. Please.

Bottom line, yes it is my place to interpret the news article and give my opinion. No it's not my place to impose real world penalties on the girl, the guy, their parents or even myspace.


Were you there? Is it your place to judge them? Hypocrite much?

Maybe off topic or not entirely within thread , but I am gonna say it anyway


Here is one less monster on the internet

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5106612.stm

(no it doesnt mention SL at all I know - but what is SL but a glorified chat room ? )

How many more are turning their eyes towards Secondlife now ?

Especially now that SL has high profile customers like BBC's Radio one that are beginning to use it as a broadcasting platform ?

( For those who don't know England - BBC's "radio one" is one the flagships of the BBC that appeals to youngsters and teens alike )

Let's put aside for the moment the question of whether lawyers are all vermin from hell and whether everyone in the country is lawsuit-crazy.

There really is an ethical issue here, and there really is some responsibility for LL to try to prevent ill from befalling a child.

coco

I just read the Linden comments on Prop 1503 and it appears they also are not concerned with perverts and predators picking on the underage that are descending on the grid as the "coolest chat site" around - Instead they are focusing their attention on better ways on minimizing grief ( muting objects etc )

Has anyone mentioned that the predators and monsters wont be targetting those who like to run around screaming at people and throwing nukes at anything that moves - they will be targetting the almost sensible youngsters who will be trying to use SL as an alternate community and would probably never get in trouble with a Linden.

SL also has the advantage of the "Have a sweet Deary ?" syndrome - where the predator can groom their victim with gifts and attention, where in oher chat rooms they just have the power of their words.

Prop 1503 has nothing to do with griefing - it has to do with keeping the underage OFF of the adult grid, for their own safety as much as anything else.


Re-Instate age verification - dont add more "toys" to mute people.

But how would those predators know who is a teenager and who is not? Revealing underage can get you banned so most of the teens will keep it low.

Well said Soleil! It's ridiculous that legal action like this can even get off the ground. Why didn't the stupid girl meet with him in a public place first, accompanied by a friend even, she would have seen he wasn't who he said he was and then the alleged abuse could not have taken place. Also, myspace is not intended as a dating service, if that was it's main function then you could understand this a bit more. A case of parents pushing the blame elsewhere I think which laughable as presumably they were the ones who provided her with the PC; the tool with which to arrange this clandestine meeting.

Can you seriously tell me that after a 5 minute conversation with someone in-world you cannot determine whether they are adults or not ?

I think I can, and most of the offenders who visit chat sites ( SL without the graphics ) seem to have no difficulty.

One can and does apply the same reasoning. It is the reasoning behind, for instance, the feeble exercise of having a person click a box that says, "Yes, I am 18." Again, I'm not talking about myspace - I'm talking about SL, which is an adult place for those over 18.

Yes, Juro, I already pointed out that it is a far trickier process on the web. But as I also pointed out, entities are going to be expected to provide more safeguards, not fewer, as time goes on and as technology improves - particularly for sites where people directly engage with other people in adult activities. It is not unlikely that an adult MMOG that doesn't put in reasonable safeguards - or actually removes the ones they had in place - will be held liable by the courts in the event something happens to a minor.

Parental responsibility is - as I've already said - entirely beside the point where negligance on the part of the bar, store, club, or website is concerned. The responsibilities of the entities providing adult entertainment are just that - their responsibility. Whether or not they have risen to a reasonable level of responsibility will be the question at hand.

And it is morally and ethically, as well as legally, important that those entities do their part to safeguard minors. I'm sure the Lindens would agree with me on that, though their ideas about what is sufficient obviously differ.

All the parental supervision in the world cannot make up for negligance on the part of others, and nothing can bring back that child. None of us wants to have anything bad happen to children, do we? Whether or not their parents are paying enough attention to them as you think they should.

Children ARE children, and thus lack experience and judgment. All children make mistakes. No parents can be completely on top of all their children's activities at all times. The best of parents, who have done everything right, can't prevent a lapse of judgment on a child's part, or control the constellation of circumstances the child may run into.

And that is where the responsibility of those providing adult entertainment comes in. And yes, they have a moral, ethical, and legal responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure minors don't partake of those activities, or mingle with adults in them, including adults who may be predatory and dangerous.

With that said, I'm all for LL returning the age verification process, for a number of reasons, including the protection of minors, as well as the protection of LL.

coco

That's true, but lets say there is a game site that advertises "this game is PG and no person over age 17 is permitted entry. Assume further that the gaming company uses this language in advertising in order to attract paying members to the game. Finally assume that the game site actually does nothing to verify age or to monitor inside the game to ensure that the content is in fact PG.

I am pretty sure that even the most avid lawyer hating posters can use some brain cells to distinguish these circumstances from that involving myspace.

Another point lawyer haters might consider is this. I hope you do realize there would be no consumer protection in place in real life whatsoever without lawsuits that force the corporate world to put safety and warnings ahead of pure greed. But perhaps some are so blinded by envy of successful lawyers you cant see this benefit.

Finally concerning the comments relating to the Pennsylvania suit, as I mentioned previously this suit has very interesting aspects completely unrelated to the alleged land auction exploit. Suits such as that would challenge the overreaching boilerplate in the SL TOS that has us signing away all legal contractual rights in relation to LL, as well as test the waters to see whether state consumer protection laws and state commercial codes would apply in a virtual world such as SL.

