If AgePlay Is Being Restricted, So Should Gambling...

Issue with this is that L has no real world value until someone purchases it. Jamaican money can be readily exchanged to USD and has a USD equivalent set by the countries in this case that regulates that exchange rate. In the case of L$ this isnt the case. They arnt happy to accept L when it comes to pay an account balance. If you sell the L they credit your account with what the person paid for it. They are not accepting L for account payments but rather are accepting USD after you sold said L$. Hence its problematic in this case to state that they accept L as they dont.

To think they do proves a total lack of any regard for the previous post i made or shows your reading it wrong. Here is an example : I'm currently paying about 95 dollars a month give or take..... If i had 95 dollars worth of L on my account it would be meaningless when it came time to pay off the account the next month it would be futile to argue it. Now if i sold the L to someone else through the official Linden Exchange (which users set what the value of the L is not LL.) and sold that L for $95 usd LL would put 95 dollars in my account credit (this is done for ease of use if the people plan to use it to pay off tier with that money)

Now if i choose not to credit it out to paypal a check or bank transfer they keep it on credit for the account to use towards my next months payment. I have the option to credit it out to paypal etc but its my choice.

However again this raises another question can we be legally prosecuted if we are simply using L to gamble with and never trading it out. Because if we can be prosecuted for that the law is overstepping its boundaries and attacking people for simply gambling with game money which is perfectly legal. Where it is traded out to USD it may become a problem however if it remains within SL the US Justice Department shouldnt really be able to touch it.

While its true that they do need to control illegal activities on their servers it is yet to be officially stated that it would be illegal to run a casino in SL. We have the word of a single spokesperson and people saying they emailed them which is very easy to claim but as i said earlier.... Unless a legal precedence is set we cant claim it is legal or illegal. I dont run a casino you know this rather well DJ as you have been to my club on several occasions. I also understand law enough to know that these people are using a broad spectrum of the law to state one thing or another. It become overtly complex in this light. Your lawyers can say what they think but its still a matter of their opinion which is to be held loosely since they have zero legal precedence to look at regarding the issue.

DJ you state sooner or later they will prosecute people for gambling without cashing out. Legally how can they do so pre-tell ? Are they going to make L a legally recognized tender so they can legally do so because frankly its overstepping boundries and anything with some type of computerized gambling would be at risk of being prosecuted. Say WoW had gambling for an item . The item is of value and can be sold off even though the company says it cannot be. Am i going to be prosecuted for that. You see the issues with how this law is being presented yet? They are saying its broad enough to encompass anything of value in which case we are all going to eventually be at fault and some major game companies might fall into crap with the gov for offering gambling to gain in game money or items.

Take them where exactly?

By legal definition, they have a monetary value if they are worth money.

While that is true to a degree while in SL they have no actual value set by LL. I'd also like to note that these people likely never examined SL casino's they hear the word casino and think of it in terms of what other places are and are painting it with the same brush. I think the more logical and legal way for the US justice department to handle this is contact the IRS and find a way to tax the US citizens using Second Life's Linden Exchange (as they obviously cant tax people outside the U.S) I think the law itself painted so broadly could be deemed overstepping people's rights in this degree. They can control content to a degree but they would need to actually find that a casino in SL is legally considered a casino which would be quite difficult.

I think they will find prosecuting someone who owns a casino in SL quite a bit more difficult then an online casino would be and they would also have to deal with things I've said. Another blow to people's freedoms really. It'd be interesting to see regardless. I however find the fact that they the original poster tried to skew the view with religious views a bit off in any light.

Who is really to say were the law will be when they get to SL. And he meant to take them to a store in real life and try to trade your digital money for something in real life like a pack of gum or a tv or whatever.

Firstly, thank you Gaybot, I may have noticed and sleuthed the link between them but you have certainly provided the reason why. Oh and how ironic that it involves gambling on the Lindex. Though I do believe that artificially engineering an event to give onself an advantage is not really gambling and is infact illegal in many countries and probably a breach of T.O.S if I could be bothered to go through it, which I no longer am. So well done Gaybot and I hope the mods are reading and making notes.

OK let me now deal with DJ's comments;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma Cassavetes
DJ really???????

Do you not think I can't walk out my door and find 10 lawyers who will say that your 4 /5 lawyers are wrong, and then find another 20 who will say we are both wrong? Get real!


Find one other than the Linden and prove me wrong.

