Important! Adult shops, clubs and services in SL

Indeed.

I'm still waiting for the fundamentalist christians to invade the sex clubs with random prims to block pose balls.

Oh shi-.

Lol i can see it now the pope starts checking out the game and porn shops and says your going to hell unless you give me 50,000 linden dollars.

I think someone probably tried that already..

Perhaps... but it sounds like you're implying that what we have now is 0% effective.

Exclusively 'explicit' high-dollar services probably see that upper range of 80% effectiveness at vetting out minors attempting to use CC's. (Even the most recalcitrant teen is likely to think twice before trying to run a $200 charge on a parent's card.)

But with an ambiguous and diverse service that is far more than just a medium pandering to purient interests, SL I'm sure comes in far lower, probably closer to that 20% effective level. Kids may easily get away with sneaking a no-charge swipe... or fast talking a parent into a one time $10 charge.

So... let me flip this around on you and ask... is 20% better than an unknown percentage of effectiveness?

Obviously the answer lies in which is more effective.... and what costs and risks are associated with which solution?

CC swipes for age verification incur a fee on LL and cripple their most effective marketing strategy, and block many legit adults. Is that an acceptable cost for what can't be proven to be a more effective means of getting teens off the grid?




Can a parent charge a child with theft? Or will the court rule the parent neglegent of properly controlling their credit card? The minor's parent is responsible for the child's action in most cases, which makes it almost like stealing from one's self...

Even with 'reasonable effort' ... parental supervision in westerized culture is clearly not 'sufficient'.

Nothing will stop someone who's determined... the best we can hope for is making it inconvenient enough to keep 'most' out... but not so inconvenient that it keeps legit people out too.

It's been done Months ago. Those groups and thier members Dedicated to "Cleaning up SL" lasted for as long as it took for LL to Ban thier IPs, and they haven't been Back since.

Bilbo,
Nicely laid out Ma Chere, and entirely correct. We, the Players cannot be held as More responsible that LL If LL has more tools than We have, But i have to point out, that it is NOT SL who is providing the Adult Materials on the net.
We cannot be held responsible for Accurate age Verifications BUT LL Cannot be held responsible for the Content WE put into SL and That is what thier terms of service is saying. If we choose to Place adult oriented Materials in SL it's Our choice. We CAN to a Small extent claim LL Listed as adults only, But it's plain from these threads, and many others on the subject that, while we Know there is an age restriction on SL in Place, the Current safeguards in place are FAR from adaquate to the task of keeping SL Minor Free, and THAT General Knowledge that would Kill you in a courtroom UNLESS you demonstrated that you were Not merely relying on SL (Trusting to Luck as it were) But were actively trying to ensure Minors did not view age inappropriate materials placed by you. That would mean, Despite the fact that the tools You as a Player had at hand are Far less than those available to LL, you are Using those tools (Or possibly working in some Innovations of your own) to the absolute best of your ability to do so.
So, if you have a shop, and all that you can realisticly do is post a sign that says "No one under 18 permitted", then Post the sign, and you can stand up in court and truthfully say that you Were providing materials for adults that Is protected by those adults First Amendment rights, and you DID do everything LL allowed you to do to prevent Minors from seeing it.

Under the Law, the fact that our tools are inadequate to the task is No excuse for Not Even Trying.

Angel.

Well, I'm trying as much as I can now. I opened a second shop for unverified residents only, heavy on disclaimers - teleport routing to the entrance, disclaimer textures above the door, HUD messages when opening the door, even the parcel name in the title bar states "by entering you indicate that you're 18+". The rest of my sim and my mainstore is restricted to verified residents.

The few who arrive hovering in the air can still fly up above the banlines (flying is disabled, but works unless they touch the ground), fly all over the sim and move their camera everywhere, possibly without reading any of the disclaimer texts; but I think I did everything humanly possible, except for completely banning unverified accounts from the whole sim.

WTB !Agebot

But seriously, NOTHING can stop a parent from bringing a lawsuit against you. However, you already have enough protection to prevent that case from going anywhere.

You've accomplished a few things, though. First, you seem to have made yourself feel better about the situation. Second, you've also made your place of virtual business more authentic. ^^

Thanks Angel, a lot clearer.

Ma Chere? ... Wow! ... <floats away> x

I know this thread is just about dead, but I wanted to point something out about contract law.

Under US law, when a minor enters a contract, it is binding.

However, the contract is unilaterally voidable by the minor under most circumstances.

One of the circumstances where a contract with a minor is not voidable is if they misrepresented themselves as over 18 when they entered into the contract.

In addition, a minor can't void a contract if voiding the contract would damage an innocent third party to the contract.

So basically, there's more protection than you think, there's nothing new under the sun, this stuff has come up in court before, and the court found a reasonable solution to the problem.

Binding by law, voidable by law, therefore making the word binding useless.

The circumstance you've brought up is exactly the reason there is debate on COPA. Because click through verification isn't enough and isn't binding, regardless of the terminology and is considered not enough by most standards that are being challenged and lawsuits brought up. Even when a minor falsely represents themselves, the parents have sued and WON in courts because of the verification method most commonly used is determined to be not enough. I've shown a few cases in this thread and many others throughout other threads.

Hell, one woman and her teen daughter even sued MySpace for 30 million for not doing enough to protect kids, because of the simple click through process. Last time I checked, case was settled out of court and MySpace added a few new pretty click buttons and restrictions for minors.

In addition, you are wrong about voiding a contract throughout US laws. There may be a few state laws that prohibit that but not many. Though more often than not, federal law can trump that in the right situation anyways.

