Stop Thief!

It's not about bots, or tactics, or UI, or whatever else, it's just about people.

Those who run a bot will be equally dishonest even if LL were to prohibit their little toy, they'll just find some new way to be a pain and grab money, because that's the only motive.

Grab some very gentle sloped waterfront and sell it in waves: once the first batch sells, raise the land to make some new "waterfront", wait until that sells and then rinse and repeat. Of course the buyers should have known, it's not the sellers fault.

Come across a nice plot with a house on it. You don't like it, but at least the seller tried and make the plot look pretty. You buy it, return the house, but wait, why is there a little piece cut out in the center that's marked for sale at a ridiculous price? Again, the buyer should have known to hide the house to make sure the plot was whole, that's just common sense, it's not the sellers fault.

Just two tricks out of the bag of the less than honest landdealers.

Dealing in land in SL is in dire need of an overhaul. Like everything else in SL, it worked fine when there was a small number of residents with only a few rotten apples, but after the population boom it's just being widely exploited by mainland and private land dealers alike.

Interpretation may be the issue, but according to TOS 4.2 the BOTS software is illegal, and can be stopped at any time by Linden Labs

TOS 4.2
Point 1,
"You agree to use Second Life as provided, without
unauthorized software or other means of access or use"

(That means they (bots) do not have unauthorized software
and LL can stop them using it)

Point 2,

"Linden Lab has designed the Service to be experienced only as offered
by Linden Lab at the Websites or partner websites Linden Lab is not
responsible for any aspect of the Service that is accessed or
experienced using software or other means that are not provided by
Linden Lab."

NOTE THE ** "experienced only as offered by Linden Lab" **
(That means they (LL) can, at any time, stop the bots software use)

Point 3,
"You agree not to create or provide any server emulators or
other software or other means that provide access to or use of the
Servers without the express written authorization of Linden Lab."

(Again that means LL can stop them using the (bots) unauthorized software)

Point 4,
"Notwithstanding the foregoing, you may use and create software that
provides access to the Servers for substantially similar function (or
subset thereof) as the Viewer"


( ** "as the Viewer" ** NOT as a system manipulator, So again that means
LL can stop them using the (bots) unauthorized software)

Point 4 ( continued)

"provided that such software is not used for and does not enable any violation of these Terms of Service."

(Bots unauthorized software is clearly violating the above conditions, so LL should stop them (bots) using the unauthorized software))

Point 5,
"Linden Lab is not obligated to allow access to the Servers by any
software that is not provided by Linden Lab, and you agree to cease
using, creating, distributing or providing any such software at the
request of Linden Lab."


(Linden Lab have it at their sole discretion to stop the use of Bots unauthorized software without giving any reason, and they(BOTS) by signing up to LL have agreed to stop using it when requested by Linden Labs)

Point 6,
"
You are prohibited from taking any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on Linden Lab's infrastructure."

(Bots have no recourse against LL for stopping them using any Bots software.)
(Linden Labs (Correctly) covering their back)

SO WHY THE HELL DOES LINDEN LABS NOT TAKE ACTION NOW ???.

Thanks for posting that, I had never really studied it, just echoing what has been stated over and over so many times I assumed it to be fact. Interpretation does seem to be everything, as I read that, LL can do these things if they WANT to, but their inaction is tacitly stating three is no TOS violation. I guess what we need is for someone to create a bot tht will do something that will bring the media heat on The Providers themselves to get some sort of stance from them.

I'm not aware of any mainland sims in which the sim owner can continually raise the terrain level to have the effect of repeated swaths of waterfront land. However, it could be done on a private island, which is convenant land. Covenant land carries the key risk of introducing a third-party (the sim owner) into the transaction and the sim owner can do whatever they like with their sim.



This is a "due diligence" failure as the buyer is expected to inspect the good or service prior to purchase.

Join the Arbor Project.

