He's actually suing LL?!?

I hate to say it, but I agree with Kornation.

If the auction allows you to simply type in an auction number in the URL (I do this all the time on EBay.. faster than waiting for pages to load and fill out search forms), and the auction system did NOT prevent him from bidding, then I can't see that as an exploit.

On the other hand, if he used a buffer overrun attack or something like that, then it IS certainly an exploit.

However, the CORRECT thing for LL to do would have been to e-mail him, tell him that the auction was started by mistake, and give him a refund of his auction price.

The real problem here is that anyone can be banned at any time with no compensation for hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of products.

Regardless of the TOS, LL facilitates the buying and selling of currency. They have a "buy L$" button right in the client. This makes L$ real money.

If LL is going to be taken seriously as an e-commerce platform, then they need to adopt the stance that YOU OWN your content, even the land you live on. If you are banned from SL, then you need to be given three options:

1. Sell all your L$, possessions and land at public auction. The items would be transferred to the new owner with the same permissions as the banned person. All proceeds, minus delinquent rent and a certain deductible ($50?) would go back to the user who was banned. This is how foreclosures are handled in the real world.
2. Give your L$, inventory and land to another user. LL would not provide the banned user any compensation. The deal would be entirely between the banned user and the purchaser. (LL would, however, facilitate the transfer, giving the new owner the same rights that the banned user had).
3. Forfeit your L$, property and inventory. If the total assests are less than the deductable for #1, this would be the automatic choice.

If the land fees go unpaid because of the suspension or ban, then it should still not be reverted to LL's posession. Instead, any unpaid fees should be placed as a lein against the land, just like contractor leins in real life.

Yes, this lawyer cheated. He knew he was doing it. However, LL also needs to step up, take some responsibility, and start treating inventory and land in SL the same way we treat inventory and land in RL. Otherwise, SL will always be nothing but a game.

That is the single most accurate analogy over what he did in this whole thread. Purely beautiful.

You guys are still beating this dead horse. Poor pony.

i disagree by stating you own nothing and everything can be revoked at will they protect themselve from a lot of stupid lawsuits

if you are banned itsnot to come back with the same tools under another name, the punishment for being banned is also to get all your assets whiped

I've read this entire thread, and some points come to mind. <insert type="obligitory" content="I am not a lawyer">

Security through obscurity is still security. By circumventing the security in place on the auctions, he should be in violation of the computer crimes laws.

Next, this is equivilent to taking a price gun and going into the back area of your supermarket and pricing things, bringing them out and buying them for the price you put on them. Claiming that because the doors (a couple of swinging doors) weren't locked with biometrics and heat sensors and whatnot does not make what you did any less illegal.

Third, references to sites where you have to search the source code for 'clues' to get to the next level are totally irrelevant, as those sites are designed to be used that way, it's inherent to the usage of the site.

Fourth, every time the ToS is referenced, someone else steps in and says "it may not be enforcable." Well, in opposition, as part of a contract, until such a time as that clause is rendered directly unenforcable, it is. Look at laws, some get passed, are totally enforcable until someone steps up and says "this is against the [superior law, constitution]" at which point it may or may not be usable.

</insert>

Wow, I just saw the headline about this on the Attack of the Show's news ticker on G4 TV....can't believe this is still going on.

quote:-
Next, this is equivilent to taking a price gun and going into the back area of your supermarket and pricing things, bringing them out and buying them for the price you put on them. Claiming that because the doors (a couple of swinging doors) weren't locked with biometrics and heat sensors and whatnot does not make what you did any less illegal.

--------------------------------

its an auction - you are ment to choose the price

I havent read ahead yet so maybe someone pointed this out. But this actually happened... and the robber actually WON. He fell through a skylight, sued, won. *shakes her head sadly*

You're also supposed to wait for the auctioneer to put the item up on sale - directly hacking the auctioneers computer to start a private sale where you're the only bidder is generally considered a no-no

It's not an auction until someone from Linden Labs sets the price and puts it out as active, until then it's storage.

"We're sorry, we had a ton of stuff to auction today, but someone went in back and decided they were going to buy everything for a dollar"

Edit: it's on slashdot now. http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/18/1614243

Actually, no you aren't - Even auctions often have minimum prices.

... set by the auctioneer or the organization he or she represents for the purposes of the auction.

...which for the auctions in question was set to $0.

Again, minimum price for an item to be auctioned is set by the auctioneer or their client, not J. Random Landshark who happened to notice the storage room back door was accidentally left open.

No, that's akin to finding unpriced merchandising in the back room waiting to go on the auction block.

True, but LL did leave the door open. Locks are meant to keep honest ppl, honest.

Not even.

It's actually like seeing a flyer for a silent auction (you know, where you look at the merchandise and write down your bid, with the highest bidder at the end of the night getting the item) advertising several items including a plasma TV. When you go to the venue, you see the other advertised auction items placed around the room with bid sheets next to them, and the TV sitting behind a table, also with a bid sheet next to it. You ask someone working the auction if the TV is actually for sale, and they tell you "good luck with your bid". So, you write down your $1 bid on the sheet. At the end of the night, the people running the event take your payment, you take the TV and sell it to somebody else. A couple of days later, the auctioners tell you that they had decided not to put the TV for auction *that night*, and expect you to give them back the TV. When you complain, they take all the other TVs you have in your house because you agreed they could do that when you walked into the venue.

Not even close. This was not a "silent bid" - LLs never put the auction up for the public- and the person who said "good luck" might not have been a person who has anything to do with auctions.

Okay. The TV was in a back room. With a bid sheet on it. And the auction employee *still* told you you could bid on it....

Or it might not have even been an auction employee, but one of the maintenance staff members. Not all LL personnel are involved with the auctions, after all.

And then there's the big honking issue that hasn't gotten much coverage, in this thread:

The plantiff's side of the story is the only one we have so far.

Even that little bit of information comes solely from a press release that has absolutely zero legal standing, nor any guarantee that the speaker is telling the truth (lacking a penalty for perjury and all).

I don´t know the whole story, but I don´t think he should be punished without warning for a glitch in their system. I think they should had communicated with him, explaining the situation, and tried to make it work out rather than blindly banning him.