Entitlement

Let me make my position clear, as some people, it seems, are incapable of recognising punctuation such as speech marks: I believe that content in SL, like content in any game, has to be paid for if you want a good supply of high-quality and high-quantity content. It can be paid for through a fixed monthly fee, which then gets paid to content creators hired by Lindenlabs, or it is paid for at point of use, with people only paying for the specific content they want to use.

Either way, it is the USER of the content that must pay for it, not the creator. After all, Lindenlabs and the content creators are providing a service. If you don't want their services, you are entitled to not pay their prices.

Musuko.

Ok, you pay x amount for a vaction package that has these advertised features: round trip tickets, five days and four nights in a hotel room, and vouchers for "free" dinners at the hotel restaurant for two people.

When you get to the hotel, you find out that because the hotel has complained that the people with the vouchers have been cutting into the profits of the restaurant/bar part of the hotel, the travel company agreed to allow the hotel to stop honoring them. Even the ones that were paid for in advance, like yours. This is fraud both advertising and contract.





Ok, LL advertises its premium package price and benefits on its website. An advertisement is an open contract. An open contract is when a person or company publicly offers a deal at a stated price. Anybody who accepts the deal has entered into a contract with the company. This also applies to features with no monetary value.

Netflix is currently being fined by the FTC and has a class action lawsuit pending against it because their TV ads promised next day delivery without any conditions and they didn't deliver the next day to thousands of customers. Their commercial was an open contract and even though they only broke the part without monetary value, they were still liable for breaking the open contract.




I've bought more on the Lindex than I've paid for my premium account. I also create for myself and to sell to others. Do you really want people like me to leave?



Bet you didn't guess on a primer on contract/advertising law.

"When you get to the hotel, you find out that because the hotel has complained that the people with the vouchers have been cutting into the profits of the restaurant/bar part of the hotel, the travel company agreed to allow the hotel to stop honoring them."

They HAVEN'T "stopped honouring" them. They still DO honour them: people who made accounts before the change STILL GET THEIR STIPENDS.

All they've done is stop giving out the vouchers to NEW customers, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Musuko.

But the movement is to stop stipends to current premium account holders such as myself who entered the contract expecting this advertised feature. Since the ad (contract) has no term limit, I am entitled (yes, I said it) to stipends as long as I pay my fees. If I stop paying my fees and cancel my contract and LL sets up another contract w/o stipends in the interim, I cannot come back and demand the old contract. I broke the old contract and as such LL has no obligation to honor it when they start advertising a new one.

That's absurd. If you pay by the month they can raise prices, remove stipends, and change many other aspects of the game at will. There is nothing in your contract that guarantees the stipend in perpetuity and in fact the fine print almost certainly states that they can change or even shut down the service at their discretion.

This is a prime example of entitlement. Do you bitch this way when your cable bill goes up or when they change their channel line-up?

It is unreasonable people like you (and the netflix bitches) that force companies to include thirty pages of bullshit that everyone else is forced to read through.

what if you pay by the year?

"But the movement is to stop stipends to current premium account holders such as myself who entered the contract expecting this advertised feature."

I've yet to see anyone actually say that's what they want. I've seen people call for the end of premium stipends, yes, but not to just cut them off halfway through a "rental" period.

And yes, they can change the details of the premium service at any time. They reserved that right.

Musuko.

Good question, which is why I explicitly stated "pay by the month." If you ask me, they are ethically obligated to continue to pay the stipend at the time you paid your $72, but I honestly didn't bother to read the fine print so I'm sure they could legally get out of it.

A) The fine print doesn't cover advertising and contract law. If LL advertises the 500L stipend with a direct link telling the buyer that the stipend is subject to removal, then they would have a chance. Or if they had a term contract such as a month, quarter or year then they would have a chance. As the ad stands, they have to honor it as long as I make my payments or LL is open.

Now what the fine print in TOS is saying is that LL can print all the L$ they want. They can force Lindex to a set price. And they can decide that to cancel L$ as a currency in game. Or they can decide that the residents cannot sell L$. Or they may give one resident a billion L$. What the TOS doesn't do is override state and federal contract and advertising laws. The page describing is memberships plans constitutes an ad. That ad promises 500L a week to all those who maintain their premium membership. Nothing on the ad says that they can remove it. Yes, I know that there is a TOS link at the bottom, but the ad itself needs a disclaimer on the page to make it legal.

B)In the ads for cable services, the ads themselves have the disclaimers about changing channels and fees.

C)Yes, we're all bitches for wanting what the ads promised and expecting contracts to be honored. I guess paying a company with the expectation that they deliver what they promised makes us all prime examples of entitlement.

As for 6 pages of disclaimers, ads that promise pizza delivery also contain "within a limited area".

All Netflix had to say in their ads is that next day delivery was in limited areas only. That hardly covers six pages. But that would have covered their asses if the customer lived too far from a distribution center to make next day delivery possible. They didn't and now they have to pay the price.

"End stipends now" hmmm, what does that mean to you?


They don't have that right to reserve unless they put it on the ad pages themselves that LL can end stipends. Like I said before, if I stop paying LL for my premium account and they change the ad and the terms, I cannot demand the old contract back.

"They don't have that right to reserve unless they put it on the ad pages themselves that LL can end stipends."