Interpretation may be the issue, but according to TOS 4.2 the BOTS software is illegal, and can be stopped at any time by Linden Labs

TOS 4.2
Point 1,
"You agree to use Second Life as provided, without
unauthorized software or other means of access or use"

(That means they (bots) do not have unauthorized software
and LL can stop them using it)

((You have assumed that bots are unauthorized, I posit they are authorised))

Point 2,

"Linden Lab has designed the Service to be experienced only as offered
by Linden Lab at the Websites or partner websites Linden Lab is not
responsible for any aspect of the Service that is accessed or
experienced using software or other means that are not provided by
Linden Lab."

NOTE THE ** "experienced only as offered by Linden Lab" **
(That means they (LL) can, at any time, stop the bots software use)

((It means they are not responsible if your bot sucks, it means they don't care))

Point 3,
"You agree not to create or provide any server emulators or
other software or other means that provide access to or use of the
Servers without the express written authorization of Linden Lab."

(Again that means LL can stop them using the (bots) unauthorized software)

((I argue we do have written authorisation, although on this point I'm clutching at straws a little, but no more than you are))

Point 4,
"Notwithstanding the foregoing, you may use and create software that
provides access to the Servers for substantially similar function (or
subset thereof) as the Viewer"


( ** "as the Viewer" ** NOT as a system manipulator, So again that means
LL can stop them using the (bots) unauthorized software)

((No, not AS a viewer, having a function that is similar to a subset of functions of the viewer))

Point 4 ( continued)

"provided that such software is not used for and does not enable any violation of these Terms of Service."

(Bots unauthorized software is clearly violating the above conditions, so LL should stop them (bots) using the unauthorized software)

((Bots don't violate any of the above conditions))

Point 5,
"Linden Lab is not obligated to allow access to the Servers by any
software that is not provided by Linden Lab, and you agree to cease
using, creating, distributing or providing any such software at the
request of Linden Lab."


(Linden Lab have it at their sole discretion to stop the use of Bots unauthorized software without giving any reason, and they(BOTS) by signing up to LL have agreed to stop using it when requested by Linden Labs)

((Agreed))

Point 6,
"
You are prohibited from taking any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on Linden Lab's infrastructure."

(Bots have no recourse against LL for stopping them using any Bots software.)
(Linden Labs (Correctly) covering their back)

((Also agreed))




I guess it really is all in how you interpret it. Legal language is a tricky issue and to be honest this pedantry will get you nowhere when you can instead go by LLs words and actions.

/327/3b/184573/4.html#post1520383

Actually it's not cheating if there are no rules against it. That's the very definition of cheating in this instance.

I'm not saying the guy's not a jerk for refusing to acknowledge that "Bob" is an idiot and made a stupid mistake by making everything right...but it's not cheating at this point.

sorry, i was shocked to see this.

a business platform? if you insist ... but ... one subject to vanishing into thin air the minute linden labs decide to give it the deep six.

doesn't sound like a stable business model to me.

c'mon guys ... this is a GAME. and, to quote my profile, "the danger of any game is in forgetting that it IS a game".

So by your logic LL can and should block all non-LL viewers from having access to SL?

What the hell is the point of Open Source?

And actually if you read the TOS entries you quoted, they kind of make a case FOR bots.



LL freely decided to Open Source the client, thus bots are authorized at this point.



Actually this means LL can't be held responsible if you have a non-LL viewer and it acts differently or causes you problems. One could also take this to mean that LL is not responsible if say, for example, someone bought your land with a bot after you were negligent enough to not double check your prices.



This is more of a hacker/copying thing than anything else. Open Sourcing the client is essentially authorizing other versions of the viewer to be used without being liable for any issues they may cause...see point 2.



I don't see the term "manipulator" in there. Besides, in the viewer you can buy land. If a guy walked up right when "Bob" screwed up and bought the land it would be no different than the bot. Bob is still an idiot.



So far you haven't actually made a very solid case...




Until LL puts something in the TOS that SPECIFICALLY prohibits bots then they haven't done this. It's still legal by thier rules based on what you've quoted!



