Land exploiter? Who's side are you on?

You spoke to Marc about what he was doing, or what he did, and he told you the facts of his case?

I appreciate the reasons for your assumption, but please step back and think.

I am a member of the bar in the state where this action was purportedly brought, and have been a member of that bar since 1990. The attorney who allegedly brought this case has been a member of that bar for more than a decade.

You CANNOT sue for mere speculative "what if" damages, there have to be real measurable damages and loss. It defies logic that an attorney in good standing for more than one decade would bring a case that is so frivilous, and one in which he bases his loss on a criminal act of fraud such that both actions violate the rules of professional conduct.

That's why I asked previously how, without reading the complaint and speaking to both the plaintiff and the defendant, how have the facts alleged in this case but the original poster to this thread been determined.

So please, dont say I dont understand the words written in this thread, I am certain I understand the issues and legal aspects of this case as well as anyone here. In fact, I wont be so rude as to tell you to "please get that straight," however I will suggest that you might actually be able to learn something about the legality of this situation from me!


The reasons for my question is not ignorance or confusion. I am trying to determine the source and reliability of the source of the information alleged as facts so I wont ASS_U_ME anything.

Yes, but also Thunder (Lardner?), the other person who was doing this. There were a few others that I did not talk to, I just talked to Marc and Thunder.

The source was from his mouth (IM) to me. Either he told me from his person, or someone got on his account and told me false things. I have also talked to someone who lived with him, who he was talking to while I was talking to her (though, it could be his alt).

Katykiwi, my apologies, while 'could' is appropriate in this context because it is the conditional tense and refers to actions which were thwarted by LL. Although colloquially could can be used interchangeably with with 'would'. The tense 'would have' is probably more appropriate as it still conveys that it was thwarted, but that otherwise it definitely would have. Trust a lawyer to preface an entire arguement on the difference...

He would have made large amounts of profits, if he'd been allowed to retain the land which he, in his own public posting of information on the case, admits that he bought at 0$ with no counterbids. He is sueing not for money spent, but for lost income.

You are allowed to sue for earnings you would definitely have made if it had not been for the allegedly illegal actions of another. Indeed, you are allowed to sue for earning that other people might say you 'could' have made, if you're willing to argue that the earnings 'would' have been made.

Edit: All the assumptions I have made here are from the plaintaff's own posting about the topic. If -he- can't, with his knowledge of law and rhetoric, manage not to hang himself on his own words when trying to put himself into the best light, why should I assume that in the court case he'll suddenly come up with something valid?

Actually it's amazing to me this is even being discussed he is so in the wrong and without a leg to stand on. (although since I'm piping in too I realize the subject does inspire debate...)

The facts are very clear, without knowing a thing about the case! Why? We all agree to the terms of service of use of the software and web site and all related linden lab services. Those terms, as with almost all software and online worlds, are very clear and very much to the owner's advantage.

An account can be terminated for any reason they see fit.

Any transactions, proposed, pending, or past, can be cancelled at their discretion.

They may halt, suspend, discontinue, or reverse any transaction in cases of actual or suspected fraud, violations of other laws or regulations, or deliberate disruptions to or interference with the Services.

They specifically state that users of the service may not modify, adapt, reverse engineer, decompile or attempt to discover the source code of the Software, or create any derivative works of the Software or the Service, or otherwise use the Software except as expressly provided in this Agreement.


The web site, client software, forums, etc. are all a part of the "service".

Bearing in mind that he agreed to these terms in advance, the remaining details of the issue are irrelevant. They are allowed to cancel his account and transactions "just becuase" - and in this case I think it is abundantly clear that there was more to it than "just because"

Methinks he doth protest too much. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar (IMHO) but again, without knowing for certain if he did or did not do this or that, it doesnt matter. LL is within their rights. He is simply demonstrating to the world either how desperate he is for a case, or how poor of a grasp of the validity that online terms of service agreements hold in US courts of law. You can 'sue' for anything - and create a bunch of negative publicity for a company in the process - and that in itself might turn around and backfire on him via a counter suit and/or criminal prosection for the alleged computer tampering that he admittedly engaged in.

I'd second that -- he's a sleazy bottomfeeder, but he deserves his money back. Maybe he can hire a hooker to cheer him up in RL.

/54/af/105371/2.html#post1032267


One day its this TOS, then another day its that TOS. And if they want they can fill in the gaps with other thingies...

LindenLab didnt care that "they" used a "hack" to buy land, LindenLab got pissed because the price was to low!!

In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king.

I don't see how either contradicts the other. In the quote above it says " as long as those goals are not to the detriment of Linden Lab and the community at large."

Constructing unpublished URL's in a roundabout way to gain access to an auction that is clearly not otherwise available to the community at large, is pretty much by defintion a detriment to the community at large.