Much like your Pan/Alienware associate(s) you like to quote supposed legal advice but never like to show it. I also note that in your forum profile you too share the same birthday as Pan and Alienware. What a coincidence! Maybe there is something in astrology and that all people born on the same day share the exact same views. The conspiracy widens maybe?

Anyway therefore, my statement has equal validty to yours. So why don't you get the ball rolling and in the spirit of SL put up on a website and provide a link to the transcribes or image copies of these 5 pieces of advice you so thoroughly sought out. I work for multi-million dollar Blue Chip company and naturally we have in-house legal advisors and occasionally we will go out to a law firm to confirm or test our advice. I am therefore surprised and impressed that a small hosting company in Indiana is so rich in resource that it can afford to go out and get five independent legal opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma Cassavetes
Obviously Lina he can't!

DJ, print some Linden Dollars and take them into a RL shop and see how much monetary value they have.

Take them where exactly?
By legal definition, they have a monetary value if they are worth money.

Now you are tieing yourself up in knots like your associate and are contradicting yourself in the space of two lines. My point was supporting Lina Pussycat's that L$ have no value outside of the game, much like Monopoly money. The fact that there is nowhere in RL where you can use them proves the point that they have no real or practical monetary value outside of SL. Moreover it is not a legal definition to say they have monetary value if they are worth money. Every single piece of crap and ridiculous service on this planet is worth something if some dumbass wants to pay money for it.
Bullshit is used as a fertiliser in many countries and people pay money for it, so by your reasoning it has monetary and exchangeable value. Therefore, could your company provide me with an audio stream for one year. If you would please convert your USD bill into the equivalent amount of Bullshit then I will deliver it to your company or home address personally free of charge as it's very hard to wire and FedEx may have issues handling your Bullshit as well.

Someone mentioned that religion has no place in SL. Although I am a confirmed atheist / humanist, I think religions should be allowed to represent their faiths to some extent. I hope to be able to promote my rationalist humanist views (or rather, my SL avatar-based version called Egotherapy!) in SL, and would be happy to engage in debate with those of religious persuasions!

One belief that seems to be borne out by my observations is that furry avatars are actually just humanoid avatars in costumes! When I meet a scale-sized fox or rabbit that walks on all-fours and looks as much like a fox or rabbit as I look like a human, I'll change my mind!!!!

Conifer we werent saying it has no place in SL. Just no place in what should and shouldnt be allowed in SL.

My own view of gambling is it's a matter for individuals, handled in the same way as any other decision they take in their own lives and behavior. An individual's actions may have consequences for themselves and for those nearest them; they take responsibility for them. As communities we ought to provide help with educating and counseling those who get into difficulties, and regulate the behavior of other parties who might seek to prey on them. These points do not really apply in SL due to the state of the medium - it's not as "immersive" as an RL casino for example!

Right. I've got that off my chest. I have no interest in attacking casinos in particular or gambling in general. My concern is whether the viability of the system sustaining SL, the company, software, servers and so on, can be successfully threatened. So far I'm not convinced that Linden's in-world medium of exchange ($L) is sufficiently quarantined from that of real life to deter prosecutors. SecondLife has some growing profile in real life and presents a fat target for those who want to flesh out their CV with a high profile prosecution. We can pay cash through Paypal (for example) into SL, and it seems we can get USD out of it through the same channels. Whether Linden themselves are paying it, or other residents are able to use Linden's systems merely a pipe of sorts, may not be relevant. From the perspective of those who seek to control it or destroy it, they can claim that real money can be made to come out as well as "paid into" SL. So logically it could be claimed that "players" in a virtual SL "casino" could have reasonable prospect of being able to retrieve real-world value from their "winnings". On a very general scale, money can go in and money can come out - in between is some "game" of chance in SL.

As usual I could be wrong, but I'm beginning to suspect that if threatened from a credible quarter (the US federal government will do...) Linden may have to prevent in-world casinos (meaning resident $L accounts "owning" them) from using that Paypal etc mechanism for extracting cash from SL. Of course that wouldn't stop such a flow of $L to $US - think intermediaries getting "gifts" and cashing them out, etc - but maybe it provides Linden with a "reasonable precaution" fig leaf.

Not tightened too much or too generally though. The prospect of being able to get real world value out of virtual services or "goods" they provide in SL might put an interesting frisson of enterprise into our creative fellow-residents, yes? Not that SL'ers don't seem enterprising, mind you, considering what I've seen advertising for. Exploring the possibilities of the concepts the technologies behind SL provide is one of the more interesting aspects of it. If the shiney virtual university/gallery/whatever has to be supported by a tawdry little casino down the road, well... welcome to modern academia, and plant a very high and thick hedge around the casino.