This actually just means you can't spam it up or otherwise cause super lag...basically defining a griefer. As far as I know bots don't overload anything. As far as the servers are concerned the bots are just super efficient people.



Well, so far they haven't made it illegal by their TOS. That's not to say it's fair...although anyone can get a bot...and that's not to say LL can't alter the TOS at any time to MAKE bots illegal. They just haven't yet.

Bob was still an idiot. If I sold a bunch of shares at $.40 instead of $40.00 then it's my fault and I can't expect the guy that bought them to give me the difference.

Yeah, anyone that quit their day job so they could make money SPECIFICALLY on SL is a moron.

I sympathize with Lord Steadham and while one can argue that ingnorance is not excuse, this is another instance where a person new to SL or simply non knowledgeable about the pitfalls of landsales could lose significant sums of money. It seems that its relatively easy to lose land if you don't know the details of various procedures. Losing land owned by a group when it dips below 2 member is another example of this.

However, I will say that the landbots aren't all bad and in fact are useful at times. I needed to unload some land that wasn't selling to reduce my tier(due to very poor planning on my part). It got to the point where if I didn't sell, I'd roll into the next month. So, I priced my land below what I thought the market was--the landbots came and took it of course. The bots automatically priced the land to resell at twice what I charged. Funny thing is, a few days later I checked again and they had lowered the price to only $200L more per plot than I had sold it to them--and the land just sat there unsold. he he

If I ever have to do this again, next time I'll advertise it--I'd rather sell cheap land to a person who wants to do more with it than immediately resell it. Live and learn.

I'm very conflicted on this issue. It's hard to define exactly what I think of SL. I really don't treat it like a game and I do treat it like a business platform. On the other hand, the income from SL isn't really enough to live on. Maybe it would worth giving it a go if I didn't already have a decent job. Besides, I 100% agree it is subject to vanishing at a moment's notice for a large number of different reasons.

oh brother agreeing then maybe you should rethink..........Or atleast you your on mind instead agreeing with a google searcher thinker.

Well, at one point I was surprised that someone would create a script to take advantage of people and take something that does not belong to him. Then I was surprised that LL chose not to do anything about it. I even had a moment of surprise when people started going to great lengths to defend the scumbag. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised about any of this. "Hey, it's the stupid victims' fault. They should know better." I guess I should have known better than to think a majority would want to stop this, if only on ethical grounds.

But hey, it's what makes this world great. Every man for himself. Every loophole should be exploited for personal gain. Ethics, morals and community be damned.

The only good thing about the defenders of Landb-t M-rlin is that it keeps the thread alive so the few people who do think it's wrong can boycott him, which was my original intent of the thread.

Or just contact someone like Sarah Nerd. She would pay you a fair price for it.

Actually, the TOS issue with landbots would come from the following statement:



The question is if landbot buying is considered "substantially similar" to interactive buying or not, and I personally would argue that it isn't because it fundamentally changes the nature of the process (the removal of the need for human attention, plus the ability to buy land from outside the sim it's in).

The argument of "he made a mistake and just faced the consequences of that" seems bogus to me, too. By that logic, anyone who is a victim of burglary IRL is actually only a victim of their own mistake in not locking up their house well enough.

Or a subset thereof. It's pretty much impossible to think of something you can do in SL that isn't substantially similar to a subset of things you can do with the viewer.

No, "a subset" just means it doesn't have to offer every single function that the viewer does.

The viewer doesn't offer automated land buying so by definition it is not part of a subset of the viewer's functions.

Remember that the TOS terms says that the *function* of the software must be fundamentally similar - not just the *interaction with the server*. In other words, the fact that landbots send the same "land buying" messages to the server as the viewer does isn't enough to save it. I would argue that a non-interactive automated land buying command is sufficiently different from the interactive human-driven one offered by the viewer as to not constitute "substantial similarity".

Even if you could combine viewer functions to buy cheap land, there is still nothing in the viewer that would enable you to do it without being sat at the keyboard at the time.

REMEMBER, it was BOB that set his land for sale and it was BOB that set the price. This isn't comparable to burglary.

