Bragg Case

Somebody wake me up when we get to Chicago.

For the record, Dallas, I never meant to imply that there is "nothing wrong at all" with contracts of adhesion. Remember the big stink in the 90s about shrinkwrap contracts accompanying software media? Adhesion contracts you couldn't even READ until you opened the wrapper, and of course opening the wrapper signified your acceptance of the contract's terms. If I recall correctly, these were ruled enforceable. I was just disputing the suggestion that they are patently illegal.

And thank you for acknowledging that this judge focused specifically on the arbitration clause in his finding, not the entire document. This thing is being spun by various bloggers and even professional news outlets to give the impression that the court invalidated the entire set of terms, which isn't likely to happen, IMHO.

I agree with you that there are a couple other terms in the document that in the very least will receive a great deal of scrutiny through the course of this proceeding, particularly the terms ending in "for any or no reason". I suspect though that they may not be material enough to bragg's case for any earth-shattering ruling on them this time around.

Change of plans. We're going to Boston.

"Please come to Boston for the springtime
I'm stayin' here with some friends and they've got lots of room
You can sell your paintings on the sidewalk
By a café where I hope to be workin' soon
Please come to Boston
She said no, would you come home to me"

Oh God, I hate that song!

You're off topic, and broadly offensive. I'm reporting you.

Oh go on, You...You....You....Guy, You!

**chuckle** Yes, Chris, its pretty simple, if you live in a world without laws, courts, and judges. But we don't, now do we Chris?? Linden Lab (singular, not plural) may well find out that those laws, courts and judges trump their TOS - and that will be pretty simple too.

Some guy wrote:



He later wrote:



uhuh. I call BS on this one.

TuT TuT.. Brenda is in danger of getting this thread locked (again).. Using sexist remarks and repedative exclamations totally off topic.... How do you know he is a Guy? Did I miss the remark about how a toilet seat is always left up? Socks strewn about the bedroom and moreso under the females pillow? The passing of Gas in public? No not at all.....

The comment about 'very few people pay no more than a cursory glance at terms and conditions, also throw away instructions with the packaging when they get their new DVD players, TV's, Washing Machines etc, they click YES I want that free software (no matter the payoff in virus's, keyloggers etc), take out insurance because it's cheap only to find out there is actually nothing that they can claim for.

I fail to see a conflict in these two statements, if that's what you're getting at. The fact is, in the US, they aren't technically illegal. The fact also is, as in the case of the shrinkwrap contracts I pointed out in that same post, they aren't exactly stellar examples of consumer-friendly contracts. But that doesn't make them inherently or patently illegal.

Some guy wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphod Kotobide
...Also, there is nothing inherently unlawful about an adhesion contract...



He later wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphod Kotobide
For the record, Dallas, I never meant to imply that there is "nothing wrong at all" with contracts of adhesion...

Warda wrote:

uhuh. I call BS on this one.

Ok Dallas, cite me one law that says LL has to provide you with any service. Like I said, you don't like the contract, don't use the service. How much more simple can it get? No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to be here. SL is not needed for you to sustain life. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with laws or the TOS, it has to do with right and wrong, it is their property.

Until they sell you the use of it. Then the laws of the (real) land come into play.

As do the terms of use, which are still very relevant to the laws of the (real) land. I believe in the end, we're going to see that the particular terms material to this case will be found reasonable and enforceable.

Essentially there are limits in both directions and that will come down to the judge's decision. If you own a bar in real life, you have the right to throw out anyone you choose - but if you try to use that right to set up a "whites-only" bar, then the general law will trump you, even though the bar is your property.

I've met Mr Zaphod on numerous occasions in world and I'm reasonably convinced the term guy is a fitting description. I will leave it to him to adjust that if need be.