Nothing LL alters in the SL world can be considered a hack. (althoug some LSL ..well thats another post)

But why quibble about the details beyond one point - LL are entitled, legally, to reverse any transaction or cancel any sale, ban any account, for any reason. With that established up front, what more is there to say? (nothing more...from me...)

My point wasn't to recite the TOS exactly, even though what I quoted came from the TOS that I know of - (http://secondlife.com/corporate/tos.php) - it was to emphasize that within them contains an agreement that they can terminate his account. So how he did whatever he did doesn't matter and, from a legal perspective anyway, what their motivation was doesn't matter either as it applies to his reported claims against them.

Well you are both right.. More or less everyone in this case is right..

I think that those laywers know that too and will use that against Lindenlab. If you write a TOS but you also write that sometime its ok to ignore the TOS then you are asking for problems. To many times we read that they say this and do that.

Anyway I think that LindenLab already made friends with the IRS and therefore will win this "battle". Now they/we can blame the "bad dudes" for that and LindenLab is the laughing third. So they pay the folks to shut their mouths. Win mabey once or twice and have all the friends of LindenLab pointing to the "bad dudes" for having the IRS knocking on our doors.

Its all entertainment

ROFL ... succinctly put!

I voted neither.

While I think what Marc did was exploiting the system, Linden lab simply took the land that he did pay for and didn't refund the money he spent on the land and just tell him to go away. They should have said "Hey, listen. You exploited our system. Here is the USD$ money back that you did pay for the land, now go away forever. (Heck, I did the same exploit a year a go just to see if it would work so I could tell the Lindens about the bug. Didn't work at the time, or I didn't go through with it. Don't remember the exact reason)

I'm not in favor of corporations who simply make up a very long, complicated TOS that simply removes ALL RIGHTS of the consumer. (i.e. we can kick you out for ANY reason, take all your L$ and USD$ balances for no reason, you agree to have no recourse, you agree not to sue, you agree that we have dominion over you for eternity, etc). Corporations want to make consumers weak pawns so they can extract USD$ from them, and use the TOS to side-step every law they can. I have no sympathy for a corporation that creates a TOS that removes all rights of conumers as they think they are above the law.

Will this guy lose in court? Probably. Does he deserve to win? No. Is he doing it for his own selfish interest? Yes. Does Linden lab abuse the RL legal system and the SL "legal system" for thier own personal (as in individual employees, owners) interests? Yes.

So, I support neither of them. They are both not innocent in my eyes.

Because, of course, everyone knows that everyone who reads the TOS is forced to sign up for an optional service/game/etc...

I'm just curious.... there was a link to get ya to a site for a land auction that hasn't commenced yet... but why did Marc end up winning the land? Don't all auctions have an endtime and enddate? Why didn't his bids just sit there until the land auction legitimately opened?

For anyone whos interested, ToS agreements dont actually have much basis in law. LL could add this to their ToS... LL reserves the right to reposes your house if we feel like it, or take your children away from you if we think your behaviour in SL isn't a good parenting model.

The fact is, just because a company decides to say it is so, doesn't mean a court will always back them up. So just because this guy broke the ToS, does not give LL an open and shut case. I still want LL to win, because what he did was wrong moraly, but this kind of case would need to be tested in a high court to get any real answers.

Aeolus said:

One day its this TOS, then another day its that TOS. And if they want they can fill in the gaps with other thingies...

LindenLab didnt care that "they" used a "hack" to buy land, LindenLab got pissed because the price was to low!!

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

In short, Aeolus, what this means is that some of the TOS rules apply to some people, but not to others. It is exactly the same way on the forums.

coco

I voted neither also. And what Hank said above perfectly sums up my opinion. I think this case is important if only because it challenges the status quo of this sort of TOS for online games.

coco

I for one feel that there is much more important thigs to take care of in Sl like the infrastructure. and the lag in the Mainland. I for one am at the point of counting my losses (thousands) and get out if they cant do anything with it. As for marc he took advantage of a glitch in the system. he should have been put out. Give him his money and let him go.
If i dump my land Abandon because i can no longer stay in it then i have to accept that i lose. and maybe Marc should do the same. Be a part of the solution Marc. Not a part of the problem.

"as long as those goals are not to the detriment of Linden Lab"



Coco, are you saying that LL did not lose anything because of this?

No, why would I say that?

They didn't lose anything because they took the land back. Not that that matters at all; why are you bringing it up?

I'm saying the TOS rules apply to some people but not to others, the same way it is on the forums.

I picked neither. As for my "why response listed below" none of your damn business, thats why. Speaking the truth or ones opinion in these forums is the equalivant of asking to get your ass kicked. So...."fuck it"

Oh, sorry, I thought you were upset that they went back on their word for about the reverse engineering in this case. I guess all the words made my brain fart.