I agree Lauro - it wont take actual litigation.

LL will ban gambling with just a credible threat of litigation.

Thats the one parallel between age play and gambling that actually exists - reguardless what the OP thinks.

I know I said I had quit this thread but if wasn't for the fact that I now discover that Lauro is ALSO born on Nov 30th I would rest content. How many alts does this person have if this is another manifestation? Well I've back tracked your posts and it appears that this is the only thread you've submitted to in your 9 day existence but you appear to be widely knowledgeable on many areas of SL. But there is nothing wrong in that.

Your posts seem to begin with an acknowledgement of the answers/reasons against the OP and then tend to drift furthermore to the OP's and their alts' contention till your final post where I could reasonably say that you support the OP's broad contention; leaving religous issues to one side. But that is your right to be persuaded and I wouldn't argue against you doing that.

Well OK, let's start again. Your first paragraph; I entirely 100% agree.
Your second paragraph; already covered in previous posts that L$ have only the value that we [the players] apply to them.

OK some quotes from your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs;

SecondLife has some growing profile in real life and presents a fat target for those who want to flesh out their CV with a high profile prosecution.

Who are those? If you are alluding to some private Law Firm lawyer(s) who are they acting on behalf of? A disgruntled loser, the Christian Right? You? If it is the law enforcement bodies that you are referring to why have they not acted already? And do they really prosecute cases on the basis of fleshing out CVs and going after fat targets? Upon which I have more to add later.

As usual I could be wrong, but I'm beginning to suspect that if threatened from a credible quarter (the US federal government will do...) Linden may have to prevent in-world casinos (meaning resident $L accounts "owning" them) from using that Paypal etc mechanism for extracting cash from SL.

Onca again I agree 100%, though I note you say suspect without saying why, much like Alienware's assertion of non-materialising doom, but this is the point I expressed oh so long ago in my first post. So once again, internet gambling is not illegal and gambling per se is not illegal in the USA apart from some states. All your government did was impose a regulatory prohibition on banking and credit facilities transacting cash with internet gambling companies. They are still allowed to exist within the ether of the internet but they have had their legs partially cut from under them. There is one such company based on an Indian reservation. If you live near enough to it you can walk up with a wheelbarrow full of cash, hand it over to them, go home and play on their site and there's nothing the US gov't can do about it. I am told by some of my American gambling friends that there is now a growing third party industry in operation whereby gamblers from all over the US wire or post cheques/checks to companys or individuals who live near such Internet gambling offices who for a small deduction will deposit your money for you in person.

So if the figleaf is applied I have many friends who I will willingly deposit for and transact out for and not charge a single USD or L$ cent for apart from the transaction costs and I bet all non-American casino owners will do the same as well. So you see this will not end casinos or their operation in SL, it will not effect LL bottom line so they will feel no need to apply an equivalent ageplay stricture to casinos. There is though one point raised by one poster that LL should look to and that is gambling operators requires a license in the US. This I would welcome because nobody likes to sit at a bad table or play a rigged game and high standards of probity should be the accepted norm.

And finally returning to your quote and the phrase "fat target". Many American internet gambling businesses USA have not stopped taking money from US residents (Full Tilt and Pokerstars to name but 2 of the fattest) and have signalled that they will not do so and will contest any prosecution to the last court in the land. As yet to my knowledge not one of them has had a prosecution begun against them or any associated banking facility (I maybe wrong please somebody post if I am, being a UK national in Australia I still enjoy my rights to gamble) because it is just fundamentaly a rushed pieced of legislation that took no account of modern banking procedures and didn't put in any obstacles to stop work arounds. I did a quick google and maybe this helps to explain the impracticalities of it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15240569 . It maybe that even the figleaf may not need to be applied.

So, gamblers don't worry, casino owners don't worry (but get proffessional and get licensed, watch your traffic go up if you can say you are the first licensed casino in SL) and finally LL if you are listening, don't worry either, but judging by the lack of action I guess you're not. Makes me wonder why I worried in the first place to even post in this thread. Now if you don't mind there's stack load of L$ waiting to be pushed my way at the casino. See you at the tables and good luck!

whoa that is weird lol they all have a Nov 30 birthday.

its not a default setting is it? lol

Here we go..

Public sexual ageplay was not banned because the people doing it were committing a crime.

