Bragg Case

That's kindof irrelevant to this case. The fundamental questions here are:

1) Did Bragg violate the terms of service by exploiting the auction system for personal gain? (for the purpose of question 3, let's pretend the answer is Yes)

2) Is it reasonable and fair for Linden Lab to require a user to remain at all times in compliance with the terms of service as a condition of use? (for the purpose of question 3, let's pretend the answer is Yes)

3) Can Linden legally claim ownership of virtual property that others have paid real money for, if we allow for 1 and 2 to be "yes"?

Linden didn't wake up one morning and say "hey guys, wanna play a prank? Let's close Bragg's account and take all his stuff! After all, we run this town!"

The analogy may have been used to death but its the first time I ever posted it or ever heard it so sorry for annoying you by covering previous stated information.

However - in many stores the sales tags are not locked - so I see it as pretty much the same thing.

As for car keys and wallet - only if he had bought the car and wallet from that store. LL didnt seize all his assets, just his SL ones.


If you cut the legal crap out of this situation its clearer -

*Bragg KNEW he wasnt supposed to buy those sims for the price he got them.
*Bragg KNEW he wasnt supposed to be able to start auctions
*Bragg KNEW when he placed those bids there wouldnt be much competion on them becuase they were not supposed to be taking place at that time.

He should have secured his other SL assets better before he went about using an exploit. It definitely doesnt pass the "DUH" test for exploiters.

Say it with me, Chip: "guessing a URL based on public information and entering it by hand is not hacking". If you think it *is* hacking, well, I guess we live in such vastly different worlds that any dialogue is doomed to failure.

At any rate, your ATM analogy is flawed. Certainly, using a "secret code" to transfor money between bank accounts would be theft. You have no right to the money in the other account. However, this "secret code" took Bragg to an auction page that was ready to take bids. He made an offer to purchase, LL accepted and *completed the sale*. Totally different situation from your analogy.

mandated arbitration is not a key aspect of the tos? the fact ll say 'we cannot be sued' and the judge say"actually u can'... like i said, they've only gotten started with this case, and the judge seems to have taken a very dim view of the tos. you might feel the tos is airtight, but it looks as if it isnt.
the source is the judges own writing! if you wish to read it rather than rely of forum postings for your info i would be happy to post the link.




awe? i dont know how you could find 'awe' in what i wrote. but as far as matters of law go suppose i find more credibility in a real-life judge than in some internet lawyer on a bbs somewhere. as far as whether ll held up their end of the bargain i will let the courts decide.

The auction wasn't "public", that's being disingenuous. It wasn't encrypted or secured, but it wasn't "public".

The auction page was on a public server. The page was accessible to anyone. The page did not require a password to access. The auction was set to accept a bid from anyone accessing that page.

And how is that not public?

Becuase Bragg didnt work for LL and was not authorized by them to start the auctions.

He was merely ABLE to do so.

Because without being overly clever, there was no way for "the public" to access the auction in question. As I said, it may not be encrypted or secure, but it was in no way "public". It was not announced, advertised, linked to, endorsed, or in any other way "made public".

So he's a mind reader?

Would you feel bad if you logged in and teleported to an island only to find "LL hadn't intended for you to be able to get there", so they froze your account and took your money and land?

"Sorry, Colette, but although you were able to get to Linden island, we didn't really *want* you there, so we're taking all your stuff. Tough luck."

Actually, in most MMORPGs, getting to places the admins dont want you to be, even if it required no hacking/exploiting whatsoever to get there, can in fact earn you a ban.

In fact, as I recall, this was in fact the case with Linden Island way back when... we had a few residents that were particularly good at getting there, and I think a couple of them got slapped for it.

He knew he wasnt saupposed to start those auctions. I dont buy for a second he got to a page through guessing and said "Gee I can start land auctions now!, cool! Well LL was intending to sell these ANYHOW ..."


You didnt like my store anology how about this one .

You own a business - It has a lot of storage on property, people buy things all the time and keep them on your property.

You have regular auctions you have an area where you set them up.

You set up your auction space and then go to bed for the night. Intending for the public auction to take place at 10 am , lots of people will be there.

Someone goes along in the middle of the night when its just him and maybe a couple of other people are there - Decided to run the auction on his own, ahead of time. Not only that he decides to bid in the auctions hes running. Big surprise he wins some auctions.

In the morning you wake up with a lot of your stuff auctioned off and an envelope with some money in it , a Fraction of what you would have made if youd held the auction your PLANNED to run.

So in reponse you kick out the guy who ran the middle of the night auctions and keep all of the stuff he bought from you that he kept on your property.