Anyone who accidentally puts their TV on their front yard and puts a "for sale $10!" sign on it are going to have to be responsible for the consequences.

And it was Bob who locked up his doors and windows that day.

No one would ever "accidentally" put a sign on something. In Second Life Bob does not "accidentally" put his land up for sale. He "accidentally" forgets to limit the range of buyers, which is equivalent to locking it up.

Holy crap! Why don't I ever get the memos? It's just a business platform? Is that what this is all about? Then why all the sexy AVs and cute Furries and private IMs and pretty sunsets? Or are they just marketing tools? And there's no cheating in business? Laugh. My ass. Off. Are you sure you're not channeling Ayn Rand?

The eBay bot would be cool, except that there are so many variables to purchasing just one item in eBay, say an autographed baseball card (shipping costs, condition, seller's accuracy in the listing details, seller's reputation, supply, demand, etc.), let alone the hundreds of thousands of other items in eBay, that the poor bot would implode. Plus, you don't need that kind of speed in eBay. A great deal isn't going to disappear in a blink. You have up to 10 days in some cases to research and ponder your purchase. You don't need a bot. You need to be a savvy human being.

The process of reselling land in SL must be slowed down. There is a reason why RL real estate transactions take a long time. It's one of the most expensive transactions a person is going to make and no one wants to make an error. In SL, it too is the most expensive transaction one will make.

And why can't LL help protect people from their ignorance? Where is the harm in that to the rest of us? Or would that be...cheating?

I would have no idea about landbots and copybots and searchbots if I didn't frequent the Forums. I would bet I am one of a tiny minority of SL players (oops, I mean business platform users) that read it. It's not the fault of the majority of us to be unaware that these evils lurk everywhere. Why should they expect any such things to exist? They are babies, just birthed into a strange world with new rules of physics, nature, society, biology. And no one tells them what those rules are. LL has ignored its responsibility to create laws and governance or pass the responsibility on to us "business platform users" for way too long.

Not really. It's still for sale. It's on "Bob".

Bob didn't dot his I's and cross his T's on the contract he put together and someone took advantage of the resulting loophole.

People tend to forget this was a problem long before landbots came around.
It was more then likely worse back before landbots then it was with landbots, the only big difference now is its a few people rather then 2000 people.

You think a large majority of those capable of hitting search would give your land back if you sold it for 1L? Some might, but not all.
Banning land bots wont cause the problem will go away, it will cause people to grab the land point and laugh at bob and say see ya stupid, and teleport away, rather then a bot just vanishing.

A good majority of the running landbots also return land, if you simply ask.

Some times i wounder why we actually do this, more often then not we get yelled at for returning land, like its are fault that they set it for sale. We would probably get yelled at less if we just kept the land in the first place.

It shouldnt be the community's responsibility to babysit Bob, nor should it be the landbots job, taking care of Bob and Bobs property is Bobs job, if bob commits an magor error thats confirmed, its bobs fault, not the buyer, nor the community. If anyones fault besides Bobs its LL's fault for not supplying the necessary tools to prevent such things. But LL gets around that in there TOS, so that falls back on Bob as well, for not paying attention to the tools provided.

Why bother with banning the land bots?

What I think would work, and yes, it would also be slightly inconvenient because it removes some automation, is to finalize the sale at the time the buyer wishes to purchase, just in RL real estate.

1. Seller sets his parcel for sale.
2. Buyer selects to buy it. Another neat feature would be for the buyer to make an offer.
3. Seller receives confirmation to sell it.
4. Seller confirms and Buyer buys it.

Of course there will always be a Bob factor, and even a 3rd confirmation may not help, but it sure to make the landbots unhappy.

Just a thought.

This landbaron who seems like a magic man named merlin is doing nothing wrong.


the real problem YOU MADE A MISTAKE

If you make a mistake, and set your land for sale below market, and set it for sale to anyone it is NO ONE FAULT but your own.


stop making mistakes, stop asking for excuses