Public sexual ageplay was banned because innocent people who happened to see it, or have it happen on their land, could be found guilty of a crime.

If you want to run a SL casino while you're in a country where gambling is illegal, that's fine. If your local police find out, they can trace you through LL and/or any landowners you dealt with (even if you're a basic user they can get your IP address).

LL want SL to become the Web 2.0. That means they want it to be the case that if you put up a build - the equivalent of a website - then you bear the legal responsibility for it. Ageplay was a special case because a) it concerns avatars, which are mobile between sites, and b) SL has no degrees of involvement in the act of "accessing a site" - if you fly into a sim where there's people ageplaying, all of the data on the sim is (eventually) sent to you as soon as you arrive. So there's no equivalent to seeing the front page of an ageplay site, thinking "Bleugh!" and closing the window or calling the authorities right away; in the equivalent situation in SL, as soon as you see the front page, your browser has already started automatically downloading all the pictures two or three links down, and you can't prove to a court you didn't look at them. Ok, you can teleport away before the sim finishes rezzing but there is no guarantee that the "entrance" part of the build will rez first.

actually after looking at about 20 profiles of posters it apears that November 30 IS the forum default setting and you might be making assumptions Enigma.

Yep, I'm going to have to hold my hands up to that one. Guilty as charged of assumption and await trial by peers. Weird default date though. Wonder why it's Nov 30? If you do know and are bursting to tell IM or private message me.

Apologies to everybody cited in the Nov 30th conspiracy.

No clue - Maybe its Philip Linden's Birthday =pPp

Birthday:
September 29



Birthday:
September 1

Me:
N/A

I would like a link to a reliable source on the whole Justice Department vs. SL gambling issue. Sorry, but I do not consider Christian Science Monitor to be a reliable source since they did not provide a source for their information. No links to the info, no book sources, no article sources, no speech sources such as when the speech was given or where. It is just a quote, which most of us learned in high school is easily manipulated and often times misrepresented and inaccurate.

Give me a real source please. One that names their sources of information other than just a quote. Where did the quote come from? When? Etc etc etc.

I can easily make up a quote from someone and call it a spokesperson for the DoJ when in reality, that person might just be a floor sweeper at the DoJ office speaking about how they think the law applies.

Until real sources are given, the arguement is invalid.

Hey, we need them for home & personal defense, you wouldn't believe how many griefers have been taken down by cute anime AV bystanders drawing Anti Vehicle weaponry from their inventories

EEeeek! He's got a gun! <AV's running for their lives & reaching for teleport buttons>

Next we will have licencing for them and maybe a buyback scheme for all the freebie Desert Eagles

I am not knowledgeable about much of SL. But I can read English, which is all it takes. In view of both points I try not to sound too dogmatic about how SL works. I didn't bother entering a birthdate so where you get 30th Nov I don't know. It's also incorrect anyway.

My concern is not whether gambling should be banned. It is whether viability of SL can be diminished if attacked over it.

"Prosecutors" can be elected in the States, rather like politicians can. All the usual reasons for wanting publicity in their fields apply. The ones that aren't have careers to think of. Of them, some have the power to initiate actions. Imagine if some lawyers in Sydney were in these positions... (I'm there - here? - too, from up north, and shudder at the prospect. )

I use phrases like "I suspect" because with my SL inexperience - and limited knowledge of the States - I.. um... suspect I can easily be wrong.

That's disconcerting. Ish. I don't think it's "much like" at all.

Interesting and enlightening. Thank you. If the big gambling operators are prepared to contest attacks on their business then a crack at Linden seems less likely.
Wasn't a Briton (?) running an internet gambling business hauled off a plane and arrested while transiting an American airport? I seem to recall this involved Americans being able to gamble on internet sites controlled by his (foreign) company. This might be a very convoluted business.

Ah well, as a Queensland national in NSW I'd object strenuously to anyone saying I couldn't gamble if I wanted to (and had Kerry Packer's credit card)

As I said earlier in the thread perception is most of the problem with this. Reactions to the "ageplay" thing suggested to me that where there was a chance Linden could be made to /look/ really bad they'd have to tighten things up for the sake of their business. And I may have too-jaundiced an opinion of lawyers in general and American ones in particular. Did I mention cable television?

This is all very amusing, however, if the facts are stated, then it's only because of the community that Ageplay has been banned from public places.