You know, I don't condone what Bragg did, but somehow I just don't think it is a good idea to throw words around like "thief" and "fraud" on a message board in relation to someone who has not been convicted of a criminal offense (as far as I know).

Especially when that someone is an attorney, who in my opinion, just may be a bit "lawsuit happy".

But that's just me...

Well, if you keep his money *and* the stuff, then you are absolutely in the wrong. You have no legitimate claim to keep both the merchandise *and* what he paid you for it. And that's what LL allegedly did.

And, while this is much closer to what happened, it still depends on *you* starting the auction. LL's system is set up so the *purchaser* starts the auction whenever they like. So, change your scenario to "your employee (i.e. the automated system in this case) lets in a couple of people and lets them buy stuff and takes their money", and we're getting to a reasonable analogy.

Just read every post in this thread and when I got to the last one the above statement is exactly what I wanted to say. If Bragg is bold enough to take LL to court then you guys need to lay off the slander until this case is closed. Debate the morale issues by all means but draw the line at making accusations. You may think you are safe and annonimous behind your made up virtual name but such comments could have RL implications if you are not careful.

Yes nina, I did read it. Thoroughly. Did you?

A bunch of words, cited case law about how Rosedale is subject to personal jurisdiction.

A bunch of words, cited case law about the unconscionability of the arbitration agreement contained in the Terms of Service, and relatively few comments about the Terms of Service as a whole, other than to illustrate the judge's opinion of the arbitration clause by citing certain other terms in the agreement.

Motion to dismiss Rosedale from the case denied.

Motion to compel arbitration denied.

Motion to allow bragg time to file superfluous supplemental briefs denied.

This order is in no way a wholesale shredding of the ToS. The more outlandish terms of the agreement might not even be material to the case. I'm not saying it's air tight, but bragg's case isn't exactly a slam dunk either, and he knows it, or he wouldn't be soliciting donations to help fund his case.

Would you please stop with the insults? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm also not an idiot.

This case is an example of two parties trying to take advantage of each other.

Linden Labs left a pretty big and stupid hole in their land auction security. Bragg took advantage it. Linden Labs responded by destroying everything of value that it could of Bragg's. Linden Labs justifies it as simply enforcing its lopsided contract.

Bragg didn't deserve to benefit from taking advantage of Linden Labs's security problem. However, Linden Labs didn't deserve to benefit from its unfair application of its lopsided Terms of Service.

If Linden Labs would have simply reversed the transactions that took advantage of their poor security, then there isn't a lawsuit here. If Bragg, upon discovering the security problem, would have notified Linden Labs, then maybe Linden Labs, instead of banning him, would have been giving him a medal. But both sides are greedy, so now they are in court. That's truly what both deserve, wasting time and money in court.

The one thing that makes this case interesting is that both parties are bad actors. Each tried to take advantage of the other. That helps make the application of law in this case fairly pure. I don't see a court sympathizing with either side particularly.

A more apt analogy, then, might be an RL auction house. Our greedy Mr. Bragg, fresh from his virtual exploits in San Francisco, journeys with his profits to New York where Sotheby's, the world-famous auction house, is continually staging auctions. He discovers a non-obvious flight of stairs - not blocked and without "no admittance" signs - and goes upstairs to where Sotheby's has set up auction rooms for auctions intended to take place at a later time. He figures out how to turn the somewhat tricky doorknobs, and finds they are unlocked. Ooh! He goes in, finds automated bidding equipment on-line and ready to go. So he steps up to the podium and begins the auction. "I bid US$10 for this original Picasso! Going once, going twice..." What fun! "US$5 for this Mondrian." Pauses, no other bids from the empty room. "Going once, going twice..." "Hhmm, I really like this Gauguin nude - I bid US$20 for that." He completes all the inputs necessary to conclude the "auctions" on Sotheby's tracking system, plunks down his US$35, and walks out with his "purchases." Down in the lobby, he starts hawking them to other Sotheby's customers at the going price for Picassos, Mondrians and Gauguins, and the security guards come over and make him aware of Sotheby's extreme displeasure. As he gets up from the sidewalk outside, minus his paintings and his US$35,which he admittedly turned over to Sotheby's, he dusts himself off, and shouts at the glowering guards, "I'm going to sue!" And he does.