Simply not true. As long as it's in the fine-print somewhere (ie, terms of service), it's fine.

Musuko.

If a firm is advertising a product with the statement "buy this and you get X", and the small print says "actually you don't get X", then I'm sure that's false advertising.

If they are advertising with the statement "buy this and you get X" and the small print says "maybe we'll choose not to give you X (and that's purely a choice by us, not just a 'well if our office was to burn down then we can't give you X anymore' thing)" I'm not sure, but it seems a bit out of order to me.

"If a firm is advertising a product with the statement "buy this and you get X", and the small print says "actually you don't get X", then I'm sure that's false advertising."

But that's not what this situation is. It's "Buy this and you get X", and in the small print it says "in future we might change the amount of X you get, and will adjust this advertisement accordingly".

Just because they're giving you that deal NOW, doesn't mean they are required to continue giving that deal for all of eternity.

LindenLabs has reserved the right to change their service at any time they choose. That's what you signed up to.

Musuko.

OK guys, please get back on track. There are plenty of stipend threads out there. Stipends were used as an example only. The overall topic is why do some people feel like they deserve to get whatever they want regardless of how it affects other.

I know using the stipend example was opening a barrel of worms...

"The overall topic is why do some people feel like they deserve to get whatever they want regardless of how it affects other."

Umm...because the whole of western capitalism is built around "you want it, you got it"?

Musuko

Human nature. There have always been people who feel that they deserve to get whatever they want despite the effect on others. Crack open a history book and read about Julius Caesar who waged an illegal war in Gaul, marched his army back into Rome (also illegal), and had himself declared dictater (sole ruler) for life. Of course, the senators made sure that his life didn't last long, but his overweening lust for money and power changed a budding democratic republic into an autocracy that was used and abused by many others.

So you are a U.S. Attorney and know about this sort of thing -- right?

Are you just being an ass or did you actually have something to contribute?

*grabs popcorn* this should get interesting

OK, you don't believe me. Maybe you'll believe the FTC.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/dotcom/index.html

Read the whole page, but I found this one interesting:

"Don’t be coy. Some text links may provide no indication about why a claim is qualified or the nature of the disclosure. In most cases, simply hyperlinking a single word or phrase in the text of an ad may not be effective. Example 7. Although some consumers may understand that there is additional information available, they may have different ideas about the nature of the information and its significance. Example 8. The same may be true of hyperlinks that simply say "disclaimer," "more information," "details," or "terms and conditions." Example 9 and Example 10. "

A tiny link at the bottom of the ad page doesn't cut it with the FTC, why should it cut with us? Remember that LL operates in California and is under US laws regarding advertising and contracts.

If the stipend was subject to removal by LL despite the contract, then that disclaimer should have been with the other disclaimers in the ad. The fact that other disclaimers are on the ad, but not this disclaimer, implies that stipends are meant to be paid as long as the contract is maintained by continued payments.

A continued account is also implied by the fact that as long as I don't change my account type, LL charges me auomatically. Since I have to take action to stop my account, then the contract is in effect as long as I do not change it.

As I stated previously, if I were to go down to basic or cancel my account altogether and Linden Labs replaced the current premium package with a new one, I cannot demand the old account back.

Honestly I think the sense of entitlement people feel was created by Linden Labs and the services they provided when they entered Second Life. Sure the fine print says it can change anytime and as Linden Labs sees fit, but I'm sure people get used to a certain way of Second Life and do not want to have to change/adjust their activities when Linden Labs changes the rules. I don't blame people for feeling threatened by changes that would affect their money flow in game and out. I just hope when Linden Labs makes decisions that they take the majority of their members into consideration before making those changes.

Well, when I signed up for my cable service I was given a special rate for the first 6 months per an advertisement. Then the normal service fees kicked in after 6 months. After 3 more months we received a letter saying that they were raising rates. It was their right to do that because it was in the contract we signed with them, but we decided to cancel our service with them and went with another company giving us special rates for the first 6 months. We'll see if they change it up on us after just a couple months of their advertised "regular" rates. Did we feel it was false advertising in the first place?? no, but we did go find someplace that had better rates since they changed it on us.

Seems like when the deal people made with Linden Labs gets a little too sour for them they will leave and find something else to do with their time that seems like a better deal.

Would signing up for, and PAYING for, a lifetime membership and then expecting the agreement to be honored (at least in some way) be "entitlement" as you're complaining about? Not saying that this is what you're suggesting, just wondering.

People get used to something and want things to continue the way they are. That is not entitlement.

When it becomes entitlement is when people demand that rates never go up and that the exact same service be provided in perpetuity, and continue to complain ad nauseum that the company is filled with cheating bastards (or words to that effect).

As you say, people have a right to be concerned and to voice their strong opinions. They can make it very clear that if LL takes a certain action they will drop from the game. Then LL can do the calculation on whether it's worth it or not to make the change.

Not to stay on track or anything...

I think it is human nature to be focused on oneself and gratifying ones needs. But I also think it is a behavior we try to socialize out of people because "everyone for themselves" is not a good survival strategy for a society.

An interesting point was raised in another thread about entitlement and residents. What do you think about people who feel entitled to say that their experience in SL is the norm and that LL should make decisions based on their input? Seems like hubris to me.