Also, public and private have been completely re-defined but _ONLY_ for a**play. Public, by Linden definition, is anyplace owned by Linden Labs. Private is anyplace owned by anyone else. For a**play, public is _anywhere_, except places no one else goes. That's right, it hasn't been banned except in private places, it's banned in any place with any sort of traffic, meaning if you set up a sim only for a**players, and only the a**players can go there, that sim is now a high-traffic area and subject to being removed. Also a little note, even NON-SEXUAL players can no longer play a child avatar. Even if you say you are over 18, you can _NOT_ say your avatar is under 18.

That being said, perhaps we ought to vote on all the rest of the questionable activities.

Slavery, especially that depicted against women by the Goreans, and I'm not talking the BDSM model, but the real 'you have no say' sort of thing.

BDSM - lots of people find that objectionable.

Furries - Yep, lots of folks hate them, and yes, I am one.

Guns - That should certainly be voted on.

Necrophilia - There are a few groups dealing with that. vote.

Bestiality/Zoophilia - Lots of people hate that. Ban the quadrupeds and hexapeds! Everyone using a non-anthro or centuar-like form must be doing it for sex!

Homosexuality - Vote on the queers!

Religion - Hey, ban all those religions that hate someone else! They're objectionable to those people!

Sex - Hey, lots of people find sex at all offensive, outside of their own private quarters, vote on that!

Swearing - There's tons of folk that think we shouldn't swear, ever, and have tried to pass litigation on controling public speach.

Not a comprehensive list in the slightest, but, if you can get rid of one thing, you can get rid of them all. It's funny, though, I never see any crap outside of any place that doesn't list it as ok, except when it's griefers trying to bother people. But, oh my god, if you can possibly walk in on someone doing it, it should be voted on and gotten rid of if people don't like it!

There's my opinion, all of you who think censorship of things done in _PRIVATE_ areas is ok should go take a flying leap off of the washington monument.

Oh, and maybe I am into *content deleted*, but that's my own business. I never rub it in anyone else's face, but the real point of this is I AM F**KING ANTI-CENSORSHIP! so I'd be there for you if one of your groups was being attacked.

Randall David Kramm player of Jamey Satyr, _Lifetimer_, joined 2003

Show what? We prepared paperwork, sent it to them, and they all called us back. I did not record the conversation.


Yes, it does. It can be converted to USD. Unless you're a lawyer don't bother interpreting what you believe is the law as if it is the law.

Why do you insist on disputing that L has value in real life? It doesnt. It can be sold to someone else for something that does hold value in real life (USD) but L itself doesnt. You make yourself look silly when trying to claim L has value in real life as it logically cant. If it did we would be able to go to a currency exchange in real life with our digital currency (L$ in this case) and cash it in for a set amount of USD, It has a value in that it can be sold for USD but it has no actual monetary value under a legal premise except to the person buying or selling it.

It'd be a topsy tervy world if L$ had a real life equivalent stated under actual guidelines by a real life currency exchange and LL would then technically illegally be printing $$$. Just because it can be converted to USD does not give L$ a real life value and its not technically converted in such a sense. Its sold to another person which in some ways you could call it converting but LL arnt the ones buying it. They arnt a state run banking institution or a national currency exchange its like saying i could say get 10 burgers which truly have no monetary value (much like L$) and sell them. They have value to me selling them in that sense and the person buying them has a value of them since they bought them. They arnt viewed as having value other then a food product by the government however.

Your making the mistake of concluding that L has a value to everyone instead of a value between the person buying and the person selling it. To me personally the only value that L has is money i use in world and thats how I use my L im not taking it out to even though i technically could. The value of that L to the person the recieves it may change if they choose to sell it in which case its really of personal value which they said hey im selling this for so much. If i wont a digitized whiffle ball bat in a gamble and then sold it for USD its much like that. Spin a wheel win a prize turn around and sell said prize how does it differ with L. Unless the U.S is going to start to recognize L$ as a real world currency that can be exchanged i dont see how logically your argument makes sense.

The lawyers you contacted have no experience in this field i garuntee you. They are uncertain of what to tell you to do and lawyers quite often in a case of uncertainty will tell you not to do it. As the saying Goes when i doubt just dont do it. Have you contacted law offices of defense attorney's of people actually prosecuted by this? Regardless of as i've said quite a few times there isnt a legal presidence to say one way or the other if it is truly legal or illegal. We wont know until someone is actually prosecuted but i dont see on what legal grounds they could actually prosecute anyone for it. Just keep in mind that lawyer does not mean expert on certain laws especially those without a Legal Presidence.

RL casinos use Chips - which arent real money.