This analogy does not apply to any other money he might have in more acceptable fashion before pulling his "auction" trick. For that, maybe one might switch scenes to Atlantic City, not far from either Bucks County or New York, where there is legalized gambling. He buys chips at the entrance to Harrah's, where the management emphasizes the chips he just bought are NOT real money. Let's say he gets lucky and wins a bit on the slots, then heads to the blackjack tables. He finds an empty one and helpfully fills in for the dealer, "honestly" dealing to himself (since there is no-one else at the table) and employs his knowledge of card-counting - which is legal, you know - to run up a sizable pile before the management spots him. When they do, Harrah's security does what all casinos do with card-counters - escorts him to their exit and deposits him on their patch of sidewalk. In this case, they deposit him minus ALL his chips, including the ones he bought and the ones he got from the slot machines. "I'll sue!" quoth he. And he does.

If I were Sotheby's, Harrah's or LL, I would fight the guy tooth and nail in court, and so should you. If you wouldn't, gee, I'd like to see what money games you have to offer and look for exploits. As the Great Man, W.C. Fields, titled one of his movies, "Never Give A Sucker An Even Break."

If I were the judge, I too might like the chance to make precedents and rule on the merits of some of the more egregious terms lawyers love to stuff in on-line "Agreements," but I would look for ways to do it that kept this grifter from coming away with even one red cent US or even L$1.

Amity, that's the best posting I've seen in this entire thread, and I agree totally. I think what Bragg did was wrong, and there's no way he should be allowed to profit from what he did. But at the same time, I don't see this being "poor, innocent Linden Lab" either. To me, probably the ideal outcome in this case would be for the Judge to rule more of Linden's TOS as unconscionable during the early proceedings, but then for Bragg to ultimately lose his suit.

To me, the more interesting and more justified suit that NEEDS to be filed against Linden is the class action for their actions in stealing funds from many innocent people who have apparently received Linden which were fraudulent, without having any way of knowing they've done so. The undisputable facts that Linden takes funds well in excess of the claimed fraudulent amounts, refuses to go after the people who have actually committed the fraud, refuses to give information allowing the innocent parties to take action against those who have committed the fraud, and continues to make no official pronouncement that its not allowed to obtain $L via eBay, makes them a party to the fraud that's occurring, and from which they're profiting on an ongoing basis.

you forgot the bit where sothebys then kicks down his door and reclaims every item he had won in past years as well.

That's why I switched scenes to Harrah's, which is probably more accustomed to dealing with clients like Mr. Bragg. But remember, nobody kicked down Mr. Bragg's door; we are only talking about what he garnered in SL/Sotheby's/Harrah's and still had with him on location. Going to Pennsylvania and knocking down his RL door would be, I have to agree, a tad excessive.

Maybe the most interesting point here will be deciding, if they do, whether RL cash converted into L$ still retains its status as RL cash sufficient for Bragg to have a claim. Betcha THAT is why LL is up in arms.

I think that needs to be "the door to the room he rents on Sotheby's property."

or perhaps "the door to the house on the land he bought from sothebys"

Or perhaps the door to his mother's basement that she opens when she yells at him to take out the trash.

Well, I don't think Linden Lab's action can be justified as purely "being greedy". In real life, if someone steals from you and gets caught, they go to jail - they can't just give back the things they stole and then walk away. It has to be that way because if they could, then, well, why shouldn't they try stealing things all the time? If they get caught, they have to give them back, but they have lost nothing overall. If they don't get caught, they get to keep them. So in the best case, they gain, and in the worst, they break even - that would be a clear incitement to crime.

In the Sotheby's example, Sotheby's wouldn't just take back the things you auctioned from them, they would also sue you for fraud and for hacking their auction system, and probably be awarded damages from you.

So that's the logic here - if someone could try what is after all a fairly major crime (effectively taking over US$1000 of value from Linden Labs) and lose nothing, why shouldn't they just carry right on with the next hack or security hole that comes along?

Yeah, I have to say, in any other online game, this wouldn't even be a question. For that matter, any online -anything- ... if someone tries to hack you, you block them from your service, period, end of statement.

The confusion arises from SL's attempt to sell itself as being more of a real place than a MMORPG or an chatroom, where you 'own things'. But it isn't actually anything other than a flexible, customizable MMORPG without the game (although people play games within it.) Just like them, it is a network service. Unlike them, it charges for server resources controlled (land tier) instead of your monthly time.

Now, they may have shot themselves in the foot by trying to claim they are more than that, it's possible the judge will make some groundbreaking decision that treats SL like a real place; but I don't think so. I think SL may be forced to tone down its advertising claims, maybe to give banned parties some way to transfer their lindens to an exchange site, not much more than that.

Probably not a very popular view, mine. I've noticed a lot of residents talk as though everything in SL really was some sort of real property. Talking as if the laws applying to the equivalent real world activity should apply, instead of the laws that apply to other media. But ultimately, it is still a computer program and a network service, and I view the spiel that it's somehow fundamentally different from being a computer simulation with a fair bit of cynical skepticism.