Cris. Do you normally bend over and take whatever someone gives you (big business in this case). Because this is the only game in town, LL should be allowed make unreasonable terms(buy our land with RL cash and we can take it all away from you if we decide, and oh yeah we don't need to give you reasons).
It is very sheepish to just go along with something citing in your mind (well this company does'nt have to offer me their services, so i'll do whatever they say. Even if what they ask is unreasonable). Did you stop to think that LL feels as though they can have unfair terms because they are the only game in town?
Are most companies TOS illegal? No. They just go unchallenged, until someone with the time and the resources can battle a big company for rights that are more realistic. And when these cases hit the court room, judges more times than not will treat these big companies as if they were acting like tyrants through their terms, and towards the common man/customer, and dismantle the terms, or find in favor of the customer.
So Cris, no one has to deal with a business from the point of being a weak minion who should just be happy to be a part of this unique service, or not be involved at all. You do have rights, especially when your spending RL dollars.

Well, he does have a fair point - it isn't LL's fault that nobody has tried to compete with SL. I don't think it's generally the intent of the law that if you make an innovative product, you are suddenly burdened with lots of extra legal responsibilities because people who want that product have no choice but to go to you. Again, it's something the judge will have to decide.

I don't think you should have any extra priviliges enshrined in the rules simply because you have an innovative product either. We don't accept a retail outlet selling us stuff then confiscating it with no refund before we leave the store. We shouldn't accept it just because it's a new and radically different product either.

Chris, I don't think I or anyone else ever said there were laws that say LL HAS to provide someone with any service, so don't start offering up silly arguments, ok? There ARE laws though that say what a business can or can't do after they've taken your MONEY for a service. It may be "their property" but they are soliciting YOUR $$ for use of THEIR property. Now listen carefully Chris, THAT is where the laws come into play. Contractual law comes into play, laws against fraud and misrepresentation come into play, among others. When you try to say "it doesn't have a damn thing to do with laws..." you're just making yourself look stupid or at a minimum naive, because YES it DOES have to do with laws, Chris.

True ..

Of course if someone goes in a store,
goes through one of the sales associates drawers,
Finds the sales tags,
Marks the tags on $200 items as $1,
Buys the item from the Self serve automated checkout,
Then gets cuaght -

They generally dont get to complain much when their whole shopping cart is confiscated.

Why Not? Bill Gates has been doing it for years! Take it or leave it, has been his motto.

However, they *would* get to complain if the sales clerk then took their wallet and car keys.

Your analogy has been used to death, and I don't think it's remotely applicable in this matter. LL set up an *auction* infrastructure. They set their auction to accept bids for a specific amount of time from the point the first bid was made. The auction ended on schedule. LL charged Bragg's credit card and transferred the land. Then they decided that his method for starting the auction wasn't what they had in mind, so they took all his stuff.

He didn't go into the sales associates drawer. He didn't mess about with price tags. He didn't "hack" the website. He found an auction using the straightforward (and legal!) method of guessing a URL from publicly available information and typing it in by hand. He bid on the auction. He won the auction and he paid the price he bid for the land.

So, who's the bad guy? The person who won a public auction and paid for the merchandise, or the company who took not only the money for the auction they are contesting, but the rest of his money as well?

Everyone is opining based on the assumption that Bragg had a lot of land and L$ that he obtained legitimately that was confiscated. We don't know that. All we have is the word of someone that knowingly commited fraud. But even if he did I don't find it unreasonable for him to lose access to all of it when he got caught. He's damn lucky that LL didn't file charges against him. It seems to me that by only terminating his account and banning him LL was quite charitable. Hacking a system to obtain financial gain (even if all the hacking involves is taking advantage of poor system design) is a felony. He could easily have lost the value of what was in his SL account plus his freedom and license to practice law. Under the circumstances the fact that he feels entitled to anything says quite a lot about his character, and none of it good. So far he's getting off easy.

Yes, he did. The fact that it was simple to do because of poor system design is irrelevant. If you were using an ATM machine and discovered that by simply pushing the correct series of buttons you could transfer money from other people's accounts into your own the fact that it was easy to do and didn't require "hacking" wouldn't make it legal. You'd still be just as guilty of a felony unless you could prove that it happened completely by accident. Bragg admits that he found and used an exploit. Someone had posted about it on the forums, presumably to alert LL to their shoddy system design. Bragg saw it and then went and used it. That shows intent.