The difference being that they guarantee to redeem those.

It depends largely on how much that guarantee matters, I think.

Do you have a reasonable expectation you can redeem L$ for cash? Definitely.

I know I do , I sell my lindens for USD on a regular basis.

I'm not. LAWYERS ARE. Do you understand that yet?

We're following the legal advice of 5 different law firms instead of the legal advice from forum members. Call me crazy.

While thats true Casino's chips are usually regulated by the state gaming board L$ isnt. The casino chips actually have a real world value tied to them directly. If you paid the casino for 1000 dollars worth of chips and lost say a 100 dollar chip that 100 dollar chip is for sure worth 100 dollars. If you say lost L due to a bug your not actually losing any real world equivalent of that money unless you purchased the money in which case the only value the money actually has is what you paid for it. Not what a government or the state gaming board says its worth. If they want to tie in a true monetary value to L they would need to make it reflect back to a USD equivalent that doesnt fluxcuate on such a marginal basis. You cant have money that's value depends on what people are willing to pay for it become a way they dictate money because if it works with this then i could go sell my 100 dollar poker chip for 200 dollars which doesnt logically make sense for someone to go do.

DJ Your lawyers can say that L$ itself has value outside of SL that doesnt make it true or mabye you are misreading or confusing what they said with what your thinking. Once the L is converted to USD yes it has value but the L itself has no pertinant value on its own until its sold and or bought in which case its value is determined by two parties in agreement that that is what the L$ itself is worth. How actual gambling works is you have poker chips they say 100 250 500 1000 etc on the chips. You can go trade them in on their face value as what they are worth. You arnt going to take back your poker chips a day later and find that all of a sudden they are only worth 75 dollars instead of 100 or 150 instead of 250. To put a monetary legal value on L as a currency it needs to have a regulated real world return which it doesnt.

The structure of SL makes that impossible. If everyone had to sell at the same exact value the mass line of L waiting to be sold would make Lindex impossible to use if you wanted to cash out the L you earned in a timely fashion. Im not a lawyer but i know the court system well enough to know that for them to successfully prosecute someone in SL they'd need to prove certain things as a formality. I also notice now that you change from 4/5 lawyers advice to a total of 5 lawyers which puts a few holes in your actually contacting them. I find it hard pressed to label a casino in SL a internet casino go look sometime.

By the way to everyone who doesnt realize with as broad as the posters saying its actually illegal are paitning the law (without actual facts all we have here is heresay and a quote from a "spokesperson" This would encompass all and any forms of gaming in SL. This would include tringo, slingo, pizzaria and any other game where you can pay in a pot and win some L. Any real contest that involves some sort of game of skill or anything would quickly need to be ousted as broad as they claim this law to be and where would that leave hundreds of places in SL really hmmm? Not all places that have slingo etc are casinos but as soon as you start up with this type of thing they are going to be painted the same as they are a game of chance.

So why dont we just do away with all and any form of gaming all together in SL or for that matter anything that might be morally objectional in real life or have some real life laws based on it because for shock it might promiote shooting at people in real life or nudity in public. (that was sarcasm by the way) I just dont see how you can take this law as it is without looking at it yourself.

As it stands the law itself is far to broad to be taken at face value of saying anything other then it May be illegal. Which may be and Is are two totally difference things. DJ you say your lawyers are disputing that L has a value in real life. I'd like to meet this team of crackpots seriously. Just because something can be transfered into a real world currency by selling it to someone else doesnt mean that thing itself has a monetary value in real life. Your misrepresenting what you were told in all likely hood or you dont understand it. Above statements and previous statements i've made show that L has a value once its purchased and or sold but that value is based on what the two parties feel the L is worth. The L itself before that has no value aside from being in world currency.

So your statement is half true but not entirely true. It does equal out to having a real world value at some point. The key difference is disputing that while in SL it has monetary value in the real world is mooted by the point that you cant use L anywhere in real life. By your same logic (or your lawyers logic) one could sell coffe beans to another person and that would make the coffee beans there for have monetary value. Thats not how things work though is it. I cant go to a store with coffee beans and start buying things can i? There isnt a dispute as to wether L can be traded to a real life currency they can. But disputing that L themselves have monetary value as is is a illogical and incorrect statement.

I do apologize for the absurdly long post here but ...... it needed to be stated and the reasons why needed to be also. I hope people will try their hardest to overturn any law like this esepcially those that use SL just because of the impact it could have if the court system does find it can be applied so broadly as the US justice department wishes it could be.