He's actually suing LL?!?

It was laid out as an *auction*. The customer is *supposed* to stick his own price tag on it in an auction.

One problem with that - as I understand it, LL did not have it available on the auctions page and had not set the minimum price ($1000 US) when the unauthorized auction took place.

So, you wanna hold a real-life auction -- all the stuff you want to sell is behind a door you thought was closed. Someone picks the lock, sneaks in, and leaves you a check for $100 for a diamond necklace worth 20 times that, and cheats everyone ELSE that wanted to bid on the necklace at the REAL auction out of any chance of getting it.

And you think that's fair?

Yes, but not until *after* the auction has been started by the auctioneer...


Did the Auctioneer start the auctions? NO! Did our lawyer start it himself AND stick his own price tag on it? YES!

Was it a LEGAL auction? Nope....

Let's just say we disagree on whether it was alegal auction or not. A case could be made that by makeing it accessible, LL hd started it. But since it is rather tangential, UK law having no bearing on this case, I'm not going to be drawn into an argument over it.

Opinion:

I don't think their locking down his account was all so unreasonable, either. In fact, I have said several times in this thread that I'm not really thinking about his particular case.

I'm thinking about the sort of contracts we sign when we play not only this but other online games.

And yes, LL will close your account iand keep your money if you sass certain of their other customers in the forums, so it's an apt analogy. Depending, of course, on who is doing the sassing and who is the sassee.

I can understand them closing the account, but I, too, would think they would give him his money back first, or, let's face it - talk to him, if they haven't. That would have been a better way to go, in my opinion also.

But what interests me more is the contract we are all forced to sign that says, in essence, they can take our money, keep our money, and confiscate all our goods, "for no reason and for any reason."

I would like to see that changed in online games, not just this one. I guess you could say I think consumers should have more rights. Particularly in SL, though, since it is so real-money oriented.

coco

It would not matter.

Certainly in UK law, there is precedent: a web store that was offering an incorrectly low price on an item (to whit, a plasma TV), even though the price was on a fully publically accessible web page that was accessed with full authorisation of the web store owner, was held as not being required to supply the TVs to customers who applied to buy it at that price.

Yes, that's why I was saying under UK law it would probably fall under invitation to treat laws. They can't be made to sell it at that price, but they may well be forced not to sell at any price if they take that option. If you examine that old case closely, I don't think you'll find teh legality of teh auction itself was under question.

That is entirely correct here in the states, too.

As the exchange went in a Radio Shack one day:
"I'm sorry, ma'am, that price is for a sale that is over."
"But you HAVE to sell it for the price on the shelf!"
"Ma'am, if I give it to you for that price, I'll get fired."
"That's illegal! You have to sell it to me for that price. That's the LAW!"
"Ma'am, the law also says that I retain the right to refuse to service anyone. Have a good day".

I watched a similar exchange in a Best Buy store the other day: two Middle Eastern guys were arguing with a store manager because the guy bought the wrong TV. He asked for the 54" TV and got a 48" or something like that. The receipt said 48", he paid for a 48" (and somehow didn't notice the price difference??), and a 48" was delivered. Yet somehow, the Iranian guys thought they were entitled to the 54" TV for the price of the 48" tv.


Mistakes happen. It is incumbent on both sides to correct the mistake as amicably as possible. An error on the part of a seller is not license for the buyer to get something for nothing.

I like your thinking

Well neither occured in this case. The unethical twit walked off with it. LL didn't get a chance to do either; tell him it was OK or withdraw it from auction.

And legal or not it IS clearly unethical and this type of behavior is what will, in the end, ruin SL for all of us.

Fortunately I don't see anyone defending his ethics in doing what he did...that would really be disappointing.

O rly?

Lets hear about a precedent.

people like that guy make Lawyers and Pennsylvanians, such as myself, look bad...thats all I gotta say...

he needs a hobby, like crochet or paint by numbers..

How are you "forced to sign" these contracts? And just who is supposedly forcing you to sign them? Wouldn't it be illegal in every free country for a business to force you to sign a contract. My bet is that you are forcing yourself to sign the contracts, despite knowing full-well that you don't agree when you click that agree button.

OMG thats the funniest thing I have heard of yet, lol.

The cigar story is humrous, but it's just another internet urban legend.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/clever/cigarson.asp

This land auction exploiter's attempting to sue over LL stopping his profit-taking on his ill-gotten gains, however, is all kinds of real life hilarious.

"Your honor, I demand restitution from the police department. When they stopped me from taking those t.v. sets out of that unlocked truck, they cost me hundreds of dollars in profits, as my buddy here from the pawn shop will testify."

I went to a gas station once when I was a teen. Found a box of Star Trek Trading cards priced at $1
It was well over $15 worth of cards.
The casher knew it was the wrong price but she said something like "Well if it's taged at that price then that is how it goes. We have to sell it at that price."
So I got the whole thing for $1
I thought I won the lottery or something that day.

Dunno what the laws are on that stuff really. That's interesting though. I would guess it depends on the type of business.

People get banned for random reasons all the time on the Internet, especially in other 3d communities like cybertown and such, often over silly drama, popularity constests, and dirty politics that end up in a person getting banned after doing nothing wrong. I imagine that alot of these unwarranted bannings have caused a fear which carries over to SL, that people will get banned for invalid reasons and lose everything they put so much work into with no means to challenge the unfair banning.

