WTH - 'Binding Arbitration'?

Hi all:

Normally I'm pretty quiet on these boards and try not to complain about the Lidens or other players. However, when looking through the announcement regarding the TOS changes, I noticed the following line:




When I see 'binding arbitration' in a TOS, I automatically associate it with a company that's trying to act sleazy and suppress an individual's right to due legal process. I can understand not wanting to be dragged into court over every complaint and whim that may arise, but I just get an awful whiff whenever I see a company trying to force binding arbitration on their customers.

Am I the only one that sees this as a very bad sign that SL may be becoming more corporate-oriented in their approach?


- Newfie Pendragon

That is becoming a fairly standard clause from many companies. They basically need it now because a majority of americans will now sue you for anything and everything. Small companies cannot survive if they have to pay legal fees everytime some jerk gets a wild hair up their ass.

Heh, I had that in my contract back in 2001 when I got a job as a coder. It's pretty damn standard.

Hmmm, I dunno about a "majority of Americans." Seems like it's the trial and class-action lawyers who are behind the manic threat of lawsuits in the US. Heh, I also remember a 60 Minutes piece, a few years back, on professional litigants -- people who do nothing but file frivolous lawsuits for a living. Since most companies would rather settle than fight 'em in court, these folks were pretty much living high on the hog.

Not sure I agree with Texas' recent foray into tort reforms, but it may be the only way to reign in the madness.

Actually, if you have a problem with it, you can always take em to court. No one ever challenges these ridiculous agreements they make you 'sign', but I can't wait till people start.

Having said that, I mean, c'mon. This is Linden Labs. They are your friends. If this was EA, it might be different.

Did anyone ever watch the TV show Sliders?

I just bought the DVD this weekend and it reminds me of the earth they went to where 84% of the population was a lawyer.

The guy goes to order fast food and the clerk needs all kind of paperwork to serve him. Declaration of current cholesterol levels, carbonated beverage release form, etc.

I'll bet that someone already tried to sue over something or other, so they added this in quick.

Just saw this by accident: (emphasis mine)



So......

can this be interpreted to mean that I can't be sued by other players?

hehe, yeah, that'll fly in court. lol What about my intellectual property?

Do you see why I just click and never read? These things don't mean anything. Don't lose any sleep. They just hire a fleet of lawyers to go batshit without thinking about what they are writing, and then they make you 'agree' to it.

But as I said, I think the lindens are my friends.

*checks sarcasm level* Hmmmm. I don't detect any eyes rolling....

Seriously? I side with the "It's a stardard clause" rahter than the "corporate bullly" theory. The Linden employees I've talked to are friendly and helpful...which is a lot more than you can say for other online games. Plus, their workplace culture, from what I've seen of it on the cable news shows and heard about it on these forums, does *not* seem to be a tight-assed Dilbert-style Initech place.

I think one of the reasons SL rocks over There and TSO is the *freedom* the Lindens grant us. If there's a company I'd suspect for corporate mentality meddling with the game, it'd be EA...

Or, in other words....I agree.

I really do mean that sincerely, Liona. I think EULA's are ridiculous, don't get me wrong. But every gaming company has one.

I think the lindens have made it clear how they really feel about the players when stuff like the GOM scandals come up. They are on our side.

That is truly what I believe.

But the EULA is still silly.

I had the same clause when I worked for an ISP. It is normal.

I read an article recently about the incredible steps the RIAA/MPAA are taking in order to litigate control over media in the US. The author summed up the legal environment in the US perfectly by saying,

"They will end up litigating themselves into irrelevance."

I don't see binding arbitration as pro Linden. Why it can be construed to be pro user. If I have a dispute I don't have to get a layer to sue them. In case you have never sued it is not free and the it is not a given that you will win no matter if you are right or wrong.

I read the TOSthat we're going to be forced to accept if we want to log in tomorrow. Man did someone's lawyers have a field day there.

Let's see if I can even get even a fraction of the fun translated into human:

1.2 We can change the rules at any time and you have to accept them as soon as we post em.

2.3 We can change your AV name if we wake up grumpy.

2.4 "You are not allowed to ever disclose your password to another person", I'm not making this up.

2.5 All your base belong to us. You don't own your account or any of your stuff. You might retain copyright, but if the stuff is only in SL too bad.

4.2 We don't police SL and have no obligation to, but we can if we want to. This is often referred to as having your cake and eating it too.

4.3 We can lose all your stuff and there isn't anything you can do about it. Actually it isn't your stuff or even stuff at all.

5.3 Even though you might have held copyright on your stuff, we can use it in any way we like, or delete it if we want to. Sorta takes the right out of copyright, no?

6.3 You can take pictures and movies in-world. Is this a thrown bone or another erosion of copyright?

7.1 We can kick you out of SL because we got a flat tire on the way to work and we get to charge you $100 for the work required.

7.2 We can be running or not - nothing you can do about it.

7.3 We can shut everything down but appearance mode if we want to.

8.2 King Linden is watching your every move.

So has this instantly turned Linden Lab into a capricious bunch that wants your money and doesn't really care about anything else? No, the recent refund of dwell and efforts to fix what got broken during the grid move show that they are still trying to do right. Does this formalize the fact that they owe you exactly nothing in exchange for your money, well kinda.

The thing I find most troubling is that they want to hold themselves as simultaneously a common carrier who has no responsibility for what moves across their service, a monitored service that can control everything, and a service provider that has no obligation to provide service.

This may be "standard" but it sure ain't the LL of a year ago.

Arbitration is so much a better process than litigation, for all parties involved. That's a good clause.

It's the indemnification clause that you should be concerned about. You've basically agreed to pay LL's legal fees (or the legal fees of a zillion other people and corporations, read the list!) if they ask you to and if they can somehow relate the lawsuit to your use of SL.

For example, suppose you hold a series of contests and somebody gets so into it that they miss work. Then they get fired; and sue LL for loss of income for putting up such an addictive online environment without proper warning labels (stranger lawsuits have been filed). Zing! You're the guy with the deep pockets (well, one of many).

Wouldn't happen? Probably not; but you did agree to pay if it does.

Personally, I don't worry about it too much. You can't get blood out of a turnip, and the vampires generally leave them laying by the side of the road...

The change is an improvement, by the way, because it allows LL to ask other people to indemnify you!

I think this has something to do with disputes between the growing number of Doms and Subs in Second Life.

Siggy

From my understanding what this does is protect LL and users from a user who infringes IP (Inthlectual Property) and the IP owner sues LL. In other words, if a user uploads copyright works illegally they are responsible not LL or other users.

So what we are agreeing to is that if we infringe on IP and involve LL via say uploading the infringing IP we are responsible for any litigation that the IP owner might bring forth.

Seems fair to me.


Basically the changes are an effort to insure LL will be able to stay in business by preventing essentially frivolous law suits. This benefits us since if LL was forced out of business we would lose. If LL were to be forced to pay a large settlement on a frivolous law suit we again would loose because in order to stay in business LL would have to charge us more to cover their loss. Even the most frivolous law suit can be very expensive to defend, the arbitration clause protects LL and us from large legal fees incase of a dispute.