Under US And Canadian Law NO contract is Binding if Either party established the contract by Perpetrating a Fraud.

The concern here is Not an adult, and a Minor Knowingly entering into agreement, But a Minor Representing themselves as an Adult thereby deceiving the Adult party into entering into a contract they would otherwise NOT have signed.

Such a Contract is Null and Void, and cannot under any principle of Law be held to be Binding upon the adult Nor can it be enforced by ANY legal action.

Angel.

I'm not sure exactly how this is applicable.

The contract is between a resident and LL. If one party misrepresents themselves with regards to the terms of the contract the other party has the option to seek compensation or dissolution of the contract.

I don't see how this prevents some overweening parent, outraged that their minor was exposed to harmful material, from trying to haul LL or adult merchants in SL into court.

Minors may be "Tresspassing on private proprerty" when they sneak into the adult grid... but that doesn't automatically or completely absolve the property owner of any harm that may come to them while they're there.

Errh, I am a little perplexed by the credit card verification argument. Since this really only applies to Adult goods, why don't the adult providers only take payment by CC? Surely with the http facilities now available it would not be so hard to accept & verify CC payments?

Why should LL bother with CC verifications when residents could do it?

Because that means you'd be turning your CC numbers over to random people and not a company you could hold liable in the event of fraud.

I do not have much knowledge of US laws... but would in such a case it not be possible to sue the parent back because he/she seriously failed of protecting his/her child from exposing to "harmful material"?

Anyway, I do know over here in The Netherlands such a claim as mentioned in the quote would never stand.

Morwen.

I run a bank button on a website - I never get anywhere near the client's cc number. The bank does a call back on my site when the transaction is done with the result.

I can see it might interrupt the immersive experience of the client, but surely that is a small price to pay? The client would be directed to the bank's site on his/her browser and then return to sl to collect his/her goods/services.

One sl problem is that escorts do not charge enough to warrant use of CC. In rl I have seen a service charging $5 per mobile message! SL "girls" are much too cheap! Also makes them more accessable to underagers!

I guess these guys not real serious about using CC verification.

Oh? Heh, I must have not been around for that one.

I'm surprised they didn't try harder after the inital round of banning. It's not the Christian way to simply give up. Especially when they can persecute a select portion of our society.

The attempt is always possible... expensive and likely futile... but possible.

Problem is, most businesses can ill afford initiating frivolous lawsuits, (though some make a business of just that).

But any business that touches the lives of *many* will eventually hit someone with the right mix of fanatical idealism, money-grubbing opportunism and dangerous boredom who can waste countless hours and dollars dragging a company into court (or trying) over the most absurd things.

And because accusations deserve fair hearings, they have to be taken seriously until someone with binding authority puts a stop to it.

There's a large difference though, for the average person selling goods in SL, they are mostly selling to break even or just a hair over costs. Adding in a verification through a website means a web fee on top of the monthly fee or per transaction fee to process credit cards, nullifying any way to break even.

Add to that, that even if you have a bank button enabled, most don't know enough to realize the merchant doesn't even see the credit card numbers or would want to even trust someone that runs in SL only.

Because that takes the experience of SL farther than most want to go. Owning a shop in-game is one thing. turning it into an actual business is another matter. Since L$ isn't legal tender and CC companies don't accept L$ as payment, you'd have to deal with cash. CC companies charge alot more for a transaction than you'd get for your goods or services.

The statement regarding minors contracts being voidable is basic "blackletter" (as it's called) contract law. Most states allow contracts to be voided at the election of the minor. In other words, you sue the minor, and the minor has the option of raising the defense that the contract is voidable. As to the adult, the contract is binding.

However, contract law isn't applicable to any activity that is illegal: i.e. selling porn to minors, so that's a little misplaced.

Without getting too deep on this whole legal business (which it took me a semester to wrap my head around), the key is being reasonable about minor identification. Kids will lie about their ages. Fact. Kids will steal credit cards (and yes, they can be prosecuted for it, happens all the time (my ex was told he could prosecute our son for doing that very thing)). Fact. So where do our obligations end?

By doing the best we can with what we have. We can't check IDs, because it's RL age that matters. Unfortunately, when minors are concerned intent is usually not an issue. Most criminal statutes are strict liability statutes, meaning if you didn't know they were underage, it's still a crime. But, if you ask, and they lie, you have a defense.

As for civil statutes, there will always be a nutjob suing because little Suzy saw porn. Yes, some dumb attorney will take the case. But then, you just have to suck it up and fight it, just like Larry Flint did, or like some of the other porn providers have (whose names escape me now).

If you're in this business, it's part of the risk. Ask ages. Ask for payment info on file. Report minors when you find them. All of those things may keep you out of the drink, or they may not. But, it's all we can do.

I think you could implead LL as another defendant if you were sued civilly because LL allowed the minor in without proper age verification in the first place. It might not work, but it would put another person at the table to take the blame, and it's the person who allowed the adult account to be created without adequate age verification in the first place.

I think that Would succeed simply because LL Does state catagoricly that SL is an Adults Only Environment and has gone as Far as creating a Teen grid to Keep the Ages segregated. In the light of Those Facts you could Easily "implead LL as another defendant " on the grounds that it has Obviously Failed in it's Duty, put in place By the claims they have made, to properly verify Age and Keep the Minors Out. It's the Facts that they have Gone to Great lengths to drive home the Adults Only Nature of SL WITHOUT putting in place the reasonable mechanisms to live up to that promise that would Mitigate SOME of the Vendors Liability if not Eliminate it entirely no matter What SL put in it's TOS.

Angel.

i agree with you





---------------------------------------------------
www.SL-Auctions.com auctions for SL world