It seems the thinking man would like to know the answer to that one as well.

Your post would be more meaningful if you didn't spend the bulk of it impuning other people's intelligence and being condescending. Your entire point could have been made without referring to brain cells and talking about lawyer envy (which is ridiculous). If you can't see the sheer damage that frivilous lawsuits have also done to the same corporations, and to consumers who end up paying for them in higher prices, then I would say you are just as blind as those people you are accusing of being "lawyer haters". I suppose we measure what makes someone a success differently.

Putting aside this MySpace case or whatever you think of it... The problem is that not only are there teens adult grid, but any lawyer worth his pay can point to the new EZ registration system, and the fact that it had been changed from a CC# verification system, and make a big case that this was just waiting to be abused, and further that LL knew it and that is why, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client is entitled to significant damages due to the pain and anguish caused when she found out her fifteen year-old daughter was a online prostitute in Second Life.

Right or wrong, I think it's a matter of time. And then the media spotlight will be on the entire sexual aspect of SL and make it into a den of online filth waiting to seduce your child. Complete with undercover reporter's breathless tales of what "really goes on" in the sexual clubs and houses of ill-repute in SL, which may be fine with you, but will be news aplenty to Joe or Jane non-gamer out there.

There is no way you can tell with absolute certainty all of the time, it's just not possible.

Oh, you may guess correctly 80 or maybe 90% of the time. But you will certainly guess incorrectly very often.

Hopefully you realize this after thinking about your statement a little more. But if it helps, consider the case where the person you're chatting with turns "adult" (i.e. 1 during the 5 minute conversation? What does your radar tell you then?

Don't be so self-righteous, Cristiano. When someone's profession in continually impugned by those who in all likelihood have little to no experience with members of that profession, it's bound to make that person somewhat defensive. Particularly given that the tone of this entire thread has been one of "lawyers are all vultures". Props to Katikiwi for standing up for her profession.

People should bear in mind, it's not *lawyers* that sue people, it's *plaintiffs*. You know, average folks just like you.

Since we are not doing anything wrong, IMO, I welcome that spotlight. More cases like this that are brought to light will just expose the hypocrisy and double-standards in our society.

Yes, it has a longshot chance to shut down SL. If that chance is too big a price for you to pay to make this worthwhile statement, then I won't quibble over it.

A charge of self-righteousness is rich coming from you, but that is par for the course. At least it's not another post whining about how LL did you wrong.

As far as the poor maligned lawyer route, I was simply saying that Katy had valid points without ZOMG YER JEST JEALOZE OF MY MAD LOOT, LOSERS. If you can't make a point without calling people stupid and jealous, you don't have much of one.

"par for the course"? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Anyway, why did you have to pipe in to respond to Katyikiwi in the first place? You said her points were valid. Why not leave it at that?

The last time I checked, I didn't need any more permission to comment than you did - I was responding to the part about people being stupid and jealous.

You are assuming that your average jury holds the same ideas about parental responsibility or double-standards that you do, which I believe is very optimistic. It may not take down SL, I wasn't thinking it would, but it can cost them both money and reputation.

It will almost certainly end up in court at some point, the question is, has LL managed to write an iron-clad enough TOS and have they hidden far enough behind the "we're just a service provider" defense that they would prevail. I am surprised that it hasn't come to a head long before this.

No, I'm not assuming the jury shares my views or that the law is even on my/our side. I can assure you that my ideas are very far from average

I'm saying that our society's laws regarding sexuality, personal responsibility, et al. are totally fucked up and that rather than ducking the issue we (the people) should confront it.

LL is a business and has to protect itself, even from fucked up laws. I wish more businesses and individuals would stand up and fight this kind of bullshit, but I respect that it's not always easy.

Yes, but that is the "fine print" kind of legal argument that can be blown out of the water by emotional appeals to people. A jury doesn't have to follow logic or even the letter of the law, especially in a negligence kind of case, when the argument is that LL knew the consequences of it's actions and didn't take reasonable precautions.

I doubt anyone is going to buy the "service provider" argument, either, regardless of what the TOS says. LL is too involved, on a personal level, with what goes on in SL. They make rules about behaviour they know exactly what their users are doing. It's not like an ISP with a gazillion websites.

Well, if their TOS is iron-clad enough it would be pretty unique, since I haven't seen one of those in almost forever. Anyway, I'll probably be mostly dead before it becomes an issue.


Sorry, couldn't help myself. My gf is slightly pregnant and is driving me nuts.

BS if they did they wouldn't have taken the user verifaction.

I hope the law suit is won.

Rose is exactly right.

They know that without age verification kids can get into the main grid. Similarly, they know that without age verification adults can get into the teen grid. They claim to want to protect kids in SL. Actions, however, speak louder than words, and their current actions (or lack thereof) demonstrate clearly they are more concerned with boosting their user numbers (artifically or otherwise) than maintaining even the appearance of concern for the risks they are potentially placing kids in.

As Katykiwi outlined earlier, by billing the main grid as "18+" while removing even the rudimentary identity verification previously in place, they are potentially opening themselves to substantial liability. They were flat-out wrong to remove the age verification. They should just admit and change things back that so we can all move on.