I for one would like to see some sort of protection for the work a person puts into a game from these surprise unexplained bannings, because many times such bannings have happened to my friends who lost everything simply for having a little beef with the person who has access to the ban button even though they never actually broke the rules. This is a dirty trick and SL has every right to recall the auctions and penalize the guy for using the exploit, but they shouldnt be allowed to take the money he put into SL outside of the exploit.

The analogy I would like to use for the situation:
When a person goes to a store, and shoplifts, the cameras see him and he gets sent to the security room. Usually what happens in that room is the person is made to pay for the stolen item(in return for leaving the police out of the situation), but is not allowed to keep the item, and never allowed to enter the store again. What doesn't happen(because it is against the law) is the store taking any amount of that person's money beyond the price of the item(s) (s)he stole.

They're not taking his money.

Would your theoretical shoplifter be justified in demanding that he be reimbursed for his loyalty card points?

I think her thoughts may have been along the lines of "shall I go and spend ages finding out the real price of these cards just so the company doesn't lose out on a few bucks, or shall I just sell them to this kid?"

Well it was pretty straight forward that the price is the price.
But I dunno.. I didn't ask.
I suppose false advertisment would have some point to make in there but that would be stupid.
Not that law has anything to do with a persons IQ really.

I think a key point in this situation is that there was a meeting of the minds. Both you and the cashier were aware of the price and both of you were willing to complete the transaction. Conversely, if LL had been aware of the price at the time, they would not have completed the transaction, as shown by their later actions.

Well being banned from the store would kinda make any of those discount points void I would think. The way I read the case it sounded like he put in alot of money towards these land deals(which he should lose because they were an exploit) but he also spent a bunch of $$ towards purchasing L$, which was a purchase external to the offense, those monies he should be able to cash out again because not doing so would be tantamount to taking more money than the value of the things he stole.

If that is not what is happening in this case then by all means clear it up for me.

and for the last time...

HE ISNT A SHOPLIFTER! HE DIDNT BREAK ANY LAWS AND HE DIDNT STEAL ANYTHING FROM LINDEN LABS!

now please stop putting those stupid comments in your forum posts

why?

HE'S A SHOPLIFTER! - (walk into a shop and walk out without paying)

he walked in and payed the price that was marked on the product (as uk and us law apply to - like when a car seller put 'for sale at 1999 banana's!' meaning 1999$ - had to sell the car to a lady who turned up with 250 bananas as a deposit (source - book 'great mistakes'), upon purchuse he can do what he likes with the product - once that product has been put through the 'till' the agreement between both sides is that he is now the rightfull owner of said product

HE BROKE LAWS! HE HACKED/EXPLOITED THE THINGY!- (bypass security)

which law? he didnt hack (a url written into the top isnt a hack - its a means of getting to a place that is in the public domain - he didnt bypass any firewalls/routers/whatnots to get there) go on - write what you like up there - as long as it doesnt come up 'password protected', firewalled, is encripted or has anouther sort of security blocking you - it is public domain

HE STOLE FROM LINDEN LABS! - (the land wasnt ment to be sold!)

not 100% true - yes the land wasnt ment to be sold yet - but linden labs put the ability to auction it online ready - upon putting a way to get to the auction (either via a link from teh website or writting the url in) and not setting the land starting price ready they did a simple mistake that a few peeps have done inworld (accidentaly set their land to sale and before putting the price in - someone buys it quick) - and linden labs response to that? youre own fault

upon winning those auctions - linden labs had a agreement with the 'exploiter' to give him his lands at them prices - linden labs have decided not to keep to their end of teh bargain and have put themselfs in the s**t

now stop calling this person names for the reasons above and call him what he really is - a smart arse who got their first

bastard

(another amusing story - in the uk about 2 years ago a toilet roll company sold ther 4pack with a 'get another free!' coupon inside - one person realised straight away that this ment he could buy one - get the copoun out - and instantly get another - and with the help of some other peeps thats what he did - emptying all shelves in his nearby area of the product - he wasnt a miser or an asshole over it either - he gave most of it away to local schools, old peeps homes an dsuch - again a smart arse bastard who got their first (sorce - the sun newspaper (i think - was a while ago))
--------
just remembered :-

quote from someone else -

Certainly in UK law, there is precedent: a web store that was offering an incorrectly low price on an item (to whit, a plasma TV), even though the price was on a fully publically accessible web page that was accessed with full authorisation of the web store owner, was held as not being required to supply the TVs to customers who applied to buy it at that price.

end quote

the law has since changed since then (as teh web domain then counted as international) - the uk law now stats that a buisness BASED in the UK has to apply to uk buisness and cutomer laws (if i remember rightly this was teh case that caused the change)

Didn't read the entire thread but read the two links given....now, from my given years of experience in online games spanning all the way back to UO I feel it is my duty to comment on this.

Now, if this guy wants to bring "real world" into "virtual world" then the case is already closed because he, for lack of a better term, stole money from LL. Plain and simple. Now, it is my understanding that stealing in any state is illegal.

Every online game have set rules against exploits. He exploited the system and got caught and now he is whining because he lost all the money he used to exploit a game and ruin the fun for the rest of us. After all, that is what exploiting does.

If this even makes it to court I will laugh. The only thing he could really even complain about is LL not telling him why he was banned. If it does go to court then it will be a quick case. I think the judge would probably laugh at the guy and tell him to find another line of work.